Singapore's Position on Russian-Ukraine War One Year On

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Foreign Minister. The first is to ask whether the Foreign Ministry was aware beforehand that the speech on 8 March was going to be delivered by the Minister for Home Affairs. So, the first question is whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) knew beforehand that the speech was being given and did MFA know the contents of the speech.

The second question is, earlier, Minister Shanmugam mentioned that Indivisible Security is perhaps a concept in International Relations. So, I would like to ask the Foreign Minister what is the Government's view of such a principle of Indivisible Security.

And last of all, does the Foreign Minister agree that accepting a principle of Indivisible Security is very risky for small countries like Singapore?

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me state categorically – the statements of the Minister for Law reflect the views of the Government of Singapore. We know generally when each Minister is going to speak, we are aware of that. I must tell you we do not personally check every single line and sentence in our speeches and the speeches can evolve according to the circumstances of the event.

Needless to say, under the principle of collective responsibility, you can take it that, as long as we are in charge, the statements of each Minister reflect the views of the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on Indivisible Security, the Minister for Law has already explained it and I do not think I have got anything further to add.

Thank you, Sir. One supplementary question.

Would the Foreign Minister agree that, actually, the Government's statements on Russia's invasion on Ukraine have been consistent all this while and there has never been this attempt to say that the US or NATO has been somewhat contributory to the current state of affairs, which was something that the Minister for Law did say? So, I would like him to confirm that up to now, the Government has not taken this position and this is actually something new in the public domain.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is nothing new. Our position has been and will continue to be clear and consistent. I have said that on numerous occasions, not just in this House. Various Ministers have also said this, in various fora outside this House.

I must add that foreign policy is something which we all have to take responsibility for, including the Opposition. I am very glad that in fact, the Opposition, of all parties, has ensured that politics stops at the border. I think I can quite safely say that, on behalf of every single Member in this House, our position remains that it was wrong of Russia, it was a breach of international law and of the principles of the UN Charter for them to launch the invasion of Ukraine.

Having said that, I think we must also be very clear in our minds that there are a diversity of views. And when we are explaining these matters to the general public and to our population, or indeed, even in this House, it is not unreasonable to reflect the diversity of views. But reflecting the diversity of views does not alter our national position, based on a defence of our national interests and the principles which a small, tiny city-state like us must subscribe to.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I detect, actually, unanimity in this House, across the partisan divide and I think we should maintain that discipline, that cohesion and that unity.

Thank you, Sir. Perhaps one final clarification. Earlier, the Minister said that there is collective responsibility in the Cabinet and that the Law Minister's views reflect the views of the Government. In his speech, he actually said specifically that, in his view, the West and NATO were not uninvolved bystanders who had no role to play in the current situation. So, do I take it that that is the Government's view as well?

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me again step back and take a strategic look at this. Why have we taken such a categorical stand? We have taken it because of the vulnerabilities of Singapore as a tiny city-state. And history is replete with tragedy and misfortune falling on small countries. As the Minister for Law just explained – both in his speech and reiterated in this House – ultimately, the victim is the smaller country. Ukraine and Ukrainians are paying the ultimate price.

So, our position is clear: that it is wrong, a breach of international law, a flagrant violation of the principles of the UN Charter, the primary victim is the smaller country and it is people who are paying the ultimate price.

If you want to get into a larger debate on foreign policy, then, I would draw your attention to the fact that we are not in Europe. We are in Southeast Asia. As we collectively craft a foreign policy that is both consistent and protects our national interests, I would say that, on a larger strategic stage, we must always be aware.

In fact, if you do not mind, let me recite what I said a year ago: "The events in Ukraine go to the heart of the fundamental norms of international law and the UN Charter that prohibit the use of force and acts of aggression against another sovereign state. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear and gross violation of the international norms, a completely unacceptable precedent. This is an existential issue for us. Ukraine is much smaller than Russia, but it is much bigger than Singapore. A world order based on might is right or where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, such a world order is profoundly inimicable to the security and survival of small states. And so, we cannot accept one country attacking another without justification, arguing that its independence was a result of historical errors or crazy decisions. Such a rationale would go against internationally recognised legitimacy and the territorial integrity of many countries, including Singapore."

So, I think these are matters on which we are all agreed. You can get into the historical details of how a situation unfolded. Our objective in Southeast Asia is not to let a repeat of the European tragedy occur here, in this part of the world. In trying to avoid a parallel of that situation here, I think it is entirely legitimate for us to consider all views, diverse views, opposing views even, on how the situation in Europe came about.

I would urge the Member to understand what is at state, understand why we have taken a stand, understand why that stand has to be maintained, upheld and, I hope, shared across the House by all the parties represented here; and also agree that we must not let a repeat of Europe – a continent which unfortunately has been a source of two world wars in the last century – we do not want a repeat of that here.

And finally, remember that a small nation is always vulnerable. And again, to repeat something I have said multiple times here, never let ourselves be a vassal state, a stalking horse, a cat's paw for any other power. Understand that when we get entangled in such matters, the ultimate loser is always the smaller state. I thank the Member for her interest and I am grateful for her support, and I mean that in all sincerity.

Based on the Minister's last answer, he did not say whether the Government agreed with the Law Minister's view that the West and NATO were not uninvolved bystanders who had no role to play in the current situation. So, do I take it from him that he would rather not go into such historical matters?

There are things that we discuss. There are things that we – when we are having a forum in Parliament and with the general public, when there is a need to reflect the diversity of views. And I think it was entirely legitimate for the Minister for Law to do so.

Having said that, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, my first job is to protect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial integrity of Singapore. And therefore, there may be times when what I say publicly is entirely aimed at achieving that.

I do not wish to have words put into my mouth, or to make public pronouncements beyond what I have already said, to say that beware that small countries do not get caught up in the manoeuvres, the to-ing and fro-ing, and the dangerous, sometimes escalatory, rhetoric or action the superpowers engage in.

And I say it my way, but I believe that my statements are entirely consistent with the rest of my Cabinet colleagues, and we stand and we take collective responsibility for that. I think I have said enough, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am still absolutely certain that there is unanimity in this House on this matter of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I thank the Member for her support. Can I assume I have her support?