A principled approach to foreign affairs often means that policy and messaging does not change significantly over time.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, things initially moved quickly, with Singapore quickly condemning the invasion, and later imposing certain financial sanctions.

But in the over two years since that moment, Singapore’s position has not shifted in a perceptible way.

Stable policy, stable ties

Singapore’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is also similarly long-standing, far predating the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, with its emphasis on, amongst other things, advocating a negotiated two-state solution for a sustainable peace.

But as Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan said, Singapore has maintained strong relations with both Israel and the Palestinian governments.

Singapore's position has long been to advocate for the negotiated two-state solution, but also to maintain good relations with both Israel and Palestine.

This did not change after the Oct. 7 attacks, with Singapore urging adherence to international law while also emphasising that Israel had a right to self-defence.

And while Singapore’s policy has not shifted since Oct. 7, the past week in parliament has seen the emphasis shift, with Vivian saying not once, but twice, that

“Israel’s military response has gone too far.”

This was echoed by Minister for Education Chan Chun Sing and Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs Masagos Zulkifli, who said the exact same words.

Not for them, for us

Masagos said that Singapore’s emphasis on self defence is not about another country’s rights, it is protecting Singapore’s long term national interests.

@mothershipsg Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Masagos Zulkifli explained that Singapore is a diverse country and thus we have to "work together to preserve the peace between ourselves". #singapore #masagoszulkifli #masagos #parliament #singaporeparliament #fypsg #tiktoksg #sgnews #sgnewsupdate ♬ original sound - Mothership

And these rights were not particular to Singapore, all countries had that right of self defence against “acts of terror”.

But Singapore knew that the right of self-defence “also must comply with international humanitarian law, including the principles of necessity and proportionality”.

Essentially, the government was not focused on defending Israel’s rights, but maintaining a long standing tradition of maintaining established international norms, but within limits.

For a small country it was vital to safeguard “our independence, our sovereignty, our territorial integrity, our security”.

The government had clearly been building to this point, having twice voted in favour of a ceasefire in the United Nations General Assembly, although pointing out specific concerns with the first resolution.

Pleasing nobody

Another aspect of Singapore's approach to foreign policy is how often it pleases no one.

This will, in the fullness of time, be another example.

Those who support Israel’s actions will feel that such criticism is unwarranted. On the other hand, the criticism is more lukewarm for the liking of those who vociferously object to Israel’s actions.

Recently, a popular foreign travel influencer placed Singapore on a list of countries travellers “should boycott” because of Singapore’s ‘support’ for Israel, alongside countries such as the United States and Germany.

The influencer said that travellers should instead visit neighbouring countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia.

The post generated enough buzz that he has continued posting about Singapore with regularity, although he appears to not be particularly well informed.

For one thing, he refers to Vivian’s Feb. 29 CoS speech, saying that Singapore cut ties with Russia after the invasion of Ukraine, but not with Israel.

This is untrue, Singapore has not cut its diplomatic relations with Russia, and Vivian uses the maintenance of the Russian diplomatic relationship despite severe disagreements as an explicit example of why it does not make sense to cut ties with Israel.

Vivian also said later that Singapore had never once cut ties with another country, no matter what disagreements they might have had.

The influencer also shared his thoughts on other events related to the Gaza discourse in Singapore.

He took issue with Character and Citizenship Lessons, the police not granting licences for public gatherings related to Palestine and Gaza, and the presence of Israeli defence companies at the Singapore Air Show.

Unlike his assertion on diplomatic tie cutting, these events actually happened, although I would argue not quite as he characterised them.

Most of the rest of his posts on Singapore are not so much malicious slanders, as much as lazily uninformed.

I could easily write an entire article debunking the various posts about Singapore and Israel that he made, but correcting people being wrong on the internet is rarely productive.

Genuine frustration

However, his posts are useful in showing what the frustration of Singaporeans who feel strongly on the matter look like.

They speak of frustration at inaction, especially in the face of what they see as monstrous crimes, and wishing; demanding, that the government be more forthcoming in condemnation, perhaps more in line with what former president Halimah Yacob had written in recent weeks.

This is the constituency that the government has to reach, and explain why it has chosen the path it has, regardless of whether they are open to be convinced or not.

And the government has to, and I feel is beginning to show more, that it recognises their frustrations.

Henry Kissinger once complimented Singapore as one of the most “cold blooded” countries in the world when it came to foreign relations.

But being cold blooded is often unpopular for a reason; and while often useful, it is a learned, not natural condition.

Vivian alludes to as much, when he quotes Lee Kuan Yew:

“We must be realistic. We cannot afford to indulge in emotional outbursts or in wishful thinking. We must face the hard facts of life and deal with them rationally and objectively”.

The frustration and anger is what we feel, but it should not be the sole determinant of how we act.

Related stories

Top image via MCI Singapore/YouTube