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

5 Minutes With… Leong Sze Hian on NTUC discounts

TOC spends 5 minutes with Leong Sze Hian discussing the NTUC’s U-Stretch vouchers for poorer Singaporeans.

Unfair demands on opposition

The following is Ravi Philemon’s original letter to ST Forum. I refer…

What exactly is the change in PAP’s promise?

Howard Lee / As General Election 2011 was drawing to a close,…

丈夫心脏病骤逝 被指没呈报病历无法索赔

德士司机因心脏病身亡,申请家庭保障计划(Home Protection Scheme)赔偿,却被告知无法索赔,理由是他在购买HPS时,未呈报患有糖尿病和心脏疾病。 德士司机佘春华的遗孀李悦,昨日在《联合早报》撰文分享的经历,引起网民愤慨:李悦称,其丈夫在五个月前载送客人,在高速公路行驶时心脏骤停,但仍用尽最后一口气把德士停在路边,车子和客人毫发无伤。 李悦在这篇题为《我们家的悲凉中秋》表示,丈夫被送到加护病房,她挣扎着是否够负担医药费,最后只好选择拔管送走了丈夫。 面对丧夫之痛,邻居提醒她仍可向家庭保障计划索赔,还能保住房子。公积金局官员也安慰她,已展开索赔程序,不过仍要按时缴交每月1100元的房贷。好心人借了5千元给她,才勉强撑到今天。 但是,临近中秋节时,她却收到公积金来信,指佘春华当初购买HPS,没有呈报患有糖尿病和心脏病,不能索偿,结果李悦只领到公积金局退回的269.46元保费余额。 “信政府才签下保单” “我丈夫是在建屋局签下HPS的,如果有关人员询问,他不会故意隐瞒自己有慢性疾病病史,医院有记录,他也隐瞒不了。现在承保方如何证明签购HPS时已经询问他的健康状况,如何证明已经解释有关条款?当他走进政府部门大门时,他相信这份保险是政府提供的一份保障,跟政府签文件无需怀疑,现在人走了,还落个“不实”的语垢。” 佘春华的HPS保费在去年涨至1382.16元,李悦认为假设丈夫还在世,可能还继续交保费,保那根本不会兑现的海市蜃楼。 德士公司只保车和“活跃”司机 另一方面,德士公司的“效率和冷静”也让李悦感到心寒。她指出,丈夫逝世后,德士公司便来函说已拖回德士,惟找不到车钥匙,还被索讨了25.58元的“修理费”。…