Singapore's Vote in United Nations on Status of Jerusalem

14 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain Singapore's vote in favour of the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution of the 10th Emergency Special Session (ESS) on 21 December 2017 on the Status of Jerusalem, which indirectly criticised the US' decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore voted in favour of the recent United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution (A/RES/ES-10/19) at the 10th Emergency Special Session (ESS) on the Status of Jerusalem. Our vote in favour of this resolution is consistent with our longstanding position on the unfortunately long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our position over the years has been based on the principle of seeking peaceful resolution of conflicts by upholding international law and abiding fully with UN Security Council Resolutions.

Jerusalem is a unique city. It has profound religious significance for Muslims, Jews and Christians, and the status of Jerusalem is a very complex and sensitive issue with a very long history, fraught with political and religious dimensions. These special circumstances of Jerusalem have been addressed by numerous UN resolutions, with the most recent instance being the resolution that was voted upon on 21 December 2017. In fact, an almost identical resolution was considered by the UN Security Council, a week earlier, on 18 December 2017. At that UN Security Council session, 14 of the 15 members of the Security Council voted in favour of the resolution, and the United States (US) was the sole member to vote against and ultimately, to cast a veto against the resolution. And that is why the resolution then came to the General Assembly.

The resolution in the General Assembly reaffirms previous UN resolutions and, in particular, it rejected any decisions or actions which purport to alter the character and the status of Jerusalem, and the same resolution calls on all states to comply with existing UN Security Council resolutions on Jerusalem.

Singapore's position on this has been consistent. We do not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our objective has always been to support a peaceful resolution to this conflict. We have been a steadfast advocate of a negotiated two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security. Accordingly, the future status of Jerusalem should be determined through direct negotiations between both sides and any unilateral and premature action that might alter the status of Jerusalem would only serve to further destabilise the region. It would impede progress towards a just and durable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our vote on the recent resolution is, therefore, consistent with this policy position. It has, at its foundation, a key principle of Singapore's foreign policy, which is the promotion of a rules-based global community, governed by the rule of international law and always seeking peaceful resolution of disputes. It is also in this context that Singapore has always strictly abided by all UN Security Council Resolutions. Indeed, UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) specifically calls on all UN member states not to take any action that purport to alter the character and status of Jerusalem.

Singapore's position on this issue is well-known and our vote at the various UN resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been guided by this same principle, regardless of the positions of others. Although other states, including the bigger powers, may occasionally differ or disagree with certain positions that we take, we maintain a consistent application of this principle and this ability to maintain consistency over the long term has enabled us to be taken seriously and to be regarded as a reliable partner who can play a constructive role in international affairs. Indeed, Singapore remains a steadfast partner of the US, of Israel and of the Palestinian people. Our longstanding bilateral relations with all countries are strong and multifaceted, and our shared interests far exceed differences. At the same time, this gives us access and a strong relationship based on trust with the Palestinians and, indeed, with the Middle East as a whole.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's vote in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution on 21 December 2017 was actually a vote for peace and stability.

As a small country with a multiracial and multi-religious population, Singapore, of all countries, fully appreciates that tolerance and the peaceful resolution of disputes are vital for social harmony and for our success as a nation and, indeed, for world peace. We therefore hope that the parties involved will work towards the resumption of direct peace negotiations. This can only be achieved when both sides approach these longstanding sensitive issues in a spirit of good faith and appreciation for each other's beliefs, values, aspirations, hopes and anxieties.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, was there a reason Singapore chose to vote in favour of the resolution rather than, say, abstaining because that is clearly taking a position on the matter? And second, Singapore has always advocated a two-state solution and a change in status of Jerusalem, I believe, the Minister was implying would make that more difficult. What steps has Singapore taken to facilitate the two-state solution, given its strong relationships with both sides?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member for those two questions. On the first question, when you are faced with a resolution, there is always a choice – you can vote in favour, you can abstain or you can vote against. In fact, there is a fourth choice, which is to be absent. But I think Members of this House will know that that is not Singapore's style. When we are confronted with a question, we face it head-on and we make what we believe is an appropriate choice that is consistent with our position, policy and our values.

We look very carefully at this resolution. As I explained earlier, the real problem or the catalyst for this current resolution, and I am going to say what I am going say now without naming names and without identifying countries, but what really precipitated this was an announcement. An announcement which could be construed as changing the status quo. And hence, in our view, could be unilateral and premature pronouncement which, instead of helping peace, would actually impede the peace process. So, that is why after very careful consideration and consultation, we decided to stand by our principles and say we do not think that this is a good idea and, therefore, we are voting in favour of the resolution.

It is a principled decision because we are actually not taking sides, but not saying one party or the other or its supporters are right or wrong. This relates to the Member's second question. Singapore is not a superpower. We are not a regional power. We are not a key player in the Middle East. For our approach, I would look at it at two levels. First, we do want to be friends with everyone but we want to be not just a fair-weathered friends. We want to be long-term, reliable and principled friends. For that kind of relationship to occur, when you have two parties who have been fighting for thousands of years, you can imagine it is a very difficult role to play. Nevertheless, because both Israelis as well as the Palestinians, and the Arabs and all the other countries in the Middle East know that Singapore does not take sides. They know that we do not bend for the sake of pressure or inducements and that we genuinely stand for peace and for development. So, that gives us special access.

I felt this special access. In April 2016, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a first visit as an incumbent Prime Minister of Singapore to both Jordon and Israel. Among the various parts of the trip, I think the most significant was when we had a chance to go up to Temple Mount, or the Arabic term, the Al-Haram Al-Sharif, where the Dome of the Rock is and where Al-Aqsa Mosque is. At the risk of being longwinded, let me tell you my sentiments, as the Prime Minister and our delegation, including Minister Masagos and Member of Parliament Dr Intan, went along with us.

The first sense I got was the sense of awe. Whether or not you are religious, if you visit Jerusalem and you go to those sites, you cannot help but feel that this is a special place, a sacred place. A place where heaven and earth seems to come to a confluence. That is the first sense. My second sense was gratitude for being a Singaporean because here we were accompanied by security from both the Israeli and Jordanian sides and they gave us full access. Minister Masagos even had the chance to pray in the cave beneath the Dome of the Rock. And they gave us full access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and we are not Muslims. But everyone knew we were from Singapore, this is a multi-religious, multiracial group, and we were welcomed and were protected by both parties. So, there was that sense of gratitude, that sense of special access. People talk about the Singapore passport being very powerful. It is not really about the passport but the fact that the world welcomes and trusts us.

The third sentiment I felt during that trip was I thought about thousands of lives that had been lost and all the blood that had been shed on that hill, in the name of race, language and religion. It made me more determined than before to appreciate what we have in Singapore, that when we say we believe in peaceful resolution and we believe in direct, honest negotiations and that we believe in living side by side, even to the point where we need an Ethnic Integration Policy, we are not just describing to the world. We are living a real example of multiracial, multi-religious peace. When we say to live side by side in peace and security, we are a working vision, a working example of that future.

So, that, in a sense, in an anecdotal way, informs our attitude to this issue. So, in any particular resolution, and there have been lots of UN resolutions on this, I will not be able to tell you a priori whether we are going to abstain, vote against or for, but I am sharing with you the principles behind which we will interpret the resolution and then we will vote accordingly.

And from time to time, we will have to take a different position from friends or supporters but I am confident that they know Singapore, they know Singaporeans well and they know that we do not grandstand, we do not take political postures for the sake of posturing. But we do so in all sincerity as a reflection of who we are as a multi-religious society and our longstanding friendship, support and advocacy for peace in the Middle East. That, in a nutshell, is about all that we can do. We are not a superpower.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for his very detailed and heartfelt response to Mr Vikram Nair's questions.

The vote by Singapore was not only an enlightened one, it was fully in accordance with the rule of international law. My only question is, at the time when the vote was cast, were there efforts for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to speak with one voice at that vote? I ask this question because I noticed that both Myanmar and the Philippines abstained from the vote.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The short answer is, no, there was no time and no opportunity to cobble together a consolidated ASEAN position. But having said that, I am not even sure that that would have been ideal. As I said, this was a very sensitive and delicate situation, and I think every country had to take a position based on its own analysis of its own national interests. So, this was not an occasion to try to chorale or to put pressure on the individual members of ASEAN.

I say this in full cognisance that there will be, I am sure, future situations and future resolutions where it may be even harder for us to get together and to settle on a common position. So, I would not a priori aim to do that. I do not view that, therefore, as a setback that a couple of ASEAN members state abstained and that all the rest of us voted in favour.