SAF artillery, aircraft make Exercise Talisman Sabre debut in Australia
The Singapore Army HIMARS participating in the combined joint live-firing at Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025.
SINGAPORE – The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) participated for the first time in the multinational Exercise Talisman Sabre (XTS), co-hosted by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the United States Indo-Pacific Command.
More than 100 SAF personnel, two Himars rocket launchers and two Chinook helicopters were deployed between July 13 and 28 alongside 40,000 personnel from 18 other partner nations at the military exercise, said the SAF on July 28.
The 11th iteration of XTS, the largest multinational military exercise in the Asia-Pacific and held every other year, will conclude on Aug 4.
Partner nations at the drills include Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Britain and Japan. Malaysian and Vietnamese forces attended as observers, according to the Australian Department of Defence.
Teams from the SAF's Special Operations Task Force, Special Operations Aviation Task Group, medical and information domains took part in integrated training with partner forces.
'We value such multilateral training opportunities, which allow the SAF to enhance interoperability and deepen mutual understanding with partner militaries,' said Brigadier-General Anand Sathi Kumar.
'Such opportunities will further hone the SAF's tactical competencies, demonstrate our soldiers' professionalism, and build enduring friendships with partner nations.'
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore Tanjong Katong sinkhole backfilled; road to be repaved after LTA tests
Asia Gunman kills 5 security guards near Bangkok's Chatuchak market before taking own life
Singapore HPB looking for vaping, smoking counselling services for up to 175 secondary school students
Singapore Jail for former pre-school teacher who tripped toddler repeatedly, causing child to bleed from nose
Singapore Police statements by doctor in fake vaccine case involving Iris Koh allowed in court: Judge
Singapore Woman allegedly linked to case involving pre-schooler's sexual assault given stern warning
Singapore Singapore lion dance troupe retains title at Genting World championship
Singapore SMRT reports unauthorised post on its X account, says investigation under way
Aircraft from the RSAF participating in a joint mission with the United States' 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025.
PHOTO: MINDEF
The SAF's Himars crew trained with Australian and US forces at a combined live-firing exercise on July 14 in Queensland, with the US Department of Defence describing the SAF artillery as delivering precision long-range fire after moving from concealed positions.
Mr Euan Graham, a senior analyst on defence strategy at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that the presence of Singaporean forces at XTS is noteworthy.
'Singapore has advanced military capabilities that no other partner in South-east Asia comes close to, so for them to take part in Talisman Sabre is an opportunity for them to drill as part of a large coalition force, and at the more complex end of the activity spectrum,' he told US-based defence news outlet Breaking Defense.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
17 minutes ago
- Straits Times
US court maintains restrictions on Los Angeles immigration arrests
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox A federal appeals court late on Aug 1 affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the Lower Court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on peoples' appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge last month blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In the unsigned decision on Aug 1, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on 'apparent race or ethnicity', speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a 'bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc'. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Opening of Woodlands Health has eased load on KTPH, sets standard for future hospitals: Ong Ye Kung Singapore New vehicular bridge connecting Punggol Central and Seletar Link to open on Aug 3 Business Property 'decoupling' illegal if done solely to avoid taxes: High Court Singapore HSA investigating teen who was observed to be allegedly vaping in MRT train Asia KTM plans new passenger rail service in Johor Bahru to manage higher footfall expected from RTS Singapore Tengah facility with over 40 animal shelters, businesses hit by ticks Asia 'Every day, we think about how to upgrade': China's factories see rise in robot adoption Singapore 60 years of building Singapore The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. 'The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now,' she said in a statement. Mr Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, welcomed the ruling in statement: 'This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region.' REUTERS
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
US appeals court keeps bar on Los Angeles federal immigration arrests
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox A federal appeals court late on Friday affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring U.S. government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on peoples' appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and U.S. Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge last month blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity," speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc." The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, welcomed the ruling in statement: "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region." REUTERS
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Singapore High Court rules that property ‘decoupling' is illegal if done solely to avoid taxes
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox While buyers are free to hold their stakes in a 99-to-1 arrangement, the transaction could be illegal if the decoupling was undertaken to avoid paying more tax. SINGAPORE – Couples who transfer full ownership of their first home to one spouse – a gambit known as 'decoupling' – so that the other can buy another property without the additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD), are breaking the law if the sole purpose of the move is to avoid tax, the High Court has found. The finding stemmed from a recent dispute involving an unmarried couple who held their first property in the ratio of 99 to 1 in favour of the woman. But when they broke up, the former boyfriend claimed he owned at least half of the home, and not just 1 per cent. A reason for holding the property 99-to-1 was that they had planned a decoupling to avoid the ABSD for their second property. This would be achieved when the boyfriend transferred away his minute share so that he can buy a second property as a non-owner. Although the decoupling did not materialise, the court scrutinised such transactions and found that owners who decouple in this manner could be committing tax evasion as well as the underpayment of stamp duty if the 99-to-1 holding was found to be a sham. High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin noted that while buyers were free to hold their stakes in a 99-to-1 arrangement, the transaction could be illegal if the decoupling was undertaken to avoid paying more tax. For instance, if the 1 per cent owner gave up the share but had an arrangement to still co-own the same property, the individual would be deemed to have evaded tax by wrongful declaration of ownership interests. If that same owner – while still a 'beneficial' owner of the first property – then bought another residence without paying ABSD, he could be accused of using the decoupling scheme to dupe the taxman. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore New vehicular bridge connecting Punggol Central and Seletar Link to open on Aug 3 Singapore Tengah facility with over 40 animal shelters, businesses hit by ticks Singapore HSA investigating teen who was observed to be allegedly vaping in MRT train Singapore 60 years of building Singapore Asia 'Every day, we think about how to upgrade': China's factories see rise in robot adoption Singapore Sheng Siong to open first store in Orchard by end-August Sport Spurs captain Son Heung-min says he is leaving the English Premier League club Life Tastemakers: Burnt-out serial entrepreneur cooks up $16m success with Lau Wang Claypot Delights Finally, the move to use the 1 per cent as a ploy to save on buyer's stamp duty could attract the penalty of underpayment of tax because a joint owner typically pays duty on 50 per cent of the property. Tax evasion and avoidance The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) did not comment on Justice Lee's finding specifically but noted that any breaches of tax law depend on the specific circumstances of each case. For tax avoidance, Iras will check whether the arrangement 'is artificial, contrived or has little or no commercial substance and is designed to obtain a tax advantage that is not intended by Parliament'. As for tax evasion, this happens when individuals deliberately provide Iras with inaccurate or incomplete information with the aim of reducing their tax liability. Iras says it takes a serious view against those who evade or avoid tax, as well as professionals who promote or facilitate tax avoidance arrangements. The couple in the recent case did not breach any tax law because they neither decoupled nor bought a second property. Buyers should act in good faith Singapore's leading tax expert Stephen Phua said the case should serve as a cautionary tale for property buyers to act in good faith and avoid having secret arrangements to hide their true ownership interests. Decoupling is not wrong if a joint owner makes an outright transfer of his share in that property because this owner, who no longer has any property, can then buy another without being liable for ABSD. 'The problem comes if the owner continues to retain a beneficial interest in the property after the transfer via a secret arrangement. If this scheme is exposed, such as in a dispute, the consequences could be severe,' said Associate Professor Phua, who teaches tax laws at NUS. Take a couple who hold their first property 99-to-1 as part of a decoupling plan to buy a second property. They could be in trouble if it is found that they intended to share both properties jointly. In this example, Prof Phua says the couple could face two tax penalties – one for underpayment of stamp duty in the decoupling, and another for not paying ABSD on the second property. Justice Lee's finding comes about two years after Iras clamped down on an unrelated 99-to-1 ABSD avoidance scheme that involved first-time buyers using artificial transfer agreements to rope in relatives for mortgage purposes. An insurance broker told The Straits Times that he has come across at least five lawyers being sued by clients due to Iras enforcement. He added: 'I think it is prudent for lawyers to study the latest court case carefully when advising clients on transfers of properties between co-owners, especially if it is being done with the view of buying another residential property.'
