Transcription
[Music] Welcome to Lens on Singapore.
National security isn't loud. It isn't glamorous. And it doesn't trend on Tik Tok. But in today's world, the threats don't necessarily come with sirens. They're quiet, creeping, and dangerously easy to ignore. In this SG60 special, we ask, is peace really as permanent as we think? What does it take to defend Singapore as the world gets more unstable and the threats more invisible? Joining me today to give us a current day understanding of the dangers, Minister K. Shangham, coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs. I'm Clarissa Montero. Minister, thank you so much for joining us today and having this conversation with me. Thank you.
Singapore's critical infrastructure had been under attack. You recently named UNC 3886, a state-backed cyber espionage group as an active threat. So the question is, is that still ongoing? How serious was the breach? And just how exposed are we today?
It is serious. They went for a very critical piece of infrastructure. Um, the aim of these state-backed tactus is um, generally to do espionage to get deep into your systems to be able to sometimes knock out your systems too when they want. They can, you know, sit there and the time is right, they can turn on the killer switch and right, you know, your power systems fail or your train systems, transport systems fail, uh, airports don't work, your electricity goes off. But beyond that, depending on where they get in, supposing they get into your telecom systems, they can listen in on conversations and see which are high value. They can try and take uh important pieces of information flowing through your cables. If they get into your say banking system, they can do serious damage to your financial services. So, a variety of things. So UNC 386 is still in our system. They targeted a very, very important high-value critical infrastructure. Uh, our people have been dealing with it and we're taking it very seriously and I don't think I can talk much more about it.
You know, to most Singaporeans, everything felt normal, still feels normal. Lights are on, trains are running as you said. Wi-Fi works. It, it, it's difficult for us to figure out why we should care. What's really at stake? And maybe you, you could tell us why is it so dangerous for us to look away?
I can understand the, the general Singaporeans approach. I mean, you know, what you know, and they are not in the deep security field. I get briefed by cybersecurity agencies or intel professionals. So I know, but if I didn't have that, the man in the street, how do you expect them to know? So we try and bring it across to them as best as we can. Essentially, you divide it into two parts. I spoke earlier about uh, an attacker sitting deep in your system. Say they are deep in your power system. They insert themselves. They wait and when they decide the time is right, they turn on the killer suit, as it were, and then suddenly many things go wrong. Stop there. Can be serious casualties, life can be completely thrown off-kilter, you know, if your airport stops functioning, your transport system stops functioning, your power systems stop functioning, you will have serious problems. As I said, you can even have very substantial casualties. So we should care, but I think um, the average person can only care when they understand. So we have to, as policymakers, bring across that understanding. So these um, cyber attacks are now, you know, part for the cause. They, many people do it. Some are more successful than others, and sometimes some are more egregious than others. And um, the UNCC 386 was a very egregious uh, case and it's something that all Singaporeans should both be aware and care a lot, and that depends on public education.
With AI now accelerating disinformation, how is Singapore defending itself not just militarily but psychologically, socially against these quieter, more insidious threats?
Okay. To answer that question, first, you've got to understand at least in broad terms what the threat is. In the past, countries had militaries either for offensive interest to attack, defensive interest to defend themselves. If you fast forward to today, countries still have militaries, but they see the potential of the internet to weaken your potential adversary, the other country. Even before you take kinetic action, even before your military takes action, you weaken the other society. How? Every society has fault lines. Some greater fault lines, some lesser fault lines. But the idea is that through the internet, through interfering in their society, you can deepen and worsen the fault lines. Let me give you a direct example. In the US, you had the Black Lives Matter movement. Black Lives Matter, I think, came partly as a response by the African-American community to what they felt were unjustified killings of African-Americans by, in particular, police forces. Yeah. Across the United States. In response, there was then a Blue Lives Matter movement. Blue being the uniform of the police. That the police lives also matter because you see a fair amount of shootings of police officers. Sure. And there are well-documented credible reports of foreign countries looking at this and saying, well, there are lines, false lines to be worked upon and made worse. Encouraging protest on both sides, encouraging um, conspiracy theories, putting out falsehoods. All of this makes people angry with between different groups and weakens society. That's a theory. We saw all of this happening. We have uh, moved, I think, uh, quite far ahead of maybe other countries in this context because we like to have a legal framework. We have the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act. It allows us to identify potential agents of influence and deal with them. FICA gives us power to identify and even tell people you ought not to be taking money from such and such organization because we see that that's influencing you and through you the rest of society, and you shouldn't become an agent of foreign influence, wittingly or unwittingly. So I would say this is a serious issue. It's happening everywhere around the world, particularly with the internet. As the ability and the speed with which you can do this has increased tremendously. In the past, foreign agencies would have to depend on uh, citizens or others living in the other country to help to spread the word to make things difficult for the other government. Spies or other kinds of agents. Now you can do it from outside. You can do it through the internet. All of us are so connected, and you don't need to set foot in another country in order to divide that country up along different lines. And we have many possible fault lines, race, religion. We are among the most religiously diverse countries in the world, you know, economic factors, many factors.
Have we already seen attempts to stir unrest and nudge the narratives within our society? And how close have we come to real damage?
You know, we have been the subject of such attempts for the longest time. You will see it in Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's books, how the Americans, others, including our neighbors, have attempted to influence politics here through politicians, through others. Spying is age-old. Espionage is age-old. As long as societies have been there, and we have been a high-value target for many countries. And even below the level of espionage, trying to get people in Singapore to speak up for others, you know, to persuade Singaporeans for a foreign point of view, we call that agent of influence. So you've always had that. The internet has, I would say, uh, turbocharged it because with the internet, you don't need often people in the country. You can do it from outside, as I just said. And uh, we do see. I'll give you a couple of examples. After the uh, changeover in the leadership, when Prime Minister Lawrence Wong took over, you saw a specific site coming out with various articles saying that our leaders, ministers, all in the pocket of a foreign party, of a particular foreign government, and trying to shape public opinion in Singapore to suggest that our top leadership was working for, or working with, or working in favor of some other foreign government. This is a foreign entity trying to use the internet to try and influence our public opinion, and we dealt with it by uh, blocking them, and first of all, exposing them, and then blocking them. A second example, extremely egregious, as during the general elections, two politicians from past, the Malaysian party, intervened directly. They claimed that they were not acting on behalf of PAS. But to my knowledge, this is the first time such an interference from a political party in Malaysia into the general elections in Singapore. And what did they say? One of them suggested that Singaporeans should vote in favor of a particular candidate, an opposition candidate. They were both going on very strong racial, religious lines. So it was all about Malay Muslim related issues. The other one reposted an article in which said that essentially the Malay Muslim MPs, candidates on the PAP slate, were not advancing, were not uh, protecting Malay Muslim interests, and that essentially, therefore, that Singaporeans should listen to PAS, or at least these PAS politicians, and vote for the opposition Malay candidate. So it is, I think, at its very essence, this is race politics at its worst, or race, religion, religious politics at its worst, asking people to vote along specific racial, religious lines and against the PAP by people representing a political party in Malaysia, who have no business interfering in our elections. And you can then tell clearly, they felt that from their perspective, the opposition Malay candidates, Malay Muslim candidates would suit their purposes better. I think Singaporeans really have to ask, is that what we want? Candidates endorsed by PAS politicians. Why did these two PAS politicians deem it fit to intervene? They saw the fault lines and political parties in Singapore. They obviously felt were campaigning along these lines, were exploiting this, and PAS politicians and jump on it again. So I think it starts off with us examining ourselves, our fault lines, and who was doing it first. Our own political parties were running ar sometimes overtly, sometimes less overtly, arguments along these lines, and the foreign politicians then jump on it. So we've seen this uh, we have measures to counter. I'm not going to say they're all 100% foolproof. It's a tough area, uh, because identity politics is still politics. And so why it, we have relied on the good sense of uh, politicians in Singapore to campaign on substantive uh, issues and try and avoid identity politics. But you know, that only holds as long as people want to play by those rules. And uh, if people go for votes regardless of uh, the interests of the country or the society as a whole, well, you know, that's one of the things that happens in many other countries. Singapore is unique. We haven't gone down that path, but we see worrying signs. And of course, foreigners are ever ready to jump in. We have legislation, we have tools, and in our toolkit, we have uh, various possibilities of dealing with it. But ultimately, it is a population, an enlightened population, that is the real antidote to this sort of behavior. So have we seen damage within the public? I think this sort of politics has had some impact in the public, and we'll have to try and repair it for the sake of Singapore as a whole.
Minister, there are a lot of Singaporeans who are younger than us. So to them, they have never known instability. Uh, we worry about complacency.
Again, as I said earlier, you can understand that the average Singaporean, they have busy lives, but they've never seen anything other than than the success story we are now. Exactly. And uh, so they have busy lives, they've got their work, they've got their families, they've got other things to do. This is not a country where the crime rate is high. It's not a country where things suddenly don't work. It's not a country that has been attacked, uh, because various policies have been put in place. For example, our defense forces are extremely strong. The whole idea is to deter any kind of attack. Otherwise, as a small country, you are vulnerable. Yeah. And so we have the deterrence, and deterrence has created circumstances favorable for peace. Likewise, we have kept crime low. So if your, your lift experience in Singapore is that everything works, most people are not coming across crime, and that would be the mindset. The longer things are peaceful, and the longer things remain this way, the less people would be worrying about something that is not part of their day-to-day uh, life or comprehension. And it's for us to highlight to them the potential risks, the risks that are lurking around that are unseen, but explain to them that when things do happen, Singaporeans have a fundamental vital role in us bouncing back. So, yeah, it's an issue.
Some of them are very passionate about certain issues, maybe not necessarily Singapore issues. For example, the, the conflicts in the Middle East. So, I'm asking you for your advice for these Singaporeans who are passionate. What are some constructive ways they can engage or get involved in conversation about these issues and conflicts in a positive way that could ultimately also strengthen the, the Singapore compact?
I would say not just some, a lot of young people in Singapore are passionate about a variety of causes. You know, I, I have been sort of amazed at the level of energy our young people have. It could be animals. It could be the less well-off. It could be on the education front. It could be on the international front. It could be on Gaza. Tremendous amount of energy. I think it shows a maturing society where people look beyond themselves and want to do, want to make the world a better place. And specific to Gaza or, you know, the what's happening in the Middle East or any other issues, really, what you really need are safe spaces for such conversations because where you don't have safe spaces, it can easily move on to become uh, an exercise hijacked by some group with a different agenda trying to stir up racial religious sentiments. Not everyone is like that. A small group with a specific agenda, sometimes backed by foreign actors, might try and do it. So you need safe spaces where people can talk about it and be taken seriously and not be attacked for their views. The government, through MDDI, creates many such safe spaces, brings young people together, and you know, young, old, middle-aged, whoever is interested, come together, and there are usually some experts, some, you know, moderators, and we discuss, and often ministers and other senior government officials, public officials, uh, are there to explain the government's point of view too. So there are many such events. Mhm. That's one. Second, for those who say, look, uh, I have my views, but more important, I want to take constructive action. We bring together regularly relief efforts for Gaza. We have done nine rounds, and for those who want to contribute in a tangible way, those are also avenues, right? The government collects and does ad drops. We work with the other regional countries. We try and help. So there are different ways of helping.
So you're saying they can volunteer for things like that?
Yes, of course. That sounds good.
You became the coordinating minister of national security. I think I'm not the only one in Singapore who thinks that basically means you deal with MND or MH. But I was wondering if there, if your portfolio actually stretches wider.
I take uh, charge of the security side. Of course, I'm Minister for Home Affairs. But in addition, what does coordinating minister for national security mean? Now, there are broadly two models of such coordinating minister. There is the American-style National Security Advisor. It's a power center in itself with a large staff. You know, the National Security Advisor is, uh, it's like a cabinet position in itself, and he advises the president. So he has a significant executive as well as advisory role. Some other countries, you have a similar National Security Advisor. The other approach is Singapore's approach. The individual ministries take charge of their domains. So Home deals with the various u agencies which are tasked with internal security, Internal Security Department, Police, Civil Defence, Immigration, Gambling Regulatory Authority, Prisons. MND deals with our national security from an from external threats, as it were, essentially military force that will defend Singapore against any threat. So they all have their roles carved out under law and within our system. The coordinating minister for national security has a slightly broader remit to look at issues that are cross-cutting and which may not be within the purview of a single ministry. Let's take energy security. Okay, it's for the Ministry of Trade and Industry to deal with issues relating to energy. There's EMA which, you know, handles this, but the national security secretariat may look at it and say, what are the different mixes of energy that we have? Is that appropriate in the context of uh, the discussions on climate change? So, are you very dependent on a particular source of energy, particular route that may be affected? There are questions like that, and you can look at power, you can look at infrastructure. There are ministries and agencies which deal with all of those. But we do, together with others, do some of the horizon scanning for current and emerging threats, and then we look to see whether that falls within the purview of any particular ministry. If so, they will be dealing with it, or is it cross-cutting that it may not be viewed by any ministry as belonging to that ministry? Then how do we deal with this cross-cutting threats? It all sounds very conceptual, but it is real. And uh, you, it sounds very dynamic as well. It's very dynamic. It's changing, and with, it's changing with technology. So the coordinating minister has got to deal with issues like that.
Minister, let's broaden the lens. Yeah. From just Singapore, let's look at ASEAN. Yes. What role does ASEAN play in our security calculus? Can regional tensions compromise Singapore's safety?
Of course, regional tensions can compromise our safety, right? If people are fighting with each other, it affects our economic security. You know, ships are going through Straits of Malacca, ships are going through South China Sea. If there are troubles in these areas, or if the troubles between our various ASEAN neighbors, our collective security, including Singapore's security, can obviously be affected. Now, if you go back to ASEAN, the original five, what was the intention? And then now it's become 10, and East Timor is coming in, 11. It's really this. We all have, as neighbors, some issues with each other. Sure. Border issues, you know, other issues. And uh, at the same time, there is a role for common prosperity. And if the region prospers, and the countries prosper, they are less likely to fight with each other. That's, that's a theory. And if we have stakes in each other's prosperity, that allows us to uh, maybe look beyond the disputes and see that, you know, there is more to be gained by working with each other bilaterally as well as collectively. So ASEAN, first of all, provides a platform for the leaders and the senior officials and ministers in the different ministries to come together and discuss issues of uh, mutual interest. Sometimes, um, mutual argument. Then it also provides a platform for us to try and take the region further forward, both diplomatically as well as economically. Increase trade between us, increase our investment flows, work together to standardize uh, some rules. I'm not saying that, you know, 100% has been achieved, or, you know, that there isn't more to do. There is much more to do. But that's the whole idea, and make us an attractive place for people to invest, for people as a whole. And then if we all have a stake, and we all realize that we have a stake, that our prosperity depends on the regional prosperity and regional peace, then everyone would have a greater incentive to reduce tension and try and deal with uh, tensions through diplomacy. Right? So it is, I would say, a key piece in piecing, key piece in trying to create uh, um, or trying to reduce the risks of escalation of tension and increase the security, common prosperity. In its simplest terms.
Okay. But realistically, in any relationship, things can get fraught. They can, as you can see from Cambodia. How do we safeguard our position, ourselves in ASEAN if cohesion freezes?
The fundamental is always that you must be able to defend yourself. There is no substitute for that. The SAF is our essential guarantor of freedom and sovereignty, which is why we have invested so much, and which is why the SAF is a credible and respected military force in the region. It's the idea that if you take on Singapore, Singapore will defend itself and has the ability to defend itself. When that is made clear, then there is less scope for miscalculation on the part of those who might want to be adventurous. Okay. So that's a starting point internally. Mhm. That the core of our freedom is SAF. Now, once you have that, you don't bring out your military for every issue. Sure. You try and deal with issues through diplomacy. The military is the ultimate guarantor, but you deal with it through diplomacy. Diplomacy is bilateral. We try and deal with it bilaterally with countries that we may have issues with. Diplomacy can also be multilateral. So at the regional level, I have explained, you create common prosperity. There is a stake for everyone. Everyone has an interest in each other progressing. That creates an environment where we reduce tensions. Also, it creates a platform where we can talk with each other about issues apart from the bilateral. Then diplomacy also has an international footprint. You know, we need to have economic security. That's not just the region. We need to have relationships with countries around the world to make sure there are good investment flows, we get the best of technology, our people get the best of education. So we link up with many countries around the world, make as many friends as possible, have deep friendships with countries that we have a substantial linkage, economic and security linkage with. So that's also part of the strategy, and free trade agreements. We have a large number of free trade agreements. It supports our economic security. We buy our weapon systems from many countries, and we have good diplomatic relationships with them. That helps in our essential military security.
PM Wong has raised the possibility of nuclear energy for Singapore. From a national security perspective, cyber terrorism, technical failure, how is the government approaching the risk landscape for nuclear energy?
It's an aspect of uh, energy security. PM Wong spoke more than once, I think, once at the Budget Statement, once at the IPS conference, I think earlier this year. He talked about, uh, that we are studying very seriously the possibilities, you know, whether nuclear energy, it's possible to be um, brought in into Singapore, the potential development of the provision of energy from, you know, nuclear reactors in Singapore. We've been studying this for a while. I would put it this way. You're moving increasingly into a situation where energy has got to come from carbon-neutral sources. That's a big requirement. You need a situation where energy, your country needs energy from secure sources. If it's situated within the country, that's extremely secure in many ways. The possibilities of disruption are reduced. Technology is evolving. I mean, people look at it. Small modular reactors are seriously being considered over the next 10 years, 15 years. I think we will see countries uh, adopting this technology, small modular reactors. It doesn't mean that we wait completely for the period, but you, you're not the first one to jump in. You look to see other people's experiences, other countries, how they've used uh, SMRs and what are the alternate technologies available. Our neighbors are studying this. Indonesia has announced, Malaysia has announced, others are studying it. We will need to talk to our neighbors. We will need to talk to international agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency. We'll have to have a lot of discussions with various partners. We'll have to see how it works on the ground in other places. We are building up a community of nuclear scientists, uh, people who are experts in this area, because you need that kind of expertise. We're trying to build up some deep expertise. So eventually, you know, the whole idea is that you study this carefully, and you can only do it if you know you have made a careful assessment of what the risks are. And we are quite far away from that position. I think what can be said is that we are studying this uh, very seriously, and not just studying, but we are also uh, taking the steps to build up our nuclear science knowledge development capabilities, and um, building up the linkages with the neighbors as well as international agencies and other countries, trying to learn as much as we can. And then we'll be in a better place to make a decision. So it's a future decision to make. We're at the discovery stage. We are, I would say, more than at a discovery stage. But at each point, a decision has to be made as to whether we, we continue with our research. We continue with our checking and development. But uh, the actual decision whether we go towards nuclear reactors, uh, I think can only be made after all these other uh, things have been studied carefully.
Minister, last question. Since we are marking SG60, Singapore has been safe for the last 60 years. What's it going to take for Singapore to be safe in the next 60 years?
Ah, uh, you know, technology will evolve, the geopolitical situation will evolve. What worked in terms of the tactics may not necessarily work. You will have to change as the situation evolves. But for us to remain safe for the next 60 years, I think it is the same resolve, the will within the people and the leadership to protect Singapore and to do whatever it takes to build up and continue to maintain the SAF as a first-class force that will make sure that our would-be opponents would be deterred. Second, have a first-class foreign service that makes sure that our diplomatic footprint and the advice given to the government is such that um, we land on our feet on international issues and don't get unsettled. Make sure that our diplomatic uh, linkages with the countries that are relevant to our security are managed properly. Our economic security, make sure that our people are well-trained, focused, well-educated to be and bring in investments and continue to make Singapore a good place to invest and make money in, because without economic security, you can't pay for your military security. That's true. And this place will become a barren piece of rock. You know, you won't have the international flow of money into Singapore. So, economic security, military security, diplomatically agile, and a united population, a population that, you know, past politicians from across the Causeway cannot come and disturb. A population that comes together with a strong Singapore identity, while we retain our individual ethnic and racial identities, nevertheless have a strong Singaporean identity, and that we think as Singaporeans when we deal with international issues. Our commonness and our united interests to prevail and be stronger over our individual interest or individual ethnic or racial identities. I think these are the things that have brought us to this place, and these things are going to be essential if we were to travel the next 60 years in relative peace and harmony. We all have a vested interest in in doing better than okay. We have kids. We have, yes, grand, we will have grandchildren. And it's the Singapore that they will have. Yeah. So yes, we've got to make sure that, you know, that they inherit a Singapore that's going to provide them with a framework to succeed in life.
That's a great note to end it on. Thank you, Minister Shamugam. Thank you so much for that. Thank you for the clarity. Really also the candor. I personally would just like to say thank you for everything you've done for the country. Thank you. I think most people recognize things can be better, but hey, it's not such a bad place. It's not a bad place at all.
The threats may be newer, quieter, harder to spot, but the stakes, they haven't changed. Singapore didn't become safe by accident. And if we want to stay secure in a world that seems to be fracturing, we can't assume someone else will do the defending. So, it's on us, Singaporeans, to stay informed, alert, and accountable. This has been Lens on Singapore. I'm Clarissa Montero. Still asking questions, still listening, and always proudly Singaporean.
Heat. Heat.
[Music]