Singapore
A question of survival
In midst of red-hot economy, Lee Kuan Yew pours a little cold water on the long-term future. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Oct 27, 2007

IN A stable era of smart phones and electronic shopping, young Singaporeans have been reminded that the future of their wealthy country is far from assured.

Living with threats all around – both real and anticipated - has long been a hallmark of Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, but the new generation isn’t really too bothered by such talk.

The 84-year-old icon revisited the theme during a recent newspaper interview that showed his worries have not mellowed with age. If anything, they have probably increased.

Although Lee’s views on domestic politics are not always liked, his opinions on geo-politics and Singapore’s survival are still widely respected here.

Some years back he asked whether Singapore would be around in 50 years’ time or disappear like a number of small, independent city-states (Venice, Athens) that once lined the ancient Silk Road.

One by one, they were taken over, merged, or simply withered away into the dustbin of history, he noted.

His feeling of vulnerability resurfaced in reply to a question in his interview with the International Herald Tribune.

“Can we survive? The question is still unanswered. We have survived so far, 42 years. Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn’t depend on us alone.

“If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn’t exist.”

Then he surprised Singaporeans with his frankness. “Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (Laughter)”

There are also new modern threats from global warming, including the possibility of a tsunami that could submerge large parts of the island, SARS and terror attacks.

For the first time Lee is frank enough to say what most Singaporeans are thinking: That Singapore is too small to be defended in a sustained war despite its large reservist army and sophisticated high-tech weaponry.

The race to build up men and military hardware started soon after independence in 1965. National service was declared to enlist 18-year-old youths for compulsory national service.

To prepare the population very early to adapt to a hostile world Lee’s People’s Action Party promoted a “rugged society”.

The objective of the armed forces, one of South-East Asia’s most sophisticated, is to deter and defend the island-state against direct military threats, relying on technology to make up for the small size.

What is obviously worrying Lee is the imponderables of a non-conventional security threat.

In the 21st Century, dangers are less likely to come in the form of a full-scale war, but an economic or trade blockade, like choking off Singapore’s sea-lanes or trade routes.

The military has long assembled an awesome concentration of brainpower (offering scholarships to the best talents) to concentrate on research and technology.

Under study is a wide range of scenarios that not only involve land, sea and air warfare, but also non-conventional ways that could bring Singapore to its knees, including economic, trade, electronic or biological attacks.

How are young Singaporeans reacting to Lee’s gloomy talk?

The ‘cold war’ generation, which had lived through wars, feels the warning is necessary and worries about what will happen if Lee, with his regional experience, is no longer around.

But such is not the views of the nonchalant younger set, which had grown up in relative stability and wealth.

For it, life evolves around studies and careers and the prospect of war seems too distant to worry about.

It hasn’t sparked off any significant debate over the blogosphere, where people seem more interested in the debate about whether or not to lift the ban on homosexuality.

“Every one knows there are threats but I think the minister mentor is over-stating them,” was one comment.

The better informed take thing more seriously.

“Singapore will not even last three minutes in an air strike without outside help, especially from the Australian Air Force and the US Navy,” said ‘blacksmith’.

Another blogger asked, “What is the use of defeating an invader in three weeks when the damage that it would inflict on Singapore would destroy the economical and political stability for years?”

Others are concerned about plans in the neighbourhood to build nuclear power plants so close to us.

A letter stated, “All it takes to cause a holocaust here is one single mistake.”

The authorities have found it difficult to gear this over-crowded city, bathed in an aura of modern well being, to take seriously the threat of a terrorist attack.

There are regular exercises in tourist and shopping centres and the heartland against bombs and chemical attacks, but once over Singaporeans tend to return to their carefree living.

On the war on terror, the former deputy prime minister, Dr Tony Tan, said, “They (Islamic extremists) are always trying. One of these days they will get through and there will be an attack in Singapore.”

Lee has emphasised Singapore’s reliance on help from the US and others to come to its help in the event of an attack.

This reliance may further pry loose the government’s tight control on society in future.

One commentator believes this reliance may further pry loose the government’s tight control on society in future.

He said: ”If we want to maximise our chances of the US and other countries coming to our aid, we must offer them a moral reason to do so.

“If we are a liberal democratic country, we'd have more appeal, we'd be seen to be more worth saving than if we are seen as a dynastic fief...
In short, our national security interest requires us to open up politically.”

(An amended version of article published in The Star on Oct 27, 2007)