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

SAF Terrex ICVs back in the Republic

Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has announced that the nine Singapore Armed Forces…

月入不足1千500元获8万全津贴 李智陞称年轻情侣购五房式组屋

前日(21日),国家发展部长李智陞在个人脸书专页分享,有一对年轻情侣,成功申请到全额共8万元的额外安居津贴(Enhanced Housing Grant,简称EHG),并在父母家附近买下了一间五房式预购组屋单位。 2019年9月,政府推介额外安居津贴,协助更多国人达成拥屋梦。 截至去年12月31日,15个月以来,建屋局发放近5亿元,协助多达1万5600位首购族,成功申请道有关津贴购买新组屋或转售组屋。 上述津贴推出,以取代额外公积金购屋津贴,以及特别公积金购屋津贴。额外安居津贴的不同之处在于,买家不论购买新旧组屋,都能享有津贴,也不限任何屋型和地区。 不过李智陞的帖文,未说明究竟这对年轻情侣,在收入不足1千500元下是如何成功取得全额额外安居津贴?他仅表示若购屋者有意查询本身是否符合条件,可使用建屋局官网客制化的财务计算机计算。 这使得一些网友留言表达他们的困惑,如果这对情侣收入不足1千500元,将来要如何支付房贷,又要如何应付每日生计;也有者提及,至少申请了六、七次,还是申请不到。 男友申请时仍读大学最后一年 至于《联合早报》则专访了这对情侣卓劲安和张思敏。原来26岁的卓劲安在申请上述津贴时,当时还在新加坡理工大学修读最后一年的课程,至于女友也在半工半读,两人总月入不超过1500元。 这就意味着,两人符合取得最高津贴的条件。 根据建屋局官网,总月入不超过9000元的首次购屋家庭,可享有高达8万元的津贴。而收入不超过1千500元,意味着他们符合取得全额津贴的条件。…

BREAKING: AGC's response to the Woffles Wu case (17 June 2012)

1. We refer to the media reports about the case against Woffles…