The recent terrorist attacks on the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine, and a Jewish supermarket in France are stark reminders that there is no place for complacency in national security. The last terrorist attack in Singapore was the hijack of SQ 117 in 1991, where Pakistani militants took control of a Kuala Lumpur-Singapore flight and demanded the release of prisoners in Pakistan. Since then, there has been relative peace and stability, save for the foiling of a Jemaah Islamiyah plot to bomb key installations in Singapore in 2002 and the escape of terrorist suspect Mas Selamat from security detention in 2008. A generation of Singaporeans unencumbered by violence, unrest and disruption to order, however, may take our national security for granted.
Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs conducted Exercise Times Square in 2010, to test Singaporeans’ attitudes to potential threats. During the exercise, smoking cars were placed at strategic locations, such as Orchard Road and Shenton Way, re-enacting the foiled terrorist incident at New York’s Times Square in 2010. A startling 96% of passers-by did not notice the car. Among those who did, only 20% took measures to alert the authorities.
Vigilance is important for maintaining security but it is difficult to sustain. In a parliamentary debate in 2014, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean warned of the need for continued vigilance. Noting that a “handful of Singaporeans” were known to have joined the fight in Syria, Mr Teo, who is also Home Affairs Minister, said that the threat of terrorism persists in Singapore. How can vigilance be upkept? Is it enough to be aware of threats? How conscious are Singapore residents of threats to national security, and the nation’s sometimes rocky path to developed nation status?
In order to try and understand how Singaporeans perceive the past, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conducted a survey of Singaporeans’ perceptions of history. Between August and October 2014, a total of 1,516 Singapore citizens aged 21 years and above were interviewed. Respondents were shown a list of 50 historical events — from the founding of modern Singapore in 1819 to the last general election in 2011 — and asked if they were aware of each event. If they were aware, they were then asked if they thought the event was important to them and to future generations of Singaporeans, and how they felt about the event. The 50 historical events were drawn from various sources, including academic and media.
The terrorism-related events in the sample list included: the bombing of MacDonald House (1965); Laju hostage incident (1974); hijack of SQ 117 (1991); foiling of Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist plot (2002); and Mas Selamat’s escape (2008). The findings reflect broad indifference. While the majority (95%) of the respondents sampled were aware of Mas Selamat’s escape, less than a quarter knew about the Laju hostage incident (22%) and only half (53%) were aware of the bombing of MacDonald House. Less than three-quarters said they knew about the hijack of SQ 117 (61%) and the Jemaah Islamiyah plot (67%).
Similarly, when respondents were asked if they felt the events were important to them and to future generations of Singaporeans, the hijack of SQ 117, bombing of MacDonald House and Laju hostage incident were ranked at the lower end of the scale. A closer look at the data shows dissociation between awareness of events and perception of importance for respondents living in different dwelling types. A higher percentage of respondents living in condominiums and landed property were aware of the terrorist incidents, than compared to respondents living in 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB flats. Conversely, a lower percentage of respondents living in condominiums and private estates felt that the terrorist incidents were of importance. Charts 1 and 2 below show awareness and perception of importance differentiated by dwelling types.
Why is this so? Arguably, private estate dwellers have greater social mobility and more access to information. Hence, they are more aware of historical events that impact national security. In Chart 1, we see that private estate residents are the most informed about all five terrorism-related events, except for the Jemaah Islamiyah plot. But why would the same respondents feel that these events matter less to them than the residents of public estates, as evidenced in Chart 2?
In particular, only half or less of the private estate dwellers reported concern about the Laju hostage incident (33%) and the bombing of MacDonald House (50%). In the case of the Mas Selamat escape (61%) and Jemaah Islamiyah plot (62%), the importance attached to these incidents were still less than that registered by residents of public housing. This is true for all the terrorism-related events except for the hijack of SQ 117, which could be attributed to the fact that private estate dwellers may be more exposed to international travel, and thus more sensitive to airplane-related terrorism.
A possible reason for why private-estate dwellers did not find past security threats important could be because they are likely to have greater social capital and financial resources to cope in difficult times. Hence, they may be better able to manage any physical and economic fall-out that may come about from a disruption to their daily lives. Conversely, residents of 1, 2 and 3-room public housing may be less confident about coping with unforeseen disruptions to their daily routine.
These findings suggest that anti-terrorism campaigns should be targeted at raising awareness of terrorism, with the objective of establishing empathy or a personal sense of relevance. In anti-terrorism campaigns or teaching about terrorism in social studies, more Singapore-centric examples could be used to highlight the threat at home. Recent examples such as the Mumbai attacks in 2008 where a Singaporean lost her life, or incidents such as the Laju hostage crisis and the hijack of SQ 117, could be used to highlight the consequences of transnational terrorism and how fragile peace is.
Magdalene Choo is a Research Associate at the IPS Social Lab. Results of the IPS Study on Perceptions of Singapore’s History, mentioned in this piece, can be found on the IPS website. Findings from the study were presented at the Singapore Perspectives 2015 conference on 26 January 2015.
Top photo from Flickr.