Between War and Peace: Redefining the SAF's Role Beyond 60

The Diplomat

11-07-2025

For six decades, the Singapore Armed Forces have safeguarded the country's sovereignty and security, but there are new challenges to confront.
The military instrument is traditionally seen as a tool of war, used only as an option of last resort after all peaceful and diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. However, as the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) marks six decades of safeguarding Singapore's sovereignty and security this year, there are new challenges on the horizon.
In an interview ahead of SAF Day on July 1, Defense Minister Chan Chun Sing highlighted how today, the SAF has to 'deal with a range of threats and challenges' on a daily basis. He further added that while Singapore was not at war, neither was it at peace.
While this does not mean a retreat from the SAF's conventional warfighting role, as the recent plans to build up and upgrade Singapore's military capabilities attest, it does suggest a significant redefinition of its raison d'être. Of course, the SAF is no stranger to responding to threats in peacetime. Post 9/11, the widening of the security landscape to include non-conventional threats such as terrorism and piracy saw it evolve to becoming a flexible force capable of a full spectrum of operations from peace to war.
However, with Singapore facing the challenges of an increasingly turbulent and disruptive world, a redefinition of what war is, what security is, and what borders are, means that the SAF will have to embrace these new roles as part of a new normal.
Redefining War
Modern conflict is increasingly defined by a blurring of the lines between war and peace. This has led to concepts like the 'grey zone,' which acknowledge the existence of threats that fall between both ends of this spectrum. However, the term 'grey' is somewhat of a misnomer, and reflects more our binary view of what war and peace are.
The reality is that not all actors share this binary perspective. There are those who have a more fluid understanding of war, not seeing it with the same black and white lenses we use. The Russian cyber and information activity that preceded the 2014 annexation of Crimea, for example, was not isolated 'grey' actions – they were deliberately designed to facilitate a territory grab as part of a broader hybrid strategy that included limited military action.
The spectrum between war and peace is therefore not 'grey,' but the logical extension of war into previously untapped arenas. When viewed in this light, the case for the SAF's deeper involvement in the ambiguous space between war and peace becomes clear. Furthermore, as the international system frays at its edges, we can expect more of the activity that takes place there to be in bad faith.
Redefining Security
At the same time, the way in which we conceptualize security is broadening. While in the past security might be viewed primarily from a military lens, security threats today originate just as much from non-military sources such as political, economic, societal, and environmental. This comprehensive understanding of security is encapsulated in Singapore's Total Defense framework, and in his 2019 National Day rally speech, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong even highlighted how climate change defenses needed to be given the same priority as the SAF.
While this might suggest a lesser role for the military instrument in the contemporary security discourse, the converse is true. Although warfighting lies at the heart of the military, was is not pursued for its own sake. Ultimately, the essence of the military's mission is to safeguard the nation and ensure its security. The SAF's own mission statement emphasizes how it is to 'enhance Singapore's peace and security.' This means that the military's role is not just limited to the context of war – it must also help respond to threats from all sources in peacetime.
Therefore, with the conceptualization of security broadening to include previously non-military domains, the military instrument must expand its repertoire of proficiencies to continue performing its mission in this wider and more complex security landscape. Indeed, the significant resources typically allocated to the military, and the adaptability that is inherent to the way it operates, already makes it the best, if not the most ideal option, to employ in response to emerging vectors of threat.
Redefining Borders
Finally, the emergence of new domains such as cyber and information transforms how we should view border security. Traditionally, trespassing across a state's physical borders is seen as a violation of its territorial integrity. Militaries are also typically tasked with securing national borders from potential aggressors. However, trespasses across the virtual terrain of the cyber and information domains do not conform to the traditional mold of cross-border aggression, making it difficult for governments to authorize a conventional military response.
Nonetheless, the impact of actions undertaken in these new domains does not remain there. There is a nexus between the virtual and physical realms where the effects of both converge. For example, while information warfare might not directly result in the seizing and holding of physical territory, the minds that it seeks to influence reside within the target nation, occupying a physical space. Thus, the capturing of the target population's 'hearts and minds' through informational means is not that dissimilar in concept to a physical attack to seize territory.
Already, concepts such as Fourth-generation Warfare suggest how adversaries will reach increasingly deeper into their target's rear to seek victory, with an emphasis on undermining its internal power, rather than seeking its physical destruction. The redefinition of borders will only open more ways in which this can be achieved. Trespasses across non-traditional borders should therefore be treated just as seriously as those across conventional physical ones. And in line with the redefinition of security discussed earlier, the military's vigilance in safeguarding against external aggression must extend to cover new terrains, whether in peacetime or war.
Looking Beyond SAF60
Because of the challenges described above, the military instrument of today cannot afford to remain idle and stick to its old playbook – it needs to constantly reinvent itself to meet the challenges presented by a security landscape that is transforming rapidly and constantly. While conventional warfighting continues to be relevant, as the recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East show, it can no longer be the military instrument's sole purpose.
While the SAF has earned the right to look back at its contributions over the past 60 years with pride, it also needs to proactively scan the horizon to prepare for what lies ahead. The SAF of the future cannot afford to merely be an instrument of war – it must be an active contributor to the enhancement of Singapore's security across the entire spectrum from peace to war.