SINGAPORE: Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan declined to confirm whether Singapore would halt arms sales to Israel in instances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect their use in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

He cited the government’s established policy of not publicly disclosing details of defence sales for national security reasons.

Dr Balakrishnan noted that while some countries have imposed sanctions on certain Israeli settler leaders and entities, it remains unclear whether these measures have had a meaningful impact on the ground.

He emphasised that this is not how Singapore should conduct its foreign policy, stating, “We must weigh all considerations carefully.”

“Any decision to impose unilateral sanctions must be considered carefully and based on our national interests.   ”

His comments came in response to a parliamentary question from Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai filed on 15 October, who sought clarification on Singapore’s commitment to a UN General Assembly Resolution.

NCMP Leong, from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), inquired whether Singapore would enact a ban on imported products from Israeli settlements following its vote in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution A/ES-10/L.31 on 18 September this year.

He also asked about the potential suspension of arms sales to Israel and whether Singapore would sanction individuals and entities involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the territory, and if not, why.

The ongoing conflict in Palestine has claimed the lives of at least 42,000 Palestinians to date.

“Israeli settlements in West Bank hinder viable two-state solution”

In response, Dr Balakrishnan reaffirmed that Singapore’s vote in favour of UNGA Resolution A/ES-10/L.31 reflects its respect for the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN.

“I have re-stated this view on several past occasions in this House, most recently on 7 August 2024. ”

“The presence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank will make it much harder to arrive at a viable two-state solution. Settler violence against Palestinians cannot be condoned. ”

He further highlighted that Singapore’s vote aligns with its longstanding support for the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland and a negotiated two-state solution, consistent with relevant United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.

He asserted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be resolved through direct negotiations between both sides, emphasising the need for both parties to remove obstacles to peace.

“Our YES vote, however, does not mean that we agree with the entirety of the resolution. ”

Dr Balakrishnan expressed Singapore’s serious reservations about the use of the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction to adjudicate political disputes between states without their consent.

No record of imported products from Israeli settlements

“We also have concerns over the resolution’s call for measures that have not been negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Other countries, including Japan and South Korea have placed on record similar concerns.”

Regarding Mr Leong’s inquiry about banning imported products from Israeli settlements, Dr Balakrishnan stated that the government has no record of Singapore importing such products.

On the question of arms sales, he assured that Singapore strictly complies with international obligations regarding arms sales and adheres to UN sanctions and embargoes.

This includes submitting regular reports to the UN Register of Conventional Arms.

However, he reiterated that it is the government’s policy not to publicly disclose details of defence sales for national security reasons.

As for sanctioning individuals and entities, he confirmed that Singapore consistently complies with all UNSC sanctions as part of its international legal obligations.

In April 2024, Singaporean activists demand a halt to arms trade with Israel amid allegations of genocide in Palestine

This is note the first time Mr Leong rhas raised questions about arms sales to Israel.

On 2 July 2024, Mr Leong asked the MFA whether Singapore had sold any defence materials to Israel since the conflict began on 7 October 2023.

At the time, Dr Balakrishnan responded that Singapore strictly adheres to international arms sales obligations and submits regular reports to the UN, but does not disclose specifics due to national security reasons.

It should be noted that there is no embargo on arms sales to Israel.

In April 2024, a group of Singaporean activists staged a peaceful demonstration at the iconic Gardens by the Bay, advocating for an immediate cessation of arms trade with Israel.

The group criticised the Singaporean government’s continued engagement in arms trade with Israel, highlighting that between 2018 and 2022, Singapore imported approximately US$73 million worth of military equipment from Israel, making it the tenth largest customer of Israeli defence products.

The demonstrators pointed out that such dealings undermine Singapore’s humanitarian contributions to Palestine and perpetuate the violence they are intended to alleviate.

They stressed that ending arms trade with Israel would align with the moral and ethical concerns of the Singaporean people, as outlined in numerous communications with government officials, including emails, letters, and online campaigns.

Separately, earlier in February 2024, at least nine individuals were summoned by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) over investigations into the solidarity actions with Palestine that occurred on 2 February 2024.

The allegations against them include “organising a public assembly without a permit” under the Public Order Act and “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of race and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony” under the Penal Code.

This investigation relates to Letters for Palestine, where 70 individuals delivered 140 letters to the Istana urging the Prime Minister to address the ongoing genocide, and Steadfast for Palestine, a live-streamed private event attended by 160 individuals.

SINGAPORE: During the parliamentary debate on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill on 16 October, Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) deputy chairman Chee Hong Tat accused opposition lawmakers Associate Professor Jamus Lim and Mr Leong Mun Wai of attempting to “throw our public officers under the bus” in their criticism of the handling of the blocked Income-Allianz deal.

Mr Chee, who also serves as the Transport Minister and second Minister for Finance, called on Assoc Prof Lim from the Workers’ Party and Mr Leong from the Progress Singapore Party to retract their remarks.

Assoc Prof Lim highlights “communication breakdown” exposing flaws in Govt’s information sharing

Earlier, Assoc Prof Lim had described the episode as a “communication breakdown” that potentially exposed “troubling pathologies” in the way the government shares information internally and with the public.

He raised concerns about whether MAS regulators could have performed a “holistic assessment” of the acquisition in the limited time available since mid-July and questioned why the link between the proposed deal and the Section 88 exemption had not been identified sooner.

“I wonder if it’s only me who finds it troubling that there was no coordinate discussion between the two major relevant regulators, MAS and MCCY, in advance of the proposed deal,” he said.

Assoc Prof Lim also questioned if the civil service is “so siloed” that, even for transactions of significant importance, no joint working group was formed to ensure sufficient information exchange beforehand.

LMW criticises Allianz-Income deal as “an asset-stripping exercise” favouring major shareholders

Mr Leong echoed similar concerns, stating, “The public has been left with the impression that our government agencies are siloed, and coordination within the government is poor.”

“Or to put it simply, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.”

He pointed out that the capital reduction exercise in the proposed deal “should have raised alarm bells at MAS.”

“While we trust that MAS officers are highly professional and have conducted a thorough review of the deal from a prudential point of view, can the minister further explain why MAS does not have any further prudential concerns over the capital reduction plan, especially considering NTUC Enterprise’s history of having to inject capital into Income over the years?”

Mr Leong further described the Income-Allianz deal as “an asset-stripping exercise that favours the shareholders, particularly NTUC Enterprise and Allianz.”

Mr Chee accuses opposition MPs of making serious allegations against public officers

In his closing speech before the amendment was passed, Mr Chee stated that Assoc Prof Lim and Mr Leong had made “serious allegations” against public officers and agencies.

“Why is it necessary for Mr Leong and for Associate Professor Lim to still want to throw our public officers under the bus?” he asked.

Mr Chee explained that MAS officers were initially unaware of the conditions and undertakings surrounding Income’s Section 88 exemption.

It was only after the 6 August parliamentary debate on the proposed deal that regulators, with a “fuller understanding” of the situation, realised there could be a connection.

He expressed hope that the two opposition lawmakers would give MAS officers “some credit.”

“They were not trying to do something wrong, or as Professor Lim mentioned, to lead to multiple breakdowns of communications or to work in a siloed manner,” said the minister.

“There’s certainly not what they were trying to do. They were trying their very best to do their work. And when they saw that there was a link, they shared the information.”

Assoc Prof Lim cautions Mr Chee against using civil servants as “pawns in a political argument” during debate

During clarifications, Assoc Prof Lim refuted Mr Chee’s allegations, affirming his deep respect for civil servants and clarifying that his critique was aimed at the system, not at individual officers.

“I do not think it’s useful to bring in the civil servants as pawns to a political argument,” he told Mr Chee.

He felt it was “imperative” to point out instances where the system under which the civil service operates—”overseen by this government”—is problematic.

“Because our civil servants can only do the best they can within the constraints that they face from the government of the day.”

In response, Mr Chee urged Assoc Prof Lim not to mischaracterize his statements, insisting that he did not refer to public officers as pawns. He asserted that there is deep respect for public officers and acknowledged their hard work.

Chee pointed out that if Assoc Prof Lim was critiquing the system, he had explained earlier why MAS did not share information with other agencies in this case.

He questioned whether Lim was suggesting that MAS should share all information received, warning that this could impact investor confidence.

He challenged Assoc Prof Lim to produce evidence for his claims that public officers face constraints from the government regarding information sharing, requesting that Lim withdraw what he deemed “unfounded allegations.”

Mr Chee underscores NTUC Income’s “right intent” and “good faith” in pursuing the deal to bolster financial stability

Mr Chee also objected to Mr Leong’s description of the proposed deal as “asset-stripping,” stating that this was an unfair characterisation.

“I think Mr Leong deliberately chose that term. And this is not the first time I’ve heard Mr Leong make unkind remarks towards NTUC,” he said.

He further emphasised that NTUC Income had entered the deal with “the right intent” and “acted in good faith” to enhance the company’s financial stability.

During the clarifications, Mr Leong stood by his use of the term “asset-stripping,” asserting: “Nobody with some knowledge about finance would disagree with me. It’s a fact. It has nothing to do with the intent.”

“You can intend, your intentions can be good. But the plan that you put up is actually not so good, you can even say detrimental.”

Mr Leong also expressed frustration over the earlier parliamentary debate on August 6, describing it as “quite a waste of time” since the discussions occurred “without complete information.”

Minister Chee expressed disappointment with Mr Leong’s description of the 6 August discussion as a “waste of time,” highlighting that the session had provided an important platform for members to ask questions and for MCCY and MAS to clarify the situation.

Chee challenged Leong’s assertion that the exercise was negatively characterized, pointing out that capital optimization is a common practice among financial institutions.

He explained that MAS initially evaluated the capital reduction from a prudential standpoint, ensuring that the company could meet its capital adequacy ratios.