THE defence white paper, mooted at end-2018, was meant to solicit input from politicians, academics and focus groups. It was ambitiously aimed at presenting a total defence concept, whereby stakeholders could claim collective participation and ownership.

Sadly, it has been overshadowed by a year of ethno-religious skulduggery intended to heighten hatred between the communities and destabilise the government.

Most people have little to no idea how a modern war is fought. When the white paper is tabled later this year, our politicians, who have the responsibility to formulate policies and laws to ensure a battle-ready nation, will be clueless. They will be lost when confronted with terminology like total defence, hybrid warfare, fifth-generation and sixth-generation warfare, and electronic warfare.

The discussion here attempts to explore how a potential aggressor might utilise hybrid warfare to destabilise our country. Hybrid warfare is the use of both military and non-military strategies, and employs political warfare. It blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare (guerillas, insurgents and terrorists) and cyber warfare with other influencing methods, such as fake news, diplomacy and foreign intervention in elections.

The adversary in a hybrid war could be a state or non-state actor. The term “hybrid” describes the variety and blending of methods employed in non-military operations with military and covert operations, like supporting and sponsoring political protests and separatist groups, economic coercion, cyber operations that include hacking, and disinformation campaigns.

Focusing on hybrid warfare’s tools and methods, the 2015 edition of The Military Balance gives a good definition: “The use of military and non-military tools in an integrated campaign designed to achieve surprise, seize the initiative and gain psychological, as well as physical, advantages utilising diplomatic means; sophisticated and rapid information, electronic and cyber operations; covert, and occasionally overt, military and intelligence action; and, economic pressure.”

In the current geopolitical and economic scenario, how would an adversary launch a hybrid war against Malaysia? Our foreign policy is mainly one of non-alignment based on the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality pact, which we have spearheaded since 1971. It is also skewed slightly towards China, not because of ideology, but mainly for economic survival, as China has been our second-largest trading partner. And to a lesser extent, because of geography. We rely on China to buy our palm oil to make up for the European Union’s declining import due to the removal of the subsidy for palm oil used in biofuels. Chinese tourists have given a boost to our economy, while the growing craze for our “smelly” King of Fruits is an added bonus.

The revived East Coast Rail Link and other infrastructure projects have the potential to be a game changer if the tens of billions spent are regenerated back into the economy. After all, Malaysia is featured most prominently among Asean countries in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Encouraging the super rich, including those from China and Hong Kong, to buy high-end apartments here and make Malaysia their second home makes good economic sense. It is similar to Malaysians buying apartments in Perth, London and Singapore. The arguments against having hordes of Chinese citizens taking up permanent residency here, including the many things said prior to the 14th general election, are but a convenient boogeyman tactic often used by both sides of the divide trying to seize a psychological advantage.

Under such circumstances, and in light of the current US-China conflict over geopolitical and economic domination, a hybrid war launched against us is likely to subvert our political economy, sabotaging our close trade ties with China. Palm oil, one of our main exports, is an easy target through video ads’ exaggerated messages of deforestation and destruction of wildlife habitats to make way for oil palm plantations. In contrast, the massive deforestation in the Amazon and Western nations for animal husbandry goes largely ignored.

Another tactic is fanning interethnic hatred to perpetuate a siege mentality, so that the nation is destroyed from within. It sees right-wing civil society organisations being funded by foreign sources to act as pressure groups to disrupt well-intended policies. Such groups are typically characterised by their irrational behaviour and inability to reason. It is of no surprise if there are outfits already being exploited.

There are also other approaches, such as disseminating fake news, disinformation, and sponsoring civil and political groups to fight a proxy war. Electronic warfare is a prominent feature of a hybrid war.

In this aspect, our military will need a massive revamp, new equipment and highly skilled personnel. A succeeding article will discuss the matter in detail.

For now, the question is, will politicians be capable of undertaking the defence white paper debate, or remain indifferent to it, choosing instead to fixate on the usual racial polemics? – September 19, 2019.

* Captain Dr Wong Ang Peng is a researcher with an interest in economics, politics, and health issues. He has a burning desire to do anything within his means to promote national harmony. Captain Wong is also a member of the National Patriots Association.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.