By Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Like many other Singaporeans I was shocked when I heard about the case of  the UK  mother divorced from a Singaporean husband and the ensuing  bitter custody dispute over their son. Custody battles and marital breakdown are never pleasant but what shocked me most was the light this case shed on our Ministry of Home Affairs whom it appears have been literally asleep on the job. Who actually is guarding our Island and protecting our interests?
To recap on the case. The mother had obtained  a court order in the UK giving her custody of her son but the boy’s father had successfully applied for an injunction in Singapore to prevent her taking the child whom he had taken to reside with his Singaporean parents. I do not understand why the father was able to block enforcement of a UK court order granting the mother custody and I sympathise with the mother who was able to convince a UK court that she was a fit person to have custody. However, what she did next was extraordinary. She hired a former London Metropolitan detective to help her recover her child and to abduct him back , by return as it were.
I do not understand why the agency she hired, Child Abduction Recovery International, did not advise her to use the legal route rather than embark on this course of action. But whatever the  reason we should be grateful that and the former London Metropolitan detective, Adan Whittington she hired was able to uncover a huge breach in our national security. After just one day of reconnaissance in Singapore  he found out a universal truth about Singapore and they were able to easily enter Singapore illegally.

Sailboats at Raffles Marina - William Cho, Wikimedia Commons. Please note that the name of one of the boats is purely coincidental.
Sailboats at Raffles Marina – William Cho, Wikimedia Commons. (The name of one of the boats is purely coincidental.)
The universal truth he uncovered is that (particularly wealthy) foreigners enjoy privileges and freedoms in Singapore denied to us lesser mortals (the locals).  In this case Mr Whittington soon identified a bastion of privilege and wealth, almost another country in itself, namely Raffles Marina.
Yet again our border protections and security services have been shown to be inadequate and the personnel charged with enforcing border security incompetent if not criminally negligent.
The former Met detective should actually be praised for his public service to Singapore in highlighting the huge flaws in our security. In a day he was able to establish that our marinas are unguarded and an easy entry point into Singapore for any potential terrorist with a dirty bomb or biological weapons or dirty funds for laundering or indeed human trafficking. I am often told by anti-death penalty activists that drugs are still very easy to obtain in Singapore despite the well-used death penalty, and now I understand why.
It was not as though the couple landed on a beach or secluded inlet. Why are yacht marinas which one would have thought would have been an obvious weak point, not under 24 hour surveillance and security? If no immigration personnel are on duty between 6pm and 9am then surely it should be impossible to access or exit the marina? Perhaps the PAP Government’s over eagerness to establish Singapore as a yachting hub for gambling millionaires makes them unwilling to subject owners of yachts to the same laws that lesser mortals like you and I have to obey. After all the PAP’s thinking is probably that anyone who owns or is a passenger on a yacht must be a person whom we want to attract.
The fact that this kind of blunder has happened so frequently would be farcical were the implications for national security not so grave. There was the Mas Selamat incident in 2008, though there the security services were unable to prevent him leaving the country rather than entering. Recently there was the case of the Malaysian woman who was able to get through the Causeway checkpoint by tailgating another car. She was able to drive off before the immigration officer raised the alarm or lowered the barrier. Then she was able to give the police the slip for three days. She actually had to drive into the MFA and create a disturbance before the police were able to apprehend her.
This failure at the most basic level of border security is inexcusable, particularly when contrasted with the amount of money  spent on defence and defending our skies. This amounted to some $12.5 billion in 2014 or 3.4% of GDP. By contrast Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia spend much less than Singapore on defence as a proportion of GDP. Parliament is not provided with a breakdown of this spending between equipment and manpower  so once again we are left to speculate. My conservative guess would be that more than one-third of this goes on equipment purchases. Recently Jane’s Defence Weekly speculated that Singapore had increased the number of F15SGs, one of the most advanced fighters in the world,  it operates to 40. Coupled with over 70 F16s we have by far the most powerful air force in ASEAN.
I am not advocating cutting defence spending, particularly at a time of rising external threats. There is certainly no economic need to do so since the PAP Government is running a budget surplus of about three times the current level of defence spending. I support the reduction of NS to twelve months or less and a larger professional army which may even lead to higher defence spending. However, I do feel that we need to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of existing weapons programmes and proposed future purchases, particularly when the Government is unable to prevent what next time could be terrorists landing at a regular marina in Singapore without any kind of border control or screening.
Without surveillance what is to prevent them offloading miniaturised Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) such as dirty nuclear bombs or lethal biological weapons. Even conventional weapons could be smuggled in.  We are an island and our coast is a natural barrier but also a potential weakness. Let us spend a fraction of what we spend on sophisticated air weapons like the F15 and the proposed F35 Lightning II purchase, on ensuring these basic security lapses do not recur.
Having such negligent border oversight demonstrates that the Home Affairs Minister, Teo Chee Hean, is incompetent and should be replaced.  In any other country sch a serious lapse would result in a public enquiry and heads would roll. How did he get to be Admiral without understanding seaborne threats to our security?  At the very least he owes us Singaporeans an apology. He is clearly not fit to be a Minister drawing over two million dollars a year plus his MP’s allowance.
What are the chances of him doing the decent thing and resigning? I think the chances are close to zero but  the people of Pasir Ris-Punggol deserve better and presumably can make their feelings known at the next election!
This article first appeared on Rethinking The Rice Bowl, Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s blog.
Top image – screen capture from The Telegraph.

Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

前学者:家长式作风、社会工程和威权主义,乃精英化政策之表征

李光耀公共政策研究院前副院长刘浩典教授,指出新加坡的精英主义,通常不是因为“成功新加坡人缺乏同情心”,或社会开支不足,反之,更多是源于“非常精英化”的政府政策和决策过程。 针对学者李秀萍和前政府投资公司经济师杨南强,提及现有对低收入群体支援不足、小贩面对压力的情况,刘浩典于上周五再次撰文,提醒精英化的政府政策,透过三大方面展现: 其一,家长式作风,认为所有人只要遵守新加坡精英们的设想去做,社会就会变得美好。 二,社会工程:自以为政府可以打造出精英们所设想的社会。 三,威权主义:极度怀疑公民社会、独立媒体或任何可能挑战政府权威和专业的非政府行动主义者。 倨傲的精英和复杂社会情势极不搭调 他直言,上述信念不仅非常精英且倨傲,甚至和越发复杂的社会情势极不搭调。 “随着社会问题越发复杂,就没有绝对清晰的解决方案。正确的做法,应该是更加谨慎、时常检视自身是否存在偏见、决策上也不宜过早妄下定论。” 讽刺的是,近年来的局势发展恰恰相反:对于越发复杂的情境,人民行动党政府却越发坚持其核心理念,从当前对最低薪资制的论战中,就可见一斑。 他补充,政府显而易见的精英主义,也体现在把人民当作实现他们宏伟愿景的工具,例如小贩们面对的处境就是最佳例子。 小贩政策偏离小贩实际需求 “政府谈的都不是小贩们真正需要的东西。小贩们只是政府为了实现某些目的的手段:负担得起的小贩美食、“充满活力”的小贩中心,提升小贩生产力、打造只会国家和申遗等等。”…

MOE: Three new MOE Kindergartens to be opened in 2018 at Punggol

Minister of Education (MOE) has announced that in 2018, it will be…

Mediation centre set to help firms avoid expensive and time-consuming court battles

The Singapore Construction Mediation Centre (SCMC), which focuses in the construction industry…

抨击陈振声巧言令色 杨南强:“如有诚意促进社会平等,何以基薪政策仍可悲?”

“如果我们的最高领导们,真的有诚意帮助社会弱势群体、创造更平等的机会,为何我们扶助绝对贫穷群体的基本薪资政策,还是如此可悲?” 新加坡政府投资公司前首席经济师杨南强,抨击贸工部长陈振声,与其巧言令色声称精英应该回馈社会,倒不如把拨款用在更实质、有效的政策,以便在更大程度上根除令新加坡耻辱的贫富不均问题。 杨南强是针对上月26日,陈振声在公共政策研究所的论坛上发表的谈话,于前日于脸书撰文公开抨击后者。 陈振声在公共政策研究所30周年论坛上,参与讨论贫富不均课题,他曾指出,经一番努力而取得成就的人不应被泛指为精英主义者,只要他们关心较弱势群体,尽力回馈社会,就不宜给他们贴上这样的负面标签。 杨南强:国家有能力提高就业入息补助 也曾担任国大李光耀公共政策研究所兼职教授的杨南强,指出我国绝对有能力把就业入息补贴计划和乐龄补助计划,提升到每月600元,让那些收入不足的群体能满足基本需求。 “然而,决策者仍冥顽不灵,不愿为涵括大部分绝对贫穷、年长群体的这两项政策,投入更多。” 这笔花费只占GDP的不到一巴仙,无需增加税收。多数研究表明,扩大辅助不会减少工作动力,反而能大大改善穷人的自主能力。 仁政从改革社会政策开始 “恰恰是在上世纪90年代、2000-2010年间,我国落实的过度移民政策压低了劳工工资,形成了穷忙族,至少有30-40万人口活在绝对贫穷中。” “陈振声部长作为有才智、风度的领导者,曾在社会与家庭发展部和文化、社区及青年部任职超过三年,以及执掌职总秘书长一职达三年。如果这么多年来,他位处高职都没有、没办法去改善贫穷者的处境,那请问还有哪些精英领导会这么做?” 他在文末告诫政府精英们,真正有智慧的仁政,应该是从更深层的政策思想转变和国内社会改革开始,否则所有的漂亮话都只是空谈而已。