Sri Lanka has had a long and complex relationship with what ‘national security’ is. It has never been clearly defined by the State in any policy document which is accessible to the public. It is a term widely abused by the polity of the island to suit their own agenda and has lost its currency with the public due to it becoming politicised. As such, when practitioners speak of ‘national security’ challenges today, few take them seriously. The damage the politicisation of ‘national security’ narratives has done to Sri Lanka’s national security is immense, and the status quo continues to hinder efforts to have a serious debate about security and what it entails. This has serious implications on the island’s national security framework and resilience, as it prevents effective policies from being formed, enforced, and understood by the public. It also leaves the national security architecture of the State stuck in a backward posture, struggling to adapt to fit an evolving threat spectrum.

Sri Lankans and our polity often use Singapore as a nation to emulate. However, despite many lessons learnt and models adopted from the developed city-state-turned-maritime-hub, Sri Lanka has failed to grasp some fundamental features about national security and transparency from them. Last week, Singapore published a report, its latest iteration of how the nation perceives the threats linked to terrorism: the Singapore Terrorism Threat Assessment Report 2025, a public report, published by its Internal Security Department (ISD), which is under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The document is readily accessible online and is not restricted to the public. This is because Singapore understands the importance of public awareness and understanding of security measures for them to be successful. After all, rules and regulations are effectively enforceable when there is public awareness and support. The report states at the onset: “The terrorism threat to Singapore remains high. Global terror groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda continue to incite violence and inspire attacks. Ongoing conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fuel calls for attacks. Singapore’s friendly ties with Western nations, iconic landmarks, and status as a secular and multi-cultural State make us a prime target for terrorists.”

The report also states that self-radicalisation remains a key threat. “Since July 2024, 8 self-radicalised Singaporeans have been dealt with under the Internal Security Act (ISA). The internet is a powerful catalyst for radicalisation, creating an environment where extremist ideologies can spread easily.  The timeline from exposure to radicalisation can be just weeks,” the report said, adding that cybersecurity remained a persistent challenge while Artificial Intelligence (AI) was emerging as a terrorism enabler. Youth radicalisation is a growing concern, with 17 youths (age less than 20) dealt with under ISA since 2015. According to the report, in Singapore, more than two-third (12 youths) were dealt with in the last five years, “nine of whom intended to mount local attacks – three in the past year alone. Some had made extensive preparations and were planning to use simple and accessible weapons”. The report added that youths were vulnerable to radicalisation as they tended to be digital natives, easily swayed by emotive narrative, sought belonging and validation, and were susceptible to idolisation of extremist personalities. It told Singaporeans: “Countering terrorism is a fundamental responsibility shared by everyone to protect our way of life, our values, and the safety of every citizen. Every action taken, every report made, and every initiative launched, brings Singapore one step closer to a safer, more united nation.” This is how small States build resilience when it comes to security – through awareness, transparency, proactive preparedness, and resolute vigilance. Through such awareness, you also build trust in the State and its security architecture, because the public is not fearful of it, nor does it perceive it as being abusive or corrupt. Trust goes a long way in securing a nation.

Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, there is no such annual report on security concerns and challenges, leaving the public to be at the mercy of whatever is in the public domain about ‘security.’ These include lawmakers who trumpet security narratives which suit their interests, self-styled pundits, misinformation and disinformation campaigns (both local and foreign), conspiracy theories, polarising narratives based on Sri Lanka’s long-standing ethnic and religious fault lines, and narrow-minded political parties and interest groups. The State should not leave the ‘national security’ public information space void to be filled by whoever is there to do it. The outcomes from such gaps in public information and awareness is not only dangerous, but it can also be lethal to the peace and stability of the nation. The Government uses occasional press conferences and shows of force, using Police/military exercises or joint operations, to communicate their security concerns and reactions to the public. The State is still stuck in an outdated security mindset and has grown dangerously comfortable in it.

Shouldn’t a transparent and good governance State be more transparent on matters of national security? When will our national leaders and security authorities evolve into being as transparent as possible and ultimately more effective?