yup, that's what i said in the early stages of this thread, to read it in it's enitrety instead of eading a biased article from the paper. common sense tells me there is no way the person that wrote the newspaper article will side on the american. and rightfully i suppose he should not. therefore it is best to read the article in it's enitirety and form your opinion from there.
i'm in total agreement with what a few people have said. first people tend to not see their own backyards. second walsh was here for just a few weeks but he saw what a few of you have also stated that apparently has been going on for years, perhaps decades or longer. so is he lying, taking pot shots, or saying something that perhaps you don't want to hear, much less hear it coming from an american. he (walsh) can't be lying, some of you confirmed what he was saying by giving examples of inconsistencies in the SAF. he can't be taking pot shots, because his opinions are the same as some of yours. which leads me to draw the conclusion that a reporter was upset and set out to disprove walsh instead of doing his job which is to investigate.
why do i think that, well the reporter interviewed basically one person, or one side of the story. now what if he had also interviewed other people like some in here that in some ways agree to what walsh is saying. would his article had been labeled "american takes pot shots" or would it have been something like "a camoflouged division in singapore" to which i seriously doubt would have sparked ill feelings towards walsh and instead made singaporeans look more at what might really be happening. because whether you like walsh or not, agree with him or not, there does seem to be an issue that the reporter missed or was afraid to investigate and took the easy way out by stirring up emotions against walsh.
in my opinion he (the reporter) should've dug deeper and found out how walsh came to that conclusion. i know the reporter said he tried contacting walsh, but walsh did not return his calls or emails. i find that a lame excuse and a copout by the reporter as well. look how easy it was to find an opposing viewpoint right in here.
i would say looking at the big picture, singaporeans themselves right in this forum have given some credibility to what walsh was saying. which leads me to the other conclusion that perhaps people just didn't like what he (walsh) said eventhough there may be some merit to what he said. does he know the SAF well, probably not. however, he did give credit for some things, and pointed shortcomings as well...which is more than what the reporter did.
so what will happen from here...people will be mad at walsh which seems to be more important than addressing a situation that some people have pointed out that seems to be real. i think you have to ask yourself what is more important, bashing walsh or bettering the SAF by correcting some of these shortcomings which seme to be true by what some of you have said.
...anyways that's my opinion