Keynote Address by Senior Minister of State for Defence Mr Ong Ye Kung at the Asia Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers 2016

Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,

We are Being Tested

Welcome to the Asia Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO) 2016. It is my pleasure to speak to you today, for the first time in my new appointment as the Senior Minister of State for Defence. I did not build my career in the military unlike several of my cabinet colleagues, but in public service, in trade diplomacy, the labour union, and also the corporate sector in an international company. Perhaps it is because of my time in these different settings, that I have some views on hybrid warfare that I would like to share with you today. APPSMO was initiated about two decades ago with very simple aims.

First, it was a chance for up-and-coming military leaders to take a break from your work and to reflect on your profession.

Second, APPSMO was conceived to allow a new generation of military leaders to build ties with one another.

Third, the meeting allows participants to acquire new perspectives by meeting people from other countries in an informal environment, so that you can frankly explore the challenges of your profession and also discuss some of the pressing geostrategic issues that we all face. And every year there are fresh issues that spark new and rich discussions. On the first objective, I think over the years, we have scored an 'A+'. On the second, because time for interaction is so limited, I would say we scored a 'B+'. 

For the third objective, it remains ungraded, because we are still being tested as a global community.The Hybrid Nature of ConflictsOne of the reasons why we are still being tested, is the fact that the nature of warfare and conflict has changed and continues to evolve. In fact, the meaning of warfare is no longer so clear, as is the meaning of terrorism, poverty, nationalism. Where does it start and where does it stop? Warfare is no longer a binary state. There are many gradations between peace and all-out war. So when I agreed to speak on this topic, "Hybrid Warfare and the Role of the Military: Challenges and Implications", I thought long and hard about the meaning of the word "warfare" and its relevance in today's context.I do think the world is at war in the conventional sense presently, in Syria and South Sudan. But wars are also happening in a different way in many places around the world, in ways different from the two World Wars, Vietnam War and the two Gulf Wars. Instead of openly declared war and conventional conflict, the world faces a myriad of tensions and evolving threats across many fronts. One country can demonstrate aggression and inflict pain on another, through a combination of economic sanctions, trade embargoes, diplomatic tensions, cyber-attacks, information or propaganda movements. It can also conduct proxy wars fought via non-state actors or irregular forces.  The most pertinent battles militaries wage today and in future are likely to be non-conventional, hybrid ones. Full frontal battles are too crude in a subtle world with many shades of animosity and friendship. The battles of the twenty-first century and beyond are therefore less likely to be fought in uniforms, with bullets and on tanks, missiles or planes; rather, the battles of today and tomorrow would be prolonged hybrid assaults, using a full spectrum of tools by players including terrorists in masks, geeks in jeans or executives in suits and carrying suitcases. A hybrid war that involves elements other than military weapons is not a novel idea.

The concept of blending military with non-military tools of warfare to achieve supremacy dates back to ancient history. Take misinformation, for instance. It is a very old form of war craft used to engineer deceit of the enemy. One early example was by Alexander the Great. After being forced to retreat in a battle, Alexander decided that it would be a disadvantage to acknowledge his retreat as it demonstrated weakness. So Alexander instructed his army to make oversized armour and helmets and left them behind as they retreated. It gave the impression that Alexander's army were giants, and intimidated his opponents, leaving the latter to give up their pursuit.Another famous story can be found in a Chinese classic, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, where the Chinese sage, Zhugeliang, deceived his enemy to think that his city was well armed with soldiers and weapons, by calmly playing a Guzheng, a traditional Chinese string instrument, atop the gate of an empty city.  It did fool the enemy, who called off the attack on the city.  Many scholars and experts have also written about what won the Cold War for America was not the military, but economics - through an arms race that the Soviet Union's centralised economics system could not afford.  While the ideas behind hybrid warfare are not new, hybrid warfare today does have some new characteristics. It is no longer about using misinformation or other non-military tools only within the battlefield, but also beyond it. Neither is hybrid warfare about enveloping military confrontation with a broader or longer term economic or psychological strategy like the Cold War strategy of America. Hybrid warfare, whether via cyberattacks, non-convention forces, economic sanctions, or propaganda, includes the various fronts of an assault, alongside the military.

Example of ISIS

Why has the nature of hybrid warfare changed? I think it is largely because of the tools and methods that are now available because of globalisation and technology. Globalisation means trade and inter-dependence between countries, including essential commodities like oil, gas, food and water. The nature of inter-dependence means that these are not arrangements countries wish to unravel or topple.  But such inter-dependence provides fresh levers for tit-for-tat, and a new equilibrium will have to be reached – one where the tools are employed, but hopefully not to the extent of mutual economic destruction. As Winston Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."Technology is another crucial factor. The Internet is an immensely powerful tool to transmit information or disinformation. Many of the new tools of hybrid warfare are spun off from commercial technologies, which make them affordable and accessible, even to small states and non-state actors. Hence misinformation today is done not by a blacksmith, but on social media.The rise of the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS, is a good example of how a non-state actor employs non-conventional information campaigns to complement its military advances.

ISIS combines destabilising violence, with a sustained Internet propaganda campaign. It has a global reach that is comparable to that of a multi-national corporation; in an alternative setting, the group would make for a formidable media conglomerate.  Apart from its English-language magazine, Dabiq, which is widely circulated on social media and email, the Islamic State also owns various provincial media wings such as al-Furqan and al-Hayat Media. Its sprawling network of news outlets allows the group to carry out coordinated information attacks and beyond the reach of state regulations. Furthermore, the group tailors its releases to its audience; in poorer, less developed provinces, releases are conveyed through traditional media such as television or radio, whereas in more urbanised societies, information campaigns are carried out over blogs, instant messaging applications or YouTube videos. It is using its media apparatus to maximum effect, which enables it to persuade individuals -- from all over the world, and of varying backgrounds -- to join its violent cause, and in turn recruit other individuals themselves.The Islamic State also uses the media to incite fear and distrust within societies.  It is infamous for releasing gory videos of beheadings and martyrdom, which are quickly picked up by the mainstream media and broadcast to a global audience. This preys on the media penchant for sensation, because these videos advance the Islamic State's fear campaign, entrench its image and influence, and rally its followers.   

Psychologically, its information campaign sows distrust within societies, and creates an "us vs them" mentality. Every attack is calculated not just to cause death, but more importantly to deepen the distrust between communities within the same society. That mentality has entered the psyche of the people, and we see it being played out during national elections in various countries. The greater the distrust, the easier for the Islamic State to recruit extremists. Attack the innocent, propagate fear and sow distrust, recruit even more terrorists for attacks -- the Islamic State now has a global business model to complement its global messaging reach. In all of these instances, the military was only a part of the overall strategy. Some might even say that militarily the Islamic State is less of a worry. But it is the ideology the Islamic State has exported through information that makes the war against terror a lasting global conflict. 

The Case for Total Defence

Hence defence needs to be as total and comprehensive as possible to address hybrid warfare and conflicts that are conducted over many fronts. In that sense, Singapore's approach of Total Defence, launched in 1984, before the World Wide Web was available, and done out of a strong sense of vulnerability and even paranoia, that proved to be prescient today. Total Defence is a framework for a comprehensive response to threats and challenges, and comprises military and non-military elements, all tightly coordinated. There are five aspects to Total Defence: military, civil, economic, social and psychological. Let me talk about them briefly.

Military defence means building a strong Singapore Armed Forces to deter would-be aggressors. You are all familiar with the military, but what is more unique in Singapore is our reliance on our citizens. As a small city-state with limited manpower and resources, Singapore started universal conscription, known as National Service, in 1967, to build up a credible defence force. The role of the military is constantly evolving and transforming into a better and more effective fighting force. In 2004, the SAF kick-started the transformation of the army, air force and navy into an advanced, networked fighting force. These efforts gave us the capabilities we have today, also known as the Third Generation SAF. Now, as part as the next transformation toward SAF 2030, the SAF is exploring the possibility of harnessing new technologies, automation, robotics and unmanned technologies to incorporate them more into its fighting systems.

Civil defence ensures that the safety and basic needs of the whole community are taken care of, so that life may go on as normally as possible during emergencies. Allowing civilians to continue with their daily routines during a crisis is key to helping the population remain resilient. It is also an important avenue to have as many members of our society play an active role during emergencies -- tending to the sick and wounded, controlling crowds, helping out relief efforts. So that everybody feels that they have a part to play.Southeast Asia is special in the sense that major religions of the world -- Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, came to the region at different times of history and sunk roots here.  So we have Malaysia and Brunei which are Muslim countries.  Indonesia is Islam overlaying ancient animism, Hindu and Buddhist cultures. Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are dominantly Buddhist, the Philippines Catholic and Singapore a 'rojak'. 'Rojak' is a phrase that even Barack Obama now uses to describe Singapore.Thus, social defence is important in these diverse societies.

Social defence encourages Singaporeans from all walks of life, young and old, rich and poor, of all races and religions, to live and work together in harmony, and collectively contribute to the nation. We are not ideological multiculturalist, leaving every community alone to be what they are and isolated from the rest. I think that is a recipe for disaster. Nor do we force assimilation, denying every community their traditional identity and insisting they are only Singaporean. I think we tread somewhere in between -- every community keep your identity and tradition and contribute towards a national identity.Ours is a pragmatic mix, sometimes described as a salad bowl with each ingredient intact and distinguishable, but brought together with a nice salad dressing. Today, every race celebrates one another's festivities. In school, young children observe racial harmony day to commemorate the racial riots of 1964. It is a work in progress, and every Singaporean understands the importance of a strong social fabric.  

Economic defence means we must also be relevant to the world -- servicing, trading with it and value adding to it. Due to our trade-oriented economy, the demise of Singapore, if it ever happens, must mean great global inconvenience - world trade will be disrupted, travellers stranded, international financial flows paralysed, and global supply chains broken. So we must always be opened to the world for business and are plugged into the world's networks all the time. Economic stability and growth is in turn a key driver of development and progress for our people. Singapore must be a place where Singaporeans can earn a living, raise families, build homes, improve lives, and hence be a land worth defending. Every few years, we will reassess the global economic landscape, review our place in the world, and recommend new economic strategies to adapt to the new environment. We are in such a process now, called Committee for Future Economy.

Finally, and most important of all, is our psychological defence. The armed forces are responsible for military defence, the police, medical and domestic corps take charge of civil defence, companies and workers are key players in economic defence, and religious and community leaders lead social defence efforts. Psychological defence, notably, is one where every Singaporean is involved.Psychological defence is the embodiment of all other defences – military, civil, social, and economic. 

It is about doing all the other parts, to engender a collective conviction that this is where we build our lives, raise our families and earn a living and our commitment to a country worth defending; we are confident of our ability to repel external enemies and heal internal wounds; we are in it together and have each other's back regardless of our differences in race, language and religion. This is what a terror organization like the Islamic State is trying to undermine -- with the gruesome beheadings to intimidate, with acts of terror to divide. 

Their actions are primarily psychological assaults, rather than military advances. The psychological strength of the nation is complex and comprises many layers. The most basic layer is the willingness of citizens to come together to observe and celebrate national occasions like the National Day Parade in a week's time.

A simple barometer of psychological strength is the decibel level at the National Day Parade, which you will be attending. Thankfully, the National Day Parade is an annual highlight for many Singaporeans. This year, we are holding it at the new National Stadium for the first time.  At a deeper level, it is the willingness of Singaporeans to defence our country.

The support for National Service, also known in short as NS, is at an all-time high with the great encouragement of the Ministry of Defence. When I was serving my NS, appeal letters to the Ministry of Defence tend to request for deferment, downgrading, or for postings to less physically demanding vocations. Today, in contrast, we regularly receive appeals from parents for their sons to be sent to Officers' Cadet School or medically upgraded to be combat fit. Such is the pride of serving NS now.  The sentiments are not just a mere function of time, but also the result of conscious efforts to professionalize and improve the training system all the time, and make the system universal and fair, so that Singaporeans feel we are in it together.  But the best test is when we are faced with a major national crisis. In 2003, the Severe Acute Respiratory epidemic broke out in Singapore. Many died.

Others who came into contact when the infected are traced and quarantined. Temperature scanners sprouted up at airports, offices and public buildings. Throughout that period, Singaporeans co-operated with each other, demonstrated great consideration and compassion, and snubbed out the virus. It was a population working together shoulder to shoulder, side by side. That reflected a strong state of psychological resilience. Similarly, when our first Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed away in March last year, differences were put aside, our entire nation found common cause and came together to mourn the loss of a founding father. But the sternest test, which I hope we will not get to experience, will be our collective reaction to terrorist attacks. I should add here a final dimension to psychological defence. One that perhaps, we have taken for granted. It is how psychologically the nation has forged through a consensus, democratic process on the direction ahead for the nation. Political parties on the left and right have always been debating and disagreeing with each other. The debates centres around things like level of welfare payouts, size of governments, degree of civil liberties, so on and so forth. But actually if you think about it, (there have been) no disagreements on wanting an open democratic society - free of tyranny and discrimination.

In other words, political contest for many, many decades have been fought in the broad centre. A clear direction is needed to rally the people behind a common cause. When soldiers pick up their arms, they need to believe that they are fighting for a common cause of their fellow countrymen and women; not a partisan objective of those who are temporarily in power. But divisive debates which have been extreme, have now opened up. While there are questions about whether a global world power continue to be plugged into the world or if a regional power should continue to be part of the regional setting, for a 'little red dot' like Singapore, our options are always fewer and we will always walk a tight rope. Ultimately, to address the difficult issues of the 21st century, politics should be brought back to the centre so that defence can transcend politics. Guns and ButterI hope that these thoughts that I have shared will be useful in generating further discussions during your time together. In the coming days, you will have rigorous discussions, on the capability and skills that a new generation of solders will need to tackle hybrid attacks successfully and swiftly, the training they would need, wider national and social support to sustain that capability, and the will to defend our countries. 

In this effort, your role as military leaders will be crucial. It goes beyond your immediate responsibilities and influence in the military, but also determine how you shape the wider society, their attitudes and opinions towards the military, and how morally and psychologically they support the important work of the military. There is a reason why Total Defence is co-ordinated by the Ministry of Defence, even though it involves all agencies -- because only the military understands the true hybrid nature of warfare. I titled my speech "Guns and Butter", instead of the more commonly used phrase "Guns or Butter". "Guns or Butter" is a term used in economics to represent the decisions states make between investing in security (guns) or the economy (butter). But in our hybrid world today, I put it to you that the economy has become part of the battlefield, and we now need to do both, and more.I wish you a fruitful programme in the days ahead. Thank you.