Hansard Explorer

12.00 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, on 7 October 2026, I submitted a written Question to the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.

My Parliamentary Question had two limbs: first, whether Singapore discussed with Israeli officials on addressing illegal settlements and settler violence on in the West Bank during a recent meeting and if not, why not; and second, whether Singapore requested that the meeting be secret and if so, why, and if not, why a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Correction Order was not issued against reporting by Israeli newspaper Haaretz. [Please refer to "Conflicting Accounts of Singapore's Meeting with Israeli Officials and Scope of Discussions, and Whether POFMA Correction Should Have Been Issued Against Haaretz", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Written Answers to Questions section.]

In his written reply, the Senior Minister posed three questions to me. I would like to make a Personal Explanation to address these three questions.

First, the Minister asked whether I believed that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) should use such engagements to raise broader concerns about the policies or conduct of the country concerned. This is in relation to the first limb of my Parliamentary Question.

My view is simple. Settler activity and illegal territorial expansion in the West Bank, and especially settler violence, are grave violations of international law and threats to international security. When engaging foreign counterparts that may be implicated in such issues, MHA should raise concerns about their policies or conduct that relate to security and law enforcement, as and when relevant.

Furthermore, our operational and technical cooperation in law enforcement and security matters must be conducted in the context of our overall national interest and fundamental principles, which include our commitments to international law.

Additionally, the Haaretz article named two officials in the Israeli delegation, Hanamel Dorfman and Raful Engel, both of whom have been linked with the settler movement that builds illegal outposts in the West Bank. Given this context, I believe that it would have been relevant to clearly reiterate at this meeting Singapore's principled position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law and our deep concerns about settler violence against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank.

Second, the Minister asked for clarification whether this principle should apply only to Israel or consistently to all countries with which MHA engages. I believe that the principle that Singapore should address issues that are relevant to our concerns and our commitments and are in our interests should be applied consistently to all countries with which MHA engages.

Third, the Minister asked for an explanation for how such an approach would serve Singapore's overall interest, if it was indeed my position that we should apply this principle consistently to all countries that MHA engages with. I would like to answer this with two quotes from a speech by the Senior Minister in 2023 that I wholeheartedly agree with: "As a small country, we have to be clear on what are our principles", "We must always put Singapore's interests first and never be afraid to act in our own interests. Uphold our principles and positions consistently, impartially, objectively and not let other countries, big or small, no matter how friendly, dictate to us what we do."

Singapore has taken a principled position against the violation of international law, including illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank. I believe that it would serve our overall interest to uphold this principle and position consistently, impartially and objectively, including during MHA's bilateral engagements, where relevant.

It is also my belief that when engaging with foreign counterparts, Singapore should maintain a whole-of-Government approach in upholding our commitment to international law and a rules-based international order. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister Shanmugam, would you like to respond or clarify?

12.05 pm

The Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I thank the Member for his explanation.

He has said a number of things. May I ask for a clarification? He has said that in essence, by the whole-of-Government approach, every Ministry therefore must raise international law issues when meeting a counterpart Ministry, even if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has set out its position, and even if the issues are not directly relevant to the Ministry.

Can I ask, Sir, on that logic: it would be even more important as a rule to raise bilateral issues as well between two countries, regardless of which Ministry is meeting. Sir, may I ask for that clarification through you?

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Fadli Fawzi: Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister for his clarification. To reiterate, the general principle of whether to raise an issue during a bilateral engagement is "if it is relevant and in our interest to do so".

In this specific case, I do believe that raising the issue about illegal settlements in the West Bank is relevant and in our overall interest because: one, Singapore's principled stand that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are against international law; two, Singapore's operational and technical cooperation in law enforcement and security measures must be conducted in the context of our fundamental national interests, which include our commitments to international law; and three, the presence of two named Israeli officials who were reportedly in attendance at the meeting and who have close links to the settler movement building outposts in the West Bank.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I do not think that answers the question I asked. I specifically asked that if all these points are noted, that if it is in our national interest, if it is our principled position about Israel. In the written answer, we have asked whether that applies to all countries. The Member has said it applies to all countries. I just wanted to know, since he mentioned whole-of-Government, if it applies to all bilateral issues. I noticed that that has not been answered. I am not going to waste the Chamber's time. If he does not want to answer, so be it.

But the suggestion of how our bilateral business between countries should be conducted – that every Ministry, I assume it is not restricted to MHA, whenever meeting Israel or any other country, must raise all possible issues of international law; and, I assume, since he does not answer the question, all possible bilateral issues – would certainly be novel.

Because MFA and the Cabinet, as a whole, decide on our overall stance vis-à-vis any particular country. MFA and the Cabinet, as a whole, decide on the extent of meetings, including whether meetings take place at all. Subject to that, each Ministry deals with directly relevant issues.

Let me give an example. Last night, Singapore's Rena Lee was elected to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). She got the highest number of votes, ahead of the United Kingdom (UK), France and every other country. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and MFA worked very hard, lobbying countries. I myself was involved in the early meetings.

Imagine you start a meeting with any country. Let us say the United States (US), France, the UK, the Permanent Five (P5) countries. Last night, there was a gasp in the room when the results were announced, because our votes were the highest. In the Security Council, we had the same number of votes as France – a testament to our skill in diplomacy and in the way we conduct ourselves.

Imagine you start a meeting with the UK, France, the US, and your objective is to ask for their vote in support. And you start out by referring to the wars in the Middle East – Syria and Yemen together, millions displaced, hundreds of thousands of children and women killed; more than a million have been killed and weapons have been supplied by many of the P5 countries. Various serious breaches of international law, much more than settler violence, have been alleged.

Imagine you start your P5 meetings by saying, "You know, you have been supplying weapons to all these places where there are breaches of international law. These are all the international law issues. The UK has an ICJ ruling against it, which has not been complied with". You start off by listing this category of international law issues. And then, you say, "By the way, can you please support us?" I think Members and Singaporeans can see how absurd and novel such a position is.

But I take it that is the Member's position and his party's position, on how we conduct international relations.

Sir, I think the reality is obvious. When I asked that question, we knew what the position was. And the Member should have realised from the questions that his position was absurd. Instead of that, he walks in further and doubles down.

The fact that international law is important is irrelevant to the question of whether every Ministry ought to be raising it with their counterparts.

On international law and Singapore's position, we have made that clear. On the Haaretz article naming the two gentlemen, I do not know them. I do not take Haaretz very seriously because they also published falsehoods about Singapore and what we were supposed to have said. Completely untrue.

If the Member is concerned about those two participants, put down a question. We will look at it and we will answer.

But there is a more fundamental point, Sir. In reality, this is what happened. The Member is sending two messages to two different audiences. One to the general public, to present that we are focused on national interests; but second, specifically, to the Malay/Muslim community, to jump on this Haaretz article, make absurd suggestions on how we conduct and how we should engage, in the belief that people will not understand how inter-Ministry conversations really take place, in the complete belief that people will ignore the details of how Singapore conducts its relationships, and try and present the picture that the Government is unprincipled and soft on Israel.

That is what this question and this subsequent explanation is all about – getting people to view our international relationships through the prism of race and religion. That is just wrong.

If the Member believes that our interactions with Israel, at every meeting, should raise all these issues that Israel is accused of, and if that is believed in principle, I would say, put down an Adjournment Motion and we can debate it properly. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Fadli Fawzi: Sir, on behalf of the Workers' Party, I would first like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms Rena Lee on her election to the ICJ.

Sir, I note that under the Standing Orders, this Personal Explanation should not evolve into a debate. I also reject the characterisation that this is motivated by race and religion. This is primarily an issue about how Singapore can uphold its commitments to international law consistently, impartially and objectively, to quote the Senior Minister.

I would also like to emphasise that I did not suggest that we should raise every bilateral or foreign policy issue at every meeting, and it is not the party's position to raise every bilateral issue at every bilateral meeting. However, I said that I believe in raising concerns only when this is relevant. And in this case, the illegal settlements are indeed relevant.

So, in the spirit of answering questions, may I also clarify the following with the Senior Minister, please, Mr Speaker. In my original question, I asked the Minister whether Singapore requested to keep the meeting a secret. His reply was that the contents of the exchanges undertaken by MHA are confidential and generally not publicised, given the security concerns. This, however, does not answer my question, whether it was Singapore that requested for the meeting to be kept a secret.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, on the two points that were made, I fail to understand why this issue of settler violence is specifically relevant to what MHA is discussing when the Member does not know the contents of our discussion with the Israeli Ministry of Home Affairs. And how is it more relevant than say, discussing sale of weapons, which may lead to thousands of people being killed with possible breaches of international law? Why is that not relevant to be raised also? So, if you are principled, you should apply it all the way.

And I have said in my speeches that the primary point of international law and approach has got to be enlightened self-interest. We are elected as Members of Parliament and Ministers to safeguard Singaporeans' interest primarily, not just principles of international law. The principles of international law seen through the prism of Singapore's national interest, which is fundamental.

And because we are a small country, it is important for us that international law be upheld, which does not mean repeating it at every meeting necessarily. These things are dealt with with common sense and skill. And if the Member believes that meetings with Israel on the West Bank settler issue, every meeting should raise those issues, put down an Adjournment Motion and we can debate it.

On the second issue, Sir, meetings between MHA and counterparts are almost always kept confidential, except when parties request for them to be made public. And I have given that answer that one party requested it to be made public and that meeting was made public.

12.19 pm

Mr Speaker: Order end of Personal Explanation. Introduction of Government Bill. Minister for Sustainability and the Environment.