SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh issued a strong rebuttal to a post by pro-establishment page SG Matters, challenging its credibility and interpretation of national interest and foreign policy.
Singh took issue with SG Matters’ attempt to define what foreign policy should mean for Singaporeans, particularly in light of its previous record.
He pointed out that its affiliated page, Singapore Matters, was flagged by international media for spreading falsehoods during the 2025 General Election.
“When called out, Singapore Matters quickly deleted the post, no doubt, in their ‘self-interest’,” Singh stated.
He questioned why local fact-checkers were absent then and suggested that the timing—just before cooling-off day—was strategic.
Although he clarified that no falsehoods were peddled this time, Singh said the subject matter remained significant.
He warned against letting partisan sources dominate the public conversation on such critical national issues.
Singh was responding to a recent SG Matters post on 18 May, which defended Singapore’s foreign policy stance, asserting that neutrality is a strategic necessity—not a sign of indifference.
The post argued that Singapore’s approach avoids symbolic actions and virtue signalling, prioritising constructive contributions and realism.
It included an image of former Foreign Minister S Rajaratnam and the caption: “We are not anti-anybody. We are simply pro-Singapore.”
The post contended that while Singapore supports principles such as international law and sovereignty, it only speaks out when doing so serves national interest or yields practical outcomes.
‘One-dimensional narrative’
In response, Singh challenged this framing.
He asserted that Singaporeans should not be expected to accept a narrow or “one-dimensional narrative” when it comes to international affairs, particularly in cases involving humanitarian crises such as the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
He argued that Singaporeans, as members of a globally exposed and multi-racial society, are capable of forming independent views on international issues.
“Singaporeans will make active contributions to address humanitarian disasters—not just in terms of donations, but they will also openly share their views on what principles our foreign policy should uphold,” he said.
Singh stated that foreign policy is inherently connected to domestic politics.
As such, citizens have a legitimate right to express their perspectives, especially when international law is perceived to be violated.
He warned that “expecting conformity in foreign policy opinions is unrealistic and unwise,” and noted that public discourse on foreign policy strengthens national resilience, rather than undermines it.
Diverse views on Israel then—and now
To underline his point, Singh recounted a historical episode from 1967 involving Singapore’s stance at the United Nations over a resolution to condemn Israel following the Six-Day War.
He described how the three key figures shaping Singapore’s early foreign policy—S Rajaratnam, Goh Keng Swee and Lee Kuan Yew—held different views.
Rajaratnam supported the condemnation, Goh opposed it due to military cooperation with Israel, while Lee advocated abstaining to balance principle and practicality.
“Even our three brightest foreign policy minds had three different views of Israel and its violation of international law,” Singh remarked, arguing that diverse opinion is not only normal but valuable.
He asked: “What more ordinary Singaporeans in response to what Israel is doing in Gaza, particularly to women and children today?”
Singh said that Singaporeans should be trusted to evaluate global events critically and compassionately.
Engaged public debate builds trust
He concluded by stating that while the Government should continue engaging the public and explaining its foreign policy positions, this task should not be outsourced to partisan or self-appointed platforms.
“As long as the Government (not mouthpieces – self-appointed or otherwise) continually engages the public and makes it a point to explain why our foreign policy takes the position that it does, most Singaporeans I hazard will give the Government a wide berth, and the benefit of doubt,” he said.
However, he also acknowledged that some Singaporeans may find the official line too cynical and overly pragmatic, warning that this could dilute the moral conviction and unity needed in times of global crisis.
“Some positions are worth standing up for,” Singh said.
“An overly ritualistic resort to pragmatism may operate to dilute the resilience, commitment and unity of those who stand up for what is (morally) right.”
The post Pritam Singh challenges ‘Singapore Matters’ on national interest and foreign policy perspectives appeared first on The Online Citizen.
