Bomb-proof, but are we terror-proof?

by Kwan Jin Yao

FROM concrete planters to prevent vehicle bombs, force-resistant building materials with bullet and blast-proof glass, to closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and checkpoints, Singapore is on red alert against terrorism, described by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as the country’s “most significant” security threat.

The ministry’s plan to review security guidelines for buildings is but one of its many recent endeavours, especially since the terror attacks in Paris, France; in Jakarta, Indonesia; and in Brussels, Belgium.

Expect more of such efforts to come this year. A preview was given in yesterday’s Budget debate: even more CCTV surveillance and boosted protection of infrastructure, the use of traffic cameras and information from Electronic Road Pricing systems to track suspicious travel patterns, and a new community response movement. All this, to a tune of $5.3 billion – or about 10 per cent more than what the MHA spent last year.

The problems with cost aside – with a concession from the MHA in 2010 that “comprehensive protection against every possible threat is too expensive” – how ready or prepared are Singaporeans against an attack?

An attack, we are reminded, will eventually strike. In an editorial following the Brussels attack, The Economist criticised European under-investments in security services to penetrate jihadist networks as well as the need for better policing to stem radicalisation of petty criminals. However, in Singapore, getting individuals used to “a long campaign of terror” appears to be a much taller task.

Warnings from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have been forthcoming.

Echoing remarks by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam – that “we face a severe threat in South East Asia, [and] it is not a matter of if, but when a terrorist attack will take place here” – Mr Lee, in a Facebook note on March 22, stressed “the serious and continuing threat of terrorism” and the importance of “getting [the message of vigilance] through to all Singaporeans.”

The terror threat has worsened, the Prime Minister said during a meeting with the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, since the Islamic State “has proved far better at recruiting from [South East Asia] than al Qaeda every was”. “Self-radicalised” Indonesians, Malaysians, and Singaporeans have even formed a battalion of fighters called the Katibah Nusantara, or the Malay Archipelago Combat Unit.

Days later at the Nuclear Energy Summit an the United Nations, the Prime Minister also highlighted the “very plausible and believable” threat of nuclear terrorism. In a recent issue of its English magazine the Islamic State has shown intent of procuring nuclear weapons, Mr Lee added, and “I hope this summit will see countries committing to reduce their nuclear material stockpiles further.”

Even with these ministerial warnings in the past week, whether Singaporeans will consequently be shaken from our apathy towards terrorism – and our insouciance in response to a potential attack – is another question altogether.

Three in four Singaporeans, according to a recent Straits Times poll of 500 people, agreed with Mr Shanmugam that Singapore will face a terror attack, but three in 10 from the same poll also thought Singapore was not prepared for an attack. Interestingly, the five in 10 who said that the country was prepared for an attack pointed to “security forces”, “armed patrols they see at key nodes such as the airport and train stations”, and recent government remarks on stepped-up measures.

These cited reasons are interesting, because they point to the broader readiness of the state and its apparatus against terrorism, and not necessarily to the readiness of the average Singaporean. In the event of an attack how many of us are prepared to react? Should a bomb go off in a train station, do we know what to do, or how to act? And how can we be sure, in the first place?

Action speaks louder than words too. Remember Exercise Times Square? The notion of public vigilance and its importance are often bandied around these days, yet in 2010 when the MHA placed suspicious-looking cars emitting smoke in nine locations across Singapore, just 260 of the 7,200 people who walked within 10 metres of the vehicles took notice (3.61 per cent), and only 52 contacted the authorities (0.72 per cent). With the string of recent terror attacks around the world such lax attitudes may have improved, though any increase in alertness in similar simulations is likely to be marginal.

Such complacency of our perceived security was also emphasised by the Institute of Policy Studies in 2015, when it found “broad indifference” among Singaporeans towards past terrorist incidents: 22 per cent of the 1,516 respondents knew about the 1974 Laju hostage incident, 61 per cent were aware of the 1991 hijacking of SQ117, and 67 per cent knew about the 2002 Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist plot. This disconnect could lead to – or in fact reflect – perceptions that terrorist threats, as recent as they may be, are geographically-distant, or that the country is adequately safe and secure.

That we are victims of our own success is perhaps an understatement, in this regard.

So the new normal has been with us for some time already. In Singapore, however, we are so accustomed to the government taking care of affairs – bomb-proofing buildings, for instance – and as a consequence seem to have forgotten our vulnerability and corresponding responsibilities. Even community programmes can only do that much. A terrorist attack is going to be painful, especially for those who lose their loved ones, but it will be the real test of our preparedness when it actually strikes.

 

Featured image by Natassya Diana. 

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

The post Bomb-proof, but are we terror-proof? appeared first on The Middle Ground.

- Jin Yao Kwan