Quora Answer: Will the UK Forward Deploy a Royal Navy Frigate to Singapore in the Next Few Years?

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.

Quora Answer: Was the Home Office Right to Strip the Jihadi Jack of His British Citizenship?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Was the Home Office right to strip the ISIS fighter known as the Jihadi Jack of his British citizenship?”

The case of Jack Abraham Letts losing his citizenship is as much a trial by media, and the failure of the British to perform their consular duties, as it is the idiocy of Jack and his ridiculous ignorance of Islam, Middle East politics, and a foreign culture.

Firstly, we know he is a convert to Islam, who understands some Arabic, but has demonstrated no knowledge of the religion, no knowledge of the politics of Syria and Iraq, and had no business going there in the middle of a civil war.

Secondly, whilst there is anecdotal evidence that he may have had some sympathies for ISIS, we have no evidence that he was ever part of the group, that he was ever engaged in combat, or any other activity that would be construed as terrorism.

It was the British media that dubbed him “Jihadi Jack”, and that coloured the entire conversation.  The Conservative government did not want the legal complication of bringing Jack back to the UK to stand trial, and establish the facts, so they played to the gallery, the anti-Muslim hysteria of their base, and took a unilateral course of action by revoking his citizenship.

This sort of precedent is dangerous for a democracy since it means a government has carte blanche to strip the citizenship of people who have plausible or established citizenship with another nation, without actual legal recourse.  Today, it is used against real or supposed ISIS supporters.  Tomorrow, it could be used against political undesirables of the ruling party.

Quora Answer: If a Relatively Small Island Like the UK Could become a World Power, Why Can Singapore Not Become a Regional Power?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “If a relatively small island like the UK could become a world superpower, why can Singapore not become a regional power in Southeast Asia?” 

This can be argued in several ways depending.  My contention is that Singapore is already a regional power in Southeast Asia.  It is the single wealthiest nation in the region, with an economic clout that dwarfs any other nation in Southeast Asia.  All the wealth of the region, from trade to banking passes through Singapore.  That means Singapore subtly influences the economic policy of the region since the wealthiest citizens of Southeast Asian nations keep much of their wealth there. 

Geographically, Singapore is the centre of Southeast Asia, astride sea routes through both the Malacca and the Sunda Straits.  It is the busiest port by a mile.  It is also the air cargo hub, as well as the transportation hub for passenger traffic.  It controls the lifeline of the region.  As a founding member of ASEAN as well as several regional, extra-regional, and international groupings and initiatives, from trade to military, Singapore exercises outsized influence on the foreign policy of regional nations.  Almost all of it is soft power diplomacy.  Things are done quietly behind the scenes.  Additionally, it is aligned with both the United States and China in international relations, a feat that few nations have achieved.  This allows it to define the regional agenda in terms of security and diplomacy. 

From a strictly military perspective, Singapore is the most militarised nation in Southeast Asia, with almost 10% of its population either actively serving or in reserve.  It has been estimated to have a military of 350,000 personnel by some analysts out of a population of 5 million.  It is credibly documented that Singapore is able to mobilise a substantial military force within 24 hours, at least 2 brigades.  And has a mobility ratio of close to 3 men per vehicle. Singapore also has to most advanced military, in terms of technology and doctrine.  Its military budget, in real terms, dwarfs that of its neighbours. 

Singapore has the largest number of fourth generation fighter aircraft.  It fields a disproportionately large mechanised infantry and armour force.  It also has to best artillery.  Its naval forces field the most advanced ships, included stealth vessels.  It has access to the latest weaponry the United States has to offer, being a valued customer, and it is NATO compatible.  Additionally, there is substantial foreign military force based in Singapore for various reasons, including American, British, Australian, and Israeli. 

There are only two factors that preclude Singapore from being considered a regional power in a conventional sense.  Singapore does not cover a large geographic extent, and it has a tiny population compared to its giant neighbours, Indonesia, Vietnam and Philippines.  In all other counts, there is no doubt Singapore is the regional power.  And this is evident when we consider how often world leaders visit Singapore as opposed to any other nation in Southeast Asia.

Quora Answer: If Iran Used Mines to Attack Oil Tankers in International Waters, Would You Support the Use of the US Military to Eliminate the Iranian Threat?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “If Iran used mines to attack oil tankers headed to Japan, in international waters, would you support the use of the US military to eliminate the Iranian military threat?”

The only source of these allegations of Iranian aggression is the US, and the US is far from the most credible source.  The US has been using the same methods to justify aggression for decades, from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to start the Vietnam War, to the debunked claims of weapons of mass destruction to invade Iraq, to this.  The UK government is America’s lapdog.  Their verification carries no worth either.

The US has been agitating for war with Iran for decades.  This is not new.  It was the CIA which overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, in a 1953 coup, and installed the Shah as an American puppet.  When the Shah was overthrown, the US used a proxy to invade Iran in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution.  They sanctioned Saddam Hussein’s invasion which lead to the Iran-Iraq War, and funded him.  American aggression against Iran is not new.

In light of this, who, in their right mind, would sanction further American military adventure and regime change for their selfish interests, and upset the international order?  It was American meddling that created the vacuum that allowed groups such as ISIS to gain traction.  Iran will have Russian and Chinese help.  There is a danger that this will turn into a global conflict, and all because America’s leadership is infested with jingoistic warmongers.

Quora Answer: Why Do Some Bangladeshi & Malaysian Citizens Who Voted “Leave” during the Brexit Referendum Feel Betrayed?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why do some Bangladeshi and Malaysian citizens, who voted leave during the Brexit referendum, feel betrayed despite the referendum never talked about Commonwealth citizens visa status?”

People vote according to self-interest.  The average person is selfish, and prioritises his needs, and the needs of his community, above others.  This is a reality.  People also vote according to their fears, and these fears are often irrational, based on ignorance and prejudice.  One of the ways to close a deal is to give people what they want, and that is what good politicians are masters at.  A good politician is not necessarily a good legislator, a good policymaker or, even, a good person.  Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a good politician.  That is why, so-called gaffe after gaffe, after every revelation of malfeasance and impropriety, he is still a leading member of his party.  He is a reflection of the nature of the people.

People get the leaders they deserve.  If enough of the electorate had principles, dear old Boris would not be around after all his instances of racism, prejudice, class snobbery and deception.  That he is still there, with significant support, means that enough people share his values to support him.  People like Boris and Michael Andrew Gove appeal to the lowest common denominator of the people: their prejudice and ignorance.  They sold discrimination of EU nationals to these Malaysians, Bangladeshis, and others from the Commonwealth.  These Commonwealth citizens were stupid to not understand that he would lie to them as easily as he lied all those other times before.  We should have no sympathy for these people.

Quora Answer: What Contributes to the Soft Power of Relatively Smaller Countries Like the UK & Singapore?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What contributes to the soft powers of relatively smaller countries like the UK and Singapore?  Are they sustainable in your opinion?”

The term “soft power” was coined by Dr. Joseph Samuel Nye Jr., an American political scientist, in the 1990s.  He further expounded on it, in his book, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”, published in 2004.  Nye defined it as the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion.  Interestingly, Nye is also the intellectual architect of American neoliberalism.

As per “The Soft Power 30 Report of 2018”, the United Kingdom is top of the list, and Singapore, one of the smallest nations in the world, is at number 21.  The UK has some inherent advantages, and established institutions that help it maintain its position as one of the most culturally influential nations on the world.  And this is despite the debacle of a drawn-out Brexit.  Much of her soft power lies in her cultural influence, her engagement with her former colonies, and in education.

For example, the publicly funded BBC has been instrumental in continuing to spread British influence and cultivate soft power through its cultural and educational engagement.  The BBC World Service still has a substantial global following, and is viewed as far more credible than American news outlets.  There is a flourishing arts, music, film and fashion scene, independent of the British government.  The English Premier League is still the most popular football league in the world.  These are all areas of soft power that the UK excels at.  They are not a “small nation” in the global sense.

Singapore is one of only four Asian countries in the top 30 of the global soft power index, and was just edged into 21^st place by South Korea, riding the K-Pop wave.  Regardless, it is punching way above its weight considering the fact that it is, by far, the smallest nation both in geographic size and population.  However, its footprint is large.  What Singapore lacks in cultural depth because it is a new nation that has not even reached a century, it makes up in innovation, technology, governance, and business model.  It attracts the wealthiest and the most ambitious, and is a major banking and business hub.  Singapore is the Wakanda of the world.  Singapore overcomes its limitations in engagement by the wholesale adoption of social media by the government and private sector, making it the most connected nation in the world.  Its reputation as a safe neutral venue makes it one of the few viable places to hold events such as the historic China-Taiwan summit and the US-North Korea summit.  This means that while it is not particularly visible in the popular consciousness beyond its region, it is well-known and respected in the corridors of power.

Both Singapore and the UK have been consistently ranked on the index since its inception in 2015.  What Singapore does is the result of clever positioning on the global stage.  The immense wealth that it has garnered has also allowed it to finance this successfully.  These are not options available to many small nations of similar population size.

Smaller nations come in two types: developing and poor, or immensely wealthy.  The former have no soft power because they are still grappling with issues a developing nations, such as corruption, conflict, and resource mismanagement.  Then there are nations such as Liechtenstein, Monaco and Luxembourg.  They are wealthy, but not cosmopolitan global cities.  Monaco is a tax haven and the playground of the ultra-wealthy.  Whilst there is some mystique to that, it is not as accessible.

Quora Answer: Which Country Punches above Its Weight Militarily & with Its Intelligence Agencies?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Which country punches above its size and weight militarily, and with its intelligence agencies?”

There are quite a few countries that punch way beyond their size.  The most famous of which is Israel.  To that, we can add the UK, which although being much diminished since their budget and size, still has an outsized footprint on the world stage.  The Royal Navy is still the standard in fleet movement and engagement.  The only time the USN has ever had fleet engagement of a serious contender was with the IJN during the 2^nd World War.  In contrast, the Royal Navy has been doing it for centuries.  American special forces were modelled after the SAS and other British SF groups, although there has been some divergence due to the technology gap, and differences in doctrine.  The Royal Marines, the SAS, and SBS are still the standard we all look at.

In terms of intelligence, one contender most never consider is the Singapore intelligence services.  Singapore is the sixth eye of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.  Most of our best work is done outside the country.  The price of our competence in taking care of issues before they become problems is that no one ever hears of these operations.  There will be no movies, no heroes, no public recognition.  That is the way it is supposed to be.

The SAF itself is extremely competent, although understandably secretive.  We have acquitted ourselves in war games with the US 7^th Fleet playing Opfor.  We are one of the few air forces who have demonstrated a consistent ability to take out a US carrier group.  The RSAF is also the only air force, besides Australia, in this region with the capability of extended deployments, including in-flight refuelling capability.  We could bomb Beijing and come back - although that would be extremely stupid.  The Army itself has personnel with combat experience, and regularly deploys to conflict zones to blood officers and men.  The Army SOF made a name for itself with SQ117 hijack.  Before that, they were in the shadows.  Singapore and Israel are the only countries that field the Iron Dome.

Quora Answer: Should European & UK Citizens Who Joined ISIS be Allowed to Return?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why should European and UK citizens who have joined ISIS be allowed to return now it is defeated?”

ISIS is not defeated.  ISIS has lost contiguous territory in Syria and Iraq, but it is not finished as a terror entity.  ISIS’ ability to wage war has been compromised, but its ability to inspire terror attacks around the world has not.

As for European and UK citizens, the question is not about allowing them to return but about the judicial and deradicalisation process.  In both areas, the EU is woefully under-equipped to deal with them, because they do not seem to understand the enemy they are fighting.  We are not dealing with people, but an ideology.  To destroy ISIS is to destroy its ideology.  This means we have to address not only these returning foreign fighters, but the underlying morass of sympathisers, supporters, and enablers.

The EU does seem to have either the mechanisms, or the political will, to do what is necessary.  This means detention without trial until intelligence can be processed, followed by judicial action, including execution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  This includes banning books, deporting hate preachers, shutting down mosques and Islamic organisations that have been compromised.  This means setting up a European entity to accredit scholars, audit organisations and movements, manage their own mosques and curb foreign jihadi influence.

The fight against radicalisation is a lot more difficult.  To erase the underlying support base, means addressing disenfranchisement, wealth disparity and the lack of social mobility.  People who are part of the community framework have no reason to turn against it.

Quora Answer: Do People Who Support Shamima Begum Support ISIS de Facto?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do people who support Shamima Begum support ISIS de facto?”

That is a ridiculous leap of logic.  Some people are opposed to her being barred from returning to the UK on principal.  They reason, quite rightly, that this is a slippery slope since she is not even a combatant, and this is a breach of international law.  Does this mean that the UK is going to ignore inconvenient international laws and conventions?  If she does, what moral authority does she have to demand the same of others?  What credibility does she have to avail herself to supranational organisations?  If the UK can revoke the citizenship of someone for what is essentially political reasons, how long before this is tested against people supporting governments and entities the current government does not approve of? 

From an intelligence and law enforcement perspective, it is illogical to simply revoke the citizenship of Shamima.  She is a source of intelligence on how ISIS radicalises, recruits and works.  She gets away with sedition and actively supporting an entity waging war against the state.  It would better serve the state that she be brought back, tried, and sentenced.  This sends the message that no one gets away from the law.

From the perspective of people involved in deradicalisation efforts, and counselling, they believe, rightly or wrongly, that she is a victim herself, and she should be counselled.  Some believe she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and a form of PTSD, leading to this state of denial.  Personally, I do not believe this, but there are people who do.

None of these perspectives, amongst many more, is remotely related to supporting ISIS.

Quora Answer: Is Singapore Leaving Malaysia a Good Analogy of the UK Leaving the EU?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Is Singapore leaving Malaysia a good analogy of the UK leaving the EU?”

This is a terrible analogy.  Singapore leaving Malaysia, is like the UK kicking out Scotland.  Singapore is very much part of ASEAN, being one of the founders.  Singapore’s success is because of its engagement with ASEAN, and being an integral part of the bloc.  I cannot see Singapore leaving ASEAN for the same reasons as Brexiters cite for voting Leave.

The assumptions of Leave voters are many, and most of them are not based on reality, but some fairytale that Michael Andrew Gove and company fed them.  The Commonwealth is not a trading bloc, and Commonwealth nations do not feel a nostalgic need to make the UK a major trading partner over existing arrangements.  There has to be some merit to that decision.  How is the UK going to replace that lost market so soon?

The UK is definitely going to have an immediate contraction in its economy because they lose access to their major markets.  They lose free movement within the EU, and there are new curbs on fund movements which will impact London’s previously unassailable position as the finance hub of the EU.

Quora Answer: Do the People of Singapore Want the British Back?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do the people of Singapore want the British back?”

Why ever for?  We have surpassed Great Britain in standard of living, and in wealth.  What can the British do for us, that we have not already done better?  If we want them back, it would be as investors and tourists.  You cannot turn back 50 years of independence.

It is arguable if most people in Singapore actually wanted independence back in the 1950s.  There was agitation for more self-governance, or even autonomy.  The people of Singapore understood then, that should the British pull out, this island did not have the economic depth, or the means to survive as it was.  Independence was achieved through a merger with Malaysia.  Separation was an unwanted reality, but Singapore not only survived, it prospered.  The British abandoned us then.

Now, Singapore is one of the major financial centres in the world, one of the wealthiest, most advanced nations, with a strong military and civil structure.  Why would we ant the British back?  In the half century that Singapore has prospered and grown, the United Kingdom has declined, and regressed.  It is a dead empire, harkening to lost glories.  What could the UK possibly offer us then?

If the question is economic growth, that is unlikely.  The UK have elected their own version of Donald Trump, a racist, misogynistic diplomatic bull in the EU china shop, who is busy destroying whatever semblance of continental unity, and alienating vast segments of the electorate through class and race warfare.  Singapore is a competitor with London as a global financial centre.  It is integrated within ASEAN as a founding member.  It has China on its doorstep.

If the question is military protection, that age is past.  The UK, according to the reports of its own Admiralty, has cut its defence budget to such an extent, under successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, that it is no longer in a position to enforce its interests in its near abroad, let alone an island at the other end of the world, in the middle of Southeast Asia.  Singapore has a larger tank, and fighter aircraft fleet than the UK.  We cannot depend on them for protection.

Singapore being part of the UK would only be a replay of the last stages of the British Empire, where she drained her colonies of wealth and resources to sustain her flailing foreign policy.  Singapore would be gutted financially to support a government that is focused on domestic survival.  When Great Britain cannot address the interests of Northern Ireland and Scotland, does anybody have confidence that she would care about our interests?

No sane person wants the return of British rule.  The Age of Brittania is history, and it should remain so.  Heaven forbid we be stuck with a Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, a Nigel Paul Farage, or a Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.

Quora Answer: Did the UK Fail Groomed Islamic State Bride, Shamima Begum?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Did the UK fail groomed Islamic State bride, Shamima Begum?”

We can argue that the UK government has failed a great many people.  It has failed the working poor, the homeless, the chronically ill, the middle class, minorities and so many sections of society.  How many of them decided to run to another country to wage war there, to support their war effort, to terrorise the vulnerable there, to fit suicide vests on sometimes unwilling people?

Shamima Begum has done terrible things, and she has no excuse.  She cannot claim society failed her when she willingly dove into the fire, and dragged others in.  Instead of entertaining her nonsense, she should be tried and executed.

Quora Answer: Can Brexit Make the UK the Money Laundering Capital of the World?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Can Brexit make the UK the money laundering capital of the world?”

London has been one of the major financial centres of the world for centuries.  By virtue of that, it is one of the main cities where money laundering takes place.  Vast sums can only be laundered in cities that have the financial infrastructure to handle those sums.  Bradford City, population 500,000, is never going to be that.

Money laundering requires major financial centres so that the placement, layering and integration of illicit funds can be masked by the volume of licit transactions taking place.  Major financial centres also have the connections to other markets that facilitate the movement of these funds before and after integration.  In that sense, London has been a money laundering “capital” for a long time.

Brexit may have two effects on this.  On one hand, we could conceivably see London decline in importance due to reduced access to the European Union, which would allow rival financial centres to grow, such as Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Brussels.  This may also, make it less attractive for some sources of illicit funds, particularly from Eastern Europe.  On the other hand, the UK would need to make up for the loss of income due to the trade barriers with the European Union that were previously not there.  This might cause the government to relax reporting standards to attract less savoury sources of funds.  However, this short-term fix would eventually devalue London as a financial centre as well, if it is not eventually curbed.