Transcription
Recently, Singapore's coordinating minister for national security said something out loud that most governments only say behind closed doors. He told us statebacked hackers are inside our networks. Okay, granted he said it before, including on this show, but this time he went further, saying artificial intelligence is being weaponized against us. Add that a fragmented geopolitical landscape and one word rises: risk. What does it look like today? I'm Clarissa Montero. Welcome to Lent on Singapore. Today we look at risk and how loaded the word has become. My guest is Henry Wilkinson, chief intelligence officer, Dragonfly Intelligence from Dow Jones. Henry, welcome to the show.
>> Thank you for having me, Chris.
>> Our Minister Sham said recently that state back hackers are in our networks and that frontier AI is being weaponized against us from where you sit. Is Singapore catching up to a reality that your clients have been living with or has something genuinely shifted in terms of our risk and exposure?
Singapore is very much in the frame as much as any other country. I think there's a number of things that are worth thinking about as you learn this kind of new information about what the threat is. Um the first one is that risk is changing and in geopolitics particularly because geopolitics is changing and we can we can obviously talk about how that's working. Um but Singapore is no exception. I think that's that's the point. It's not and it's not exceptional either in that regard. So it shouldn't necessarily feel that it's any more vulnerable than any other country. I think though there are a few things that are worth mentioning about Singapore in particular. I think the first one is that um Singapore has a great concentration of uh commercial activity. It's a hub um communications, media, fintech, these are you know there's heavy concentrations of these sorts of industries here. So naturally from a if you're looking at it purely from um uh a threat perspective in terms of target surface area as it's often referred to and target opportunity Singapore is probably richer than many other places in the region uh or in you know in the wider region of of of Asia. So in that regard it certainly should be very mindful about the threats that are posed to it because it has many of the companies and businesses here that cyber uh that hackers or state actors would be interested in. On the other hand, of course, one of the things that Singapore has going for it is it has a pretty well-developed risk governance structures and capabilities. So, it's not lagging behind other countries. If anything, it's it's it's more of a leader in the region. So, you know, you you can't really sort of necessarily say Singapore is um is unnecessarily exposed. I think that would be an unfair analysis of it, but it's very clearly in the frame geopolitically because Singapore is important.
You describe 2026 as a multisphere world. Could you first explain what that means a little bit?
>> The multisphere is a is um a concept if you like. It's a framework for trying to interpret and understand how states will act in the international system. And the reason we've um we've coined this term is because uh very commonly when you read the news and you want sort of read about international politics, people are increasingly talking about the world becoming multipolar. Um and what that implies is that um American power is in relative decline, China is rising, there's other states, and you have these distinct sort of blocks or poles within international relations around which you have great powers and smaller powers tend to orbit around those great powers. Um but what we're saying is that's not a very accurate way of describing the world. And it's it's um what we're seeing is actually something far more unstable than that. Polarity implies distance. It implies stab stability. It implies that these power blocks, whatever they may be, whether one assumes it's for example the United States, Europe, China, etc. Um, but that's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is is a change where you have countries uh or that are more in some cases they are um trading partners in one sphere in one domain. That could be for example in let's say manufacturing but then in another sphere or domain they could be competitors. So for example relations between say the US and China you can see openly they're talking about doing trade deals. They're necessary partners but on the other hand they're adversaries in the cy in cyerspace. You wouldn't necessarily say that they're adversaries in the physical military domain in terms of conflict. So it's a much more ambiguous fluid uh environment. Power balances are changing. uh countries are militarizing more and more they're um rather than uh necessarily relying on great power relationships to keep them safe uh they're now having to do things and you can see this for example in the Middle East you know it's now emerging from reports that uh Saudi Arabia actually attacked Iran during this recent conflict which of course wasn't known now that's a very unusual development previously Saudi Arabia would have I think we would have assumed that uh it would have fallen under the US security guarantee so that it wouldn't actually have to take those sorts of actions So again, that's just another example of how um power and relationships in the world are changing and new things are happening that makes it much more much more unstable.
>> With that point in mind, let's zoom it down because you know I would be most interested in Singapore. Economically, we're close to China security aligned with the US. Is there something straining what would have been historical relations with these two giants for us? Do you think
>> Singapore's position in terms of this is often described as hedging where you have these sort of slightly ambiguous relationships and actually in the in this multisphere concept that we're talking about in many ways Singapore is a prototypical example of of a state actually thriving in a multisphere environment where it's able to manage these kinds of relationships. Um I don't think that you know from what we're seeing necessarily that um this is an untenable position. I don't think there's a need necessarily for Singapore to sort of have to choose one side over the other. Both are actually compatible. Uh and actually in in when you have a much more um changeable dynamic system. It's a it's a prudent strategy to maintain. Clearly if relations between China and the US deteriorate then that becomes a more difficult proposition. The other question of course is around um China's ambitions within the region and how it asserts its interests and the extent to which in asserting those interests it rubs up against the United States um and whether that dynamic starts to change from becoming competitive to more adversarial
>> right
>> that's quite a difficult thing to call at the moment again because things are changing but you've got a position where the United States right now is embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East it's a conflict that the US wants to get out of China may be able to play a positive role in helping to secure and enter that conflict through negotiations because it needs to because Australas needs to open for China and for everybody else. So you have this kind of relationship where on the one you know both countries kind of need each other. So I think as long as you're in that sort of position even though you may have these twoings and throwings in terms of the narrative and the rhetoric coming out ultimately China needs to be able to export its products and continue to deliver its economic growth. America doesn't really want to commit itself to further conflicts at the moment. So I think you're in the sort of equilibrium state at the moment and I think Singapore is pretty well positioned to maintain its current standing. Of course if things change um then militarily for example if say one side decides let's say there's another conflict in the region then obviously that would probably put a strain on things but for now I think it's probably a relatively sensible positioning.
China has talked about stepping in to to help with the negotiations in the Middle East. Within the region that that we live I live in or the greater region, we have always had a concern about China's ambitions that you referred to. Do you think while the US is focused on what's happening in the Middle East, there is a reason to be more concerned about those Chinese ambitions in this region?
>> Yes, I think there that would be sensible to be concerned. Um mostly because when you look at the balance of things, um China is investing very heavily in military capabilities and modernization. That much is clear. Um [clears throat] the US is still far and away the most capable military actor and I think that's a very important part of it. Um but ultimately what we're talking about here is deterrence. One of the things that we're looking at is that rather than having a dynamic where you have deterrence uh that's established because each side understands quite clearly the capability of the other and you get this kind of leveling. where we're shifting to now in in in um certainly over the last few years is we're moving more through to deterrence by uncertainty. You know, we we're it seems that there's a growing chance because of the way that the for example the US administration takes decisions that it's becoming much less clear what the US actually wants and is actually willing to do. There's more questions as to whether it would uphold its defense commitments. That definitely creates um a question as to whether, for example, China may see an opportunity to start pushing things a little bit more. I don't think we can say for sure that China will um sort of push the envelope so aggressively as to create a major crisis. Um but given what we've seen in the wider region, I think it's it would be prudent to assume that um you that when you see one side um sort of shifting a bit that the other side may try to push against it just to see how far it can push.
>> So Taiwan, should they be worried right now? More concerned than they usually are?
Taiwan is probably the most debated subject in our in our industry. Our assessment right now is that China is unlikely to do anything to necessarily materially change the status quo this year or probably next either. Um but obviously as we go further along the line, China's milit more and more Chinese military capabilities come on stream. um potentially as we reach move towards the end of the Trump administration. I think there's there's there's a period there where I think that this become a very intense um topic of discussion.
>> Let's let's widen the lens and go back to the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar have all reportedly been reviewing whether to pull back on investment commitments. Roughly $2 trillion sits in US assets. What would be the geopolitical ramifications if they act on those intentions?
>> I think that there's a number of ways that one might expect the Trump administration to respond to that, which I think is really what we're talking about, right?
>> Which would probably pretty pretty negatively, but at the same time, you one has to ask, you know, to what effect is this intended to be? Is this going to be sort of capital flight out of the United States at a time when, you know, it's spending huge amounts of money? Trump's position is very big in terms of uh promising economic growth and trade. These are meant to be his strengths. I think that would be a very negative signal if that were to happen. Um at the same time, of course, you've also got to see that the US is heavily committed now in the Gulf region. So, I'd wonder to what extent that would really shape that. Um, you know, right now the Gulf States are suffering um just as everybody else is, of course, because of the straight of conflict. and they very clearly advocated that they didn't want the US and Israel to attack Iran. Um so I'm wondering as to when when I'm hearing this as to whether this is um intended to sort of essentially be levers to try to influence the US to sort of take policy decisions that are actually less um disruptive to to their own economies.
>> And where would you move it? I have a few suggestions of course.
>> Yes, Singapore being [laughter] one of them. But I I was I just assume when you've got huge outflows like that on the table or being considered that is is not just about money. It's about so many other things that I can't even begin to to line up. What would some of those things be?
>> One way to look at it, seeing as we're talking about risk is um there's this one could define risk as something that you can put a price on,
>> right?
>> And what that's reflecting partly when we're talking about risk is what you're really dealing with is high levels of uncertainty. Um, and so when you're looking at these sorts of economic matters, the question is where do you put your money when there's so much uncertainty? What is it you can bank on? And I think one of the things that for sure is coming out is a degree of unreliability in the way that the US administration is operating. And so the there is a question as to where do you invest in your relationships? You're starting to see more um what we call miniateralism where you get middle powers or smaller states coming together to form new blocks that are more in their interest. So it seems fairly likely to me that um that anyone um who's got significant um assets to move around is going to be looking very carefully at where do they think they're going to put that? Who are reliable bankable trading partners? Where is there less uncertainty? Um so this is all a rejigging really of actually of the global order anyway. And I think it predates many ways the Trump administration.
>> It seems that there was a a real acceleration to these shifts that you're talking about. I mean, there there would always be, you know, the cold shoulder for a while, the push back somewhere else between what were established partners and it all just seems like no one's getting along right now. Is that expected? Is that something that's been happening for a while or has it just accelerated in the last year or two?
>> I would say it's it's it feels like it's accelerated a lot in the last year or two for sure. I mean, we can't ignore that this is all happening under the Trump administration and he is a very murial character. That's absolutely clear. Smaller states in particular will start to realign and start working out what is the safest place for them to be uh what is the best of relationship for them to have. And in many cases right now that's not necessarily aligning with any one particular block which is kind of the point going back to the to Singapore. It's better to to stay a relatively neutral place in the middle.
>> So let's take all of that thinking and and put it into the conversation of business leaders right now are also looking at having to deal with cyber security attacks and the transformation and the rebalancing to work and the way we do things that that AI is driving. But is all of this transformation that from cyber security and AI distracting leaders of companies, particularly large companies, from perhaps looking more closely at what's going on geopolitically to make business decisions?
>> I don't think so because I think the cyber threats that we've been talking about and AI, these are all parts of the mix. when we talk about these sort of advanced persistent threats, you know, you're talking about state actors, so this ultimately is geopolitical. I think from a business standpoint, uh, a number of things are becoming really clear to the businesses that we speak with. Um, the first one is that global businesses, you know, the large multinationals are now inherently geopolitical actors as well, whether they like it or not. And I think the big shift is that um, more and more businesses are starting to uh, to realize exactly what that means. I think the cyber and the AI risk is is a part of that. Um, in many ways they're driving it. They're developing a lot of the technologies that are part of that problem, but they're also developing the technologies that are also part of the solution. So, I think when you look at this, uh, environment, the number one word that you hear when you talk with businesses, uh, you know, and whether that's in any sector, whether that's in media or um, or defense or or or financial services or what have you, is resilience.
To your point about large companies, large corporations needing to have or having seats at the table for the discussions. Historically, that would have been the prochemical giants. Who is it today? Is it still them?
>> Well, of course, you can see now when you look at the the Trump's delegation to China, you know, you have
>> It's the tech bros.
>> It's the tech bros. Exactly. You have, you know, um Nvidia and Tesla and others. So, I think that tells you a lot about how things are changing.
>> Okay. we just met. Now, if we were sitting down to coffee, what would be the one thing that um you tell me as a friend to read or pay more attention to today about the world?
>> It's very easy to see all this and feel quite nervous about it and anxious. And I think that there is um there's quite a lot of interesting studies out there that we could you can really talk about around um anxiety around geopolitics. But I think the reality is that the world has always been, you know, you could speak to somebody for every generation and they would probably equally equally have been anxious about what was going on at the time.
>> I don't think that the anxiety that um for example my grandparents who lived through a war felt then is the same as the anxiety today because simply because it is coming at us from so many different areas. It isn't just a military anxiety. It's a a work anxiety. It's a money anxiety. It's it's from all angles. And I don't think they had that to deal with.
>> This is true. But then also, I think one of the things that has changed is that we just have so much more information available to us now.
>> And the information itself is causing anxiety.
>> It's the information which is, you know, in many ways is the challenge is how do you deal with all of that? And it goes to your point about what to read, which is really uh I guess the the advice I would say is um read wisely. You know, there's a lot of um information out there that's not very helpful. It's misinformation. There's absolutely tons of it out there.
>> How do you curate it to ensure that you're getting information you need, but you are not being manipulated by information you shouldn't be consuming.
>> And this is where it really comes down to. Trusted news sources, I think, is the absolutely first port of call. um knowing that um you're getting your information in the first instance from um uh organizations that maintain standards and have high integrity and uh and operate in that kind of way.
>> Okay, last one. You've been reading the world's danger signals for 20 years. Is there anything that you're hopeful about today or more hopeful about uh today than than in the last 20 years or is there something that you're more concerned about?
the world is changing and I I I think obviously that is a source of concern but what's also encouraging is that the our ability to to evolve rapidly. I mean if you look at AI I mean on the one hand yes it's very easy to be um really caught up by the potential dangers that it represents and of course those are very very serious but it's also easy to overlook you know the huge opportunities that that kind of technology presents to us particularly in the areas of healthcare uh and science um where we can really change how we think about the world and how we live. So I think there's lots of things to to to be optimistic about.
>> But what about you? You personally, is this something that you are hopeful about right now?
>> I would say right now I'm currently more leaning towards the slightly pessimistic side. Um but that's more because uh of concerns around um governance and the quality of governance that we see and changes around that. There's a lot of political disruption. Uh so my concerns are quite political in that sort of regard. Um but um I like I said I don't think though that many of these problems are necessarily beyond the wit of us to to solve. It's just uh and you know the good thing about politics is it's always changing um and uh you know you you'll see um new personalities, new administrations, new policies come and go. So in that sense you know although I'm a bit bit more on the pessimistic side I'm not a I'm not a doomsayer.
>> So I think that's food for thought for us to think about. Thank you very much for this conversation and and for being on Lens on Singapore.
>> Thank you for having me.
Henry told us a few things today that are hard to unhear that the world Singapore built its prosperity on is shifting under our feet. The cooperation, the competition, even the conflict are blurring into one thing. Whether you sit on a board or you're navigating all of this from your living room, there is a great deal for all of us to ponder. I'm Clarice Montero. This was Lens on Singapore. Thank you for being with us.