The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Will Southeast Asia and South Asia benefit or suffer should the US escalate conflict with China over Taiwan?”
Any American attack on China will crash the global economy, and no
one will benefit. Why do we have idiots
wanting war between the two biggest economies in the world? China is the global factory and the United
States is the global bank. Any war
between these two is a very bad idea for the rest of us.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How would the countries, who had citizens fight for ISIS, properly punish them if they tried to return to their home country?”
The answer is straightforward: arrest them, try them, and have them executed. In Singapore, it is to be hung until dead. The crime, in this case, is sedition and waging war against the state. I do not believe in rehabilitation for these Wahhabi terrorists. This should be applied regardless of whether they are male or female. There is no such thing as a lesser penalty for these ISIS brides. They are not innocents or victims; they are enablers and supporters. And those below the age of majority, but close to it, the court should be given special dispensation to try them as adults.
It is only natural that when we have an
infection, we address it at the root. These
people will always be a source of propaganda and inspiration, even when they
are dead. The difference is that dead
people do not spin new stories. Hang
enough terrorist and the rest of the population will understand that there is
no misguided softness when it comes to addressing an existential threat to the
secular state.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Will the UK forward deploy a Royal Navy frigate to Singapore in the next few years?”
No, that is not the conversation. This was based on an informal proposal originally floated that the 2016 Shangri-La Dialogue, by Sir Michael Cathel Fallon, who was Secretary of State for Defence at that time. The actual suggestions was to send a UK carrier strike group to Asia on its inaugural deployment. This was part of their global re-posturing effort. The UK public had just voted for Brexit, China was being more belligerent in the South China Sea and projecting force in the East Pacific, and the UK and US were secretly in the process of forming the AUKUS trilateral security arrangement with Australia.
As of last year, the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier and escort ships have completed a tour of the region. It had a complement of US Marine F-35B squadron onboard. This was a significant show of power. In that time, the carrier group took part is several manoeuvres and exercises with regional navies, including the Indian Navy. As of this time, there is still a stated intent to deploy Littoral Response Group (LRG) late in 2023. This LRG is likely to be focused on the Indian Ocean, with a refit and refueling in Sembawang Naval Base, Singapore and the UK Joint Logistics Support Base (UKJLSB) within the al-Duqm Port & Drydock of Duqm, Oman.
As per the terms of AUKUS, it is also possible that Australian will offer basing access to facilitate regular deployments of UK nuclear attack submarines, at HMAS Stirling, Western Australia. This is more relevant to reinstating Royal Navy submarine presence in the eastern Indian Ocean. As of now, there are no plans for there to be a permanent base anywhere in the Indian or Pacific Ocean, let alone Singapore. Furthermore, it is unlikely Singapore would offer that to the UK, and risk being seen as part of the American camp against China. Singapore wants to maintain the appearance of neutrality.
At the moment, there are two patrol
vessels in the area. They are not much
for force projection, but are there more to demonstrate presence. It is more than likely that the Royal Navy facility
in Sembawang Naval Base, Singapore, will serve as the primary logistics hub. The UK will eventually upgrade the patrol
vessels to Type-31 frigates. However,
this does not constitute an actual forward deployment to Singapore.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is the differences and similarities between Singaporean style of authoritarian governance and Chinese style of authoritarian governance?”
China is run by a one party system. The Chinese Communist Party controls everything. To succeed in such a system, it is necessary to be a member of the party. The Chinese Communist Party began as a form of totalitarian state, which has evolved into some form of post-totalitarian oligarchy. There are no elections in China, and political parties other than the Chinese Communist Party, are banned. There is strict control over the press and forms of expression, including art, film, and social media. The compact between the state and the people is that as long as the state delivers affluence, security and economic growth, the people leave the running of the state to the Party. To some extent, that has worked, and China is an economic power.
Singapore is a socialist democratic state. There are elections, political parties are
not banned, although political expression is heavily regulated to maintain harmony
in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society.
Singapore is far from a totalitarian state. While the press is regulated, it is not
censored. This applies to other forms of
free expression such as the arts. Movies
are largely censored for pornography and violence, as opposed to political
content. There is little oversight in
social media unless posts and comments fall afoul of existing laws on libel,
the maintenance of racial and religious harmony, or threaten the security of the
state. The system advantages the
incumbent, but it does not stifle political discussion.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What are the defense problems faced by Singapore after independence?”
When Singapore gained independence in 1965, it had no military, no indigenous defence industry to support such a military, no funds to grow either, and it lacked population homogeneity for unity. These conditions all but guaranteed that Singapore would eventually be absorbed by a larger neighbour, or be reduced to client status by them or a foreign power. It is a testament to the brilliance of the government that these issues were addressed, along with the strategic considerations that arose from addressing these issues. Not enough study is done on the leadership required to get this done, bringing an impoverished island with no resources to its current status as a regional military power with force projection well beyond what is expected.
Malaya had just about won the Communist Insurgency, and defeated the Malayan Communist Party, although the PAP still had leftist elements then. Further to that, Singapore and Malaysia were involved in an undeclared conflict with Sukarno’s Indonesia, called the Konfrontasi. On the 10th March 1965, MacDonald House, in Orchard Road, was bombed by Indonesian commandos who had infiltrated the country. This meant Singapore’s most hardened troops were at the Borneo border.
When Singapore separated from Malaysia, the divorce was painful. In the election prior, when the PAP campaigned in Malaysia for a “Malaysian Malaysia”, instead of a “Malay Malaysia”, UMNO were outraged and played the race and religion card. The main instigator was Syed Jaafar bin Syed Hassan Albar, the so-called “Lion of UMNO”. He was a radical Malay supremacist, despite the fact that he was clearly Yemeni Arab, and not Malay. He was vehemently against Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, and resigned as secretary-general of UMNO in protest. He went as far as to advocate that Malaysia militarily occupy Singapore.
At the time of Separation, almost half of the troops based here were from Malaysia. When the British gave control of the various units to Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, they neglected to consider that the units were recruited from all over the Malay Peninsula. We had Singapore-born Malays and Malaysian-born Malays in the armed forces and the police. The 4th Malaysian Infantry Brigade consisted of two infantry regiments of about 1,000 soldiers each. Just over half of them were Malaysian, and they had divided loyalties. They were commanded by Brigadier-General Syed Mohamed bin Syed Ahmad Alsagoff, a relative of Syed Albar, and another Yemeni Arab. To say that he did not get along with Lee Kuan Yew is to put it mildly. He claimed it was a joke when he told Lee Kuan Yew that he could have had the PAP leaders arrested and shot. Lee Kuan Yew and his family moved out of the Istana and borrowed the Gurkha Regiment to guard them.
The Malaysian troops, all ethnic Malays, mutinied. Just over half of them supported Malaysia. One of the Singapore officers was killed. It was Col. Alkaff, BG Alsagoff’s cousin, who negotiated a withdrawal of the Malaysian troops. The 4th Malaysian Infantry Brigade withdrew from Singapore by November of 1967. The murderers of the Singapore officer were arrested. Two were hanged, and the others were only released from detention a decade or so ago. This situation highlighted the fact that Singapore could not trust the leadership of Malaysia. This shaped our strategic thinking.
Compounding all these issues, on the 16th January 1968, Prime Minister James Harold Wilson and his Defence Secretary, Denis Winston Healey, announced the withdrawal of British military assets from east of Suez. This meant the loss of British military support in Singapore, and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, further exacerbating the insecurity and poverty.
Singapore began in extremely difficult circumstances. We are bereft, alone, and without friends. We were surrounded by countries that we had recently had conflicts with. We were a nation of immigrants, with no common cause. We were susceptible to foreign domination. If there was one thing we had, it was leaders of rare ability, led by Lee Kuan Yew. They sold the people the promise that the sacrifice of that generation would be the foundation of future prosperity. They delivered an honest, efficient, authoritarian government. That generation put in place the values that built this nation. Our challenge now is to live up to their values, to make their sacrifices worthwhile, to honour them – and to continue to work towards brining Singapore to the next level.
Today, we have a prosperous, stable nation. Because of the scarcity mindset of those early
days, Singapore built up huge reserves, created a military budget that dwarves
its neighbours, and invested in next generation technologies to create a
military industrial complex that is one of the best in Asia.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Is the ruckus over the US Summit for Democracy a sign Singapore is unsafe?”
In what way is that a sign Singapore is unsafe? In what way was that a ruckus? The so-called Summit for Democracy was a virtual summit hosted by the United States. It was a cynical political ploy to create a coalition against China. The invite list itself demonstrated nothing about the stated goals of the event, which was to defend against authoritarianism, address and fight corruption, and advancing respect for human rights. Countries participating in the event, such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa and Pakistan are hardly the sort of government we associate with these themes. The event was a joke, and did nothing to advance American interests. In fact, it actually diminished American credibility.
Singapore likely signalled that it did not want to be invited. It does not advance our interests to be part of this circus. We are non-aligned. We are not partners in American gamesmanship unless it is in our interests. Our non-participation is a sign of strength. Why do we need to go out of our way to antagonise China when they are our major trade partner? What would we gain from that? We are already a strategic partner with the Americans in the region without blowing trumpets and advertising it. We are not the Australians; we understand subtlety.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How would a ground-based army protect itself from a swarm of drones?”
Drone are not fully autonomous. We have not invented true artificial intelligence yet. They need to be controlled from somewhere, and that means there is an electronic data link which can be jammed, or in some cases, even hacked. In the case of asymmetrical warfare, drones often use Wi-Fi or local bandwidths, which make them easier to jam because they are not as secure as compared to a link from satellite, which a modern military uses.
The second consideration is that drone swarm are small. Large drones are horrendously expensive, and the swarm size is limited by the telecommunications infrastructure. In a war situation, much of that would either be jammed, or the local infrastructure destroyed. The small size of the drones in the swarm also limits payload. We are looking at small rockets, not missiles, due to weight. We are looking at small calibre arms with limited ammunition capacity, not large calibre arms due to the recoil.
Finally, a modern military is unlikely to travel without an air defence umbrella of some sort. The guns that can shoot down low flying aircraft and helicopters with proximity fuses will be just as effective against drones. Drones are most effective when used to sneak up on targets to paint it, and shoot, and then leave. Drone swarms are not sneaky. They are an obvious glass cannon.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How can terrorism be completely eradicated?”
Terrorism is a political tool, a means of asymmetrical warfare, where a militarily weaker force engages in the calculated use of violence or the threat of it as a means of coercion and intimidation. The intent is always a political goal. The rhetoric often utilises ideology or religion to justify these acts, and gain support from elements of the population already disenfranchised or disenfranchised by these acts of terror. As such, as long as there is an asymmetric sharing of power in any political system, and the weaker party sees no means to address that within the structure of that system, terrorism will always be a viable tool. It can never be completely eradicated.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How would a military stealthily insert a special operations team
into another country or region with tight security and advanced security
systems, without that region being aware of it?”
Many people have proposed HALO insertions. HALO insertions work in an environment where the insertion force either has air dominance, or the security level is low. In a region of high security, the aircraft will be picked up, even if it is a long way for the ground landing zone, and there will be a welcome party. When HALO was first pioneered, decades ago, the idea was that the opening was well below radar detection range. The falling human body has a low infrared signature and negligible radar cross section. That is lost once the chute opens. Modern radar can detect that chute. There is a limit as to how high a human being must be to open that chute, without dying on landing. That limitation is physics.
The best way to insert a team into an operational theatre is actually from the ground. If the area is near the coast, then sea may be preferable. Some special operations teams are inserted as civilians: aid workers, diplomatic team, trade delegations, whatever. Done properly, that is the best cover. In Operation Spring of Youth, in 1973, they were inserted via naval landing, on the beach and dressed in drag.
In most planned operations, insertion is one of the easier parts of the operation. Done properly, the enemy may not even know there is a team in country, or where it is operating. It is once the mission gets hot, and the shooting starts, where it gets complicated. Exfiltration is often one of the most dangerous and difficult parts of the mission to plan.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Is Saudi Arabia funding ISIS?”
Saudi Arabia, like the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, the US, and Israel, among others, funded groups that were useful in opposing the government of Bashar Hafez al-Assad, the President of Syria. They coalesced into the various groups known as the Syrian Opposition, during the Syrian Civil War. Some of those groups were offshoots of Al-Qaeda, and formed what eventually became known as the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh. They were useful pawns in fighting the Syrian Army, Iranian-backed militias, and other groups. That they belonged to the same Wahhabi sect as the Saudis made them palatable. When the atrocities of ISIS became documented and well-known, they became a political liability and an embarrassment. This swayed international opinion against ISIS, affiliated groups within the Syrian Opposition such as Al-Nusra Front, and their known backers.
In summary, Saudi Arabia did fund ISIS, and continued to fund them discreetly even after their atrocities became known, although funding slowed. Saudi allies in the region such as the US only actively fought with ISIS after Russia intervened in the name of stopping terrorism, and were forced to do so for the sake of optics. What ISIS is now is exactly how the 3rd Saudi state began almost a century ago.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Which global industries and markets will be disrupted the most if
China invades Taiwan?”
If Chine decides to invade Taiwan, it would crash the global economy. China is not Russia. It is the 2nd largest economy in the world. You cannot simply sanction it. China is also the largest manufacturer in the world. That sort of production base cannot simply be replaced. We will have supply chain bottlenecks in every industry and almost every market.
Secondly, the Taiwan Straits is a major waterway for shipping. This is not some poor, largely landlocked, nation in central Europe. Ships cross the North Pacific, from the East Coast of North America to Northeast Asia, and then down to Southeast and South Asia, and back. Cargo from Northeast Asia also comes through the straits, crosses the Indian Ocean, and transits the Suez Canal to Europe. Any disruption to that traffic would have serious consequences to all those markets.
Any conflict involving Taiwan would be a major world war. The United States has given guarantees for Taiwan’s independence. They would be involved. This means American staging areas in South Korea and Japan are targets, bringing those nations into the war. North Korea and Russia will be pulled in, directly, or indirectly. ASEAN would fragment because some of those countries would support China, and the rest would either be neutral or support the United States. China has borders with nations in Central Asia, and would put pressure on them to escalate any low-intensity conflict there to keep American assets busy. China has ports in the Indian Ocean transit, and will disrupt shipping and supplies. The Americans would do the same, and all commercial shipping would come to a standstill. Markets do not react well to such a conflict.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What do you think of the passing of the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act (FICA) in Singapore?”
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 is a statute of the Parliament of Singapore. The intent is to provide the Ministry of Home Affairs with the powers required to investigate politically significant persons, defined as political parties; political office holders; all Members of Parliament, including the Non-Constituency MPs and Nominated MPs; the Leader of the House; the Leader of the Opposition; and election candidates, and their election agents. It is not limited to them, and may be expanded. The criticism that the powers granted are broad, but this is the first bill of its kind, to address an unprecedented situation, and we need to start somewhere. I expect that the act will be refined over time, and amended. That being said, it is necessary.
Singapore, and its government, have been targetted by foreign interests for some time, particularly from China, and elements of the American political class, to advance their agenda. In an age of extensive social media penetration, the manipulation of news, the proliferation of fake news, and attempts to manipulate the electorate has been noted in many places. An example of this is the election of Donald John Trump, and the subversion of the American electoral process at every level for partisan political agendas. Less public incidences, many of them difficult to prove include the foreign funds that poured into Indonesia at the last presidential election, which may have subverted the vote. This included manipulation of the voting computers, and ballots. There is also the concerted Russian campaign in Europe and the Middles East, using hacks, bots, fake social media accounts, and more.
Closer to our doorstep, Singapore’s concern is China. We are not going to say it explicitly, but China has cultivated academics, reporters, and persons of influence in Singapore and the region. We paid close attention to how the Chinese helped the Rajapaksa brothers to power, in return for control of Hambantota International Port, giving them a deep water port in the Indian Ocean, and inflaming tensions with India. Sri Lanka was once thought to the fastest growing economy in South Asia. Now, it has regressed. Unchecked growth of Chinese influence on our population is detrimental to Singapore. The Chinese consider the island a “Chinese” island due to its Chinese majority, discounting the significant non-Chinese minority.
There is further concern that several so-called independent media outlets are funded by interests that are contrary to Singapore’s. These independent media, including the Online Citizen, were funded by foreign interests, to fulfill a specific agenda, while masquerading as independent critics of Singapore. Specific political parties and Opposition politicians are also thought to be clandestinely funded by foreign organisations and individuals such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. These include individuals who are largely based overseas, and only come back to contest elections. They are not the sort of people we want in our Parliament.
The Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act (FICA) is a necessary tool to protect the independence of Singapore, and maintain the integrity of our political and judicial processes. The average Singaporean is not aware of the extent of the counterespionage campaign that is fought in the shadows as we balance differing national interests and maintain our neutrality.
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why does the world bend over for China?”
The world does not bend over for China. China is the 2nd largest economy
in the world. That makes China very
influential. However, we are living in a
multipolar world, and China does not have everything her own way. China has territorial disputes with almost
every country it borders. China has a
trade dispute with the US and Europe.
China is facing pushback on its One Belt, One Road initiative in Africa and
Asia. Based on all
this, and more, precisely how does the world “bend over” for China?
The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Hypothetically, can the US beat China over Taiwan in a war scenario?”
That really depends on what sort of war scenario you mean. If the intent is to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, the US will succeed easily. The Taiwan Strait, which separates China from the renegade province is around 160 km wide. The Taiwanese military is of uncertain morale and is thought to lack resilience, but China still needs to secure air and naval dominance to safely send over the invasion force. That is not possible. Taiwan’s military is well under 200,000 active personnel. That means China would need around 300,000 troops just to secure a beachhead and breakout.
You cannot plan to mobilise that many troops and assets quietly. The American will know and the Taiwanese will know. Assets will be moved into the region, and we are likely to see up to three carrier groups, including submarines. The US already has troops and bases in Japan, South Korea and islands in the Pacific West. The Americans also have assets to control the Straits of Malacca, where all the oil needed to feed the war effort is going to pass. All parties know that the US does not need to defeat the Chinese military in its entirety to end the invasion. They simply need to make it very expensive in terms of cost and casualties. A major defeat would seriously dampen the legitimacy of the Communist leadership, and there will be domestic consequences.
China need only wait, and Taiwan will eventually seek a
merger. Even if they were to
successfully invade Taiwan, the cost of integrating the Taiwanese economy would
be astronomical and crash China’s economy.
The Chinese are not stupid.
