A motion regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict was debated in Parliament today (Nov. 6).

Several exchanges and clarifications occured during the debate, with Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Lawrence Wong and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan seeking clarifications from the Leader of Opposition Pritam Singh regarding Workers' Party (WP) statement on the conflict.

The clarification related to whether WP viewed Hamas' attack as an act of terror. WP's statement had referred to Hamas' attack as a "military operation". 

DPM Wong noted that without the benefit of Singh’s explanation in parliament, "there was ambiguity about that (WP) statement".

Wong added that "in situations like this, we must stand united, and politics must stop at the water's edge".

WP's stance on Israel-Hamas conflict

Speaking earlier in support of the motion, LO Pritam Singh said that the atrocities committed against innocent civilians by Hamas militants on Oct. 7 cannot be supported.

There can be no reason to target, kill or take civilians hostage, he added.

He made three points in reference to WP statement that was released earlier on Oct. 18.

Firstly, Singh said that the latest eruption in hostilities between Israel and Palestinians should not be seen in isolation.

The Israel-Hamas conflict is a subset of a larger struggle that arises out of the absence of a political solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, he said.

He highlighted that the Palestinian side sees a far more gruesome story, with overwhelming casualties, including a large number of children.

"If history is a guide, we will very soon see the number of dead Palestinians in Gaza cross the 10,000 mark, with many of the dead being women and children."

Secondly, he highlighted the threat of the conflict on Singapore's peace and harmony.

While the Israel-Hamas conflict can test Singapore due to its multi-racial and multi-religious nature, it should not be allowed to compromise the country's multi-racial and multi-religious peace and harmony, Singh said.

"As Singaporeans, we should not analyse a political issue through religious lenses," he added.

He also pointed out that not all Jews and Israelis stand on either side.

"It would be incorrect to think that all Jews and Israelis are monolithic in their views, even as their desire for a homeland where they can live in peace without being subjected to terrorist attacks, is shared by all Israelis, and friends of Israel, including Singapore."

Lastly, he said that WP supports the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols that prescribe international humanitarian law.

The party also endorsed the United Nations Charter and other international agreements, he added.

Zero-tolerance approach to terrorism: MFA

Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan also spoke, saying that Singapore must always take a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism.

He described Hamas' attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, as an act of terrorism and said that it involved indiscriminate killing and extreme brutality.

"It was not a military operation, targeted at military targets, and such acts cannot be justified by any rationale, any historical grievances, any religious belief, any context," he said.

He maintained that it is in Singapore's national interest to condemn the terrorist attack by Hamas and call for the safe, immediate and unconditional release of all civilian hostages.

Being so small, exposed, vulnerable, and multiracial, Singapore must take a clear and unambiguous stand against terrorism in all circumstances, he said.

"We must reject terrorism in all its forms, no excuses, no ifs, no buts, no short term political advantage. Reject terrorism.

If attacked, all of us here must give the government of the day the ability to exercise the right of self defence. But even when it does so, we will expect the government of the day to uphold international law.

And as Singaporeans, we will continue to extend humanitarian assistance and protection to all civilians. We should support the peaceful resolution of disputes."

He also added international law dictates that all states have a legitimate and inherent right to defend themselves.

However, all countries must ensure that if military action is taken in exercising this right of self defence, they must abide by the principles of necessity and proportionality, he said.

Attacks by Hamas is an act of terror

Vivian said during his speech that the WP's public statement had "left room for ambiguity".

He relayed his reassurance following Singh's speech, noting that the latter "[seemed] to have clarified that the attack that was launched by Hamas was not simply a military operation, but in fact, deserves to be condemned".

However, he requested for the opposition to clearly label the attacks by Hamas as an act of terror. He said:

"But I would feel even better, if you can clearly and unequivocally say 'indiscriminate attacks on civilians on women and children and taking hostages is a clear and present act of terror'. And say that for the sake of Singapore, and Singaporeans."

Singh's response

In response, Singh said that the focus of WP's statement was to emphasise that the killing of non-combatants, women, and children by any country or organisation deserves no less than absolute condemnation.

He called it an "even-keeled approach", where terrorist attacks are not condoned, but "Israeli settlers evicting Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank" also have to be condemned.

He also highlighted that Hamas is not on the list of terrorist groups designated by the Inter-Ministry Committee on Terrorist Designation (IMC-TD).

However, when Vivian requested double confirmation from Singh regarding whether WP viewed Hamas' attack as an act of terror, Singh stated, "Yes."

Vivian responded that he was grateful for WP's confirmation that they stand on this issue with the government, as for something as vital as terrorism, they "cannot afford to have political parties trying to outflank each other in order to look to fish for votes".

In clarifying Singh's statement that Hamas is not on IMC-TD's list of terrorist groups, Vivian said:

"I think I have to ask you to trust our security agencies that they know what activities and plans people are up to and where that money is going to go to, and we do not hesitate to act. So it's not a binary switch that you're on the list or you're not on the list."

Hamas fits categorisation as a terrorist entity: Nair

One of the Members of Parliament who filed the motion, Vikram Nair, also responded to Singh, saying that while Hamas was not listed as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act, it fits the categorisation as a terrorist entity.

The Act defines a terrorist act as one that involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property or endangers a person's life, Nair explained.

He added that for him, all the components are satisfied to define Hamas' attack as a terrorist act.

In response, Singh said that the fact is that Hamas is not on that list, "notwithstanding the members personal views to this particular issue".

He added that at the time the statement was made by WP, the condemnation of both parties was important to them, for different reasons.

Clarification from MFA

Later in the sitting, Vivian read out a clarification by the Ministry of Home Affairs:

"In Singapore, it is an offence for anyone to deal with any individual or organisation regardless of whether it is designated.

If the purpose is for terrorist act, or otherwise to support terrorism, including the financing of terrorism, it is also an offence to have financial dealings with any individual or organisation that meets the definition of a terrorist or terrorist entity under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002.

Even if it is not specifically designated in the first schedule, we will not hesitate to take firm action against any individual or entity that poses a security threat, including barring entry into Singapore."

"I think it's very clear what Hamas did would certainly fulfil the definition of a terrorist act and have no doubt it will not be allowed in Singapore, neither to finance or support or to get involved, so I thought that's an important clarification," he added.

In response, Singh said that he took Vivian's point and explained that his "simple rejoinder" earlier was just to say that Hamas was not on the list of terrorist organisations.

He added that he was not questioning "whether the Act did not capture them or anything of that sort".

Government concerned with WP's characterisation of Hamas attack

DPM Wong also raised the issue of WP's statement in his speech, stating that the PAP “were a little concerned” with the statement because “it stopped short of condemning the actions of Hamas”.

He noted that WP referred to Hamas’ action “as a military operation rather than a terrorist act”.

While Wong understands that Singh has explained the context and circumstances behind the statements, he pointed out that without the benefit of Singh’s explanation, “there was ambiguity about that statement”.

He said people questioned whether WP had “deliberately overlooked this just to appear more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.”

However, he was glad that Singh has since clarified WP’s position and condemned Hamas’ acts as acts of terrorism.

Wong also suggested that the WP update their statements on their social media platforms to reflect this position.

“This is not a trivial matter. This is not just nitpicking at words. It is a key point of principle because national security is at stake. And indeed, in situations like this, we must stand united, and politics must stop at the water's edge.”

Let's not risk our precious unity for short-term political gain, not when our collective security and fundamental interests are at stake. All of us owe this basic duty to Singaporeans.”

WP said they did not get message that their statement concern "national security"

In response to Wong, Singh said he was glad that he and Giam had clarified the matter and that they will append their speeches to the statement.

On Wong’s characterisation of it being “a national security matter”, he said that he did not get any message from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or anyone else, suggesting that the statement was “problematic from a national security angle”.

He said that if the government has such concerns which “the opposition may not be apprised of”, do let them know, and he assures that they will “certainly take those views on the board very carefully”.

Wong responded that he feels assured that the WP will be posting their speeches on their website, pointing out that “what’s more important is not just the speeches themselves” but a clear position from the WP that it “condemns unequivocally the acts of terrorism by Hamas”.

“Then we are all in a common position on that.”

Related stories