Singaporeans' Response to Situation in the Middle East

I thank the Minister for his clarification on Singapore's position on the recognition of Palestine. I think that one of the reasons the other countries have changed their position is they believe some of the actions that Israel will be taking now will make it much more difficult to have a two-state solution, including the current Israeli government's statement that it will not recognise a state of Palestine, as well as expanding settlements in the West Bank.

What these other governments believe is recognising a state of Palestine now will help to preserve the hope of a two-state solution. Is this something that Singapore would consider as well, if it feels the actions of the Israeli government may be undermining the two-state solution?

Mr Speaker, actually, I think that this is a view which I think other Members in this House will also share. Actually, all of us are on the same side. When I say "all of us", I also include the other countries who have shifted their position. Let me say why I believe so. We all want peace. We all want an immediate release of all the hostages. We all believe that a two-state solution, as difficult and remote as it is, is the only viable way out of this quagmire.

Where we differ is that every country has its own national circumstances, its own domestic constituencies, its own outlook on its leverage or lack thereof, on the key players in the Middle East.

In the case of Singapore, as I said just now, we pursue foreign policy in a realist mode and we do pay attention to objective reality. And the first problem which I tried to outline just now is, who is in charge in Palestine? Are you dealing with Hamas, dealing with the Palestinian Authority or something in Kuwait that has yet to emerge? So, that is the first point, objective reality.

The second point is our zero tolerance for terrorism because of our own circumstances, so for instance, I cannot fathom or imagine trying to have diplomatic ties with an entity that is still holding hostages, that promises that it will repeat what it has done on 7 October 2023 and does not recognise the others' right to exist. So, that is why our position today is, it is not "if", but "when" to recognise, and we are waiting for that appropriate constellation of factors to be, in our view, an appropriate configuration.

But having said that, the Member also raised the point, and many others have as well, that the current Israeli government is actually making things worse. The settlement expansion, even their explicit remarks, so both in terms of what they say and what they do, that it is clear that the extremist elements within the Israeli body politic are trying to extinguish prospects for a two-state solution. And surely, we cannot give them cover for that. And that is why today, what you have seen is these two announcements right, not "if", but "when", and we have spelled out the factors of when we will recognise.

The other is targeted sanctions to reflect our opposition to these violent extremist attempts to extinguish the two-state solution, and I have also added that the caveat situation is evolving very rapidly, it is unpredictable. And we will have to monitor if the situation continues to deteriorate or if Israel takes further steps to make it well-nigh impossible, we will have to recompute.

So, the point is to focus on the similarities that we are all on the same side, but each country will have a different trigger, different threshold and a different appreciation of the situation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Workers' Party's position on the formal recognition of the state of Palestine is clear in our manifesto, the same manifesto we took to voters before the elections. That has not changed. I note the earlier remarks by the Minister, going through what had happened in the past. Thirty-seven years ago, Singapore formally welcomed the proclamation of the state of Palestine and an important trigger for that was the explicit recognition by Yasser Arafat that the PLO would reject terrorism.

Similarly, with regard to the New York declaration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) also welcomed the Palestinian Authority's continued rejection of violence and terrorism.

With that as a preamble, does the Minister not agree that the prospects of having an effective Palestinian government in place, which is a precondition to Singapore recognising the state of Palestine is not a realistic precondition anymore, given the statement of the Israeli Prime Minister that there will not be a Palestinian state, and one can assume that he will work overtime to make sure that does not happen, and that is separate to the signing of an expanded settlement agreement that would bisect the occupied West Bank.

Secondly, does the Minister not agree that with many of our major trade and defence partners like France, Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and our Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) neighbours, and the overwhelming majority of the international community of nations recognising the state of Palestine, does our foreign policy position not risk being seen as anachronistic? And in this regard, what specific principles are we upholding by not recognising the state of Palestine forthwith? Should recognising the state of Palestine not be in our national interest and more weight placed instead on Israel's flagrant violations of international law and commitment to continue doing the same? Would not doing so send a clear message that as a matter of clear principle, Singapore's foreign policy stands for the foundational role of the UN in maintaining peace and security, and does not stand for breaches of international law, particularly in view of the Government's public comments on UNSC Resolution 242, and separately, UNSC Resolution 2334?

The third question pertains to the Government and the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) extensive military-to-military links with the state of Israel, the most recent example of this being the joint development of a surface-to-surface missile Blue Spear by Singapore Technologies and the Israel Aerospace Industries. Has the Government, and this was a part of my PQ, reviewed whether close ties with Israel, particularly in the military domain going forward, continue to be in our national interest? And has the Government assessed whether Singapore is relatively over-invested in the Israel-Singapore relationship, and is it not time to diversify in our national interest?

The Minister spoke of sanctions and announced that more details would be announced later. Do the sanctions that the Minister is foreseeing have any impact on current military-to-military relationship with Israel?

My last question is to the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs. What is the current threat assessment to Singapore and Singapore interests arising from a perception of close Singapore-Israel ties from radicalised individuals abroad and self-radicalised individuals locally? Does the Government see a direct link to threats to Singapore, given close Singapore-Israel ties in the immediate to medium term?

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker.

First question: is our requirement that there be an effective political entity or government on the other side a realistic one? The Leader of the Opposition adds on to say, well, Israel will do its best to make sure that there is no realistic government. Therefore, by insisting on having an effective government, as an objective reality, are we setting the bar too high?

Mr Speaker, that is why I took some pains in my Statement to go through the history of the Palestinian Authority and the very difficult journey to get both sides to accept a two-state solution. I reminded you the two-state solution did not begin yesterday. In fact, it goes back to the UN in 1947.

Israel took what was on offer, ran and declared independence. The entire constellation of Arab countries said no. Only one state. You had war. It was only in 1988 that the Palestinian Liberation Organization, in its proclamation of a Palestinian state, even then, only implicitly recognised Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism.

We welcomed the proclamation because these two elements, recognising the other exists and renouncing terrorism, are important for our national interest. It is not just a foreign policy. It is in our national interest.

I also then went on to describe the events – Oslo, the elections in Gaza, the two decades without election, the violence between Hamas and Fatah – again, to point out the lack of an objective reality is not all on and due to one other party. They have got to get their own house in order.

Will we allow, however, Israel, therefore, to have a veto? The answer is we cannot allow them to have a veto because our consistent long-held belief is a two-state solution. If either one or both says no, we cannot go along with them on that ride.

That is why I have also caveated that our position is not if, but when. We have also highlighted that if the situation continues to deteriorate or if Israel takes further action to extinguish any prospect for a two-state solution, then we have to reconsider our position.

The Member asked whether we are being anachronistic because several, basically, European powers in the last few days have changed their position.

In my answer to Mr Vikram Nair, I tried to remind everyone that in the big picture, we all want the same thing. But different countries will have different thresholds, different triggers to decide when they take certain diplomatic moves.

We, for now, have shifted since May last year. We said we are prepared, in principle, to recognise the Palestinian state. Today, I am telling you we will recognise the Palestinian state when there is effective government renouncing terrorism, recognising the state of Israel.

It is a shift, but it is also a shift, which I want to emphasise, recognises that you have to clear a certain bar – that amongst the Palestinians themselves, they have sorted out themselves politically to be an effective, unified voice that can conduct foreign policy, that can enter into agreements and make agreements stick – and also because of our complete aversion to terrorism.

That is why we have taken the current position. I do not think we are being anachronistic. I think we are being realistic, given the circumstances in which Singapore has to operate in our part of the world.

On defence, I have already said that yes, it is not a secret that they played a role in our early years, for which we are grateful, and they continue to have an invaluable role. But again, that does not mean that we are locked into giving them a free pass.

When you have an equal and mutually respectful partnership, when you differ, you must be prepared to say so, to say so openly, candidly and constructively. And we have that kind of relationship.

I will not get into operational details of defence. You know that it is the Government's established long-standing policy not to publicly diverse divulge details on defence cooperation for national security reasons. So, I am not going to go into that area. But I give you this assurance that we are not being held hostage. Singapore will not allow itself to be held hostage. Beyond that, I am not going to get into operational details. As a National Serviceman yourself, I am sure you understand that.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the supplementary question or clarification.

If you look at the issue of radicalisation, there are many factors that account for it. There are also many incidents around the world that are happening – not only the incidents, but also what our young people and Singaporeans come across on social media and what they read.

I can say that we are very fortunate to have not only enforcement agencies that really look at how we can minimise or eradicate, if possible, the issue of radicalisation, but we have community partners that work together with us to go upstream and look at how we can manage this and help our people in promoting a harmonious and peaceful living here.

So, I tried to think what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting when he asked that question. Is he suggesting that our policy stance has resulted in radicalisation? I just want to get his answer to that.

I thank the Member for clarifying. What is key is that the security agencies will look at all the different areas. Certain things may have an effect or perceived effect. Nevertheless, in Singapore, I am sure you are familiar about how we build our nation and what we do, we understand there are various things that affect how a person thinks; how that will evoke emotion.

What we do is we work with community partners and agencies, and if you read what the religious rehabilitation groups are doing, they not only look at the Malay/Muslim issues, but they look at how they can play a part in building a peaceful, harmonious and progressive Singapore.

So, at the end of the day, looking at Singapore's interests, linking back to what Minister Vivian has said earlier, I want to reiterate that the issue of radicalisation comes from various factors. Also, if you look at the profile of the different individuals who have been so called radicalised and are at the early stage or even at the advance stage of radicalisation, there are various factors that account for them.

To pin down to just our policy stance will not be accurate. I am happy that the Leader of the Opposition has clarified his position.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Number one, Singaporeans, including our residents in Tampines, are saddened and anguished by the war in Gaza. They wonder whether the Government can take further actions, including tougher sanctions, to demonstrate Singapore's objection towards the atrocities. How can the Government better communicate the Government's approach and that this approach is the best one for Singapore? And when do we impose these sanctions?

My second supplementary question. Like Gaza, Singapore is a small entity. Small countries like ours rely on international law for survival. How does the Ministry see Singapore's role in speaking up for other small entities or states when injustice occurs and what does the erosion of international rules in this conflict signal for the security of small states like ours?

On the question of sanctions. This is in fact the first time we are imposing sanctions. I would ask for time to let us sort out the details of the announcements. The larger point behind that, is that, this is an expression of disapproval. This is an expression that is in keeping with our assessment of the situation, that it is wrong and it is inimical to the long-term interests of both Palestinians and Israel. It is a reflection that we continue to believe a two-state solution is the only viable way forward.

On international law, I think that is very clear. Because of our own circumstances, we do have to abide by and we do need to comply with international law. But it is also equally important for us all to understand the difference between international law and domestic law is that you can have a court, in this case, the International Court of Justice; in our case, we have our own domestic courts. But domestically, the enforcement mechanisms are there.

Internationally, enforcement actually depends on consent from all the states involved. I say this so that, first, we get a realistic appreciation of the limits of international law, but we also understand why, as a small nation, we cannot operate on the basis of "might is right" and give in to that every time someone invokes that, because that is inimical to our own interest.

But let me just bring the deliberations today back and also partially refer to what the Leader of the Opposition was asking my colleague. Singapore has to start with a realistic appreciation of who we are, which means, in particular, multiracial, multi-religious, in Southeast Asia, in a part of the world which used to be tumultuous and could be if things unravel further. And who we are also means we are exposed to external events and external influence, and that is a reality. So, we start with a realistic appreciation of our circumstances.

Next, we need to guard jealously our national interest and, I have told you, in this case, our national interest is unity, security and support for international law for what it is worth, despite all the limitations that it has. It is easy to state that, but on every issue, we have to triangulate between these three poles – what is in our national interest for security, what is in our national interest for unity and what is in our national interest to maintain international law.

And sometimes, there is tension between these three poles and the way we have to address it and the way the PAP government has addressed it, is that when these tensions are evident, we talk about it constructively, openly, delicately. We do not play it up. We do not use it to score domestic political points or to split our society in order to get short-term political points. So, the larger point I am trying to tell all of us is that the world is messy and the world has become far, far more dangerous and it will be increasingly more and more difficult for Singapore to just jealously guard its national interests while keeping everybody together.

And we make our decisions in our own national interest; it means we will not always follow the crowd. Many times, we will be in a minority and we will not be afraid to be in a minority, so long as we understand that we are taking a stand based on principle, we are taking a stand to defend our own people's welfare and security, and that when we deal with thorny issues, we will discuss it openly, respectfully and constructively.

The Member's question, is there a risk that all these events outside Singapore can radicalise our own people? Of course, they can and they have and we have seen evidence of them.

Is this the only source of division, radicalisation and extremism in the world? No, it is not. There are other parts of the world which can also sow division, discord and extremism in the world.

Is this something which we can resolve once and for all with a discussion, a Ministerial Statement or a debate in Parliament? No, we cannot. This is always going to be a work-in-progress.

And on that note, I just want to make this appeal, also to the Leader of the Opposition – this is one of those times we need to make common cause. The Member and I may differ on the timing of recognition but in the same way, as I describe our position vis-a-vis the other countries, I think we all ultimately want the same thing: we want peace. We do not want terrorism. We want mutual respect between people with complicated histories and identity. And we want to be able to do good where we can, by working with as many parties, as many entities as possible. So, this should be an occasion for unity amidst the difficulty and we should be very mindful in our conversations, not just in this House, but outside this House, that we secure unity, security and peace under international law. It is possible and I still want to hold on to that prospect.

When we go to the Middle East, and Members, Mr Gerald Giam was with me, I could tell the Israelis and even the Arabs, "if you want a one-state solution, your delegation, your government must look like mine." Everyone nods and yet, also in their heart of hearts, they know, it is not possible. Well, if it is not possible, that is why you need a two-state solution.

But on the other hand, we should also be grateful for what we have in Singapore, but also understand it is always at risk, always fragile and we need to jealously protect it and guard it.

I thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for the Ministerial Statement. I have two clarifications. Singapore's aid to Gaza demonstrates our compassion for Palestinians. It also signals our values as a principle of small states.

My first clarification. How effective has Singapore's humanitarian assistance been in meeting the needs of Gaza?

My second clarification is this: the International Association of Genocide Scholars has declared that Israel's actions in Gaza are consistent with the legal definition of genocide. Will the Government call Israel out for committing genocide?

I have outlined our 10 tranches of humanitarian assistance, whether by airdrop or by supplies delivered over land. I cannot attest to what happens once it gets into Gaza, but I take the following attitude.

One, gratitude to Singaporeans for generosity, for expressing compassion in a very real way and the fact that the funds raised were raised in a multi-religious, multiracial effort. It is a very Singaporean expression of compassion, that is first. Two, I am grateful it was the SAF that played a major role in the delivery, and I thank the SAF men and women. We should not take safety for granted. These were operations, they were not exercises. So, gratitude to SAF. Three, I am grateful that over the six decades, we have built close, respectful and constructive ties across all the countries in the Middle East, so we can base our air force in Jordan, we can overfly Israel, we can airdrop in Palestine, we can work with our Egyptian partners, whether to hand over money or humanitarian assistance and, right now, as I outlined just now, work with Egyptian hospitals to look after people who need medical care and I mentioned even community policing. Well, this sort of project, which we are doing together with Japan to train police officers working under the Palestinian Authority to prepare for future statehood. So, there is a lot to be grateful for and to also reflect on the blessings that we have in Singapore. It is a very Singaporean expression of compassion in action.

On genocide, as I said earlier in the Statement, I would leave this to be determined by the International Court of Justice. Proceedings are in place, are underway. I do not think they have fully heard the arguments on merit and they certainly have not arrived at the verdict, but we will have to wait for that and to act accordingly.

I can share with the Member what I told the Israeli President – and the delegation Members who were with me can attest to that – because we are friends, we also have a duty to be candid. And as I told him, "It is true that the world has double standards and the world expects more of Israel, because Israel was born from the ashes of the Holocaust. And if Israel loses its international moral standing authority, that does untold strategic damage to your long-term prospects."

They did not push back on that point because they know it is a sincerely held view from someone who hopes for peace for them and their neighbouring people who, even in the darkest of times, have to hope. They need hope that there is a better way. But again, be grateful for what we have in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I would not be asking three supplementary questions. But I have one clarification to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is in relation to the sanctions. The Minister shared that shift in position on the targeted sanctions on the settler groups and individuals. In fact, I am thankful to the Minister for sharing that slight change, because if you look at the European Union (EU), the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK), they also did similar targeted sanctions back in 2024. So, Singapore shifting in 2025 is, in some ways, not taken very lightly and probably a very principled move, especially when Singapore is a financial hub and seen as a financial centre.

But my clarification is, Minister, in a broader perspective, the threshold of taking broader sanctions on Israel, the entity or the country itself, can the Minister share how Singapore would assess the actions of other countries, going forward, that have imposed financial or economic sanctions on Israel and whether there is scope for us to consider similar enhancement measures in a calibrated way? Only in a situation where the Gaza situation does not abate, how would we take that into consideration and how would be our principled assessment be? So, my question is, in fact, about the thresholds: what would be our principled guidelines to shift to a different threshold on broader sanctions?

Mr Speaker, I will be frank. Sanctions are not something we enter into lightly. But let us also not assume or presume that sanctions will make a major difference to facts on the ground. And I say this not just with respect to what we are proposing for the settler groups, but again, the world's history on sanctions and their effectivity, I would say, it is often more a statement of principle and expression of disapproval. I would not bank that, historically, any set of sanctions have been decisive in its own way. So, like many things in foreign policy, it is a multivariate equation and, sometimes, you need all the different pieces, the configuration, to come together in time and space for there to be a step change.

So, I am not saying that we entered into sanctions lightly. It is, for us, a major statement. But I do not want to overstate its impact.

Mr Speaker, I thank the three Ministers for their excellent responses. My clarification is borne out of my understanding of the three Ministerial Statements that, in fact, we do have two levels of agency. The first is diplomacy and accessibility that our MFA has in the region. The Minister gained access to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Palestinian territories and Israel, all in the same visit, in 2024, and were able to listen to many different levels of positions and each level not being homogenous.

Also, the second level of agency, which is our SAF, being able to deploy our Charlie-130s airdrops, working with the Jordanian air force. So, I feel humbly proud, if that is the correct word to use, that we have two excellent institutions with major agency.

I would like to ask what, we, as a small country in this part of the world, is able to do with these two levels of agency to work together with like-minded countries, to bring about dialogue and discussion between two sides in the Middle East conflict, to achieve as best as we can, maximum hope for peace and stability whilst obviously also having a close eye on what our national interests are? How can we use the agencies of diplomacy, in the form of MFA and humanitarian assistance in the form of SAF, to bring about one step closer to peace in the region?

I am always pleasantly surprised or gratified by the access that we have. My conclusion, after years in this is, people give us access because, one, they have heard of Singapore. They have heard of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. They hear our Prime Ministers, both what they say domestically and internationally, it travels; and it is credible.

They know we are a successful country. They know we are a united country and united across race, language and religion. They know we are serious-minded people. They now, as Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim said just now, when we say something, we actually take it seriously, we commit to it and we deliver. They do not expect us to completely echo their positions.

In fact, they know that we are serious-minded, we are careful, we are deliberate and we do not just follow the crowd. And that is precisely why I think we get access and why we get at least applied hearing. And where we can make common calls and where we can sign agreements and do things together, we do. And Singapore and Singaporeans are welcome throughout, even troubled spots, because of this reputation.

But at the same time, we also should retain a sense of realism and humility. We cannot solve very difficult, thorny issues all over the world, to the extent that we can extend our friendship, our support, our humanitarian assistance, if they want to use us sometimes officially or unofficially, as a venue, we are happy to pour tea. But we should never, never overestimate our abilities to deal with very difficult issues globally.

So, I am quite content to play a constructive and useful role, but not to be made use of. At the same time, bearing in mind that the moment Singapore fails or is disunited, or that the leaders of Singapore no longer credible, it is game over. We will be irrelevant. In other words, it is not so much exactly the details of your decision but the basis by which we organise ourselves, arrive at decisions, make commitments, stick to commitments, deliver the goods and behave in a consistent, constructive law-abiding way.

I do not want to use the word "moral" where states are concerned, but Members know what I mean. There is a certain code by which people know Singapore will always behave. And for that, they will accept that we will be different from time to time. But it is respect and we can do some good and that is the way I conduct our relations with other countries.

(In Malay): Thank you, Speaker. Let me begin by saying that I agree with the Minister that we should focus on and prioritise Singapore and Singaporeans in all our decisions and actions. On that note, I know that many people disagree with Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. This is not just a matter of national security, but also a matter of national conscience.

(In English): In terms of our interests, Sir, it is not just a matter of national security for us in Singapore but arguably also a question of national conscience as many have expressed very strong views.

I have two supplementary questions. How do we expect the proposed sanctions to move the needle on peace and desired outcomes, including a two-state solution, given the very extreme views on both sides, as mentioned by the Minister, including members of the Israeli government who have rejected the two-state solution, not just political activists or settlers in the West Bank, by vowing to destroy Gaza?

The Minister has, in his answer to the hon Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat earlier mentioned that sanctions have not always proven to be effective. I seek the Minister's views and how we can re-envision these sanctions could impact Israel, Palestine as well as other actors, for example, the US.

Second supplementary question. The Minister also mentioned how we have consistently maintained open lines of communication with both ends and that this is important, not just in times of peace, but also during times of crisis. So, will the Government thus consider using these open lines of communication to support perhaps ceasefire negotiations, in some shape or form, more directly beyond the humanitarian assistance?

I am grateful for the Member's questions and I appreciate where she is coming from. But again, I want to urge a sense of realism. Will sanctions from a small city-state, like Singapore, move the needle on its own? No, it would not. But is it an expression of our views? It is. Will the Israelis notice it? Oh, I am sure they will notice it, precisely because they know that we are careful, deliberative, constructive partners who want the best for their long-term survival and for their neighbours, the Palestinians. So, we should be realistic about what we say and do and the effect of what we say and do.

On open lines of communication, on ceasefire negotiations, I want to give full credit to our friends in Qatar and Egypt. And in the case of Qatar, even facing danger for being a venue for such negotiations and we should give them our fullest support, appreciation and respect for doing that.

Can Singapore play such a role? I do not see that in the imminent future. Again, we need to understand the nature of conflicts in diplomacy, that the most effective peacemakers have to be both trusted by both sides and have leverage because the world is not short of conference venues where people can meet and have a nice cup of tea. But it needs to be a place where both sides feel that they are safe and that you are not playing games. But very often, to force two sides which are very far away, apart from each other and sometimes, to be honest, even having sub-segments of the two sides who are working across purposes, we need leverage.

As far as I am concerned, what the last two years have illustrated is that, actually, the single superpower with real leverage in the Middle East, is the US. Depending on those decisions made in Washington, which will also reflect its own complex domestic political situation, that is where real leverage may or may not be applied to bring, at least an interim ceasefire, hopefully, a permanent ceasefire and the release of all hostages.

So, again my plea is, be realistic about what we can do, what we should do. And I accept the Member's point that our words and our actions should reflect what we stand for and we cannot close our eyes and close our ears and keep silent when things are clearly wrong and unconscionable. I hope I have made the point that we have not been such a party. So, we are not fair weather friends. We are all weather friends, but we are also friends who tell you hard truth. To the extent that we can help, we will help, but we will not push and overstay our welcome or overestimate our ability to solve problems which have defied solutions for decades, centuries or, sometimes, millennia.

Speaker, I have a clarification for the Minister, similar to hon colleagues Mr Saktiandi and Ms Nadia. It is a question about sanctions, but I would like to go specifically to the context, also of the question I have filed, which is regarding Israel's attack in Qatar.

The Ministerial Statements did not quite answer my question, but I know MFA put out a statement, condemning the attack and stating that it is an egregious violation of Qatar's sovereignty. So, given that Singapore has been a staunch supporter of this core principle of respect of the sovereignty of all nations, big and small, not just any piece of international law but of this very core principle of international law, because it is fundamental to our survival as a small state and therefore, Singapore has also responded robustly to other instances of the violation of sovereignty of other nations by other nations in the past, going beyond verbal condemnation, imposing sanctions. How does Singapore's response in this instance to Israel's attack in Qatar compute, vis-a-vis our responses to past instances of violation of sovereignty? Can we not consider imposing sanctions, as an expression of our disapproval, to a violation of this very core principle of international law?

Mr Speaker, we condemned the attack in Doha by Israel and we said so publicly and there is no doubt, in anybody's mind, where we stand on that. And we stand on that again, because again, the same question went through my mind, what if it happened here, what would we do and what would we say?

Having said that, I think the Member is asking whether we should go further. I am not inclined to do further because, otherwise, we will end up having to chase every and every infraction which countries are engaged in against each other and us having to respond. So, my preference is to reserve it for the most egregious, the most important issues where we need to make a point.

Again, for Qatar, the US' largest airbase in the Middle East is in Qatar. The real player who could and should have ensured security – I do not want to cause more problems, but we can think about that. Alright? Again, my larger point I am making to all of us, please have a realistic view of what Singapore can and cannot do. My own view is with the Qataris, we were in contact immediately. They know where we stand, they appreciated our stand. But there are some much bigger players who need to resolve the very awkward set of questions that the attack posed.

But also, let us bear in mind that this is a dangerous and unpredictable world. Can we again, I want to persuade everyone, to come back to the zero-tolerance for breach of international law and zero-tolerance for terrorism and zero-tolerance, therefore, for even accepting any justifications or pretext for terrorism and harbouring them.

Again, at some risk, I will also tell you that there are offices of terrorist organisations in our region. It is an objective reality and we need to be mindful and we need to be careful. We do not want to say too much, but there are some things which we need to be aware of and we need to take appropriate precautions from. Maybe you should ask Minister Shanmugam about that.

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Minister stated that Singapore will reconsider its position on recognising the Palestinian state if the situation continues to deteriorate or if Israel takes any further steps to extinguish the two-state solution.

Given the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, the Israeli government's stated policy that "there will be no Palestinian state" and even their alleged targeting of peace negotiators in Qatar, does the Minister not consider these to be severe enough to trigger a re-evaluation of Singapore's position now?

Second, the Minister said that Singapore will recognise Palestine when it has an effective government that accepts Israel's right to exist and categorically renounces terrorism.

But the Palestinian Authority has already made a commitment to renounce terrorism and carry out reforms. What additional steps does the Palestinian Authority need to take in order for Singapore to recognise the state of Palestine?

Mr Speaker, I just made a Ministerial Statement, announced sanctions, announced conditional recognition. The Member is already jumping and asking me to re-evaluate our position.

I would say, let us watch very, very carefully how things unfold in the days, weeks and months. I have set out for all of us our principal considerations and the variables which we are watching. We will decide accordingly. I do not want to jump the gun and enter into excessively hypothetical discussions.

The second question was what else is necessary for the Palestinian Authority.

I wish they were in charge in Gaza, but you and I know they are not, or certainly not yet. But we continue to work with them, we continue to build up their capacity, we continue to prepare them for eventual statehood and for the time when they can be in charge.

I should also add, if you read carefully all the statements of those who have apparently changed position in the last few days, I very seriously doubt any of them can actually begin the actual process or normalisation as long as hostages are still held in the tunnels of Gaza.

I think the best way to understand this is everyone wants the same endpoint, but there can be arguments about when and how the route you take to reach the ultimate destination.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank Minister Vivian for his clarification that we will recognise the Palestinian state and it is a question of when, not if.

I appreciate the position has evolved, given the deteriorating circumstances. However, many may find it hard to understand the preconditions and could approach it from a very binary stand – either we support or we do not support – which can lead to a lot of misunderstanding, especially when other countries have had their individual separate reasons for doing so.

My question to the Minister is, how can we better communicate this position of ours so that there is no misunderstanding within the country and with other countries? That is my first supplementary question.

My second supplementary question is to the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and I will ask the supplementary question in Malay.

(In Malay): It is extremely difficult and heartbreaking to witness the suffering and loss of innocent lives in Gaza and we have provided substantial assistance to them. How can Singapore and Singaporeans continue to help those in Palestine? And how can we also put an end to this suffering, call for a ceasefire, provide immediate humanitarian aid to victims in Gaza and work with other countries to find a lasting and peaceful solution for the Palestinian people?

This has been longer than my Committee of Supply and the question is how to communicate better. I do not know whether it means I obviously have not been able to communicate effectively or maybe this is a chance for me to reiterate the key points. Maybe, let me take that opportunity.

We believe both the Israeli state and the Palestinian state deserve to exist. That is why we have always supported the Palestinians' right to self-determination and their own homeland.

We also acknowledge the historical complexities. That is why "from the river to the sea" is not possible for either party. They have to find the wisdom and the leadership to create a two-state solution where they can live in peace and security.

Number three, whilst we recognise Israel's right to exist and we recognise Israel's need to be strong, there is also wisdom in knowing how to use your strengths. You can win a tactical victory and lose the strategic war. What it is worth, this is what we are telling the Israelis and have been doing so for some time.

Next point, we know that anything Singapore says or does is not going to resolve the situation on the ground in the Middle East. But for what it is worth, we will express a stand which is consistent with our own identity and values as a multiracial, multi-religious state. We will do our best to extend humanitarian assistance as a real expression of the collective compassion of Singaporeans.

That is why today, we have reached this point of conditional recognition for Palestine. We hope and wait and will support and take efforts to hopefully make that an objective reality. In the meantime, we have targeted sanctions to express our disapproval for further moves to make a two-state solution impossible.

That is my "too long, did not read" (TLDR) summary of the last two hours.

(In Malay): I thank Mr Sharael for the question. If we look back to the moment when this situation unfolded, we can see that the Malay/Muslim community wanted to contribute to efforts to ease the suffering that was taking place over there.

We started with our members and organisations who stepped forward to contribute donations. We also held special prayers, as you may recall, and even now, whenever we perform the prayers, we include the Qunut Nazilah, or Supplication During Calamity.

This demonstrates the enduring resilience that I observe in our Malay/Muslim community. We also joined other communities to take action in providing support, humanitarian aid, as well as establishing solid and safe platforms that provided a space for our needs during these difficult times.

Minister Vivian has also shared, or briefly outlined, what we have done and will continue to do. We have provided substantial support and assistance. We will also provide support to hospitals, and medical supplies, as well as enhance their capabilities over there, not only for the Palestinian Authority, but also for those who wish to study through scholarships for new students. All of this is provided by the Government as well as Singaporeans.

We also understand that the situation there remains volatile, so we will continue to monitor it and if there are opportunities, we will increase and multiply our efforts and further enhance assistance to them.

This is the commitment that Minister Vivian and the Singapore Government have made. I hope that together we can seize this opportunity to build our united nation and while we may be affected by incidents abroad, we must prioritise our nation's interests across all aspects of policy and our collective lives.

I am heartened when I observed, through my involvement in community work and serving in several ministries, how the Government balances Singapore's interests while prioritising the needs of our multi-racial society, including the Malay/Muslim community. What I witness is truly remarkable, as I have not seen other governments having similar principles and policies.

I hope that together we can build Singapore, not just as a multi-racial society, but as an extraordinary and unique country that can achieve not only our national goals, but provide opportunities for all races, religions and every individual so they can progress and become the best version of themselves.

I would like the Minister for Foreign Affairs to explain the rationale behind Singapore voting for the recent UN resolution on 19 September calling for the participation of Palestine at the opening of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly while still withholding the recognition of a Palestinian state.

We voted in favour of the resolution because if you read the resolution in its entirety, you will see that it is a comprehensive one, which I would say, makes many countries who voted for it, there will be parts which they agree, there will be parts which they disagree.

But it is one of the few, or one of the fewer UN resolutions that actually calls out 7 October as a terrorist act committed by Hamas that calls for the immediate release of hostages, also calls for immediate ceasefire and also calls ultimately for a state of Palestine to take its place in the UN.

We voted for it because we look at it in totality. This is something which we support, or which we want to happen, which we hope will happen, even if, as I said, the objective reality has not yet occurred. Hostages are still being held in tunnels, Hamas is still in power in Gaza. Nevertheless, we voted in favour of it because we think this solution encapsulates the full width of measures needed in the long run for hopefully peace to come to this region, so hence our vote.

I can assure you our votes in the UN are never performative or cynical. We do so on the basis of principle and of a careful assessment of our national interest.