At the time of the fall of Singapore, the Japs were virtually out of supplies and reinforcements. Percival surrendered a viable force that could have held out longer, allowing reinforcements to arrive. Those that did arrive were, in some cased captured without a shot being fired.Have to say, I agree with the consensus here - it has to be Percival. I saw a documentary on it (and then read a book about it) and it the information was there for all to see. IF they opened their eyes.
Singapore had been established as a Naval base and, at the time it was set up, was only possible to be attacked from the sea. However, during the 1930's, there was a lot of logging done in the jungle. Logging that required rods to be built to move those felled trees. (All it all seems blindingly obvious, doesn't it?) Despite this, Percival refused to countenance any kind of landward defensive line whatsoever. I'm not suggesting Singapore could not be held indefinitely. But, with proper defences, it could have held long enough for either reinforcements to arrive, or evacuation to happen. Its rapid fall was preventable and was entirely Percival's fault.
He was the worst British general of the last century, if not of all time.