Conflicting accounts of Singapore's meeting with Israeli officials and scope of discussions, and whether POFMA correction should have been issued against Haaretz

Question:

Mr Fadli Fawzi: To ask the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether Singapore discussed with Israeli officials on addressing illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank during a recent meeting, and if not, why not; and (b) whether Singapore requested that the meeting be secret, and (i) if so, why and (ii) if not, why a correction order under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act was not issued against Haaretz's reporting.

Answer:

Mr K Shanmugam, Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs:

1. Singapore regularly holds discussions with international counterparts on security and law enforcement matters. These engagements are vital for the exchange of information and intelligence between agencies, and have enabled us to identify potential threats, intervene early, and keep Singapore safe. It is in our national interest to maintain these channels of cooperation, including with countries in the Middle East.

2. The meeting with the Israeli delegation was one such engagement. The discussions 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.

3. The contents of the exchanges undertaken by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) are confidential and generally not publicised, given the security concerns. Since January 2025, MHA has had 11 officials-level bilateral exchanges with foreign counterparts, including several with partners from the Middle East. Of these, a press release was issued for only one, at the request of the counterpart concerned.

4. MHA responded to the Haaretz article because the article’s claims concerning the meeting with Israeli security officials were categorically false. At the time of the article’s publication, the assessment, based on legal advice, was that the public interest grounds for issuing a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Direction were not met. This does not, however, preclude the subsequent issuance of a POFMA Direction should circumstances materially change and warrant a different assessment.

5. That is the approach MHA takes to discussions with its bilateral counterparts, on matters of shared operational and security concern. If the Member 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 should also clarify whether he believes this principle should apply only to Israel, or 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? If that is the Member's position, the Government would be interested to understand how he proposes that such an approach would serve Singapore's overall interests.