An 11-year-old girl was sent to the hospital after apparently being hit by a car at a carpark in Yishun on Oct. 7, 2026, with the driver assisting with investigations.

The incident was posted to Instagram by @sgfollowsall, which shared information from a follower that the girl was left immobile due to the "intense pain".

An ambulance was also called to the scene afterwards, the post added.

Accident scene

Based on the video, a number of passers-by were gathered in a carpark, overlooking a young individual lying on the ground.

Uniformed personnel could be seen attending to the girl while someone held an umbrella over her.

An ambulance, along with two other vehicles, were stationary at the scene.

Responding to Mothership's queries, the police said they were alerted at about 1:15pm on Oct. 7 to an accident involving a car and a pedestrian along Block 813A Yishun Ring Road.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) said it was alerted at the same time that day to a road traffic accident at the carpark of Block 813 Yishun Ring Road.

SCDF conveyed an 11-year-old pedestrian conscious to KK Women's and Children's Hospital.

A 62-year-old male car driver is assisting with investigations and police investigations are ongoing.

Cadillac Formula 1 driver Valtteri Bottas has made it to Singapore.

He arrived on Oct. 7, according to his social media post.

The 37-year-old Finnish driver wrote that he had cycled close to 420km over four days from Sepang, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

He made it in time for the Singapore Airlines Singapore Grand Prix, where media commitments commenced on Oct. 8.

It was initially thought that Bottas would traverse through 350km of terrain from Malaysia to Singapore on his gravel race bicycle.

But the journey took longer due to the paths he took.

Regular updates

He has been posting daily updates of his ride on social media.

While still in Malaysia, he was seen dining on chicken rice balls and satay.

Distances covered

He rode 56.6km in just over two hours on Oct. 4.

On Oct. 5, he did 161.91km over 5hr 45min.

He then rode another 161km in 5.5 hours on Oct. 6.

On Oct. 7, he finished the last 40.16km.

On Wednesday, he posted a video of the Causeway taken at 2:22pm.

Two hours later, he was cycling past Beach Road towards Marina Bay.

Presented with certificate

He was presented a “certificate of completion” by The Ritz-Carlton, Millennia Singapore.

In all, he rode 419.67km to Singapre.

The Singapore GP’s first practice session is on Oct. 9.

All schools in Johor, Malaysia, will be closed for two days starting Oct. 8 to safeguard students' health amid worsening haze conditions and deteriorating air quality across the state.

According to the Air Pollutant Index Management System (APIMS), all eight areas in Johor recorded unhealthy readings as of 11am on Oct. 8, ranging from 162 to 188.

Johor Education and Information Committee chairman Muhammad Naqib Md Ghazali said the decision was made following a directive from Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, reported The Star.

“While this decision may req­uire some adjustment from everyone, under the current circumstances, the safety and health of children must be our shared priority,” he said.

Safeguard children's health

Naqib also urged parents and guar­dians to monitor their child­ren’s health, reduce outdoor activities and ensure they drink enough water.

“Seek immediate medical ­attention if they experience symptoms such as coughing, sore throat or breathing difficulties,” he said.

He also acknowledged the impact on parents who have to work and asked for the cooperation and consideration of employers in providing appropriate flexibility.

Meanwhile, schools will postpone assessments, subject to decisions by the Johor Education Department and relevant parties.

Home-based teaching and learning will be conducted during the two-day closure to ensure students can continue their lessons.

The state government and relevant agencies will continue monitoring the Air Pollutant Index (API) readings, Naqib said.

Crystal Jade has closed another four outlets in Singapore and laid off 120 employees.

This comes as part of its restructuring measures undertaken ahead of a potential sale, said Crystal Jade's receivers Kroll in a press release on Oct. 7.

The financial and risk advisory firm announced that the measures were aimed at "positioning the business for a proposed sale and supporting its long-term future."

The four outlets that ceased operations on Oct. 6 were three Crystal Jade La Mian Xiao Long Bao outlets located at Bugis Junction, Toa Payoh, and Katong i12, and one Crystal Jade GO outlet located at Punggol Oasis Terrace.

This move follows Kroll's appointment as receivers over the holding companies of both Crystal Jade's Singapore and Hong Kong operations on Sep. 29.

Consultation with unions

According to Kroll, the 120 employees terminated worked in both restaurants and corporate capacities.

This leaves Crystal Jade with approximately 210 workers and nine outlets remaining.

All affected employees were informed directly and will receive salaries up till their final day of employment, Kroll said.

Restaurant staff will continue to serve their applicable notice periods and will be compensated according to their employment contracts.

Kroll and Crystal Jade have engaged the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union (FDAWU), an affiliated union of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), among other associations to support affected workers since Sep. 30.

In response, FDAWU's General Secretary Sankaradass S/O S. Chami said:

"We know this will be a difficult and uncertain time for affected members, workers and their families. Our focus is to ensure that members and workers are treated fairly, kept informed and received the support they need and do not have to navigate this period of uncertainty alone."

He also added that they were working with NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and employer partners to assist workers in finding new opportunities.

According to a statement, FDAWU and NTUC’s e2i connected workers with more than 400 job opportunities across various sectors, and engaged employer partners to conduct on-site interviews for terminated workers during the exercise.

These include the food manufacturing, food services, hospitality, and wholesale and retail sectors.

Partners also included other food and beverage (F&B) companies such as Paris Baguette, Neo Group Bakery and Din Tai Fung.

ST also reported that FDAWU representatives assisted affected union members by addressing their queries and pointing them towards available support schemes.

Care packs containing essential goods and groceries were also prepared for affected union members.

Central kitchen closes doors

Separately, Crystal Jade's central kitchen, Crystal Jade Food Manufacturing Pte Ltd, also ceased operations on Oct. 5.

Kroll said that the central kitchen operated outside the scope of the receivership.

Nevertheless, the decision was made by the company's management as part of the Crystal Jade Group's broader restructuring efforts.

Kroll also added that it does not expect further outlet closures in Singapore.

They intend to market the business for sale as a going concern, meaning that it is able to meet all financial obligations.

The nine remaining outlets in Singapore are:

• Crystal Jade Palace at Takashimaya Shopping Centre
• Crystal Jade Golden Palace at The Paragon
• Crystal Jade Pavilion at VivoCity
• Four Crystal Jade Hong Kong Kitchen outlets at Causeway Point, Takashimaya Shopping Centre, One Holland Village and Tampines 1
• Crystal Jade La Mian Xiao Long Bao at Changi Airport Terminal 1
• Crystal Jade GO at Changi Airport Terminal 4

From January 2027, Singapore Airlines (SIA) will be progressively retiring the iconic open-toe sandals of the female cabin crew, and replacing them with new closed-toe wedges designed by local brand Pazzion.

An SIA spokesperson told Mothership the move follows a review to enhance the safety, comfort, and support of their cabin crew while meeting operational requirements.

The final design was decided on after testing several prototypes on actual flights.

Standardisation

Currently, SIA's female cabin crew switch between two types of footwear for different flight phases.

They would first wear the open-toe sandals to greet passengers boarding the plane, then swap them for a pair of closed-toe slingbacks for take-off.

After landing, they would change back into the sandals to see passengers off.

The slingbacks were first introduced in 2001, a year after the deadly SQ006 crash in Taiwan that sparked questions whether the open-toe sandals could have impeded the female cabin crew's movement in helping passengers evacuate the plane.

However, SIA denied the link at the time, clarifying that they were already looking for a replacement earlier in September 1999.

From 2027, the new shoes will replace both footwear, so that the flight attendants can wear one pair throughout for better practicality, the SIA spokesperson told Mothership.

They will feature thicker lambskin insoles for support, and SIA's signature batik motif with colour variants matched to each crew rank's uniform.

According to an image shared on Xiaohongshu, the wedge heel will be the same height as the current slingbacks.

A pity but practical

A former SIA female flight attendant told Zaobao that she found it a pity that the airline will be phasing out the open-toe sandals.

She said the sandals were not only comfortable but also an iconic part of the cabin crew's uniform.

Nonetheless, she felt that today's flight attendants would welcome the move as it means they no longer need to alternate between shoes while working.

A Singaporean woman, 40, was sentenced to eight weeks and five days' jail for dining and dashing at a Haidilao restaurant, as well as committing a series of petty retail shop thefts, including stealing two loaves of raisin bread.

The accused, Ong Rou En, pleaded guilty to three charges on Oct. 5.

The remaining charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.

Claimed she gets to eat for free

On Oct. 28, 2024, at about 12am at the Haidilao restaurant at Paya Lebar Quarter (PLQ), Ong ordered S$203.50 worth of food.

The items included a beef tallow soup base, Iberico pork, prawn paste, Chinese bullfrog, and crispy pork strips, among other dishes.

Two hours later, the staff presented Ong with the bill.

Instead of paying, the accused suddenly said the restaurant manager had promised her a free meal.

The staff then clarified with the restaurant manager and was told that what the woman claimed was not true.

Ong then said she was a Haidilao staff at the Marina Bay Sands outlet.

After verifying with the Marina Bay Sands outlet, it was again discovered that the woman was not telling the truth.

She also could not produce a staff card when asked for it.

She then left the restaurant without paying.

The manager made a police report on the same day.

Stole bread

About two months later, on Dec. 21, 2024, Ong committed theft at a shop at Block 720 Jurong West Avenue 5.

She stole two loaves of California raisin bread valued at S$7.80 and returned a few minutes later to take six sambal ikan bilis buns valued at S$9.60.

The store manager noticed the thefts three days later while reviewing surveillance footage and reported the matter to the police.

Ong subsequently admitted to stealing the items as she had an urge to do so.

Stole from Don Don Donki

On Oct. 6, 2025, at about 5.45pm, Ong took S$300 worth of items at the Don Don Donki outlet located in Jurong West, and placed them in a white tote bag.

The items included one bottle of Smirnoff ice wild grape drink valued at S$4.90 and four slices of Mekajiki sashimi valued at S$55.20, among other goods.

She spent 15 minutes in the shop.

The retail manager detected the accused’s offences when he reviewed the surveillance footage more than a week later on Oct. 15 and reported it to the police.

The accused admitted to the theft and said she had been under a lot of mental stress at the time.

Pleaded for leniency

The court heard that Ong expressed remorse and deep regret for wasting public resources, Shin Min Daily News reported.

She added that she would actively seek treatment after her release, claiming that she never intended to evade responsibility and had promised her lawyer that she would change.

She also explained that she dined and dashed at Haidilao because she was angry with the waiter.

Are civil servants really more honest than the average person?

Amid an ongoing investigation about a U.S. study which claimed to have identified a statistical pattern of Singapore civil servants purchasing homes near MRT stations before their locations were publicly announced, there have been conversations about whether the existing safeguards are enough.

The paper questioned if "pro-integrity social norms can substitute for formal enforcement in deterring misconduct by public officials".

In response, the government said it is reviewing the data of property purchases made between 2007 and 2011 by officers who were involved in rail planning, and has even extended the scope to 2014 as a matter of prudence.

The government has since updated the parliament that eight public officers whose property purchases warrant further examination have been referred to the police, after reviewing property transactions made by 191 officers.

As we wait for the results, it's worth considering: exactly what is the basis for these "social norms", and what does it mean for Singapore's systems?

Professor Leong Ching, NUSS professor of Behavioural Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, writes about her experiment on the matter.

By Leong Ching

On Oct. 6, the coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Seng announced that eight public service officers had been referred to the police for further investigation.

This came on the back of a working paper from the US-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) alleging that civil servants here “disproportionately” bought private homes near MRT stations before those stations were announced.

The minister added that this did not mean that wrongdoing had been established; rather the police would review the facts and that due process would be followed.

Whatever the results may be, it has brought new salience to a larger issue: the issue of honesty in the Singapore civil service.

Assessing people’s honesty

In policy studies, the motivations of civil servants have long been the subject of study and theorising.

But empirical experiments testing honesty are notoriously difficult. Like the Higgs-Boson particle, honest behaviour is almost impossible to observe in an experimental setting.

Whether people are inherently honest is an old question. Much of our public life is built on an assumption of good faith — that we act honestly with one another and in our relations with the government.

Yet, from tax evasion to false declarations, people often fall short; in terms of policy design, audits and penalties are costly ways to detect and punish such behaviour.

In search of a low-cost and effective intervention, my colleagues and I at the National University of Singapore conducted a field experiment with 34,543 adults in nine countries across the Americas, Asia, and Europe.

The experiment

We designed three experimental conditions.

The first, “private cash”, got participants to privately roll a die and report the outcome, with a cash reward proportional to the reported value.

The rules were simple: if you roll a 1, you do not get any money, and if you roll a 6, you get S$5.

The incentive, therefore, is to report as high a number as possible.

If all participants in a large sample were perfectly honest, we would expect an average of 3.5. Anything higher indicates a degree of dishonesty.

The second, “private lottery”, was similar, but we introduced an element of chance. We wanted to see if people were more likely to be dishonest if their chances of getting the cash reward were determined by a virtual lottery.

The higher the reported value of the die roll, the higher the chance of winning. Again, the incentive is to report a high number.

The third, “public cash”, gave participants a choice to roll the die either privately or on a platform visible to the researchers. In this group, they could choose whether to be observed or not.

Importantly, they would still get paid out whatever amount they reported whether honestly or not.

The results

We found that most people were indeed dishonest.

Rolling entirely in private — the first experimental condition — average reports ranged from 3.76 in China to 4.43 in Mexico.

But most people were not maximally dishonest. Rather than thinking “in for a penny, in for a pound” and declaring a 6 when they rolled a 1, most shaded the truth a little.

They were partially dishonest — or, as they might tell themselves, partially honest.

Adding an element of luck — in the second condition — made little difference.

The most surprising result came from the third condition. I had expected most people not to opt into the condition to roll the dice on the NUS server where “you may be observed by the researcher”.

Instead, 85 per cent chose this option — and as a result were completely or almost completely honest, with averages ranging from 3.46 in Germany to 3.61 in Indonesia.

In the formal model, we worked out a coefficient which showed that people derived utility from being “seen to be honest”.

An intriguing finding.

Are public servants different?

For public servants, empirical evidence on honesty has largely been drawn from proxy samples — students who want to join the public service, police applicants and counter staff.

The results are mixed, i.e. we don’t know whether they are indeed more honest.

But our earlier, unrelated experiment provided a basis for answering the age-old question.

To find out, I ran the same experiment with nearly 3,000 public sector workers in the United States.

Rolling in private, public servants reported an average of 3.87, against 4.02 for Americans in the general population study.

When no one was watching, public servants were measurably more honest than everyone else (even if not perfectly so).

Given the option to be observed, 91 per cent opted in. Their average fell to 3.69.

At this number, the gap with the general public, who had been offered the same choice, disappeared. Even the few who declined to be observed were about as honest as those who opted in.

The offer itself seems to have been enough.

In short, civil servants do seem to be able to call on their better angels when no one is watching. Why?

Being seen to be honest

In the NBER paper, the authors argue that their data shows that social norms have limited persistence and are not enough to maintain a low-corruption equilibrium without formal enforcement.

My study does not compare enforcement with social norms, although it makes two interesting points about civil servants’ internal beliefs and their outward behaviour.

First, in the study, the more honest people believed their peers to be, the more honest they themselves were. They also consistently rated their colleagues as more honest than themselves.

Second, a common assumption about civil servants is that their internal values (or public service motivation) is related to higher standards of moral behaviour.

In this study, I did not find a connection — that is, an individual’s attraction to public service, commitment to public values, compassion, and self-sacrifice did not predict honesty.

Yet, most participants want to be perceived as honest and would behave honestly if given the chance.

A high bar

What would this insight look like in practice?

Well, for a start, like Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) 1960 in Singapore —  "Presumption of corruption in certain cases".

Murali Pillai SC, Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport, explained in a 2024 speech on anti-corruption how this use of presumptions worked in Singapore law.

He said: “Where a person employed by the government or public body receives gratification from someone who had dealings with the government or public body, both the giver and receiver are deemed to have given or received the gratification corruptly as an inducement or reward, unless it is proven otherwise.”

This is an extraordinarily high bar.

As the Singapore High Court explained in 2014, once a public servant is shown to have received a gift from someone dealing with the government, "the evidential burden of proof shifts to the recipient", who must offer an innocent explanation to rebut the presumption of corruption.

In short, to be seen as honest.

Designed for scrutiny

This is exactly what we are seeing play out in the PSD review and the police investigation.

Whatever the results from the PSD review therefore, the broader lesson is the same: integrity cannot simply be assumed from who public servants are (i.e. their public sector motivation, which may not relate to specific behaviours) nor from social norms (e.g. a belief in the honesty of others, which does co-relate to honest behaviours).

Instead, institutions and rules must be designed for scrutiny and the opportunity to be seen to be honest.

Second, and I think more significantly, there is the role of formal enforcement.

Empirically, formal sanctions have been shown to be effective deterrents, but even in the highly improbable instance that social norms can be shown to achieve the same behavioural outcomes, such enforcement must not be replaced.

Punishment is not mere quotidian behavioural intervention, it is a moral requirement underwritten by theories of justice and a contractarian understanding of public policy.

An incorrupt civil service does not require that no one be ever tempted, but instead, that those who give in to temptation be predictably punished, and honest officers given every opportunity to be seen to be so.

While at a night club celebrating his wife's pregnancy, a 27-year-old man felt that another man was staring at him and his friends several times.

Feeling affronted, he confronted the other man, a Malaysian, and the situation quickly turned violent.

Along with three of his friends, Jonathan Soo Wen Jie punched and kicked the Malaysian repeatedly. At one point, Soo also struck his head with a metal bar.

All four assailants were drunk at the time, according to court documents.

As a result of the assault that lasted almost two-and-a-half minutes, the victim suffered lasting blurriness and pain in his left eye for several months after the incident.

Soo pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous hurt, and was sentenced on Oct. 5 to a year-and-a-half in jail and four strokes of the cane.

His three friends involved have also been convicted.

Tan Swee Heng, 45, was also sentenced on Oct. 5 to a year and five months in jail and three strokes of the cane, while Ong Jun Ren, 37, was previously sentenced in April 2026 to a year in jail and two strokes of the cane.

The last accused, Koh Ming Quan, 20, was sentenced in August to probation as he is a young offender.

How it started

The incident happened at the Mask 51 night club in Geylang at around 2:02am on Apr. 28, 2025.

It was caught on video by the club’s CCTV cameras.

In addition to celebrating the pregnancy of Soo's wife, they were also there to celebrate Tan's wife's birthday.

The victim was there to meet a friend for drinks, and sat at the back of the club.

Soo noticed that he appeared to be staring at him and his friends as they went to get drinks.

It aggravated Soo, and he walked aggressively towards the victim along with Ong. After arguing with him, Soo threw a punch at him.

The commotion alerted Koh and Tan to go over, and Koh attempted to calm Soo down.

Ong, however, began pointing aggressively at the victim and arguing with him.

When the victim's friend tried to defuse the situation, Soo told him not to intervene or else he would be beaten up too.

The assault

After Soo and the victim exchanged more words, Soo threw a flurry of punches at the victim's face.

The victim turned away and did not retaliate.

Soo, Koh, and Tan then pulled him over to the centre of the club and hurled him against a table, causing him to hit his head and fall to the ground.

While he was still on the ground, Soo and his three friends began punching and kicking him multiple times.

Tan grabbed the victim by his hair and attempted to pick up a bottle to hit him, but was stopped from doing so by Tan’s wife.

As the victim got to his feet, Ong went forward to elbow him in the back, and Koh shoved him against a table. Koh also picked up a glass bottle and smashed it on the victim's back.

As the victim staggered towards the exit of the club, Soo picked up a metal bar stool and struck the victim's head with it, then threw it hard at his head.

Soo, Tan, and Ong continued to punch the victim after that.

The victim's injuries

Due to their attacks, the victim had to be sent to the hospital to be treated for multiple injuries, including severe facial fractures and eyelid lacerations.

According to the prosecutor, he requested to be discharged against medical advice for admission.

He felt that he could not afford to pay for medical treatment in Singapore and wanted to return to Malaysia to receive medical treatment.

However, he still did not undergo surgery in Malaysia and his injuries were managed medically. He had to stay at home for a month without working to recuperate.

Months after the incident, he continued to experience blurriness and pain in his left eye, which made it difficult to focus with it.

'Cowardly act'

The prosecutor called for the court to jail Soo between a year and seven months to a year and nine months, along with four strokes of the cane.

He described the case as "a vicious, gratuitous, and cowardly act of hooliganism", arguing that the joint assault of a "hapless male victim" was "an irrational and disproportional response to a perceived slight" against Soo.

On the difference between the four men's sentences, the prosecutor felt it was justified.

He argued that Ong and Tan were less culpable than Soo, who was the main instigator of the assault and displayed much more violence towards the victim than the other two.

In its upcoming review commencing in 2027, the Life Insurance Association, Singapore (LIA) will explore a different approach towards whether certain medical conditions and diseases are claimable under critical illness plans.

It will consider whether claimable conditions can be defined by the underlying disease and its severity, rather than by specific procedures.

In an Oct. 7 written response in parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong acknowledged that some critical illness plans use treatment procedures as "objective indicators" of disease severity and consequent financial impact.

This is because such plans are intended to help policyholders cope with the financial impact of a severe illness, rather than reimburse the cost of medical treatment, he said.

Critical illness questions

Gan was responding to a question by MP Hamid Razak, who asked if critical illness policy definitions could be moved away from being anchored to specific surgical procedures, and towards disease instead.

This is so that insurance cover is not lost solely due to differing treatment approaches, he said.

Hamid is a practising orthopaedic surgeon.

In March, a woman sued Prudential after she underwent brain surgery following a stroke, but her had claim denied.

In her critical illness insurance plan, it was stated that her stroke surgery would only be covered if she had underwent a surgical craniotomy, rather than an endovascular repair.

She argued that having suffered a stroke, she was unable to choose which surgery she would undergo, but eventually lost her suit.

Premiums may be affected

In his written reply, Gan said that any changes will require "careful consideration" as they affect the scope of coverage and claims experience.

Premiums for such policies may also be affected as they are dependent on the probability of claims materialising, he caveated.

He added that updated definitions will apply to new products sold.

Related story

There were no public interest grounds to issue a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) over a report by Israeli media outlet Haaretz, said Minister for Home Affairs and Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam.

The media outlet alleged that a delegation from Israel had discussed the death penalty with Singaporean officials.

In a written reply on Oct. 7, 2026, SM Shanmugam said the assessment at the time, based on legal advice, was that the public interest grounds for issuing a POFMA Direction were not met.

His reply came after Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Fadli Fawzi asked about the reported meeting, including why a correction direction was not issued against Haaretz.

Fadli also asked if illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank were discussed during the meeting, and if Singapore had requested that the meeting be kept secret.

What was alleged in the article

On Sep. 7, 2026, Haaretz reported that a delegation comprising representatives from the Israel Prison Service and the National Security Ministry had made what it described as a "secret visit" to Singapore.

According to CNA, the report claimed that the death penalty was discussed during the visit, citing several unnamed sources.

This claim was subsequently refuted by Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Sep. 11, 2026.

An MHA spokesperson told CNA that Haaretz correspondent Josh Breiner had asked whether discussions on the death penalty had taken place.

Breiner was informed that no such discussions had taken place and that it would be false to suggest otherwise, the spokesperson said.

MHA added that it had hosted the Israeli delegation for an officials-level meeting, during which both sides shared best practices in areas such as emergency response, crime prevention, and forensics.

Such engagements allow the exchange of information and operational cooperation in areas like fire and rescue and cybercrime.

"This is part of the Singapore government’s engagement with a wide range of international counterparts in the conduct of foreign relations, economic cooperation, security dialogue, among others, in pursuit of our national interests," the spokesperson was quoted as saying.

Separately, Israel’s National Security Ministry also told Haaretz that representatives from the ministry and its agencies did not discuss the death penalty during the meeting.

Why no POFMA direction was issued

In his written reply, Shanmugam said Singapore regularly holds discussions with international counterparts on security and law enforcement matters.

Such engagements are important for the exchange of information and intelligence between agencies, he said, adding that they have enabled Singapore to identify potential threats, intervene early, and keep the country safe.

He reiterated that the meeting with the Israeli delegation focused on operational and security-related issues and did not extend to broader foreign policy matters.

"Singapore’s positions on such matters are addressed through the appropriate foreign policy channels, including by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)," he said.

SM Shanmugam added that the contents of MHA’s exchanges with foreign counterparts are confidential and generally not publicised due to security concerns.

He said MHA had responded to the Haaretz article as its claims were "categorically false".

However, it was assessed that the public interest grounds for issuing a POFMA Direction were not met at the time.

Despite this, Shanmugam clarified that the decision did not preclude issuing a POFMA Direction later if circumstances materially changed and warranted a different assessment.

Shanmugam added that MHA’s approach to discussions with bilateral counterparts was focused on matters of shared operational and security concern.

"If (Fadli) believes that MHA should use such engagements to raise broader concerns about the policies or conduct of the country concerned, then he should say so clearly," he said in his reply.

Shanmugam also asked Fadli whether the same approach should apply consistently to all countries with which MHA engages.

"For example, when MHA holds operational discussions with other Middle Eastern or Asian countries, should we also raise the concerns Singapore may have with their conduct or policies?" he asked.

"If that is (Fadli's) position, the Government would be interested to understand how he proposes that such an approach would serve Singapore’s overall interests."