Kelvin Ong goes heavy on the emotion, but short on the logic, in his latest letter . I would not go so far as to say that he has selective myopia, but his choice of facts and the arguments he puts forward do little to dispel this notion.

How much is enough when you talk about spending on defence and security? Three percent of the GDP? Six percent? Ten percent? Or spend like the sky is the limit and let such mundane concepts such as budget deficits and international financial credibility go hang.

The trouble with the 'armchair generals' is that they are comfortable spinning their theories, arguments and pet grouses, but when face-to-face with the realities of running a country and balancing many competing priorities, watch how fast they clam up or go silent.

And contrary to what Ong and his ilk think - or claim - concepts such as 'territorial integrity' and 'national sovereignty' are things that define a country's place in the world. Pirates and other nefarious elements may pay no heed to such concepts, but that is no reason to discard them willy-nilly.

To put it bluntly - I've yet to read that Singapore and the US have explicitly criticised Indonesia and the Philippines for pirate attacks emanating from their shores. No great intelligence capabilities needed here, but as I mentioned in an earlier letter , everyone (including some countries who spend a great deal on defence and security) tip-toe very carefully around the neighbourhood gorilla (the accompanying 1,000lb simian doesn't seem to make a difference, Aegis-class destroyers and Nimitz-class carrier battle groups notwithstanding).

And I suppose that people like Rumsfeld and Admiral Fargo were mouthing platitudes when they backed down over the need for the US to militarily intervene unilaterally in the Malacca Straits (much to the dismay of certain hawkish elements down south)?

Also, to make a point - does Singapore really need 60 plus F-16 fighter aircrafts? Plus air-to-air re-fueling capability? Or its current plans to acquire advanced Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon or F-15 aircraft for the Singapore Air Force?

What's the point of being the heavily-armed (and prickly) porcupine in the region? Surely you don't need F-16s to take out a motley bunch of pirates, even if they attack in flotillas? Or is there a deeper agenda here - like, for example, a plan to seize operational control over the Malacca Straits in the event of certain 'untoward happenings'?

It would indeed be ironic if the greater threat to 'territorial integrity' and 'national sovereignty' were to come from within the said neighbourhood.

Like I said before - I can spin conspiracy theories with the best of them.