Singapore’s hypocrisy: Strong stance against Russia, unprincipled approach to Israel’s genocide in Gaza

In an era where nations are increasingly called upon to take unequivocal stances on issues of international justice, Singapore’s response to the ongoing atrocities in Gaza appears not just muted but fundamentally unprincipled, particularly when contrasted with its robust actions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The parliamentary session on 7 August 2024, where Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan outlined Singapore’s position on the escalating conflict in Gaza, reveals a cautious approach that seems woefully inadequate given the gravity of the situation.

Dr Balakrishnan stated, “Singapore is gravely concerned about the escalating tensions in the Middle East, which have put at risk efforts to secure a ceasefire agreement in Gaza. This should be the foremost priority.”

While he condemned attacks on civilians and reiterated Singapore’s support for a ceasefire, his remarks stopped short of addressing the deeper issue of Israel’s continued occupation and settlement expansion in Palestinian territories, actions that have been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

This restrained stance is starkly contrasted with Singapore’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Then, the Singapore government took a firm and decisive position, implementing sanctions and restrictions against Russia, a move almost unprecedented in Singapore’s foreign policy.

In a statement, the government declared, “Singapore is a consistent and staunch supporter of international law and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity of all countries, big and small, must be respected. Singapore takes any violation of these core principles seriously, as they are fundamental to the survival of Singapore, a small state.”

Singapore’s actions following Russia’s aggression were clear and forceful. The government imposed export controls on items that could be used as weapons or in offensive cyber operations and targeted financial measures against Russian banks and entities. These sanctions were designed to “constrain Russia’s capacity to conduct war against Ukraine and undermine its sovereignty.”

In contrast, Singapore’s response to Israel’s actions in Gaza has been far less decisive.

Despite the ICJ ruling on the illegality of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, Singapore has not imposed any sanctions or taken tangible measures to hold Israel accountable.

The continuation of normal diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, coupled with the refusal to disclose details about possible defense or military-related trade, sends a mixed message.

In response to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ (MFA) statement that it would not divulge details of defense sales for national security reasons, it is worth noting that Israel is not subject to any UN sanctions. Thus, the MFA’s refusal to provide clarity on this matter does little to dispel the suspicion that Singapore’s economic and strategic interests may be prioritized over moral and humanitarian concerns.

This disparity in responses raises important questions about Singapore’s foreign policy principles. If Singapore can impose sanctions on Russia for its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, why has it not taken similar actions against Israel, whose occupation of Palestinian land has been condemned by the ICJ and the international community? Is Singapore’s commitment to international law and justice selective, driven by geopolitical considerations rather than consistent moral principles?

Former President Halimah Yacob’s recent remarks further highlight this moral inconsistency.

Expressing her distress over the ongoing violence in Gaza, she noted, “The muted and weak protestations over the gross inhumanity happening in Gaza are appalling. Stand on the side of humanity.”

Her words resonate with many around the world, including citizens in Singapore who are disillusioned by the global community’s failure to hold Israel accountable for its actions, contrasting sharply with the swift and decisive response to Russia.

Adding to this inconsistency is the fact that while Singapore has contributed more than S$17 million in aid to Gaza, this humanitarian gesture seems hollow when juxtaposed with Singapore’s continued diplomatic cosiness with Israel—the very government responsible for the atrocities in Gaza. As the saying goes, what’s the point of sending aid to the burnt victims when you’re still cosying up to the arsonist?

One of the most concerning aspects of Singapore’s stance is Dr Balakrishnan’s characterization of the genocide in Gaza as a “family quarrel.”

This statement, made in July 2024, trivializes the immense suffering inflicted upon innocent Palestinians by the Israeli government, which many around the world have labelled as genocidal.

When confronted by Mr Leong Mun Wai in Parliament this month, Dr Balakrishnan refused to retract his comment, insisting instead on maintaining Singapore’s “principled, deliberate, careful diplomacy.”

However, this diplomacy seems to have fallen short of addressing the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza, where nearly 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 14,000 children, as the conflict continues.

This dismissive attitude starkly contrasts with former President Halimah Yacob’s empathetic stance, as well as the moral clarity displayed by Singapore’s government during the Ukraine crisis. By failing to recognize the genocide in Gaza for what it is—a systematic and brutal extermination of a people—Singapore risks being seen as complacent in the face of grave injustice.

Singapore’s current approach—condemning violence in rhetoric while maintaining the status quo in practice—risks being perceived as mere lip service to international law.

Voting against Israel’s actions at the UN, while significant, becomes an empty gesture if not backed by concrete actions, such as suspending trade deals or reassessing diplomatic ties.

If Singapore truly stands against the atrocities committed in Gaza, it must move beyond symbolic votes and take real, impactful actions—such as recognizing Palestine as a state, along with over 146 other countries, instead of merely stating that it is ‘prepared in principle‘ to do so.

Only then can it hope to align its foreign policy with the values of justice and humanity that it claims to uphold.

By maintaining its current course, Singapore risks sending a message that its commitment to international law is conditional, applied rigorously in some cases but overlooked in others. This inconsistency not only undermines Singapore’s credibility on the global stage but also raises questions about its moral compass in matters of international justice.