Debated in Parliament on 15 Oct 2024.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs following Singapore’s vote in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution A/ES-10/L.31, whether Singapore will be (a) enacting a ban on imported products originating from Israeli settlements; (b) halting arms sales to Israel in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and (c) sanctioning individuals and entities involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the Territory and, if not, why not.
Singapore’s vote in favour of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution A/ES-10/L.31 reflects our respect for the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the principal judicial organ of the UN. Singapore has long held a consistent view that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. I have restated 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.
Singapore’s vote for the UNGA resolution also reflects our longstanding support for the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and for a negotiated two-state solution consistent with relevant UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be resolved through direct negotiations between both sides for a comprehensive, just and durable solution. Both sides must find the resolve to remove obstacles to peace and work towards a negotiated two-state solution.
Our "yes" vote, however, does not mean that we agree with the entirety of the resolution. Singapore has serious reservations about the use of the Court’s advisory jurisdiction to bypass the need for states’ consent in submitting what are essentially political disputes between two parties for adjudication. Singapore has also placed on record our serious reservations on aspects of the resolution, particularly its overreaching scope of the modalities and potential actions prescribed by the resolution for member states. They include measures that go beyond not just the ICJ Advisory Opinion but also our current obligations under international law. 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.
Let me now address Mr Leong’s queries. First, on banning imported products from Israeli settlements, we do not have any record of Singapore having imported such products. Second, on the question of arms sales, Singapore complies strictly with our international obligations on international arms sales, as well as UN sanctions and embargoes against any country, including submitting regular reports to the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Apart from this, it is the established policy of the Government not to publicly divulge details of defence sales for national security reasons. Third, on the sanctioning of individuals and entities, Singapore has and will consistently comply with all UNSC sanctions as part of our international legal obligations.
While some countries have imposed sanctions on certain Israeli settler leaders and entities, it is far from clear that such measures have had meaningful impact on the ground. This is not how Singapore should conduct foreign policy and we must weigh all considerations carefully. Any decision to impose unilateral sanctions must be considered carefully and based on our national interests.
PAPERCUTS