us general

For one moment, it looked like the security of the entire world was about to be upended. With no forewarning and no explanation, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth suddenly ordered virtually all of his country’s top military officers – those ranked one star and above – to return to the US for an urgent briefing.

It is hard to overestimate the sheer scale of this operation. With approximately 1.3 million active personnel, the US military has around 800 generals and admirals, spread across the globe. To have them all fly back home is a massive undertaking, entailing the global movement of thousands of high-security staff and costing millions of dollars.

The US military has highly secure video teleconferencing facilities, designed precisely for such last-minute gatherings. So, if these facilities were not good enough for Mr Hegseth’s emergency meeting, there was only one conclusion: the event in Quantico, Virginia, was of such importance and of such a high security classification that only a face-to-face meeting was considered acceptable.

And the reality? The United States’ top brass, convened in one vast auditorium outside Washington, DC, on Sept 30, was treated to a banal speech about “warrior ethos” from Mr Hegseth, who zig-zagged across the speaker’s platform and waved his arms about in the manner of a young Ted Talk lecturer.

This was followed by a long, meandering monologue from President Donald Trump, who publicly wondered at one point why his generals and admirals were so quiet. He even joked that if those in attendance did not like what he had to say, they could leave the room – but “there goes your rank, there goes your future”, he added.

The initial speculation about the super-secret nature of the occasion came to nothing – the entire spectacle was broadcast live to the world.

If this were just the latest example of “entertainment” from a US presidency famous for offbeat drama, nobody outside the US should care. Sadly, however, what has happened at this meeting does affect many other nations. For it is a harbinger of how the administration intends to run its military.

Warrior ethos

Mr Hegseth is the first US defence secretary to have no experience of the Cold War; by the time the Soviet Union collapsed, he was just 11 years old. For America’s current top military official, the key reference point is not the Cold War confrontation in which the US ultimately prevailed, often by refraining from using its military might, but rather the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past quarter of a century. The two conflicts in which he served also happen to be the two conflicts into which the US poured enormous resources, but ultimately lost.

Judging by his book, The War On Warriors, published last year well before Mr Hegseth knew he’d be tapped to run the Pentagon, the culprits for the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters are obvious: left-wing politicians in Washington, cultural “Marxists”, “social justice saboteurs”, all aided by what he calls “feckless generals” who mindlessly followed political directives, shackling brave young men – yes, they were invariably men – with all sorts of rules and regulations that were impossible to follow and led to many avoidable deaths.

US soldiers were “busy killing Islamists in shithole countries”, Mr Hegseth writes, only for them to be “betrayed by our leaders”.

The answer, Mr Hegseth claims, is simple. Under his leadership and that of President Trump, there will be no more gender- and race-based promotions.

“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniform leaders for the wrong reasons – based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” he told his audience in Quantico.

The days of “social justice, politically correct and toxic ideological garbage” are over, Mr Hegseth promised. “No more identity months or dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship, no more division, distraction or gender delusions.”

The “fat generals” now sitting “in air-conditioned offices” will either have to slim down or get out. Constant training – not diversity and inclusion programmes – will be the rule. And all soldiers will concentrate on what they do best: kill people with maximum lethality.

Nor are these just words. Shortly after President Trump came to power, several senior military officials were fired, including the commandant of the US Coast Guard, the chief of naval operations, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Many were women or black.

Mr Hegseth likes to believe that his observations about what ails the US military are somehow refreshingly original. Far from it.

In reality, whenever a US war ends in defeat, the military accuses politicians of being responsible for the failure. US generals claimed that the Vietnam War could have been won if only President Lyndon Johnson had let the armed forces do what they wanted. And conversely, many argue that the first Gulf War – that of 1990-1991 that led to the liberation of Kuwait – was such a success precisely because President George H.W. Bush left the military to do exactly what they wanted.

Nor is this phenomenon of blaming politicians for military failures limited to just the US. The most famous example of the same behaviour in Europe is that of the German military after World War I. It blamed its defeat on betrayal by Germany’s political class, allegedly ruled by Jews and other limp-wristed liberals. The so-called “Stab in the Back” myth was very influential in the Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, and contributed to the rise of Nazism.

Sometimes, the charge against politicians is not unfounded; US President Jimmy Carter’s micromanagement of military operations – invariably with disastrous results – is one such example. But very often, the “stab in the back” argument is designed to absolve the military of responsibility for failures, and that’s the danger that the Pentagon now risks.

It is noticeable that nowhere in Mr Hegseth’s latest book or in his angry speech to America’s top brass was there even a mention of old Pentagon diseases such as chronic turf battles between the military services, a bloated civilian-military bureaucracy, or super-expensive procurement projects that invariably end up both late and over budget. For Mr Hegseth, it seems, the real enemies of the military are only “liberals” and desk-bound “woke” generals.

US War Secretary Pete Hegseth speaking to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on Sept 30. PHOTO: REUTERS

Who get to be warriors?

Military establishments everywhere also worry about the physical fitness of their soldiers, and about how representative their armed forces should be of their societies at large. Far from being original on this point, Mr Hegseth’s arguments are familiar to all military planners.

In Europe, for instance, there is a lively debate about the reduction in the number of hours devoted to physical education in schools, which means that either physical requirements have to be lowered for those accepted to military service, or the military needs to do more to get its recruits to meet its standards. There is also an active debate about the question of how inclusive the armed forces should be of women, ethnic minorities, or those of various sexual inclinations.

And, yes, there are constant accusations that Europe’s militaries are also playing their own games of political correctness. In Britain, for instance, critics frequently joke that, seemingly by sheer accident, a soldier of black or Indian descent is always placed in the front row of any British military parade, conveniently close to the TV cameras.

Clearly, the military cannot be a precise representation of society as a whole. Soldiers are expected to give up many personal freedoms that others take for granted and to do extraordinary things, such as to kill, if necessary. So, it would be silly to argue that recruitment and training standards should be lowered in order for the military to faithfully represent the nation it serves.

Yet at the same time, there is plenty of research indicating that the recruitment of people with diverse backgrounds, perspectives and skill sets is increasingly crucial as militaries deploy in new strategic environments. Emerging technologies also mean that physical capabilities are less important than they once were, so that gender distinctions may matter less.

And there are real risks in encouraging a “warrior class” which is increasingly distinct from the nations from which it recruits. The danger is that they may become a particular caste that speaks its own language, adheres to its own separate ethos and is therefore incapable of understanding the country it serves, let alone the enemy it is supposed to fight. It is hard to believe that as late as the 1990s, a top US admiral referred to female pilots in the US Navy as “go-go dancers, topless dancers or hookers”.

The key task is not to eliminate diversity programmes as Mr Hegseth is suggesting, but to make sure that no capable individuals are excluded based on irrelevant characteristics, while maintaining high standards essential for military effectiveness.

More On This Topic

Will Trump’s rebranded ‘Department of War’ lead to more wars?

Trump gave the military’s brass a rehashed speech. Until the 44th minute

The enemy within

Probably the most disturbing argument put forward by both President Trump and his War Secretary at the unusual gathering of top brass is that the US military should concentrate on what Mr Trump called “the invasion from within”, by which he meant US cities run by Democrats, which could become “training grounds” for the deployment of troops.

US law explicitly prohibits such deployments in anything but emergency circumstances. Yet Mr Trump has now turned his initial deployments to Los Angeles and Washington, DC, into a new strategy: Instead of confronting foreign foes, the US military will now be expected to act as an extension of the President’s domestic political agenda.

If he persists in the objective of transforming the Pentagon into a battering ram against domestic opponents, Mr Trump will quickly discover that his most significant opposition will come from the military. There is nothing that demoralises a military and renders it less warrior-like more than the idea that it is used mainly for domestic repression.

Either way, for US allies around the world, this week’s Pentagon developments are deeply worrying for the signals they send about the shift in norms and values as well as the focus of its attention. And they indicate a US administration determined to personalise power to an unprecedented extent.

One is almost tempted to ask: With allies like these, who are the enemies?

Jonathan Eyal is based in London and Brussels and writes on global political and security matters.

More On This Topic

Fear, praise and silence: Reactions to Trump’s military gathering

US government shutdown masks a bid for raw power

For hawker stall owner Fikri Rohaimi, it’s not all about business, but making a difference in the community, too.

The 25-year-old’s eatery, BlackGoat, sells steak and burgers. But every year during the Islamic month of Ramadan, Mr Fikri – a former assistant chef with two Michelin-starred restaurants in Singapore – gives away food to those in need, regardless of race or religion.

Kindness can go hand in hand with the practicalities of running a business, and embodies the kampung spirit that helped forge Singapore.

In a divided world, kindness is often the middle ground that opens dialogue and soothes tension. It makes collaboration possible. This doesn’t arise by accident. It requires people to choose humility and grace. 

Kindness is not merely courtesy or consideration, but courage, too – to see past assumptions, to disarm conflict with empathy, and to offer grace when it is not easy. In truth, kindness is an active, intentional stance. It is a choice to see the other as human first.

Yet, there is a common misconception that kindness is passive; a soft virtue ill suited to the rigours of modern life. In an era of algorithmic outrage and incentivised division, kindness must not be seen as weakness.

While globalisation has brought people of different cultures closer together, making our cities, workplaces and online spaces more diverse than ever, it has also resulted in more tension and misunderstanding. Global events further exacerbate divisions.

We do not have to look far for examples of where kindness is seen as weakness, and how this approach backfires.

Kindness in the community

In parenting, we find clear lessons. According to Unicef, studies show that strict parenting methods such as yelling may lead to desired short-term outcomes. But they often lead to anxiety, low self-worth or aggressive behaviour that could spell trouble in the long term. Children are less likely to process their emotions healthily, making it harder for them to build trusting relationships.

Kindness in parenting is not weakness. Positive parenting encourages a growth mindset and builds confidence. It is correlated with higher self-esteem in children, better academic outcomes and better mental and physical health in the long term.

Some may be quick to judge parents who take a “softer” approach, but words of kindness result in better long-term outcomes. Children who grow up in such environments are better-adjusted, more confident individuals.

At the recent International Conference on Cohesive Societies in Singapore, I discussed how kindness lays the foundation for shared values, allowing us to build cohesive, resilient societies anchored on a spirit of openness, learning together and mutual accommodation.

It begins with the recognition that our world view is not the only one. This, in turn, needs to be sustained by curiosity, empathy and the courage to reappraise our own biases.

Crucially, it requires listening. Not the kind of listening we do while waiting to speak, but real, active listening that seeks to understand context, history and lived experience. 

There are many opportunities to foster kindness in our daily lives. This could involve simple acts like greeting our neighbours, offering help to someone in need, or taking the time to listen to a colleague’s perspective.

In our diverse communities, we can make an effort to learn about different cultures, participate in community events and engage in respectful dialogue about our differences. It’s something we should nurture in our youth from a young age through educational institutions as well.

Kindness at work

Similarly, we need to look at how working adults view kindness in Singapore. 

The breakdown in kindness often shows up in everyday interactions at work, where colleagues are told off, bosses are blunt or employees feel sidelined. This often translates into a toxic work culture, where people neglect the warm gestures or kind words that can make a difference for someone.

If we were to let toxicity take root and fester in an organisation, that could lead to detrimental consequences. According to a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a toxic workplace environment negatively impacts employee engagement.

Additionally, organisational support increases employees’ engagement with their work, as well as with the organisation. Organisational support, in some ways, is also a form of kindness: letting employees know that their voices are heard, feedback is acted on and tangible change is observed.

More On This Topic

‘I did not want them to fall sick’: Boy who won hearts for sheltering bus passengers from rain

Grab driver goes extra mile for passengers by offering snacks

We often talk about cultural appreciation and diversity training at work, where they tend to be seen as one-off events, isolated from the reality of daily life. Shared understanding, which is the bedrock of kindness, must be a continuous effort.

In short, kindness allows employees to thrive.

In Australian company Moddex, the Thrive at Moddex programme was designed to allow direct input from employees to meet their needs. The programme covers financial and personal well-being, including mental health resources. Initiatives like these are relevant and impactful, in the way Moddex actively listens and responds to employees.

Workplaces need to be inclusive environments that celebrate diversity, encourage cross-cultural collaboration and connect people together. That’s when workers experience a shared sense of purpose and authentic belonging, where individual contributions feel meaningful within a collective mission. As a result, communication can become clearer, tasks can be completed faster due to clearer communication, and results therefore are better.

For a start, organisations can create an open and honest environment where feedback is viewed as means to improve, and not as criticism, which paradoxically impairs growth.

More On This Topic

Meet the ‘little red hat’ who travels around Singapore giving free haircuts to the elderly and needy

‘Always try to be kind’: Praise for motorcyclist who helped woman walking on PIE

Kindness as an indicator

We need to rethink how we measure societal progress. Alongside economic indicators, we should consider metrics that reflect the state of our social connections, the level of trust in our communities, and the degree of empathy for people who might be different from us.

Instead of just measuring progress by GDP growth, innovation milestones or technological breakthroughs, what if we also measured how well we treat one another? By how inclusive our communities are? By how often we choose kindness over convenience?

Take Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness, a development philosophy and measurement system. Holistic well-being of its people is prioritised over pure economic growth.

This is not to say economic growth is not important; rather, it’s about balancing economic progress with social, environmental and cultural well-being. Perhaps adapting from certain indicators from the measurement system could be included to better reflect the state of the country.

By making kindness and mutual understanding our priorities, we can create a future where technological advancement and human compassion go hand in hand.

It is a necessary path forward in our increasingly interconnected global society. 

Let’s not just build a smarter world. Let’s build a kinder one.

Michelle Tay is the executive director of the Singapore Kindness Movement, where she leads the organisation’s efforts to promote kindness and civic-mindedness in Singapore.

More On This Topic

Feeling at home in a kinder, more race-blind Singapore

People want to do good, driven by desire for positive impact on society

Two weeks ago, I attended a symposium in Stockholm organised by a consortium of Singaporean and Swedish universities on the theme of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on lifelong learning.  

The symposium was motivated by the idea that Singapore and Sweden have much to learn from each other, and indeed, conversations with Swedish researchers and friends provided grist for reflection. 

There is much to admire about Sweden. A country of a mere 10.6 million people – not even twice Singapore’s population – Sweden has produced an impressive array of global brand names, with H&M, Ikea, Volvo, Ericsson, Tetra Pak and Spotify, to name just a few. Thirty-nine Swedes have won the Nobel Prize, named after the Swedish inventor of dynamite. Notable Swedish innovations include safety matches, the gamma knife and Bluetooth. The popular games Candy Crush and Minecraft are also Swedish, as are global chart-topping bands Abba, Roxette and Ace of Base. 

Singapore may have had a shorter runway since gaining independence, but we clearly have a long way to catch up with Sweden in terms of world-leading brands, breakthrough innovations and cultural exports. 

Where Singapore excels is in governance and efficiency, which have seen our country achieve median worker incomes comparable to Sweden’s. But to keep progressing in the next phase of development, particularly in the age of AI, Singapore will require something different – the kind of innovation and creativity that Sweden is known for. 

Accounting for the innovation gap 

Sweden’s prodigious innovation output has been linked with the country’s strong investment in R&D, close ties among academia, government and industry, strong digital infrastructure and global orientation. These are factors that Singapore too does fairly well in.

Indeed, in the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Wipo) Global Innovation Index 2025, Singapore does as well as or better than Sweden in areas such as human capital and institutions; however, we are ranked 15th in creative outputs, behind Sweden in second place.

The innovation gap between the two countries likely reflects deeper social and cultural factors. 

At the symposium I attended, Singaporean and Swedish universities shared ideas and findings on how AI is shaping education, work and society. Those of us from Singapore tended to be more task-oriented, focused on how to harness AI to improve learning outcomes and productivity at work. By contrast, many of the Swedish presentations were more philosophical and contemplative in orientation, reflecting on the place of AI in work and society. 

The symposium was perhaps a microcosm of the Singaporean and Swedish approaches when confronted with a new technology. Our instinct is to leverage technology to stay ahead of the competition; the Swedes have a more holistic approach centred as much on the humanities and social sciences as it is on the technology itself. 

However, an overly pragmatic stance may mean that our institutions and people miss out on insights that come from deep reflection, which could inform the foundations of human contribution and learning in the AI age. With AI increasing its cognitive lead over human beings, and user interfaces becoming ever more intuitive, human insights may turn out to be more valuable than technical skills in the longer term. 

While Singapore’s 15-year-olds topped the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) creative thinking test, the question is whether our test-taking smarts will translate into breakthrough innovation in the years to come.

Breakthroughs in the arts, sciences and technology often have to overcome significant hurdles before gaining acceptance – precisely because of their paradigm-shifting nature. This requires intellectual passion, independence of mind, self-confidence, an “outsider mentality” and many years of toil and perseverance – qualities that may be at odds with a pragmatic mindset that seeks quick results, recognition and rewards.  

For instance, the first Swedish Nobel laureate, Svante August Arrhenius, received a fourth-class degree for his doctoral dissertation on electrolytic dissociation, an idea which eventually won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903. Undeterred by his failure to impress his professors, Arrhenius sent his findings to scientists in other parts of Europe, eventually gaining recognition in his home country for his achievements.

Organisational culture may also impact innovation. Swedish enterprises are known for their flat structure and culture of open communication, which fosters collaboration. In Singapore, where organisations tend to be more hierarchical, with greater deference to authority, those in junior positions may sometimes feel inhibited in expressing their ideas or challenging received wisdom. 

For innovation to flourish, it helps to have a research ecosystem that supports ground-up ideation and experimentation. On our trip to Stockholm, my colleagues and I visited the Research Institutes of Sweden, which impressed us with its one-stop suite of support for innovators through extensive public-private networks and test-bedding facilities.

Singapore, too, has a world-class research and innovation ecosystem, but tends to be more top-down in the setting of research priorities and may put researchers under greater pressure to demonstrate impact and relevance. While the Singapore approach generates quicker results in targeted areas, it may be less conducive to serendipitous breakthroughs.  

Singapore may lag behind Sweden in creative output, but we are progressing in the right direction. Today, more young Singaporeans are taking up intellectual and creative pursuits, encouraged and enabled by schools and public funding agencies. The Ministry of Education has sought to shift focus from testing to learning, trimming curriculum to free up time for exploratory learning. 

More Singaporeans are also making their mark in creative pursuits. For instance, artist Priscilla Tey recently won a top prize in the World Illustration Awards 2025, while writer Agnes Chew was named the Asia regional winner of the Commonwealth Short Story Prize in 2023.

However, our societal milieu is still one that encourages a narrower form of competition. This is in large part due to the high cost of living and unequal economic rewards across sectors and occupations, which creates strong pressure for young Singaporeans to get ahead in the economic rat race. A more egalitarian society could relieve such pressure, encouraging more Singaporeans to indulge their passions as innovators, artistes and entrepreneurs. 

More On This Topic

When young workers quit jobs to pursue passion - and parents support them

Singaporeans and their struggle with the fear of being merely average

Is the welfare state the answer?

Sweden’s egalitarian society is underpinned by a comprehensive welfare state, which provides generous benefits for all residents from cradle to grave. A pertinent question is whether Singapore should emulate Sweden’s welfare state to encourage Singaporeans to take risks and explore alternative pathways in life.

The answer isn’t so straightforward. The Nordic social democratic model, long admired internationally, is coming under increasing fiscal and political strain.

As a Swedish friend explained to me, Sweden’s welfare state is based on a strong sense of social solidarity and shared values. Of late, the foundations of this social compact have been rattled by immigration, which has seen the proportion of foreign-born people in Sweden increase in the 2000s from just over 11 per cent of the population to 20 per cent. 

While immigration has been an economic lifeline for Sweden, given its falling birth rates and labour shortfalls, some perceive that immigrants are milking the welfare system without contributing their fair share. This is because unemployment and poverty rates are significantly higher among immigrants. 

Just last week, the Swedish government announced that it would be cutting benefits for large families in its 2026 budget. By contrast, the Singapore Government is now giving additional benefits to families with three or more children under the Large Families scheme announced in Budget 2025.

Apart from immigration, demographics also do not work in Sweden’s favour. An ageing population leads to higher pension and social service expenditures, while shrinking the tax base. Despite Sweden’s emphasis on work-life balance and gender equality, along with generous childcare and education benefits, the birth rate is around 1.44, higher than Singapore’s but far below the replacement rate of 2.1. This in turn necessitates further immigration. The sustainability of the Swedish – and more generally, the Nordic model – is therefore questionable. 

While Singapore’s low tax system is very different from Sweden’s, it is worth considering what more could be done here to strengthen social support and assurance without overstretching the state’s coffers. 

A more egalitarian society – both in income distribution and respect for those who have chosen less well-trodden pathways in career and life – could be the secret sauce that unlocks Singapore’s creative potential.   

More On This Topic

S’pore population now at 6.11 million, with 1.2% rise due to more construction workers, helpers

A ‘we first’ Singapore is the hardest policy for PM Lawrence Wong to deliver

Singapore’s strengths in governance  

In fact, combining this with Singapore’s existing strengths could be a potent recipe for success. Even advanced economies like Sweden admire Singapore’s policy coherence, public resourcing and coordination.   

In education, for example, Singapore’s national school system enables additional financial resources and good teachers to be spread out across a larger number of schools, offsetting the advantages enjoyed by students in the more popular or privately funded schools. This has led to high averages in educational outcomes, such that even our students from lower socioeconomic family backgrounds outperform the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) average in the Pisa tests.

Sweden, however, is grappling with growing disparities in educational outcomes within its decentralised system. While Sweden’s average Pisa scores are above the OECD average in reading, mathematics and science, the gap between the strongest and weakest students widened over the most recent period of observation from 2018 to 2022. 

Singapore has also been quick to develop a coherent national AI strategy, which has become a point of reference for countries seeking to develop their own AI technology roadmaps.

There is indeed much that Singapore and Sweden can learn from each other – not by directly transplanting policies and programmes, but through careful reflection, distilling what is worth emulating and adapting. I look forward to more exchanges with our Swedish counterparts as we navigate changes in education, work and innovation in the AI age. 

Terence Ho is deputy executive director of the Institute for Adult Learning. He is also the author of How Singapore Beat The Odds (World Scientific, 2025).

More On This Topic

Meet the world’s first minister for AI

Plucky Bhutan seeks to reinvent its economy

sci prayers

A Scientific Prayer 

- based on some 2018 PSLE Science Syllabus

By a Blue 💙 Scientist (not Ariel)

Our Heavenly Father, creator of Heaven and Earth 🌈 , we lift our boys (and girls) unto You.

May Your presence be felt as they sit for the Science Paper. Father, remind them that You were the one that said : "Let there be light☀ !" & so photosynthesis can take place & henceforth, food producers 🌱are able to get the food chain / food web started through which growth and reproduction can take place to ensure continuity of life🕊. 

We pray that our boys (and girls) will remain calm and take deep breathes, when they feel nervous, so that oxygen can be transported by blood 💉 in the circulatory system, from the lungs to the rest of the body. Remove all carbon dioxide that will turn their thoughts cloudy so that our boys (and girls) have clarity 🌬in their brain cells to remember all that they been taught and apply that knowledge🤔 to the questions. 

Father, You are the only one who is in control and has the power🔋 to switch 🔛them on and stay close 🔁to them, so that their brain juices will flow 〰 thru and the answers will light up💡! 

Father, we also pray that the nutritious food 🍎that they have been consuming, have been completely digested by the small intestines in the digestive system and will provide energy ⛽ to their body and continue to keep them healthy💪🏼. 

May You remove all Kinetic Energy 😖which causes anxiety and convert them to Gravitational Potential Energy😎, so that they may remain calm. Father, may your presence be felt as lubricant 💦to reduce the friction that is caused by the rough and tough questions.

Grant them the Spiritual and structural adaptations to write ✍🏼 fast and concisely. Enable them with Your wisdom to overcome the killer 🦈 questions so that they can reproduce whatever they have learnt to help them survive this Science paper. 

Repel⬅➡ all fears they have of the Science paper and we pray that at the end of this whole PSLE, our boys (and girls) have learnt to be more attracted ➡⬅to You, constantly be magnetised 🖇to u and continue to draw their strength from You as they move into their next phase of education.

💙All Glory to You! 

In Jesus most precious name, Amen

reflections for CCA

https://padlet.com/choy_mingzi_juliana/RMPS_SAC2025_enrichment_module_reflection_primary

mqeqYJLuqUF$8%SdsyPvVI

perfect flight

SINGAPORE – To most travellers, a plane is simply the space where travel unfolds. But behind every seat, overhead compartment and window lies years of planning, testing and investment.

From conceptualisation to certification, the timeline can span several years, says Mr Ingo Wuggetzer, vice-president of cabin marketing at Airbus, Europe’s largest aerospace company. “Each component – a seat, a lighting system, even the sidewall lining – goes through rigorous testing.”

Airlines and manufacturers consult stakeholders, run trial sessions and gather extensive feedback before arriving at a cabin design they are willing to put into production.

The costs are equally significant. German aviation giant Lufthansa Group, for instance, has invested €2.5 billion (S$3.78 billion) into product and service improvements since after the Covid-19 pandemic to the end of 2026.

The project includes upgrades like more spacious seats and a new in-flight entertainment system with Bluetooth connectivity to personal devices.

“Aircraft cabin design is a very complex task that contains several variables,” says Mr Marco Willa, head of onboard experience at Lufthansa Group. “When it is done well, it really is a masterpiece.”

Over the past decade, two priorities have shaped cabin design more than any others: weight reduction and the use of sustainable materials, says Mr Vito Mirko Giacovelli, Cabinair Group’s commercial director.

Cabinair Group is a Britain-headquartered collective of aviation companies that provide solutions in areas like aircraft interior design, maintenance and repair.

Weight reduction matters because a lighter aircraft burns less fuel, boosting efficiency and airline revenue. A familiar example is slimmer seating, achieved by reducing cushion thickness. Meanwhile, sustainable materials such as bamboo, recycled plastics and carbon fibre have made their way into panelling, flooring and upholstery – cutting both cabin weight and environmental impact.

But there is a trade-off. “Passengers are starting to push back on this trend, especially when reduced space and comfort don’t translate to lower fares. As a result, customers are becoming more loyal to airlines that deliver the best overall experience,” says Mr Giacovelli.

Juggling passenger and airline needs

While safety remains the top priority in cabin design, other factors are constantly at play.

Mr Yogesh Tadwalkar, director of ergonomics consulting firm Synergo Consulting and health tech start-up BalanceFlo AI, points to four other key parameters that often compete for attention: revenue maximisation, comfort, functionality and aesthetics.

Mr Tadwalkar, who has provided ergonomics expertise and training to major aviation players such as Airbus and Thales, says: “There are always some trade-offs between these. For instance, the trade-off between revenue maximisation and comfort would be packing in as many rows of seats as possible, which will have an impact on leg room.”

Ultimately, it is up to airlines to decide where one parameter takes precedence over another and how far each threshold can be pushed.

Trends in economy class over the decades, Mr Tadwalkar notes, show a clear shift where safety-related features have steadily improved, but cabin ergonomics – including seat pitch and recline angle – have deteriorated.

Still, some gems remain and newer features powered by technology are enhancing the flight experience. Here are five that make your flight safer and more comfortable.

1. Seats that will not catch fire

Airbus’ Mr Wuggetzer finds that one often overlooked, yet critical, cabin design constraint is flammability. “Every material, and combination of materials, must pass strict tests proving they will not burn for at least two minutes, in order to allow for safe evacuation of the aircraft in case of an emergency,” he says.

German airline Lufthansa’s newest cabin concept Lufthansa Allegris features new seats in all classes of travel that are said to offer more comfort, flexibility and privacy. PHOTO: LUFTHANSA

Aviation authorities like the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and the Federal Aviation Administration mandate fire-resistant materials for aircraft seats.

Mr Tadwalkar says this means all seat cushions have fire-blocking layers – typically made of synthetic or glass fibres – and fabrics, foams and carpets are tested to resist toxic smoke generation and be self-extinguishing.

2. Sixteen million lighting colours for better health

A more recent development is airlines’ use of advanced LED lighting that can shift in colour and intensity to suit different stages of a flight.

The Airbus A350 aircraft, for instance, features a lighting system that can create an immense number of ambience scenarios with 16.3 million available colours.

Airbus’ Airspace cabins reimagine the travel experience for passengers, and include features like an ambient lighting system and large overhead compartments. PHOTO: AIRBUS

“It can be programmed to reduce jet lag by up to three or four hours, helping passengers adjust more quickly to new time zones,” says Mr Wuggetzer. 

According to Lufthansa’s Mr Willa, adjusted lighting can counteract symptoms of jet lag like fatigue, dizziness and headaches, especially when flying across several time zones. The company works with Hamburg-based start-up jetlite, which has produced a science-backed light technology to reduce jet lag.

“An algorithm controls the cabin lighting according to flight time, duration and direction, as well as the time zones, daylight and seasons at the departure and destination points. More than 24 different light scenarios can be created to positively influence passengers’ biorhythms,” he adds.

3. Cabin air is cleaner than average indoor spaces

Clean cabin air is one of the least visible yet most important factors shaping the flight experience.

According to the International Air Transport Association, most modern aircraft are fitted with high-efficiency particulate air (Hepa) filters, which are 99.9 per cent effective at removing viruses, bacteria and fungi.

Mr Choong Weng On, vice-president of engineering at low-cost carrier Scoot, says cabin air is typically changed completely every six minutes.

“When we talk about air quality, we often measure it by how many times air from the inside is exchanged with air from the outside. The rate of air exchange in an aircraft… is comparable to that of hospitals,” he says.

Contrary to popular belief, air in the cabin does not flow along the length of the plane, but instead rotates in a circular motion from top to bottom throughout the cabin. This optimised airflow prevents the spread of contaminants longitudinally and ensures a constant supply of fresh air, according to experts who spoke with ST.

4. Aircraft fuselage material affects cabin air pressure

At a cruising altitude of around 30,000 to 40,000 ft, outside air pressure is far too low for humans to breathe unaided. Aircraft cabin pressurisation artificially increases air pressure within the cabin to simulate a lower altitude during high-altitude flight.

Until the early 2010s, the industry standard of cabin pressurisation was around 8,000 ft. That changed in 2011, when the Boeing 787 Dreamliner entered service with a lower cabin altitude of 6,000 ft, as a result of using composite materials to build its fuselage.

A composite fuselage is both stronger and lighter than traditional aluminium designs, allowing better pressurisation in the cabin. Lower cabin altitude is typically related to better passenger comfort as it can alleviate fatigue, nausea and headaches, which could help reduce jet lag.

Today, other aircraft like the Airbus A350 and A380 also feature a 6,000 ft pressurised cabin. This lower cabin altitude is now seen as the standard airlines strive to match.

5. Larger windows increase perceived space

One of the most noticeable upgrades in newer aircraft is the size of the windows.

“One of the major asks of airlines has always been that aircraft need more natural lighting. The whole cabin will look more spacious,” says Mr Choong.

Bigger windows allow the cabin to be flooded with natural light, which often helps to increase perceived space and reduces the feeling of confinement. 

Scoot’s newest Embraer E190-E2 aircraft feature 30.9cm-wide windows, which are 34 per cent larger than an Airbus A320neo aircraft’s windows. PHOTO: SCOOT

The Embraer E190-E2 is Scoot’s newest aircraft. It features a 2-2 seating configuration and windows with a 30.9cm width. The single-aisle Airbus A320neo aircraft, in comparison, have windows of 23cm width.

Scoot uses the aircraft to fly to short-haul destinations like Vientiane in Laos and Phu Quoc in Vietnam.

“The size of windows is more obvious relative to the whole cabin. The Embraer features a smaller cabin, so the big windows increase the sense of openness,” says Mr Choong.

Plane Truths is a new series that makes sense of air travel. For more travel stories, go to str.sg/travel

More On This Topic

Best buys in the sky: What is worth shopping for during a flight?

Plane Truths: How to bag cheaper flights

Sarah Stanley is a journalist at The Straits Times who covers travel, lifestyle and aviation.