KRA CANAL : The Real Threat to Malacca-S'pore Strait : Construction of Thai's Kra Canal financed by China (r)

SOURCE:
http://www.theindependent.sg/the-real-threat-to-spore-construction-of-thais-kra-canal-financed-by-china/

         The Real Threat to 

      Malacca - S'pore Strait 

: Construction of Thai's Kra   Canal financed by China

October 2, 2016
updated 12 Nov 2018

The Kra Canal or the Thai Canal refers to a proposal for a canal to cut through the southern isthmus of Thailand, connecting the Gulf of Thailand with the Andaman Sea. It would provide an alternative to transit through the Strait of Malacca and shorten transit for shipments of oil to East Asian countries like Japan and China by 1,200 km, saving much time. China refers to it as part of its 21st century maritime Silk Road.

China is keen on the Kra Canal project partly for strategic reasons. Presently, 80% of China’s oil from the Middle East and Africa passes through the Straits of Malacca. China has long recognized that in a potential conflict with other rivals, particularly with the US, the Strait of Malacca could easily be blockaded, cutting-off its oil lifeline. Former Chinese President Hu Jintao even coined a term for this, calling it China’s “Malacca Dilemma”.

History of Kra Canal

The idea to shorten shipping time and distance through the proposed Kra Canal is not new. It was proposed as early as in 1677 when Thai King Narai asked the French engineer de Lamar to survey the possibility of building a waterway to connect Songkhla with Marid (now Myanmar), but the idea was discarded as impractical with the technology of that time.

In 1793, the idea resurfaced. The younger brother of King Chakri suggested it would make it easier to protect the west coast with military ships. In the early 19th century, the British East India Company became interested in a canal. After Burma became a British colony in 1863, an exploration was undertaken with Victoria Point (Kawthaung) opposite the Kra estuary as its southernmost point, again with negative result. In 1882, the constructor of the Suez canal, Ferdinand de Lesseps, visited the area, but the Thai king did not allow him to investigate in detail.

In 1897, Thailand and the British empire agreed not to build a canal so as to maintain the importance of Singapore as a shipping hub, since by that time, Singapore was already prospering as an international hub with great importance to the British.

In the 20th century the idea resurfaced with various proposals to build the canal but did not go far due to various constraints including technology and cost constraints as well as indecisive political leadership of Thailand.

China shows Thailand the Money

In the last decade, China has now become the potential game changer who can possibly turn Kra Canal proposal into reality in the 21st century. It has the money, technology and strong political leadership and will to support the project if it wants to.

Last year, news emerged that China and Thailand have signed an MOU to advance the Kra Canal project. On 15 May 2015, the MOU was signed by the China-Thailand Kra Infrastructure Investment and Development company (中泰克拉基礎設施投資開發有限公司) and Asia Union Group in Guangzhou. According to the news reports, the Kra Canal project will take a decade to complete and incur a cost of US$28 billion.

But 4 days later on 19 May, it was reported that both Chinese and Thai governments denied there was any official agreement between the 2 governments to build the canal.

A statement by the Chinese embassy in Thailand said that China has not taken part in any study or cooperation on the matter. It later clarified that the organisations who signed the MOU have no links to the Chinese government. Separately, Xinhua news agency traced the announcement of the canal project to another Chinese firm Longhao, which declined comment when contacted.

Dr Zhao Hong, an expert on China-Asean relations from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, told the media that China would not embark on such a project lightly, given the political and bilateral implications.

“China will have to consider the feedback from countries such as Singapore, which it has friendly ties with, given the impact that the Kra canal might have,” he said at the time when news of the MOU emerged. But Dr Zhao added that China might be open to private companies studying the feasibility of such a project, but will not directly back it for now.

It was said that the the chairman of Asia Union Group, the Thai party which signed the MOU, is former Thai premier Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, a long-time supporter of the Kra Canal.

Thai PM: Kra Canal project should be looked into by future democratic governments

In Jan this year, the Thai PM reiterated again that the Kra Canal project is not on his government agenda. His announcement came after a member of the King’s Privy Council, Thanin Kraivichien, wrote an open letter to the government advocating for the canal’s construction.Thanin was the 14th PM of Thailand between October 1976 and October 1977. His call is part of a growing chorus of Kra Canal proponents in Thailand’s political and business communities that started talking openly last year after several Chinese firms expressed interest in funding and constructing the canal.

Responding to Thanin’s call for the project, the Thai PM said the Kra Canal project should be looked into by democratic governments in the future, meaning to say Thailand has not ruled out the construction of Kra Canal completely. And in the case of Thailand, changes to its government occur frequently like the changing of clothes.

China getting Angry with Singapore

In the last couple of months, China is increasingly angered by PM Lee’s move to side with the US over the South China Seas issue, even though Singapore has no claims over any of the territories there.

It all started 2 months ago when PM Lee was invited to the White House and was hosted to a rare White House state dinner on  2 Aug(http://theindependent.sg/pm-lees-speech-at-white-house-state-dinner-angers-china). During his toast, PM Lee welcomed the US to adopt a strategy to “rebalance” the Asia Pacific and went on to call President Obama as the “America’s first Pacific President”.

China immediately responded through their Global Times. “Lee Hsien Loong addressed Obama as the American ‘first Pacific President’. Such flattery (‘戴高帽’) given to Obama directly does not concern us (‘倒也没啥’),” the Global Times’ article said.

“The key is he praised the American strategy to ‘re-balance Asia-Pacific’ and publicised that all Southeast Asian countries welcome such American ‘balancing’. Because the ‘rebalance Asia-Pacific’ strategy is pointed at China to a large extent, Lee Hsien Loong is clearly taking side already.”

“If Singapore completely becomes an American ‘pawn’ (‘马前卒’) and loses any of its resilience to move between US and China, its influence will be considerably reduced. Its value to the US will also be greatly discounted,” it added.

The article went on to say that China has its limit in tolerance. It said, “Singapore should not push it (‘新加坡不能太过分’). It cannot play the role of taking the initiative to help US and South East Asian countries to go against China over South China Sea matters. It cannot help American ‘rebalancing Asia-Pacific’ strategy, which is directed at China’s internal affairs, by ‘adding oil and vinegar’ (‘添油加醋’), thereby enabling US to provide an excuse to suppress China’s strategic space as well as providing support to US.”

“Singapore can go and please the Americans, but it needs to do their utmost to avoid harming China’s interests. It needs to be clear and open about its latter attitude,” it cautioned. Singapore’s balancing act should be to help China and US to avoid confrontation as its main objective, and not taking side so as to increase the mistrust between China and US, it said..

The article gave the example of Singapore allowing US to deploy its P-8 reconnaissance aircraft to Singapore, which from the view of the Chinese, increases the tension in South China Sea, and thereby, increasing the mistrust between the 2 big countries.

“Singapore needs more wisdom (‘新加坡需要更多的智慧’),” the article concluded.

PLA General: We must strike back 

at Singapore

And yesterday, SCMP reported that a PLA General had called for Beijing to impose sanctions and to retaliate against Singapore so as to “pay the price for seriously damaging China’s interests” (http://theindependent.sg/pla-general-we-must-strike-back-at-singapore).

The General’s remarks came after a recent spat between Global Times and Singapore Ambassador Loh. On 21 Sep, Global Times carried an article saying that Singapore had raised the issue of the disputed South China Sea at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit held in Venezuela on 18 Sep. It added that Singapore had “insisted” to include an international tribunal’s ruling on the waterway, which was in favour of the Philippines, in the summit’s final document.

Singapore’s ambassador to China, Stanley Loh, rejected this and wrote an open letter stating that the news report was “false and unfounded”. Mr Loh said the move to include the international ruling in NAM’s final document was a collective act by the members of the ASEAN. But the editor-in-chief of Global Times came out to stand by his paper’s report.

Then, the Chinese government also came out in support of Global Times, not buying Ambassador Loh’s arguments. When a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman was asked about the tiff between Global Times and Singapore, he blamed an unspecified “individual nation” for insisting on including South China Sea issues in the NAM document.

Xu Liping, senior researcher on Southeast Asia studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said China expected Singapore to be a neutral mediator between China and the countries of Asean, and did not want to see disputes over the South China Sea raised in a multilateral platform like the NAM Summit. And that was why China was so angry over Singapore’s active moves in broaching such a sensitive topic, he said.

“If Singapore does not adjust its policies, I am afraid the bilateral relations will deteriorate,” Xu added. “Singapore should think twice about its security cooperation especially with the United States, and strike a better balance between China and US.”

“2-Headed Snake”

On Thursday, the overseas edition of People’s Daily also published an online commentary, saying Singapore “has obviously taken sides over South China Sea issues, while emphasising it does not”. In other words, China is accusing the Singapore government of saying one thing but doing another – a hypocrite.

Online, the Chinese netizens condemned Singapore as a “2-headed snake”. One of them wrote:

(Translation: China should quickly embark on the Kra Canal project and turn Singapore back into a third world country. This is the best present to give to a “2-headed snake”.)

If the Kra Canal truly becomes a 

reality, ships would certainly 

consider by-passing the Strait of 

Malacca and Singapore altogether, 

making the Singapore’s all-

important geographical location 

redundant. We may truly become a 

third world country after all.

Kra Canal is dead says Thai Ambassador to Kuala Lumpur

REF TO:

http://www.theindependent.sg/kra-canal-is-dead-says-thai-ambassador-to-kuala-lumpur/

JAMMU & KASHMIR STATISTICS : Jammu and Kashmir Data Sheets (Updated till September 23, 2018)

SOURCE:
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/data_sheets/index.html

Jammu and Kashmir Data Sheets (Updated till September 23, 2018) CLICK or GOOGLE TO VIEW THE DATA Fatalities in Terrorist Violence 1988-2018 Fatalities in Jammu and Kashmir: 1990-2017- (MHA Data) Fatalities in Terrorist Violence 1988-2016 in Graph Major incidents of terrorist violence: 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012-1990 Suicide attacks : 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2013 , 2014 , 2015 , 2016 , 2017 , 2018 Explosions: 2001 , 2002 , 2003 , 2004 , 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011 , 2012 , 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 CFA Violations: 2009-2018: SATP CFA Violations: 2004-2018: Official Data Trends of Violence since 2001 Estimated Infiltration since 2001 Major Terrorist attacks on Security Forces and other high security targets in the Post-Kargil Period since 1999 Nature of terrorist attacks since 1990 Incident Details since 2005 Casualties during militancy since 1990 Casualties in violence by terrorist since 1990 Monthly break-up of casualties in terrorist violence - 1998-2001 Cumulative data on Violence by Terrorists, 2001 Cumulative data on Violence by Terrorists, 2000 Fatalities: (January-July) since 2002 Ramadan Cease-fire: Casualties Major massacres by terrorists since 1996 Major terrorist attacks on Hindus since 1997 Terrorist Attacks on Christian Missionary Institutions since 1989 Terrorist Atrocities on Women and Children in J&Ksince 1990 Political Activists killed by Terrorists since 1989 Atrocities on Foreign Nationals since 1991 Religious identity of civilians casualties since 1988 Local and Foreign Terrorists Killed since 1990 Pakistani terrorists killed by Security Forces since 1998 Terrorist leaders killed during encounters with security forces since 2003 Group Clashes since 1990 Foreign mercenaries arrested and killed since 1991 Terrorist arrested, surrendered & killed since 1990 Details of Terrorists/Suspects Apprehended since 1990 Abductions by terrorist since 1990 Amount looted by terrorist since 1998 Profile of abducted victims since 1990 Infiltration detected since 1997 Recovery and seizures of weapons, ammunition, explosives and equipment since 1990: Weapons Ammunition Magazines Ammunition Rounds Explosive Materials Communication Equipment Accessories District-wise recruitment of Special Police Officers (SPOs), 1996-2001 Voter Turnout since 2002
Copyright © 2001 SATP. All rights reserved.

ADM& MORALE : THE ARMY OFFICER CADRE DILEMMA

SOURCE:
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/the-army-officer-cadre-dilemma/677831.html





THE ARMY OFFICER CADRE DILEMMA 

                                  BY

           Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)

Present strength of full-time officers leaves little for equipment purchase

NO CHERRY-PICKING: The Army will best benefit from the wholesale application of restructuring based on AV and Shetkar panels’ recommendations.






A FORMER Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, Admiral Arun Prakash, in an article highlighted that 70 per cent of the Army’s budget goes towards revenue expenditure. He misses the point that revenue expenditure is high because the budget itself is small. If it were to be 3 per cent of GDP (as proposed by the Parliamentary Committee of Defence), this percentage would perhaps come down to 40, or less, of the Army’s budget. What he fails to point out is that civil employees account for 25 per cent of the strength of the defence forces, but their pay and pension bill accounts for nearly 35 per cent of the defence budget. This is one component of the MoD, which is overdue for a drastic cut in strength. With the clubbing of the pension bill, this percentage has gone up.

 The Army’s strength is related to the security environment, the terrain and undecided borders, both in J&K and along Tibet.


At the same time, whatever be the scale of the defence budget (as part of GDP), the size of the officer cadre is very large and the pay and pension bills will always impact it, more so, and if, NFFU is granted to the defence services officers. This motivated the Army Headquarters to propose an increase in the percentage of Short Service Commission (SSC) officers, but the terms of employment are neither here nor there. This arrangement releases an officer, at the age of 34-37 years, with no alternative employment. The proposal of one-year training on release, in some odd skill, amounts to nothing and would not qualify him for any worthwhile job in the civil market.  



Any review of the officer cadre must

(i) reduce the pay and pension bill of the Army,

(ii) improve career progression of regular officer cadre,

(iii) make SSC cadre attractive and (iv) maintain operational efficiency. 

A review of the cadre involves working out the ratio between regular and short service cadre and rank structure of various appointments. The Ajai Vikram (AV) Committee (2001) recommended a ratio of 1:1.1 between regular and SSC officers, as against the present ratio of 4:1.  Many of the committee’s recommendations stand stalled. Though the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had approved a reduction in regular cadre a decade back, the proposal was not properly implemented.

The major flaw is that short service is for 10 years and extendable to 14, with no commitment for re-employment of those released from service. In addition at 14 years, the officer will be holding the rank of Lt Col and little else, making it difficult for him to fit into the civil market, and that by itself will impact the pride within the service, because the rank of Lt Col is highly regarded in military service. 


While in the civil services, higher appointments have substantially increased over a period of time, this was not possible in the case of the Army without upsetting the command structure. The AV Committee did just that by upgrading appointments of the company commander from Major to Lt Col, which merely downgraded this rank.


[ In civil services higher appointments are a classical  MOCKERY of the system eg of date Haryana  has  27 Additional Chief Secretaries  enjoying all the  privileges of Chief Secretary MINUS  responsibility  similarly 14  Additional Director Generals of Police. Combined with NFU it is the open loot of tax payers money.  Similarly the situation is almost same in all other Indian states and civil services - Vasundhra ]


Similarly, some earlier committees made inappropriate recommendations and the Army Headquarters accepted these without applying its mind and relating to the ground realities. The first such committee recommended disbanding stretcher-bearer companies with mountain divisions, contending that in future helicopters will lift casualties. Helicopters cannot lift these casualties, spread as they would be, along steep slopes and enemy’s forward defence line.  And what of the weather? In Kargil, the bulk of attacking battalion’s manpower got committed to evacuating casualties. It takes minimum eight persons to evacuate one casualty in the high mountains. The same has been the case related to the disbandment of animal transport companies, where now offensive operations get confined to road axis, which invariably are strongly defended


For SSC, better material can only be attracted when their resettlement is appropriate and assured. For this, the released officer should be young enough to take up a second career. Therefore, his service with the military has to be of appropriate duration, so that he is useful for the military and equally young to find a place in a suitable second career.     


In the past, a number of committees have looked into re-organising the Army, essentially to cut cost and reduce the teeth-to-tail ratio. However, the MoD has been cherry-picking only those recommendations that conform to its plans. Thus many of the recommendations of the AV Committee, and more recently those of the Sheketkar Committee have been left out. Most recommendations are inter-linked and ‘cherry-picking’ breaks the link and leads to disruptions, voids and complications.

However in the present case, the recommended period of service for SSC officers is five and a half years, where the first six months are for initial intensive training. Thereafter, during the first year of service, an officer needs to do a composite course of three months related to the arm/service of the officer. His annual leave should be restricted to a month in a year.

 On release from the military, some percentage should be absorbed in the civil services, some in the Central and state police and bulk of them given reserved vacancies in IITs, IIMs, medical, law and engineering colleges, as well as the military’s own technical institutions.  Those selected for further education should be given 50 per cent of the last pay drawn for the period they served.  

To start with, the ratio between regular commission and SSC officers could be 60:40 to eventually change to 40:60. Those who wish to altogether opt out should be given lump-sum monetary grant and those who join the civil services/police to carry forward their seniority.

ARMED FORCES DEGRADATION & POLITICALIZATION : GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE FORCES THE RESPECT DUE TO THEM

SOURCE:
https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/government-must-give-forces-respect-due-1502702395.html


ARMED FORCES DEGRADATION & POLITICALIZATION

    

GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE FORCES

      THE RESPECT  DUE TO THEM  

                      BY

           Harsha Kakkar 

 October 30, 2018

Narendra Modi (Photo: Twitter)

Diwali is around the corner and with it the nation would hear of the Prime Minister and Defence minister visiting army units and celebrating the occasion with them. They would address troops, join them for tea and announce that they are doing their share for procurement of weapons and their welfare.

A part of the Prime Minister’s speech, heard every year at Diwali, would be that his government granted OROP and he feels that soldiers are a part of his family. If they are truly considered family, then why are they exploited for political gains? It is time that the PM realises that actions adopted by his government in the years they have been in power has done more to lower the prestige and standing of the army than any in the last seventy years of our independence.

Not a single promise, other than a half-baked OROP has been implemented. There were promises galore in 2013 at the ESM rally in Rewari. Higher defence management would be reformed, military status would be restored, and it would become a powerful force. With six months to go, all appears to have vanished under the carpet. With the creation of the defence planning committee under the National Security Advisor, chances if any of reforming higher defence management appear to have vanished into thin air.

The minimum that the government could have done was to reorganize the defence ministry making it a more effective body by amalgamating service personnel within it, rather than adding to distances by granting the AFHQ cadre, a group B service, additional vacancies, pushing them to eat into military vacancies. The MoD is presently packed with an anti-military lobby. In a recent discussion on social media on an Integrated Financial Advisor (IFA), a junior civilian, misusing an army flag on his vehicle, the MoD spokesperson responded to a former naval chief in an insulting manner and questioned military ethos. It took social media by storm leading to rebuttals from across the elite of the country.

The spokesperson had only projected the true feelings of the MoD, one which hates the very armed forces it is meant to serve and protect. Is this the MoD that the Prime Minister and Defence Minister desire? If it is then it is a disgrace to the nation and an insult to the sacrifice of the armed forces, which they exploit at every opportunity. An RTI to the MoD revealed that the government had in the last three years spent over Rs 100 crore in legal fees in the apex court, challenging disability pensions granted to armed forces personnel by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). It paid lawyers while forcing veterans to shell out large amounts for their just dues. It implied that the MoD is willing to expend any amount to deny benefits to soldiers. A clear case of hatred, rather than support. This continues despite the Supreme Court ticking off the MoD on its negative approach. Even a highpowered committee formed by the MoD to reduce legal cases had recommended not approaching the apex court in every case, but in vain.

Can the PM drive some sense into an anti-military MoD? It took 700 soldiers and officers to approach the Supreme Court in a case questioning their operating under AFSPA in Manipur and charging them with ‘so-called encounter killing’ to get the MoD to act.. This was from the outset the responsibility of the MoD as it was they who had ordered them to operate in Manipur and assured them protection under AFSPA. Entitled rations for officers have been withdrawn on flimsy grounds and despite regular mention of them being restored, they remain withdrawn, adding to internal anger. The PM announced from the ramparts of the Red Fort on Independence Day that women would be granted permanent commission in the armed forces, which till date remains just an announcement.The Reddy commission set up to study the lapses in OROP implementation submitted its report over two years ago.

The commission announced with much fanfare, travelled across the country, met a variety of ESM, noted their grievances, analysed them and handed in its report. Till date, nothing has moved, the report remains buried. The drawback of granting OROP to premature retirees remains. The biggest anger stems fromthe degradation of the service, caused by multiple actions of the government. It has granted NFU to every service but the armed forces and continues to challenge their case in court... This has seriously impaired the functioning of quasi-military organizations, where earlier civilians and army personnel would work shoulder to shoulder, but presently battle for seniority on the unjust allocation of NFU. It has led to a just status being made lopsided... The government order stating that NFU ‘will not bestow any right to the officer to claim promotion or deputation benefits’ is being ignored by MoD controlled organisations while it remains a silent spectator, possibly even encouraging it.

The only government service whose success is exploited for political gains is dumped on the roadside when it comes to their rightful dues on the illogical premise of it being an expenditure the government cannot bear as also it is not entitled. Mr Prime Minister and Madam Defence Minister, when you visit the troops this Diwali, you would still find them happy and smiling as you are their guests and they are honoured by your presence. They do this despite immense hurt and pain within them, caused by the anti-army policies adopted by your government. Yet they have a responsibility to the nation, hence will never let it down and never have.

If you have any conscience left within your heart, you need to retrospect and understand how you have let the Indian soldier down and make amends. He has looked up to you, given you what you asked on multiple occasions even paid with his life. Now it is your turn to pay him back and grant him his due, nothing more, nothing less. If you can make the soldier feel he is special, you would earn the nation’s respect.

The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.