English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

New Zealand and Singapore are both capable small states with notably different security and defence concerns. The relative level of commitment that Singapore provides to its military forces in comparison to New Zealand is not only a reflection of the tremendous economic, social and technological development that has occurred in the city state since its independence, but is also due the different perceptions, discretion and motivation that each state has regarding the role and utility of their military instruments. The differences in their military capabilities also reflect how each has responded to their particular circumstances as small states. New Zealand has, to a large extent, worked within the constraints expected of small states while Singapore has striven to overcome them. However, the military capabilities of both states are significantly influenced by their characteristics as small states, and these form the basis of the challenges that they are likely to face going forward. This article examines key factors and elements underpinning why New Zealand and Singapore have developed markedly different military forces in the period from 1965 to 2022 in order to understand the extent to which their characteristics as small states have influenced their respective approaches to force development.

Military force development in New Zealand and Singapore: realising different influences on small state military capability