Fadli’s questions aim to cast Govt as soft on Israel, says Shanmugam; WP MP rejects characterisation

SINGAPORE – Fadli Fawzi’s questions on a meeting between Singapore and Israeli officials seek to present a picture to the Malay/Muslim community that the Government is unprincipled and soft on Israel, said Senior Minister K. Shanmugam.

The Workers’ Party MP made “absurd suggestions” on how the Government should engage with its foreign counterparts, Shanmugam said in the House on Nov 4.

“That’s 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,” he said.

Fadli, in response, rejected Shanmugam’s characterisation, and said his questions were not motivated by race and religion. “This is primarily an issue about how Singapore can uphold its commitments to international law consistently,” he added.

The pair were discussing questions that Fadli, who represents Aljunied GRC, had filed for Parliament’s October sitting about an Israeli delegation’s meeting with Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) officials in Singapore.

Shanmugam took issue with Fadli’s intentions in asking the questions, and said Fadli was sending two messages to two different audiences: One to the general public to present that the WP is focused on national interests, and another to the Malay/Muslim community that the Government is soft on Israel.

Fadli had asked in October if Singapore had discussed with Israeli officials how to address illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank.

Singapore’s position, reiterated in August 2026, is that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. It has also urged the Israeli government to halt settlement expansion plans.

Fadli had filed them following an article published on Sept 7 by Israeli daily Haaretz that said officials discussed the death penalty at the May meeting.

Shanmugam, who is also Coordinating Minister for National Security and Home Affairs Minister, said in a written reply to Fadli in October that this was false, and that the discussion focused on operational and security-related issues.

It did not extend to broader foreign policy matters, he added.

Shanmugam, in his response then, asked Fadli in return if he believed the MHA should use such engagements to raise broader concerns about the policies or conduct of foreign counterparts.

He also asked Fadli to clarify if this principle should apply only to Israel, or consistently to all countries that engage with MHA.

“If that is the Member’s position, the Government would be interested to understand how he proposes that such an approach would serve Singapore’s overall interests,” he said then.

Approach international law with ‘enlightened self interest’

Most of the back-and-forth focused on the WP MP’s position on Singapore’s bilateral relationships, and whether the opposition party’s stance was that the city-state should raise all issues at all meetings.

Responding to Shanmugam’s October questions in a personal explanation at the end of question time, Fadli said MHA should raise concerns about policies or conduct that relate to security and law enforcement “as and when relevant” when engaging foreign counterparts that may be implicated in such issues.

Settler activity and illegal territorial expansion in the West Bank, especially settler violence, are grave violations of international law and threats to international security, he said.

Singapore’s operational and technical cooperation in law enforcement and security matters must be conducted in the context of its overall national interests and fundamental principles, which includes its commitment to international law, he added.

“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.”

Fadli added that Singapore should address issues that are relevant to its concerns, commitment and interests, and these should be applied consistently to all countries with which MHA engages.

“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,” he said.

Shanmugam, in response, said Fadli had not answered questions on whether his approach extended to all bilateral issues.

This suggestion – that every ministry must raise “all possible issues of international law” when meeting Israel or any other country, and all possible bilateral issues – “would certainly be novel”, Shanmugam said.

He raised the example of Singaporean diplomat Rena Lee’s election as a judge of the International Court of Justice in the early hours of Nov 4. Lee had secured the highest number of votes – 151 of 191 – in the UN General Assembly, and the joint-highest in the Security Council with 13 of 15 votes.

Shanmugam said the Government worked very hard to lobby other countries on her nomination.

“Imagine you start a meeting with UK, France, 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.”

Shanmugam said: “You start out by listing this category of international law issues, and then you say, ‘By the way, can you please support us?’”

MPs and Singaporeans can see how “absurd and novel” such a position is, Shanmugam said.

Fadli said in response that it is not the WP’s position to raise every bilateral issue at every bilateral meeting.

He said he believes in raising concerns only when they are relevant, and in the meeting with Israeli officials, the illegal settlements were relevant.

Responding, Shanmugam asked how Fadli knew the issue of settler violence was relevant to the meeting, if he did not know the contents of the discussion.

Singapore’s approach to international law “has got to be enlightened self-interest,” he added.

“We are elected as MPs and ministers to safeguard Singaporeans’ interests primarily, not just principles of international law.

“Principles of international law (must be) 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,” he said.

This does not necessarily mean repeating it at every meeting, he added.

“These things are dealt with with common sense and skill, and if the member believes that (in) 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.”