Gyroscopic Investing

@AdamA : I am glad its an interesting read for you.

@smurff

I remember reading that Singapore at one time was trying to convince its educated population to marry and have children. They even set up singles parties to make it easier for men and women to make dates!  I am curious if they are still doing this.]I remember reading that Singapore at one time was trying to convince its educated population to marry and have children. They even set up singles parties to make it easier for men and women to make dates!  I am curious if they are still doing this.

I guess you are referring to the Social Development Network (SDN) an agency originated by the government to promote social networking and marriages, where singles graduates from universities and polytechnics are automaticlly enrolled. Yes it is still active. While as a way to encourage more social interaction and marriage, i think this maybe is also a social welfare?

@D1984: Thanks for your information on U.S. tax, I was always interested to know more how much tax people pay in U.S.
True free market do not exist in human civilisation I believe, maybe only in nature. There are frictions in market systems that delay responses of free market participants, allowing prices to skew significantly into a bubble before reverting back to sustainable price. Government leaves markets alone and someitmes price bubbles still form - Dutch tulip mania, Internet bubble 2000, $147 Oil July 2008, real estate bubble 2007/2008, gold bubble September 2011. Well meaning government intervene in free markets to prevent price bubbles and sometimes still miscalculated - for example COE and the medallions in New York, but sometimes they prevent bubbles from forming also, such as by cooling real estates markets. Free market in a land of limited space can produce a negative outcome of roads jam packed with cars too. In "car free market" system such as Jakarta (Indonesia), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Bangkok (Thailand) the roads are so jammed packed with cars that a half hour drive home can turn into 2 hours drive during peak hours. Ideal theory is one thing, imperfect execution can cause undesired results instead.

You seem to believe enough money can solve thing. I believe money cannot solve everything, else this world being flooded with money will solve food problems, stop wars and no country needs army in the first place. Looking at the figures in Wiki, U.S. has 315 million people, and 0.75% is volunteer army giving 1.43 million active forces (another 800,000 in reserve). Singapore has 5million people and similar 0.75% volunteer army giving 37,5000 active forces. 37k is not nearly enough for an army, so conscription kicks in, making total active forces of 72K (still small), and through time, made a reserve personnel of 300k. See the difference betweek 37k volunteers army only and 372k potential total force? If America can only employ 0,75% of population for volunteer army even with its huge defence budget, I see little chance of Singapore getting 7.5% of population or 372,000 volunteer army using monetary incentive alone. So yes, I think Singapore really does not have have enough people to join the military using just monetary incentatives as you suggested. If one thinks America's 0.75% 1.43 million active forces is big enough for any situation, think about this info that I picked from Wiki about U.S., assuming it is correct: "conscription through the Selective Service System can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. All males aged 18 through 25 who are living in the U.S. are required to register with the Selective Service for a potential future draft."  Even the U.S. feel there is a chance it may require more than monetary incentive to supply its armed forces and keeps conscription as an option. Before any Singaporean blasts me for supporting conscription, I'll say I am just looking at this issue objectively. I resent being drafted into the army.

Nuclear deterrent - Singapore size is only 50km by 40km, all populated, where do we find the land to conduct secret underground nuclear tests, or build Uranium refineries that wont be discovered, not to mention international community are sanctioning countries for trying to develop nuclear weapons, plus Singapore will then need to get its hand on long range missels to deliver a nuclear device - so making nuclear device is not a matter to be taken lightly. If other country's military force is too big for Singapore army, the deterrence need come from the prospect that international community will interfer with any invasion attempts. That is why Singapore try to main good relationship with other countries.

Singapore does not allow private ownership of guns, BB guns, or air powered pellet rifle. Consequently residents can walk the street and go places without fear and being gunned down. This is freedom from the threat of gun violence.

@MediumTex: Thank you for your comments. I am taking these posts to test and apply my social and economic knowledge also, as understanding these well helps with investments.

Yes do take what I said with a grain of salt and come to your own conclusion. I try to write objectively and the words are my opinion. Its not difficult to find Singaporeans who feels much differently from me or totally opposite.

it's sort of comical to imagine a politician suing a private citizen for critical remarks. ]

I noticed people being sued are usually politically linked, like belonging to political publications, or the opposition party, or higher profile private citizens such as a lawyer or reporter, editor. Whether they have ulterior motives or not, politicians here takes insults on their integriterity quite seriously.

Thanks for your welcome.
This forum has helped me so much with investment strategy and I am grateful too.

Coearth wrote: Singapore does not allow private ownership of guns, BB guns, or air powered pellet rifle. Consequently residents can walk the street and go places without fear and being gunned down. This is freedom from the threat of gun violence.

That's an interesting perspective. However, in the US, people don't generally get gunned down by lawful gun owners, and the victims aren't random. Most "gun violence" in the USA consists of members of the semi-permanent criminal underclass using illegally-acquired pistols to shoot other criminals. In that sense, it's more a function of the poverty and broken culure of certain societal groups.

Our mass shootings, on the other hand, more reflect our total lack of a functioning mental health system. The fact that millions walk around with undiagnosed mental illness is a major problem that confronts the nation, IMHO. The most recent mass shooting by James Holmes is an illustrative case in point. He, like Jared Loughner, another recent mentally ill mass killer, was known by associates to be falling into a downward spiral, yet nobody did anything about it or got him the medical help he needed. And when he finally went bonkers and decided to kill people, he also made bombs in addition to acquiring firearms. If he hadn't been able to get access to guns, I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that he would have tossed homemade pipe bombs into that crowded theater, which would have resulted in a lot more than 12 deaths.

Only 12 deaths out of an entire movie theater is actually a pretty miraculous result when you consider the tight quarters and the fact that the shooter deployed gas and wore armor. Arson and bomb attacks are usually much, much more deadly than gun attacks, and fire and bombs are very easy to create with supplies anyone can purchase legally in a hardware store.

Singapore is a nice reminder that a society can be structured in a way that leads to a good perceived quality of life for its members without a high degree of personal freedom.

I catch myself assuming that all strong governments that deny citizens a full suite of political rights invariably drift toward tyranny.  Perhaps Singapore is an example to the contrary.

MediumTex wrote: Singapore is a nice reminder that a society can be structured in a way that leads to a good perceived quality of life for its members without a high degree of personal freedom.

I catch myself assuming that all strong governments that deny citizens a full suite of political rights invariably drift toward tyranny.  Perhaps Singapore is an example to the contrary.

The USA is a great example of a country that treasures "political" rights yet is drifting toward tyranny. If you ask me, it's the personal and economic freedoms that are paramount. I would give up the right to vote any day of the week if I could opt out of building codes and the Social Security system. Singapore clearly affords its residents greater economic freedoms than does the USA, but it seems like the personal freedoms are lower. I can see how that would work out great for a lot of people, especially those who stay in the societal mainstream.

True free market do not exist in human civilisation I believe, maybe only in nature. There are frictions in market systems that delay responses of free market participants, allowing prices to skew significantly into a bubble before reverting back to sustainable price. Government leaves markets alone and someitmes price bubbles still form - Dutch tulip mania, Internet bubble 2000, $147 Oil July 2008, real estate bubble 2007/2008, gold bubble September 2011. Well meaning government intervene in free markets to prevent price bubbles and sometimes still miscalculated - for example COE and the medallions in New York, but sometimes they prevent bubbles from forming also, such as by cooling real estates markets. Free market in a land of limited space can produce a negative outcome of roads jam packed with cars too. In "car free market" system such as Jakarta (Indonesia), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Bangkok (Thailand) the roads are so jammed packed with cars that a half hour drive home can turn into 2 hours drive during peak hours. Ideal theory is one thing, imperfect execution can cause undesired results instead.

Perhaps a true (frictionless and perfect with all participants 100% informed and responsive and with Walrasian auctioneers that instantly know the price of everything the moment it changes) free market cannot exist but that's no excuse for a government to intervene and create something that is less free than it COULD be and thus create more economic friction than would have existed in the first place.

The reason Bangkok's, KL's, and Jakarta's streets are crowded is NOT because they have a "car free market" system (Thailand, for instance, does have import taxes on automobiles that while not quite as high as Singapore's are much higher than anything that exists in the US as regards auto imports) but because government builds the roads and then does not price the use of them high enough. In other words, the reason traffic jams exist is because government builds the roads but private industry builds the cars. The cars are adequately priced according to market factors so there is neither inadequate nor excessive demand for them but the government severely underprices the roads (especially at rush hour times on major highways, arterial streets, and in central business districts) and thus you end up with a "free-rider" problem that would not exist if government priced the use of the roads highly enough.

The only other alternative I see to this (and this is NOT one I'd prefer) is to have the government build both the roads AND the cars. This is what happened in the USSR and East Germany and you didn't see many traffic jams there because the government artificially limited the amount of cars available and thus created an artificial scarcity of private vehicles that more than matched the available scarcity of road space.

You seem to believe enough money can solve thing. I believe money cannot solve everything, else this world being flooded with money will solve food problems, stop wars and no country needs army in the first place.

No, I do not believe money can solve everything but I DO believe that pricing things more according to market levels is more effective at solving problems than pricing them too low or too high and the having government force step in to "fix" it.

Come to think of it, given how expensive some of the US's wars were vs the actual benefits obtained (and the long-term damage done), perhaps paying to eliminate the problem would have been better than fighting the war in the first place (the US Civil War and the 2003 Iraq War come to mind).

Looking at the figures in Wiki, U.S. has 315 million people, and 0.75% is volunteer army giving 1.43 million active forces (another 800,000 in reserve). Singapore has 5million people and similar 0.75% volunteer army giving 37,5000 active forces. 37k is not nearly enough for an army, so conscription kicks in, making total active forces of 72K (still small), and through time, made a reserve personnel of 300k. See the difference betweek 37k volunteers army only and 372k potential total force? If America can only employ 0,75% of population for volunteer army even with its huge defence budget, I see little chance of Singapore getting 7.5% of population or 372,000 volunteer army using monetary incentive alone. So yes, I think Singapore really does not have have enough people to join the military using just monetary incentatives as you suggested.

America could employ a MUCH larger portion of its population as a volunteer military if it chose to. In the 1980s and early 90s (the waning years of the Cold War) we had a larger army, air force, navy, and Marine Corps, and more ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear warheads) and we did it without any conscription whatsoever. I bet it would cost less than $90 billion per year to nearly double the size of our military (presuming most of the new soldiers were E-1s through E-4s and only a small minority of them were NCOs and officers). If we stopped buying redundant weapons systems and quit trying to be the world's policeman we could easily direct the savings to building a numerically larger force although I don't see that such a force is needed at present.

I don't see why Singapore needs 370,000 troops...like you said, it's a 40x50 km island....and thus has much less area to defend than the US does. With the proper financial incentives Singapore could probably have 80K or 90K active military and maybe 100-150K reservists (reservists would be cheaper to maintain than active because they don't require full time pay, basing, housing, etc)....has your government even attempted on any serious scale to use increased pay and bonuses as inducements for military service? This force might not be enough to win an offensive war against, say, Malaysia, but from what you said the point of Singapore's military was defense and deterrence, not to start wars against other countries before they attacked your first. Besides, you also indicated (in your reply to my query about a nuclear deterrent) that Singapore's real deterrence against any larger invader is the prospect of the US, UN, ASEAN, or United Nations (you said "the international community" so I guess that pretty much covers it) will come bail you out if your military cannot handle the invader. If that is the case I don't see why having a military of 370,000 vs perhaps 150,000 is much difference.

As regards nukes: If you had to test one it could be towed out into no man's water (international waters) in the south Pacific and tested there (unless Singapore is a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). I don't know where you could site enrichment facilities but reactors and calutrons are smaller and easier to hide than gas diffusion plants (and no modern nation would use gas diffusion because the gun-type U-235 device has been obsolete since the late 40s...any modern nuclear device would almost certainly be an implosion type design). Having a nuclear capability might not make Singapore popular internationally (then again, it hasn't exactly turned Israel, India, or Pakistan into pariah states...and North Korea was already a pariah state before it had any kind of nuclear capability) but with a nuclear deterrent you wouldn't need to be as concerned with having the international community's backup as you do currently.

The nuclear deterrent idea was more of a thought experiment than anything else. If you country's leaders feel that they have an adequate deterrent (against any enemy who was too large for their army-whether conscript or volunteer-to take on in the first place) from relying on the international community then I trust their wisdom on that...however, it does beg the question of why the international community should send troops to help a nation that can't even get enough of its own people to volunteer to fight without conscripting them (in other words "why should we fight for Singapore when Singaporeans themselves won't even turn out in adequate numbers to fight for Singapore without being press-ganged into doing so" ). With that said, I would also ask you to consider that if Singapore WAS under any serious threat of invasion that the number of people who would volunteer might drastically increase as they considered the outcome of serving in the military less bad than the outcome of being conquered. On the other hand, if enough Singaporeans did NOT choose to serve even in such an eventuality, then why is it their government's job to force them to do so....if they don't want to serve even in the event that their country will be overrun if they don't, then it seems they've already (at least subconsciously and indirectly) made the choice that they'd be better off if Singapore and its government WERE invaded and toppled, so why should they be forced to act in a manner that is contrariwise to their wishes? Let those who want to fight do so, and let those who don't experience whatever consequences may befall them.

If one thinks America's 0.75% 1.43 million active forces is big enough for any situation, think about this info that I picked from Wiki about U.S., assuming it is correct: "conscription through the Selective Service System can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. All males aged 18 through 25 who are living in the U.S. are required to register with the Selective Service for a potential future draft."  Even the U.S. feel there is a chance it may require more than monetary incentive to supply its armed forces and keeps conscription as an option. Before any Singaporean blasts me for supporting conscription, I'll say I am just looking at this issue objectively. I resent being drafted into the army.

What Wikipedia says about Selective Service is technically true but let me assure you that conscription is a dead letter in the US. It still exists more as a matter of governmental bureaucratic inertia than because anyone seriously thinks we need a draft any time soon.

Every year, one of our Congressmen (Charlie Rangel) introduces a bill to re-institute conscription and every year it gets (if it can even get out of committee) maybe one or two votes (one of them being Mr. Rangel himself) out of 435 potential votes in the House of Representatives. There is broad bipartisan sentiment (both the Republicans and Democrats are opposed to it) against bringing back the draft, the military leadership and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are generally opposed to it, and the last time it was even mentioned as a potential issue (in the 2004 US Presidential campaign) both the Democratic nominee (Senator John Kerry) and the Republican Nominee (then-President George W. Bush) were not in favor of it. Even if there was a serious movement to bring it back (and there isn't) there is the thorny issue of re-deciding the Rotsker vs Goldberg case (now that women can serve in at least some combat roles, should we draft them too), should homosexuals be drafted now that DADT is gone, and the very sensitive issue of who should get exemptions/deferments and for what reasons?

Barring WWIII (which might very well be settled with nukes before it got to the point where conscription was considered) the draft is NOT coming back in the US. Period. End of story.

Singapore does not allow private ownership of guns, BB guns, or air powered pellet rifle. Consequently residents can walk the street and go places without fear and being gunned down. This is freedom from the threat of gun violence.

You do realize that (contrary to what you might have heard in Singapore's media), almost everywhere in the US has streets that can be safely walked without fear of being shot...we are not some crime-ridden, free-fire zone hellhole where every trip to the grocery store risks catching a stray bullet. Pointedstick covered it pretty well when he said that most gun violence is between gangs and the criminal underclass against each other, NOT by common thugs assaulting innocent citizens with guns or by mass shootings like Columbine and the Colorado theater massacre. Guns are used far more often in the US as a deterrent to crime than as a means of robbing/raping/murdering helpless innocents.

Please also consider that just because Singapore has no arms in private hands that doesn't mean that denying people guns equals safe streets and no crime. The UK, for instance, has strict gun laws and there are certain sections of its cities that are "no-go zones" even for the police, while Switzerland, Norway, and Finland have comparatively lax gun laws (at least compared to Singapore or the UK) and are safer than the UK or the US.

Finally, even if having a disarmed populace DOES make Singaporeans safer and "free from the threat of gun violence" what does it say about a society that will chill its citizens' rights just to ostensibly make them safer? What kind of slippery-slope precedent does this set? Why not ban all cars and make everyone take the MRT and buses, since that would eliminate most traffic accidents? Or have a Minority Report style "Department of Pre-Crime" and arrest people who are potentially criminals before they have even done anything...that would stop most crimes before they happen. Or give everyone a mandatory truth-serum test once a year to catch any perpetrators of currently unsolved crimes and crimes the government didn't even know about? Or perhaps allow the government to decide what everyone can eat and drink, ban fatty or sugary foods, and have a drug police style task-force to catch and execute those who deal in such foods (this would seriously reduce the number of deaths from heart attacks, stroke, and cancer)? Once you've started on the path of "government should ban things to protect us from ourselves" then where do you draw a clear line in the sand and say "this is where it stops...NO MORE"!!!

Perhaps Asian values are so different than Western ones that most Singaporeans would find some of the above measures acceptable or even laudable but I guarantee you almost no freedom-loving American would. I will leave you with the following quotes from two of our Founding Fathers (Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams...many Americans tend to look upon the Founders the way Singaporeans look upon Sir Stamford Raffles or MM Lee Kuan Yew) and you tell me whether the average Singaporean (or at least the average PAP supporter) would consider them as accurate and truthful or as incorrect and dangerous to peace and order.

Benjamin Franklin - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Samuel Adams - "If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Pointedstick wrote: That's an interesting perspective. However, in the US, people don't generally get gunned down by lawful gun owners, and the victims aren't random. Most "gun violence" in the USA consists of members of the semi-permanent criminal underclass using illegally-acquired pistols to shoot other criminals. In that sense, it's more a function of the poverty and broken culure of certain societal groups.

I agree with that.  It is a socio-economic/cultural issue.  Take Japan, where guns are also outlawed.  Over time the criminal gang underclass has more and more spead its deadly consequences onto mainstream Japanese society that has no protection.  Or consider the USA in the late 80's/early 90's during the infamous crime spree from minority gangs and drug trafficking.  It got so bad, the media was perpetually thick everyday with bearish prognostications and Hollywood made movie after movie exploiting the fear (usually, white women's fear of black males).

MachineGhost wrote: I agree with that.  It is a socio-economic/cultural issue.  Take Japan, where guns are also outlawed.  Over time the criminal gang underclass has more and more spead its deadly consequences onto mainstream Japanese society that has no protection.  Or consider the USA in the late 80's/early 90's during the infamous crime spree from minority gangs and drug traccking.  It got so bad, the media was perpetually thick everyday with bearish prognostications and Hollywood made movie after movie exploiting the fear (usually, white women's fear of black males).

I take it that guns serve their purpose in a free society. Perhaps the difference between Singapore and Japan is Singapore is small enough island to be policed effectively to prevent spread of guns among criminals.

D1984 wrote: We actually have something similar to what Singapore has in New York City but it is only for taxicabs and not private cars. Every so often, the NYC government auctions "medallions" (licenses to operate a cab...they are called medallions because a taxi operator has to have it displayed in his cab and the actual display is or at least was a medallion of sorts) and you have to buy one to (legally) operate a cab that is allowed to pick up passengers hailed from the street. The NYC government artificially restricts the supply and one of the medallions can run over $100K USD.

Actually the price of a NYC taxi medallion is more than $700,000 USD

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-2 ... able-.html

Outrageous.

In other words, the reason traffic jams exist is because government builds the roads but private industry builds the cars.

Interesting observation, either all government control or all private sector control of both roads and car availability leads to better traffic conditions. This could be true.

that's no excuse for a government to intervene and create something that is less free than it COULD be and thus create more economic friction than would have existed in the first place.

I think the case for adding economic friction is probably only when government initially created the problems in the market themselves. The Singapore government is increasing eonomic friction (through policy) to prevent a real estate bubble in Singapore - as oppossed to letting the prices run unchecked and let free market burst the bubble afterwards. Government probably causes the real estate bubble in first place - in Singapore possibly due to policy of increasing foreign talents and undersupply of new housing, in U.S. possibly due to prolonged low interest rate causing free market housing boom and associated financial products. When government controls demand and free market controls supply, or vice versa, market eventually malfunction and goes to extreme, as you had observed.

but from what you said the point of Singapore's military was defense and deterrence, not to start wars against other countries before they attacked your first

From military point of view, the best defence is offence. An offensive military capable of going out and hit the enemy in its homeland where it hurts bigtime is several times more detering than a home defence force that can only receive pounding and tough it out.

Besides, you also indicated (in your reply to my query about a nuclear deterrent) that Singapore's real deterrence against any larger invader is the prospect of the US, UN, ASEAN, or United Nations (you said "the international community" so I guess that pretty much covers it) will come bail you out if your military cannot handle the invader. If that is the case I don't see why having a military of 370,000 vs perhaps 150,000 is much difference.

Having 370,000 forces makes it twice as difficult for attacker to conquer. For military forces, its always the more the better. Between conscription (physical slavery) and increased tax (economic slavery), neither is better than the other, and increasing tax to pay for army is substituting one problem for another. There will always be many people against both ideas. Imagine increasing tax and doubling volunteer army and pay above market rate to attract enough volunteer army, then there are twice the number of unhappy people (now both men and women population complains) complaing about wasting taxpayer money on overpaid military with practically little to do during peacetime. Neither is good, neither is better.

As regards nukes: If you had to test one it could be towed out into no man's water (international waters) in the south Pacific and tested there (unless Singapore is a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty).

This is so not eco-friendly that I am against it, not to mention we could end up eating radioactive deep sea salmon without knowing it, or creating squads of giant mutant squids that can sink aircraft carriers. One more point, owning nuclear arms will likely spark a regional nuclear arms race and cause bad relation with other countries. Things are nowhere near dire enough yet to consider stepping on our own economic foot. In Isreal, probably the situation is dire enough for them to acquire nuclear device. Today 6th August is the 67th Anniversary of the first atomic bombing. In memory of war victims.

I think some Singaporean would probably wholly agree with what you have said, about freedom, conscription, rights, and some would probably think like I do too. My starting point is, i recognize Singapore is what it is today, good and bad, due to efforts of previous generations who has roughed it out for us. So while I am now enjoying the good things in life provided by previous generation, I am not going to critisize so much about the bad things that they brought into the Singapore culture in the process - its not fair to them because they did the best they could under the circumstances. I believe these undesirable parts of Singapore will be removed in time one by one, and I am willing to give Singapore time to change things quickly in a few years or slowly in a few generations, as necessary. I do hope Singapore continues to adapt good customs from other culture, while avoiding their bad practices. For U.S., it has had many more generations to get things right and weed out the bad, and still there are practices that U.S. need to discard and correct.

Coearth,

Thanks for all of the Singapore-related information and experience.

I think that it's really interesting how Singapore has created an island of prosperity in an otherwise pretty poor neighborhood.

Coearth wrote:

This theoretical Singapore Permanent Portfolio returns is based on:
A - 25% stocks: Singapore Straits Times Index (STI),
B - 25% long term government bond: iShares Barclays 20+ Yr Bond ETF (TLT), price converted to Singapore dollars according to prevailing exchange rate. TLT was used because there was no 30-year Singapore Government Bond prior to 1 April 2012,

Coearth, now that there is a 30-Year Singapore Government Bond, will you be including it in your Singapore Permanent Portfolio?  Either in addition to or instead of the USA Long Term Treasuries?

Coearth wrote: @Lone Wolf: Had I owned USD bonds/TLT before 2012, I would have converted all to Singapore 30 year bonds as soon as possible. Reason being, U.S. bonds are popular and quite possibly trading at a higher premium now, whereas Singapore 30 year bond is rated AAA, possibly less well know, and could be the target of funds as there may be more room to grow. Singapore is net creditor nation, with no outstanding debt, and its sovereign wealth fund GIC is said to have 100 to 300 billions in assets under management. These gave me quite some confidence for the bond. Singapore 30-year bond for me also has benefit of no annual fees, lower trading fees compared to TLT, is denominated in Singapore dollars so easier for me to keep track of its value in local dollars, with no need to currency hedge. I actually started my Singapore Permanent Portfolio in February 2012 with stocks, gold and cash only (unbalanced portfolio - quite dangerous...), then waited 2 long months till 1 April 2012 to buy the newly released Singapore 30-year bond. 3 months later in July 2012, the Singapore 30 year bond had increased by 10% which was more than enough to cover the gold losses and make my Permanent Portfolio positive. I am so glad that the Singapore 30 year bond proves to work for PP. On a side note, previously I had decided not to use existing 20 year Singapore Bond since the 20 year does not have similar volatility to stocks and gold. The 30year bond trades in Singapore stock exchange under symbol PH1S.

smurff, definitely,it's better for me to own all 30-year Singapore Government Bond now. Please see my reasons above.

MediumTex wrote: Coearth,

Thanks for all of the Singapore-related information and experience.

I think that it's really interesting how Singapore has created an island of prosperity in an otherwise pretty poor neighborhood.

You are most welcome. I would like to thank all who shared information on U.S., that was some good insight for me.

Coearth,

How is life in the U.S. portrayed in Singapore?

Was there any coverage there of the recent Batman movie shootings?  What was that coverage like?

I think the case for adding economic friction is probably only when government initially created the problems in the market themselves. The Singapore government is increasing economic friction (through policy) to prevent a real estate bubble in Singapore - as oppossed to letting the prices run unchecked and let free market burst the bubble afterwards. Government probably causes the real estate bubble in first place - in Singapore possibly due to policy of increasing foreign talents and undersupply of new housing, in U.S. possibly due to prolonged low interest rate causing free market housing boom and associated financial products. When government controls demand and free market controls supply, or vice versa, market eventually malfunction and goes to extreme, as you had observed.

Do the "cooling-off" measures apply to owner-occupied housing as well as rentals? Is ABSD (if applied to owner-occupied properties) potentially going to drive people to choose to rent instead of own and thus drive rents up?

From military point of view, the best defence is offence. An offensive military capable of going out and hit the enemy in its homeland where it hurts bigtime is several times more detering than a home defence force that can only receive pounding and tough it out.

America had (arguably) one of the best offensive militaries (or at least one of the largest and most active in fighting wars) in the world and we still got blindsided on 9/11. Perhaps we should have focused more on better air defense and radar, point-defense interceptors for the US homeland, teaching airline passengers to fight back instead of "if you give in they won't hurt you", etc instead of trying to be the world's policeman with our large offensive military. For that matter, we had a very strong offensive military when we fought in Vietnam and against a much weaker and smaller nation the best we could claim was a draw because that weaker and smaller nation was willing to fight viciously to defend itself and what it stood for.

Switzerland, on the other hand, has very defensive oriented military rather than trying to project power and it doesn't seem to have hurt them militarily (Switzerland was left alone in both world wars ...it did shoot down both French and German aircraft entering its airspace during WWII but it did not directly attack either country).

To avoid an attack you don't necessarily have to be capable of launch a full scale war on your enemy's homeland; you just have to be seen as an unappetizing enough target in terms of cost-benefit that attacking you isn't worthwhile. Given that Singapore has no natural resources of its own that would make sustaining heavy casualties when attacking it seem a worthwhile proposition, I fail to see why a mostly defensive military would not suit it well (unless it plans to provoke other nations into war, which judging by Singapore's leadership so far seems rather unlikely).

Having 370,000 forces makes it twice as difficult for attacker to conquer. For military forces, its always the more the better.

If "more = better" when it comes to military forces, then why not do like the Soviets in Leningrad did in WWII and conscript everyone (men, woman, children and teenagers, the elderly, the able-bodied and infirm alike) to either serve in the military, build up the defenses of the city, or produce weapons and supplies for the military? The very idea, of course, is absurd. MORE is ONLY better when it is cost effective (in the above case it was at least somewhat cost effective since the city was encircled, besieged, and in danger of being overrun anyhow). Any asset maximized can become a liability and that includes a country's armed forces as well.

Furthermore, if the attacker was someone like China, "twice as difficult" might be more (relatively speaking in terms of losses they could sustain vs what Singapore could) like getting bitten by two mosquitoes instead of one.

Finally, if the choice is between A. Conscription, B. Extra taxation to fund a market-rate paid army, C. having a small conventional military but a nuclear capability as a deterrent against any trouble from a larger country (although for purposes of discussion this option is a moot point because you have already written it off), or D. a smaller conventional army and lower taxes, then maybe "more" is not better and option D lets people keep more of their money (due to lower taxes) and more of their freedom (due to no conscription) albeit with the opportunity cost of having a smaller military than they would have otherwise (although in many people's eyes having a smaller and less costly government organization-and the military is a government organization-would be seen as more of a feature than a bug).

Between conscription (physical slavery) and increased tax (economic slavery), neither is better than the other, and increasing tax to pay for army is substituting one problem for another.

"But that's substituting one problem for another" is a lame excuse. EVERY decision someone makes about how to allocate resources to meet a goal will to some extent be substituting one problem for another. Heck, that's pretty much what the whole science of economics is about - the trade-offs we make and opportunity costs we encounter as we seek to use distinctly finite resources to meet practically infinite wants/needs.

Taxation and a volunteer army is certainly better than conscription due to the following:

1. Taxation spreads the burden more fairly.

2. The deadweight economic loss from taxation is more transparent (the taxes paid and any reduction of economic activity resulting from people's decision to work less/invest less due to the taxes...which according to Saez and Pittaeky's work doesn't start to get anywhere near serious until marginal rates reach 60-70% which is far higher than Singapore would need to support a volunteer army paid at market rates) is visible versus the losses imposed by conscription (the human capital that goes to waste as human resources-AKA people-are forcibly put into jobs they are ill suited for instead of working at jobs where the market indicates their talents are best suited plus the potential economic loss if the next Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison gets drafted and killed in war); the losses imposed by conscription in many ways exemplify the "broken window fallacy" where you don't see them because the aren't explicit (like an extra line on your taxes for the amount needed to support a volunteer army) but are in the form of valuable economic activity in the free market that never takes place because the people who are best talented, qualified, and Pareto-optimal for it are stuck in NS.

3. Taxes-in-kind (taxes paid in goods or services rather than in money...in this case the draft can be thought of as a tax paid in one's labor and time in order to "fund" a the good/service of national defense) are not particularly efficient. This makes sense when you think about why we invented money (in lieu of barter) to facilitate trade and how inefficient it would be if we had to pay for EVERYTHING we wanted directly with our labor instead of with our money (imagine going to buy groceries at Giant and being told you had to pay in a certain amount of time spent mopping floors or stocking shelves instead of with cash or a credit card....now imagine having to do something similar at every business you patronize).

4. Conscription discriminates against those who feel that military service and fighting/killing are immoral due to their religious or philosophical beliefs. Singapore has little or no provision for conscientious objection and as a result treats members of pacifistic faiths very harshly and unfairly. The Singapore government's near outlawing of the Jehovah's Witnesses (and of their right to try and speak freely to spread their faith) is almost as bad as what happens to them in many fundamentalist Muslim countries and your government's reason for doing it (the JWs' stance against war and conscription) is the same reason Nazi Germany persecuted them...not exactly something to be proud of. Come to think of it, even Russia under the Romanovs (no great exemplar of individual freedom) allowed alternate service in forestry for those whose religious convictions refused to allow them to kill and whose consciences would give them no peace if they were to take up arms. That Singapore is even worse than Czarist Russia on this issue speaks volumes and should be a national embarrassment to any nation that would consider itself a free country.

5. Conscription makes unpopular wars-of-choice last longer (and at a resulting far greater cost in blood and treasure) than they would be if they had to be fought with volunteers (and allows governments to fight such wars in the first place instead of fighting only when the country is actually attacked). How long do you think a pointless war like Vietnam would have lasted for the US if we had to fight it with all-volunteer forces?  For that matter, how long would WWI have lasted if all the combatants (but especially France, Russia, and Germany) had to rely on forces who chose to be their instead of on conscripts? My guess is that Vietnam would have been over in three or four years (from 1964 to the Tet Offensive or thereabouts) and both sides in WWI would have sued for peace by late 1916 or early 1917, had they not had a constant supply of cannon fodder from the draft.

I could go on and on but I think you get my point.

. Imagine increasing tax and doubling volunteer army and pay above market rate to attract enough volunteer army, then there are twice the number of unhappy people (now both men and women population complains) complaing about wasting taxpayer money on overpaid military with practically little to do during peacetime. Neither is good, neither is better.

First of all, so what if women are now complaining as well as men? If Singapore does indeed need a large army (an arguable point at best), then why should one get out of having to pay for one's share of it (be it in tax or in-kind) just because of their gender? That is incredibly sexist and misandristic. If women (or for that matter men) want to have the right to vote taken away from them again then perhaps we can consider their not having to chip in for their fair share of a nation's defense. Until then, any argument that roughly one half of the population should be allowed to virtually "free-ride" just because of what's between their legs rings hollow, unfair, and of a sense of wanting certain rights and privileges of citizenship without having to contribute in any way to pay for it.

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, if twice the number of people are affected but the overall effect is less then for a "tax-and-pay-market-wages to soldiers" versus for conscription then an all-volunteer force is the clear winner. Let's say that you had a group of 100 people and needed to get $1,000 from them and were forced to choose between either:

A. Enslaving ten of them (picked by drawing lots) for a day (assume those enslaved could produce $100 of goods/services per person per day after costs for their food, upkeep, etc),

or,

B. Taking $10 from everyone in the group,

Which choice would impose the most hardship (again, on a purely utilitarian basis...I think you'd agree with me that both choices are wrong on a purely moral basis) overall? I think most people would rather pay the money (a guaranteed loss of $10) than risk being the one in ten who would be enslaved for the day; thus the overall "harm" done is less (proven by what most would choose...what economists call "revealed preference" ) with "taxation" than with "conscription".

Also, I don't think their would be much waste of taxpayer money on soldiers with little to do in peacetime...even with a volunteer army, the large majority could be (and would be, if Singaporeans so chose) reservists like they are now under conscription. This would reduce costs compared to the expense of keeping a full-time army of 370,000 or so.

I think some Singaporean would probably wholly agree with what you have said, about freedom, conscription, rights, and some would probably think like I do too.

Just as a rough guess, what percentage do you think would agree with me and what percent would agree with you (in the US I'd say that at least 65-70% would agree with me that conscription is worse than an army paid at a market rate).

My starting point is, i recognize Singapore is what it is today, good and bad, due to efforts of previous generations who has roughed it out for us. So while I am now enjoying the good things in life provided by previous generation, I am not going to critisize so much about the bad things that they brought into the Singapore culture in the process - its not fair to them because they did the best they could under the circumstances. I believe these undesirable parts of Singapore will be removed in time one by one, and I am willing to give Singapore time to change things quickly in a few years or slowly in a few generations, as necessary. I do hope Singapore continues to adapt good customs from other culture, while avoiding their bad practices. For U.S., it has had many more generations to get things right and weed out the bad, and still there are practices that U.S. need to discard and correct.

I agree with you that in my own country there are many things that we have corrected, although I also concur there are still some bad things we do need to "weed out"

But if you (or someone) do not criticize the bad things about your country and your culture and seek to change them, then who will? Power, oppression, and injustice rarely gives up themselves easily or without someone shining a light on them and standing up for change. Perhaps "the best they could do under the circumstances" is no longer the best the a nation that wants to be seen as free, modern, prosperous, and as a fully developed member of the First World, could and can do.

MediumTex wrote: Coearth,

How is life in the U.S. portrayed in Singapore?

Was there any coverage there of the recent Batman movie shootings?  What was that coverage like?

I am very curious to hear the answer to this.

Pointedstick wrote: Only 12 deaths out of an entire movie theater is actually a pretty miraculous result when you consider the tight quarters and the fact that the shooter deployed gas and wore armor. Arson and bomb attacks are usually much, much more deadly than gun attacks, and fire and bombs are very easy to create with supplies anyone can purchase legally in a hardware store.

I just saw the news on Bloomberg today, I am reminded the actual 'result' is 12 dead AND 58 'injured'. I started thinking that some injured will experience grave consequences - did someone lose an arm or leg, did someone got hit in spine and get paralysed waist down, did a person become disabled and unable to work and need the state take care of him for life, quite a few of the injured's life will be forever affected also. Hence I think we should remind ourselves to include the injure people and see this as 70 victims in total, which is quite a tragic event.

MediumTex wrote: Coearth,

How is life in the U.S. portrayed in Singapore?

Was there any coverage there of the recent Batman movie shootings?  What was that coverage like?

Hmm... I guess you are asking about what we are hearing about U.S.  Local media have frequent reports about U.S, and mostly reports are neutrally presented.
I have heard about the U.S economic figures, employment rates, wall street and bank troubles, Madoff and financial scams, the wars in Iraq, Afganistan and against terrorism, hurricanes and floods, movie stars' and singers' lives and deaths (may MJ rest in peace), sovereign debts and debt ceilings, housing and morgage issues, blockbuster movies, pop music, space mission, Mars rover Curiosity, sanctions against other countries.
There is little if any censoring of foreign country news. I read Bloomberg everyday on my mobile, So I have a feel of what is going on in U.S.

Coearth wrote: I just saw the news on Bloomberg today, I am reminded the actual 'result' is 12 dead AND 58 'injured'. I started thinking that some injured will experience grave consequences - did someone lose an arm or leg, did someone got hit in spine and get paralysed waist down, did a promising person become disabled and unable to work for life, quite a few of the injured's life will be forever affected. Hence I think we should also see this as 70 victims in total, which is quite tragic.

Absolutely, and I don't mean to downplay the tragedy that took place. However, if he had blocked the doors and set a fire, or thrown explosives into the crowd, or deployed a simple chemical weapon (such as a chlorine gas dispenser), we'd probably be seeing figures more in the range of 100 killed and 150 injured.

Pointedstick wrote:

Coearth wrote: I just saw the news on Bloomberg today, I am reminded the actual 'result' is 12 dead AND 58 'injured'. I started thinking that some injured will experience grave consequences - did someone lose an arm or leg, did someone got hit in spine and get paralysed waist down, did a promising person become disabled and unable to work for life, quite a few of the injured's life will be forever affected. Hence I think we should also see this as 70 victims in total, which is quite tragic.

Absolutely, and I don't mean to downplay the tragedy that took place. However, if he had blocked the doors and set a fire, or thrown explosives into the crowd, or deployed a simple chemical weapon (such as a chlorine gas dispenser), we'd probably be seeing figures more in the range of 100 killed and 150 injured.

In a country of 300 million people, bizarre and crazy things are always going to be happening.

The same night that the Batman shootings occurred, thousands of other movie theaters showed their movies without any problems.

And in an open and largely free society like the USA everyone can read about it or see it on TV.  I don't know if that's the case everywhere.

@D1984:

D1984 wrote: Just as a rough guess, what percentage do you think would agree with me and what percent would agree with you (in the US I'd say that at least 65-70% would agree with me that conscription is worse than an army paid at a market rate).

I would say 80% of voting Singaporean males will agree with you that conscription is worse than an army at market rate, and 90% of Singapore residents will agree with me that guns should be banned in Singapore. I can jump out of mainstream thoughts, and that's how I can look indepth into Permanent Portfolio rather than dismiss PP as 'conventionally strange looking portfolio". You are critical of individual policies of Singapore society separately, much like how typical investors are critical of individual PP component stock, gold, bond and cash allocation. You of most people would appreciate that it is the total portfolio performance that counts, not how each individual component is good or bad. Unlike PP where you can get information easily on internet, information is not readility available of how the Singapore 'portfolio' of policies inter-relate to one another and produce a positive 'portfolio' result. If you need to understand Singapore's portfolio of policies, I invite you to read a couple of books:
-[The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Volume 1) by Lee Kuan Yew]. A major and significant work which will form a primary resource for historians and political analysts as well as for controversy.
-[From Third World to First, The Singapore Story:1965-2000, Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Volume 2) by Lee Kuan Yew]. Lee Kuan Yew's second volume of his memoirs recounts experiences at home and abroad since Singapore started to go it alone as a nation in 1965.

D1984 wrote:
To avoid an attack you don't necessarily have to be capable of launch a full scale war on your enemy's homeland; you just have to be seen as an unappetizing enough target in terms of cost-benefit that attacking you isn't worthwhile. Given that Singapore has no natural resources of its own that would make sustaining heavy casualties when attacking it seem a worthwhile proposition, I fail to see why a mostly defensive military would not suit it well
...
D. a smaller conventional army and lower taxes, then maybe "more" is not better and option D lets people keep more of their money (due to lower taxes) and more of their freedom (due to no conscription) albeit with the opportunity cost of having a smaller military than they would have otherwise
...
I could go on and on but I think you get my point.

From your position of safety in your home country U.S. where you have strong beliefs, and from your perspective as a non-Singaporean, you are free to voice your opinions of individual Singapore policies as much as you wish. However, from that unaffected position and shallow perspective, I think one does not have any business to recommend policy changes for Singapore (or any country for that matter) becaue what happens in Singapore as a result of that few policy changes will not affect the one making the claims. An analogy would be a guy not invested in Permanent Portfolio or without indepth knowledge of PP coming along and trying to improve PP, as had happened recently as mentioned in this forum topic http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=4. I speak for myself, i think that guy's understanding of PP theory is incomplete and is superficially implementing PP, so he has no business trying to improve PP and mislead people with his misguided sense of what's better for PP. For goodness sake, he even told people it is easy to hold inverse ETF in portfolio and he himself holds ultrashort gold ETF and short S&P500 ETF - inverse and leverage ETF is destructive in a long term portfolio as some of us here knows first hand.
I think for you to make reasonable and believable claims of how Singapore policies should be changed, you should first show that you have indepth understanding of Singapore's policies and politics, its geopolitical advantages and limitations, it culture and history, then be able to put yourself in the shoes of the average Singaporean and its political leader and considered the issue from all perspectives and come to a conclusion. I get the point that you do not have enough knowledge of Singapore to form well researched conclusions. To show how much you know or don't know about Singapore, you may ask yourself this question instead: "What are the possible reasons Singapore should NOT follow the Switzerland style of defensive army?" If you can't come up with any reasons, it shows you do not know enough about Singapore, and I cannot consider you well informed enough about Singapore to analyze from sufficient perspectives on how Singapore should change its military policy.

The questions of.... if Switzerland can do this, why not Singapore...If Israel and France can do that, why not Singapore, if U.S can do this, why not Singapore, shows that you may subconciously have the assumption that if one country can do something, another country must be able to do the same thing at the same COST and same RESULTS. Otherwise I think you are assuming that a particular country should go after a particular RESULT at ALL COST irregardless of the cost, both of which are not true. If either of above assumption is true, then what about these questions: If Singapore can have consistently surplus budgets, why can't U.S.? If Singapore politicians can be paid high salary near to private market CEO rates, why can't U.S. politicians be paid similar high salary? If Singapore can have an effectively guns free society, why can't the U.S. or Japan? Please DO NOT ANSWER these 3 questions, because you and I are both have good ideas of the answers and these answers are not the point of this discussion. Point is, a country can't just implement particular policies of other countries here and there without considering how it affected all other domestics and foreign policies and how it affect the country as a whole. So until you are a Singapore resident or have enough research to really appreciate what its like to live in Singapore, I have no reason to believe you will come to a well informed, all policies considered conclusion for the benfit of Singapore. I thank you for the critical thinkings and thought provoking questions that you had posted. Still, I think this debate on Singapore politics should be continued elsewhere in a political forum where there will be more merits for such discussion. My preference is to discuss more about macroeconomics and investments here if possible.

Singapore is a relatively open society where people do critise a lot and and feedback to government which is starting to relax and change its style of governing. It is also true that speech freedom is not absolute. We have practically unrestricted internet content access, and many English language shows are U.S. shows in free to air and cable channels. Crime rate is low and people are aware that low crime does not mean no crime.

Coearth,

Please don't feel like anyone is attacking or being overly critical of your country or form of government.  I think that your posts are very helpful in understanding more about what life in Singapore is like.  In fact, I nominate you to be the official PP Singapore ambassador.

You obviously have pride in your nation while recognizing it isn't perfect.  I feel the same way about the U.S.

I second MediumTex's nomination.

You are critical of individual policies of Singapore society separately, much like how typical investors are critical of individual PP component stock, gold, bond and cash allocation. You of most people would appreciate that it is the total portfolio performance that counts, not how each individual component is good or bad. Unlike PP where you can get information easily on internet, information is not readility available of how the Singapore 'portfolio' of policies inter-relate to one another and produce a positive 'portfolio' result. If you need to understand Singapore's portfolio of policies, I invite you to read a couple of books:
-[The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Volume 1) by Lee Kuan Yew]. A major and significant work which will form a primary resource for historians and political analysts as well as for controversy.
-[From Third World to First, The Singapore Story:1965-2000, Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Volume 2) by Lee Kuan Yew]. Lee Kuan Yew's second volume of his memoirs recounts experiences at home and abroad since Singapore started to go it alone as a nation in 1965.

I may pick up those books via interlibrary loan next time I am at the library and see if they change my mind although I don't know what a leader who compared his own people to dogs, excused the Tiananmen massacre, and said that if he could make everyone's decisions for them Singapore would be a better place would have to say to convince me he was right. Certainly his government and his party have done admirably in creating a prosperous and fairly harmonious nation but it has to be asked...at what cost?

The issue here (as regards the PP components and your government's policies) is that regardless of what "positive" result these policies produce they also produce negative results in curtailing SIngaporeans' individual liberties. Comparing them to the PP is a flawed analogy because while the components of both (the PP and the Singapore government's policies) may work together synergistically to produce a unique result,  owning equities, gold, and long and short Treasuries is not directly impinging anyone's freedom whereas your government's policies clearly are. One can take a hard asset (gold), a growth asset (stocks), a deflation-safe asset (LTTs) and an asset to preseve wealth for rebalancing when everything else is down and come up with a combination that does something different and better than its individual parts but one cannot take oppression of religious minorities, suppression of free speech, military slavery, lack of trial by jury., a right of the government to appeal your sentence it it didn't think you were harshly punished enough, detention without warrant, trial, or habeus corpus under the povisions of the ISA (granted that America is no saint in these matters; the PATRIOT Act of 2001 and NDAA 2011 come to mind but many Americans are against such laws and I count myself among them) a system of official and unofficial controls on non-PAP political parties, and a governmental system that would (according to your own words in response to MediumTex's post) think someone crazy for wearing a sign criticizing one's leaders and combine them all into a mix that resembles a free society...perhaps it would have a facade or an appearance of freedom but it would not truly be free with restrictions like the above imposed.

From your position of safety in your home country U.S. where you have strong beliefs, and from your perspective as a non-Singaporean, you are free to voice your opinions of individual Singapore policies as much as you wish. However, from that unaffected position and shallow perspective, I think one does not have any business to recommend policy changes for Singapore (or any country for that matter) becaue what happens in Singapore as a result of that few policy changes will not affect the one making the claims.

I guess by that same logic no one in America (or Singapore for that matter) has any right to say the Kim family of North Korea were and are brutal tyrants who treat their own people worse than cattle; hey, they aren't North Koreans and therefore it doesn't affect them...or I shouldn't say that segregation and Jim Crow were wrong because after all I am white so they wouldn't have affected me. Perhaps no one (at least no one who isn't Jewish) has the right to criticize what happened during the Holocaust because being Aryan Gentiles they would have been spared. Or that no one who makes under a hundred thousand dollars a year has a right to say taxes should be lower for people who do make that much because it won't affect them anyway.

If I can conceptualize policy changes/ideas that I think would help Singaporeans (or Americans, or Canadians or Israelis, or Swiss, etc) be more free then I am going to recommend such ideas and stand up for them. I think most people would do that. Given that no one in Singapore is required to take my (or any American's) advice I find it a little far-fetched to say that I (or anyone else) shouldn't be suggesting policies that might make Singaporeans' lives freer.

An analogy would be a guy not invested in Permanent Portfolio or without indepth knowledge of PP coming along and trying to improve PP, as had happened recently as mentioned in this forum topic http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=4. I speak for myself, i think that guy's understanding of PP theory is incomplete and is superficially implementing PP, so he has no business trying to improve PP and mislead people with his misguided sense of what's better for PP. For goodness sake, he even told people it is easy to hold inverse ETF in portfolio and he himself holds ultrashort gold ETF and short S&P500 ETF - inverse and leverage ETF is destructive in a long term portfolio as some of us here knows first hand.

But many of US (just offhand I can think of Clive, Storm, Stone, Machine Ghost, MediumTex, and myself) who suggested various changes/tweaks to the PP that did in some way "improve" it. Many of Clive's suggestions even involved leveraged ETFs/funds.

I wasn't trying to "mislead" anybody as your analogy seems to imply; I was merely suggesting that some things about Singapore could (from the perspective of someone who tends to value freedom over order) be improved upon.

I think for you to make reasonable and believable claims of how Singapore policies should be changed, you should first show that you have indepth understanding of Singapore's policies and politics, its geopolitical advantages and limitations, it culture and history, then be able to put yourself in the shoes of the average Singaporean and its political leader and considered the issue from all perspectives and come to a conclusion. I get the point that you do not have enough knowledge of Singapore to form well researched conclusions. To show how much you know or don't know about Singapore, you may ask yourself this question instead: "What are the possible reasons Singapore should NOT follow the Switzerland style of defensive army?" If you can't come up with any reasons, it shows you do not know enough about Singapore, and I cannot consider you well informed enough about Singapore to analyze from sufficient perspectives on how Singapore should change its military policy.

Did it not perhaps occur to you that I DID ask myself the inverse of what I was proposing (i.e. if I think Singapore should have a strictly/mostly defensive-oriented military, what are some possible reasons it should NOT do so) but merely found that the benefits of the former outweighed the benefits of the latter?

Let me ask you this: If one of your fellow citizens (or one of your FTs or PRs)...maybe someone from Alternative News or Temasek Review or TOC...espoused the same sort of opinions I had, would you dismiss them as well based on their ostensibly "not knowing enough about Singapore" or would you actually engage on their own merits the ideas they were proposing?

I don't mean this to be rude and please don't take it as such but you kind of came across here (in my mind's eye) as somewhat akin to an antebellum Southerner in the US defending slavery to his northern counterpart..."but you don't live here; you don't understand our way of life, our institutions, our culture, how our economy NEEDS slavery to function" while the northerner is just shaking his head sadly and saying "but that doesn't matter...what you are doing is WRONG no matter how much your society differs from ours or the fact that I don't live in your part of the country"

The questions of.... if Switzerland can do this, why not Singapore...If Israel and France can do that, why not Singapore, if U.S can do this, why not Singapore, shows that you may subconciously have the assumption that if one country can do something, another country must be able to do the same thing at the same COST and same RESULTS. Otherwise I think you are assuming that a particular country should go after a particular RESULT at ALL COST irregardless of the cost, both of which are not true. If either of above assumption is true, then what about these questions: If Singapore can have consistently surplus budgets, why can't U.S.? If Singapore politicians can be paid high salary near to private market CEO rates, why can't U.S. politicians be paid similar high salary? If Singapore can have an effectively guns free society, why can't the U.S. or Japan? Please DO NOT ANSWER these 3 questions, because you and I are both have good ideas of the answers and these answers are not the point of this discussion. Point is, a country can't just implement particular policies of other countries here and there without considering how it affected all other domestics and foreign policies and how it affect the country as a whole. So until you are a Singapore resident or have enough research to really appreciate what its like to live in Singapore, I have no reason to believe you will come to a well informed, all policies considered conclusion for the benfit of Singapore. I thank you for the critical thinkings and thought provoking questions that you had posted. Still, I think this debate on Singapore politics should be continued elsewhere in a political forum where there will be more merits for such discussion. My preference is to discuss more about macroeconomics and investments here if possible.

If I happened to actually AGREE with what your current government was doing, would you also still feel that my conclusion was not of a "well-informed, all policies considered" manner or does that only come into play because I happen to disagree with them?

I never considered that Singapore could implement policies that I had mentioned and have EXACTLY the same results that any other country had; for that matter, even two countries (Sweden and Switzerland, for instance) that are both Western European, have a strong tradition of rule of law, and a comparatively lengthy history of a strictly neutral stance would have different issues, challenges, and results (both good and bad, expected and unexpected) when imeplementing a fairly similar policy (armed neutrality and a defensive military) to each other. What I WAS proposing was that such policies COULD be implemented in Singapore with positive results/consequences that outshone the potentially negative ones. I was using other countries as examples (see, just because policy X is implemented it doesn't mean the end of the world) but did not mean to imply (and I apologize of I did) that I thought Singapore could just copy one hundred percent of another nation's policy verbatim and take it as its own. If Singaporeans wish to implement a policy of a strictly defensive army, they will of course have to do it in their own unique way.

With that said, does it not count for something that (for instance) more and more countries have abolished conscription and not suffered any ill effects from it? At what point do enough counterexamples to Singapore's experience provide at least some weight against its current policies? Your two closest potential adversires (although by your own admission these are countries Singapore currently maintains cordial relations with), Inonesdia and Malaysia, do not rely upon the draft (similar to the US, Indonesia has a provision for conscription in its laws but relies in practice entirely on voluntary enlistments and the closest thing Malaysia has to NS is the PLKN which based on descriptions of the program sounds more like a grown-up version of the Boy Scouts than any form of mandatory military service). If even Taiwan (less than 200 kilometers from the most populous nation-with one of the world's largest militaries-on Earth...not even considering that said nation, China, has never officially acknowledged Taiwan's status and right to exist as an independent country) is planning under such circumstances to abolish mandatory service by 2015 (training will still be offically mandated but no service will be required afterwards), how can a nation like Singapore insist it still "needs" to conscript soldiers to fill its army's ranks?

As I feel at this point I have "spoken my piece" I will exit this discussion for the time being. Thanks for your points of view and your ideas...if you wish to reply please feel free to but if you want to continue this discourse perhaps we should ask (as per your suggestion about a "political forum" ) MediumTex to split off the relevant parts of this topic into a thread on the Other Discussions section (either that, or we could just "agree to disagree" and leave it at that...although I do have some questions-totally unrelated to SIngapore's governmental, political, or military policies BTW-as regards Singaporean blue chip, SCV, and price-volatile large cap equities I wanted to ask you but they are totally off the current topic of a Singapore PP).

Finally, if I have said anything that offended your personally or that you felt was attacking Singapore's citizens themselves I apologize; I do realize debates can get heated at times but I don't think ill of you and I hope (seconding MT's comments) that my words did not come across as an attack on yourself or on Singapore per se. I assure you that I (and probably most people on this forum who are American citizens! ) could and would find be just as much to be critical about regarding our own government's laws and policies if that was what the topic of discussion was.

D1984 wrote: Finally, if I have said anything that offended your personally or that you felt was attacking Singapore's citizens themselves I apologize; I do realize debates can get heated at times but I don't think ill of you and I hope (seconding MT's comments) that my words did not come across as an attack on yourself or on Singapore per se. I assure you that I (and probably most people on this forum who are American citizens! ) could and would find be just as much to be critical about regarding our own government's laws and policies if that was what the topic of discussion was.

We need a Singapore PP ambassador (or at least PP correspondent).  I really hope Coearth stays with us.