The attacks on October 7th, 2023, by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli response have unprecedentedly pushed the Israel-Palestinian conflict into the limelight of Singaporean society. In its delicate balancing act – to manage domestic demands and international interests – the Singapore government has positioned itself as a neutral arbitrator between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli forces. This strategic negotiation is exemplified in the country’s foreign and domestic policy decisions aimed at managing the inherent tensions between: (1) Singapore’s special relationship with Israel; (2) its geopolitical implications as a “Chinese nut in a Malay nutcracker”; and (3) growing domestic and international pro-Palestinian sentiment. This paper examines the Singapore government’s efforts to balance these competing forces with the ultimate goal of preserving domestic public harmony in a multiethnic society amidst heightened geopolitical pressures. In conclusion, Singapore’s navigation of these competing forces underscores its steadfast commitment to maintaining domestic stability and upholding core principles.

Introduction

We have always said that Israel had a right to defend itself. Unfortunately, Israel’s response has gone too far and its actions have caused a terrible humanitarian disaster; and the restrictions imposed on the delivery of humanitarian supplies are completely unacceptable. In our opinion, it may even be a likely breach of international humanitarian law. So it cannot be justified. We join countries around the world to call for an immediate ceasefire; for the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid; for the protection of civilians; and also for the return of hostages. Beyond the current crisis itself, Singapore also supports the right of the Palestinian people to their own homeland. This has to be done as part of a negotiated two-state solution, because that is the only way for a comprehensive, just and durable solution to this long-standing Israel-Palestine conflict. 

– Singaporean Prime Minister (PM) Lawrence Wong 

During a joint press conference with visiting French President Emmanuel Macron, PM Lawrence Wong made comments representing the strongest criticism by Singaporean leadership since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7th, 2023 (Jacob, 2025). As global sentiments surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict grew progressively fervent, Singapore also became increasingly embroiled in the ensuing geostrategic and racial-religious tensions. The nation’s position as a “Chinese nut in a Malay nutcracker” (denoting its majority Chinese population among Muslim-majority neighbours), its close historical and current security ties with Israel, and the rallying of civil society in support of Palestine have contributed to the complexity of managing the issue. 

In light of this, the three broad themes that have consistently underpinned the government’s position regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict can be gleaned from PM Wong’s statement: (1) Israel’s right to defend itself; (2) the urgent humanitarian situation in Gaza; and (3) the negotiation of a two-state solution as a means to end the longstanding conflict. The continued emphasis on these three points encapsulates the ongoing delicate balancing act (Cheong, 2017) and strategic negotiation of tensions needed to navigate pro-Palestinian domestic forces while also acknowledging Singapore’s special relationship with Israel dating back to its immediate post-independence years.

On the International Front

The defining aspects of Singapore’s foreign policy approach regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are its historical ties to Israel and its stated commitment to international law. This section examines Singapore’s navigation of these tensions.

Historical Ties

The similarities between Israel’s and Singapore’s struggles and timeframes of gaining independence tie the two countries together through a shared historical experience and a greater concern for sovereignty. Most significantly, both must contend with their geopolitical statuses as smaller nations surrounded by larger Muslim-majority neighbours. Indeed, Mr Bilahari Kausikan, Chairman of the Middle East Institute and former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), described the two countries as “small, improbable, and outliers in their respective regions” (Lim, 2019). Thus, security is an undeniably significant national interest for both.

Singapore and Israel’s special relationship is further reflected in the modelling of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and its conscription system after the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and by how Israeli military advisers were brought in to assist in training the SAF in early post-Independence Singapore  (L. Wong, 2023; Kassab, 2024). Today, Singapore is one of Israel’s largest defence importers – the country’s use of Israeli military technology is partly why Singapore has one of the strongest militaries in Southeast Asia despite its small size (Boehler, 2016). To give an example, the Republic of Singapore Navy employs the use of the Blue Spear SSM, a high-subsonic missile that is “immune to GPS disruptions”; this technology is jointly developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and ST Engineering Land Systems from Singapore (Ng, 2024). The two countries’ shared identity and interests as geopolitical outliers have thus been partly responsible for their continued bilateral partnership. As Mr Bilahari Kausikan (2019) argued, “…both must always be outliers if [they] are to continue to survive and prosper. If Israel becomes just another Middle Eastern country, or Singapore becomes just another Southeast Asian country, [Singapore] cannot survive, let alone prosper”.

Respect for International Law 

Another key pillar defining Singapore’s foreign policy is its stated commitment to being a staunch advocate of international law. This can be seen in two noteworthy instances: (1) the public condemnation and imposition of unilateral sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (MFA, 2022) and (2) the implementation of resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council that required Singapore’s imposition of sanctions and arms embargoes on other countries (Singapore Customs, n.d.). The importance of international law is reflected in Singapore’s foreign policy since its post-independence years. According to Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh (2025), founding father Lee Kuan Yew was particularly “scrupulous” about the need for Singapore to conform to international law and would “drop ideas that were not consistent.”  This is due to international law’s usefulness to “promote and defend Singapore’s national interests”, particularly as a small state (Koh, 2025). 

In this regard, Singapore has largely utilised “international law” to justify its actions pertaining to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. For example, during the initial stages of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Singapore consistently voiced support for Israel’s right to self-defence (within the compliance of international laws of war), condemnation of Hamas, and the need for a negotiated two-state solution (MFA, 2023). The nation’s leaning on the authority of international law creates a buffer to perform its delicate balancing act: Singapore can avoid condemning Israel’s actions as a war crime while enabling it to condemn Israel’s actions on humanitarian terms. In doing so, Singapore has notably abstained from explicitly labelling Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip as a genocide: the state has yet to take a position regarding South Africa’s pending case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, instead opting to “let due legal process run its course” (Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2024). 

Only recently, in July 2025, did Singapore’s MFA issue a statement saying that the famine caused by Israel’s denial of aid constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law (MFA, 2025b). This statement came amidst Israel’s attempts to occupy Gaza becoming increasingly clear violations of international law in 2024 (Rankin, 2025), with more countries and leading figures renouncing Israel’s actions (Amnesty International UK, 2025), along with reports from international organisations like UNICEF (2025) and the World Health Organisation (2025) concerning the severe risk of famine in Gaza. It was therefore no surprise when PM Lawrence Wong remarked, “Israel’s response has gone too far and its actions have caused a terrible humanitarian disaster; and the restrictions imposed on the delivery of humanitarian supplies are completely unacceptable” (Jacob, 2025).  

Despite a gradual shift in attitude that resulted in the Singapore government recalibrating its stance – from strongly defending Israel’s right to self-defence to emphasising humanitarian concerns – Singapore’s approach to the conflict has not only allowed it to keep a consistent stance regarding respect for international law, but also accommodated both its historical ties with Israel as well as domestic pro-Palestinian voices.

Accordingly, one can see how Singapore’s small size and influence, racial demographic vis-à-vis its neighbours, and complex web of international relations and trade partnerships have shaped Singapore’s “friend to all” approach. Singapore continually balances various interests in response to shifting global trends. While this approach has previously served its foreign policy goals well, as deglobalisation increases (Keller & Marold, 2023) and more international conflict arises, Singapore’s balancing act might occasionally prove unsustainable for its national interests. In such cases, national goals and non-negotiable ideologies might take the fore. When combined with evolving global issues such as an increased call to abide by international law and neighbouring countries’ sentiments against racial issues, domestic interests could become more pronounced than Singapore’s balancing strategy in influencing foreign policy.

Racial and Religious Harmony

Singapore’s initial support for Israel’s right to self-defence incited great displeasure among many pro-Palestinian supporters within and without Singapore (Ang, 2023; Y. Tham, 2024). Importantly, both local and neighbouring Muslim populations – such as in Malaysia and Indonesia – were disappointed with Singapore’s seemingly neutral position, interpreting its neutrality as a form of complicity with Israel’s actions (Abdullah & Perera, 2024; Rajanthran, 2023). 

Externally, Singapore’s foreign policy stance has exacerbated its precarious position as a “Chinese nut in a Malay nutcracker” – its connotation explained above (Rahim, 2009) – by antagonising its Palestine-sympathetic neighbours. The fact that Malaysia and Indonesia have never recognised the establishment of an independent Israeli state (Mohamad, 2023), while Singapore enjoys a special relationship with them, highlights the increasing contention of the nation’s position as tensions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict persist. 

The Israel-Hamas conflict, in particular, is an issue that many Singaporeans across racial and religious groups feel strongly about…This is why the Government has taken a careful approach in managing public discussions, to avoid polarisation of our society on the issue and damage to our cohesion and harmony. 

– Mr K Shanmugam (2025)

The Palestinian issue in Singapore occupies an intersecting junction between (1) Singapore’s foreign policy priorities and (2) the state’s core ideology of racial and religious harmony. Hence, the government has been compelled to navigate the issue with heightened sensitivity and elevate itself as a neutral arbitrator to determine the permissible boundaries of such discourse, while at times asserting itself as an active participant by moderating between Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli camps. For example, in 2024, when the Israeli Embassy created a social media post stating that “Palestine” is not mentioned in the Quran, then-Minister for Law and current Minister of Home Affairs (MHA) K. Shanmugam requested that the embassy remove the post on the grounds that it undermined Singapore’s “safety, security and harmony” (D. Tham, 2024). Notably, Shanmugam also highlights that the Israeli Embassy’s actions “risk inflaming tensions (…) and can also put the Jewish community here at risk”, further articulating that “[Singapore has] made a clear commitment to protect all our minorities, which, in Singapore’s context, includes the Muslim and Jewish communities” (Koh, 2024).

Similarly, the government’s decision to ban public assemblies following the initial outbreak of the conflict was also rooted in racial and religious considerations, stating that “the peace and harmony between different races and religions in Singapore should not be taken for granted” (Lee, 2023). Hence, the government’s quelling of potentially destabilising activities is primarily justified by the state’s prioritisation of racial and religious harmony through active censure of civil society (Chua, 2003). 

While the government has largely utilised a “top-down” approach in managing such discourse, the 2025 General Election has compelled the government to more explicitly acknowledge and respond to public discourse as voters are able to exert pressure on political actors through the ballot box. Domestically, Singapore risked dissatisfying its Muslim constituencies (comprising around 15.1% of the total electorate), who share a similar religious identity with Palestinians (National Population and Talent Division, 2024). Hence, the salience of the Palestinian issue posed an electoral concern during the then-upcoming 2025 General Elections for both the People’s Action Party (PAP) and Workers’ Party (WP), prompting responses from both to address voter dissatisfaction (Abdullah & Perera, 2024). For example, the WP moved to include the recognition of a Palestinian state in its manifesto (The Workers’ Party, 2025), and moved veteran Member of Parliament (MP) Faisal Manap away from his stronghold district of Aljunied to Tampines. To further elaborate, the Tampines constituency was estimated to comprise 23.6% Malay voters (Mungcal et al., 2025), and was home to the then-unpopular Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Masagos Zulkifli (The Online Citizen, 2025).

Domestic Policy and the Perpetuation of Violence 

Despite Singaporean civil society’s increased passion regarding the Palestinian cause, limited political allowances have resulted in constrained avenues for expressing solidarity and mobilising support. The state’s prioritisation of domestic stability over civil society’s ability to engage in activism for international causes is encapsulated by Minister Shanmugam’s emphasis that Singapore cannot afford for external events to affect its “precious peace” (Sun, 2024). Hence, in extension of the state’s aforementioned neutral arbitrator, it employs a tactic of calibrated liberalisation to carefully control political allowance and concessions to the Pro-Palestinian camp while framing its shifting of stance as a response to civil society’s activism as opposed to a proactive policy change (Abdullah, 2025). This slow calibration allows for the maintenance of social stability while ensuring that the state does not get backed into a corner by the dual pressures of domestic activism and diplomatic considerations.

Following the initial attack on Israel launched by the Palestinian militant group, Hamas, on October 7th, 2023 (“Israel-Hamas War”) and the ensuing Israeli counterattack implicating civilians in the Gaza Strip, the Singapore government quickly moved to ban public assemblies relating to the conflict at the Speaker’s Corner, the city-state’s only sanctioned location for legalised protest (Singapore Police Force, 2023). This marked a drastic reversal from the decade prior, when the government permitted a rally in solidarity with the suffering of Gazans immediately following 2014’s Operation Protective Edge. The authorities justified this recent decision by stating that the “sensitivity of the topic and the volatility of the situation overseas” could give rise to public disorder. 

Image: “Speakers’ Corner, Singapore” by Cory Doctorow (@gruntzooki) is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

It is important to note that public assemblies relating to international causes have not been uncommon since the establishment of the Speaker’s Corner in 2000. Past events held in solidarity with international causes include protests against government oppression in Myanmar (2009); support for Malaysia’s Bersih 3.0 rally (2011); protests in solidarity with the Occupy Central Movement of Hong Kong (2014), and in solidarity with the victims of the LGBT Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida (2016). Most notably, two demonstrations relating to the conflict in Gaza were permitted by authorities in 2014, one of which attracted over 1,000 participants, making it the “most attended internationally focused protest” in Singaporean history (Stephens, 2023).

The contrasting policy regarding Gaza-related public assemblies reflects the Singapore government’s evolving perception regarding the conflict’s domestic implications. While public assemblies relating to race and religion have consistently been prohibited, the approval of the 2014 protests and the 2023 ban suggest that the issue has shifted from a secular political crisis to one with racial and religious sensitivities. Evidence suggesting that racial and religious considerations have permeated the government’s decision-making process includes the Singapore Police Force’s statement emphasising, in relation to the 2023 ban, that “peace and harmony between different races and religions in Singapore should not be taken for granted” (Singapore Police Force, 2023), as well as an interview with then-outgoing PM Lee Hsien Loong in 2024 stating that “Muslims in Singapore have become very aroused by what is happening in Gaza” (Prime Minister’s Office, 2024).

The government’s reframing of the ongoing war through a racial-religious lens today, as compared to 2014, is not completely unwarranted. The consequences of the 2023 conflict has proven itself to be religiously-motivated in several ways: (1) the October 7th attacks coincided with the Jewish holiday Simchat Torah (Nakhoul & Saul, 2023); (2) Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups codenamed the October 7th attacks Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, referencing the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam, hence implying the attack as a form of jihad (Al Jazeera, 2023); and (3) the coalition of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in 2023 includes significantly more religious-nationalist and ultra-orthodox parties, compared to 2014 where more secular and centrist political parties dominated the Israeli government’s coalition (Ganel, 2023). The historical tensions and conflicts between Israel and Palestine have undoubtedly long contained a religious element. However, given the significant global attention and unprecedented access to live newsfeeds and on-the-ground updates on the conflict (Noureddine, 2023), today, greater concern regarding the potentially destabilising impact of the issue on racial-religious lines can be justified.

Recent Developments 

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, censorship, strict surveillance, and regulation enacted and enforced through legal instruments can be argued to constitute a form of (non-physical) violence perpetrated against civil society. While done in the name of preventing incidents from sparking division, a refusal to tolerate terrorism, and to maintain social stability (Shanmugam, 2024), international concerns have arisen surrounding the “use of restrictive laws and harassment” against Singaporean civil society (CIVICUS, 2024). In support of this argument, only activist efforts that warranted government response will be analysed as instances of violence against civil society in this essay.

Such laws include banning the public display or wearing of foreign national emblems relating to the Israel-Hamas war without a permit under the Foreign National Emblems (Control of Display) Act, and assemblies at the Speakers’ Corner relating to the Israel-Hamas war being made illegal as of October 2023 (S. Wong, 2024). The latter was an addition to the 2009 Public Order Act, broadly criminalising assemblies of one or more individuals in public spaces except when held at the Speakers’ Corner with prior permission. In an act of resistance, local activist Gilbert Goh came under investigation for posting a photo of himself holding a sign advocating for peace in Palestine outside the Speakers’ Corner, in violation of the restrictions (Channel News Asia, 2023). This characterisation of an individual engaging in a silent, peaceful demonstration as an “illegal assembly” disrupting public order has been criticised by independent journalist Kirsten Han (2023) as “a weaponisation of the Public Order Act to suppress fundamental rights to assembly and expression.” Evidently, the state has broadly wielded the law and the consequent threat of punishment to regulate public expression on the issue and, more often than not, to prohibit such displays altogether – a form of repression of civil society.

Beyond the direct enactment of the law, the threat of surveillance, investigation, and legal action also constitutes a form of non-physical violence that has contributed to an inhospitable environment for civil society expression. In response to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Singapore’s track record of non-violent activism being met with the full force of the law at the state’s disposal, including the likes of legal instruments such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), has simply remained consistent. Mechanisms such as POFMA and MRHA have previously been wielded in response to individuals or publications that threaten racial-religious harmony and social unity, requiring statements to be retracted or for clarifying comments to be posted following what is deemed, respectively, false or potentially divisive (Haciyakupoglu & Wong, 2025). In this case, the force of the law has manifested in cases of open surveillance of social media posts, the questioning of individuals who attended protests affiliated with the issue overseas, and investigations into individuals involved in pro-Palestine activism (Iau, 2024; CNA, 2025). For instance, six suspected participants in a staged solidarity memorial at the National University of Singapore were questioned by the police and had communication devices and clothing linked to the incident seized (CNA, 2025). 

As activists continue to resist and express themselves despite these threats, they might be met with a vicious cycle of repression that further reinforces the dampening and self-censorship of civil society, as well as the state’s justification for its strict controls in the first place, highlighting how violence is perpetuated on a legal and civil scale.

Recognising Concessions to Civil Society

However, the government’s response to the issue has not been wholly repressive. They have also endeavoured to foster better relations with the nation’s increasingly vocal and determined civil society. Scholars Walid J. Abdullah and Emily Perera (2024) asserted that the government has engaged in a balancing act in its responses to the issue, a balance in which “clear concessions” have been made to pro-Palestinian supporters among Singaporean civil society. These include encouraging official avenues for raising funds for Gaza (which involved international coordination with regional partners in the Middle East to deliver tranches of humanitarian aid), the government’s official endorsement of a public event held in solidarity with Palestine – the Gaza Monologues – for the first time, and the fielding of questions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue across several parliamentary sessions (MFA, 2025a; RICE, 2024).

At face value, these concessions might be interpreted as a positive shift towards a two-way relationship between the state and civil society. However, as these shifts remain aligned with Singapore’s foreign policy stance on the issue and domestic priority of maintaining social harmony, it remains to be seen whether such concessions would be granted to activist efforts that fall outside these criteria.

Furthermore, these concessions do not erase the persistent weaponisation of the law and domestic policy against activism deemed disruptive by the state. As it stands, civil society activity, both related and unrelated to the Israel-Palestine issue, is only permitted in a manner that is firmly controlled by the government. Through dictating the content and execution of civil society efforts, activity outside these bounds continues to be discouraged, suppressed, and made illegal to limit potential threats to social stability (Stephens, 2023). Ultimately, the intentional production of a civic environment in which fears of government scrutiny and legal retribution encourage regular self-censorship perpetuates a form of violence against civil society that deliberately hinders freedom of expression.

Extrapolating to the Future

The government has utilised domestic policy and legal instruments to regulate civil society activity, such as the managed liberalisation of discussions (Toh, 2023), in a manner that some have argued is “repressive” rather than balanced (CIVICUS, 2024). In response to pre-existing regulations on civil society expression, pro-Palestinian voices and activism in the wake of October 2023 have been either defiant or creative in approach. For every instance of resistance that is met with a swift government response, numerous others have innovatively circumvented legal restrictions. Official publications such as Why Palestine?: Reflections from Singapore (Abdullah, 2025), social media accounts such as @sgforpalestine48 and @sgacadboycott on Instagram, community-led events like the Singapore Palestine Film Festival (n.d.), and independent fundraising efforts like the Love Aid Singapore polyclinic in central Gaza (Walden, 2025), are but a few examples of creative forms of expression in protest of Singapore’s official stance that successfully toed the line of official restrictions.

Regardless, pro-Palestinian activism efforts as a whole have thus far been insufficient in yielding conducive two-way communication with the state. Acts of solidarity and calls for divestment in defiance of state controls have instead unintentionally reinforced the state’s ability to dictate civil society discourse and maintain political legitimacy, as most of these acts ultimately occur within sanctioned boundaries. This goes to show that concessions on the part of the government are not a show of its policies failing or its inevitable succumbence to increasing domestic pressure, but rather an intelligent and peaceful manoeuvre towards the ultimate goal of preserving domestic public harmony in a multiethnic society amidst heightened geopolitical pressures.

Conclusion

This essay has demonstrated and analysed the negotiation of tensions among: (1) global developments that call for a reaffirmation of Singapore’s principles; (2) shifting domestic sentiments regarding international issues; and (3) the nation’s interests and core principles. The negotiation of these tensions is further influenced by the unique characteristics of Singapore’s geopolitical context and draconian laws amidst a broader trend of calibrated liberalisation.

Overall, we argue that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict presents a unique case study of Singaporean civil society and its management as it: (1) served as the political awakening for many in a generally depoliticised society (Abdullah, 2025); (2) marked the first time in recent history in which foreign events intersected so deeply with domestic race and religion issues; and (3) sparked an unprecedented level of defiance and innovation in expressions of dissent in an otherwise tightly controlled civic space. Yet, as the issue has also seen the continuation of the government’s calibrated allowances for civil society expression, it remains to be seen what long-term impacts the unique circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have on Singapore’s civic environment.

Abdullah, W. J., & Perera, E. (2024). (Cautiously) Embracing pro-Palestinian activism in Singapore: civil society in illiberal regimes. Asian Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2024.2416130 

Abdullah, W. J. (2025). Why Palestine?: Reflections From Singapore. Ethos Books. 

Al Jazeera. (2023, October 7). Israel retaliation kills 230 Palestinians after Hamas operation. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/sirens-warn-of-rockets-launched-towards-israel-from-gaza-news-reports 

Amnesty International UK. (2025, May 20). 120 artists sign open letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer demanding to do more for Gaza. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/artists-sign-open-letter-keir-starmer-gaza 

Ang, H. M. (2023, November 6). Increase in anti-Singapore rhetoric and online extremist threats since start of Israel-Hamas war: Lawrence Wong. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/israel-hamas-parliament-increase-online-threats-extremist-lawrence-wong-3900326 

Boehler, N. (2016, April 21). Singapore, a military power in South Asia built on the Israeli model. i24 News. https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/110391-160420-singapore-a-military-power-in-south-asia-built-on-the-israeli-model 

Channel News Asia (CNA). (2023, October 21). Singapore police investigating activist Gilbert Goh for holding Israel-Hamas sign at Speakers’ Corner. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/gilbert-goh-israel-hamas-speakers-corner-police-investigating-3863086 

Channel News Asia (CNA). (2025, March 7). Six questioned by police over protest in NUS on Israel-Hamas war. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/6-people-questioned-police-nus-protest-israel-hamas-conflict-phones-clothing-seized-no-permit-4985406 

Cheong, D. (2017, July 18). As a small country, Singapore has to be friends with everyone, but at times it needs to advance its own interests. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/as-a-small-country-singapore-has-to-be-friends-with-everyone-but-at-times-it-needs-to 

Chua, B. H. (2003). Multiculturalism in Singapore: An Instrument of Social Control. Race & Class, 44(3), 58-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396803044003025 

CIVICUS. (2024). Singapore: Harassment of pro-Palestinian, anti-death penalty activism and misuse of POFMA law to silence dissent. CIVICUS Monitor: Tracking Civic Space. Accessed 19 June, 2025, from https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/singapore-harassment-of-pro-palestinian-anti-death-penalty-activism-and-misuse-of-pofma-law-to-silence-dissent/ 

Ganel, Y. (2023). Israel: Political Developments and Data in 2022. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 62(1), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-8852.12430 

Haciyakupoglu, G. & Wong, Y. (2025). The Question of Misinformation-Triggered Violence in Singapore: The Interplay between Misinformation, Faultlines and Violence. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 17(2), 27-33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48815457 

Han, K. (2023). Singapore’s elastic band of a Public Order Act. Index on Censorship, 51(4), 34-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064220221144884 

Iau, J. (2024, February 23). MHA confirms that S’porean influencers were advised on content about Gaza conflict. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mha-confirms-that-s-porean-influencers-were-advised-on-content-about-gaza-conflict 

Jacob, C. (2025, May 30). Israel may be breaching international law by restricting humanitarian aid to Gaza: PM Wong. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/israel-may-be-breaching-international-law-restricting-humanitarian-aid-gaza-pm-wong-5160066  

Kassab, H. S. (2024). Geographically small but not weak: comparing the national security policies of Israel and Singapore. Defense & Security Analysis, 40(1), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2024.2304424 

Kausikan, B. (2019, November 1). Singapore: Israel in Southeast Asia? In M. Tomba (Ed.), Beating the Odds Together: 50 Years of Singapore-Israel Ties. World Scientific Publishing.  

Keller, C., & Marold, R. (2023, January 17). Deglobalisation: what you need to know. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/01/deglobalisation-what-you-need-to-know-wef23/ 

Koh, F. (2024, April 11). Singapore wants to protect local Jewish community from impacts of Gaza war: Shanmugam. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-wants-protect-local-jewish-community-impacts-gaza-conflict-shanmugam-4258161 

Koh, T. (2025, August). Singapore and International Law. Law Gazette. https://lawgazette.com.sg/feature/singapore-and-international-law/ 

Lee, E. (2023, October 18). Police, NParks will reject applications to hold public events relating to Israel-Hamas war. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/police-nparks-will-reject-applications-to-hold-public-events-relating-to-israel-hamas-war

Lim, M. Z. (2019, December 10). New book details how Israel helped build up the Singapore Armed Forces. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/new-book-details-how-israel-helped-build-up-the-saf 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore. (2017, July 17). Transcript of Remarks by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at the MFA Townhall on 17 July 2017. https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2017/07/Transcript-of-Remarks-by-Minister-for-Foreign-Affairs-Dr-Vivian-Balakrishnan-at-the-MFA-Townhall-on 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore. (2022, March 5). Sanctions and Restrictions Against Russia in Response to its Invasion of Ukraine [Press Release]. https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2022/03/20220305-sanctions 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2023, October 16). MFA Spokesperson’s Comments on the Situation in Israel and the Gaza Strip. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore. https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2023/10/20231016israelgaza

Ministry for Foreign Affairs. (2024, February 6). Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s Written Reply to Parliamentary Question on the Pending Case Before the International Court of Justice Filed by South Africa Against Israel Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the .. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore. https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2024/02/20250205-pqicjsa

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore. (2025a, February 4). Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s Replies to Parliamentary Questions on Singapore’s Humanitarian 

Response to the Situation in Gaza. 

https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/02/20

250204-PQs-SHR-Gaza#:~:text=Singapore%20supports%20the%20right%20of,relevant

%20UN%20Security%20Council%20resolutions 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore. (2025b, July 24). MFA Spokesperson’s Comments on the Situation in Gaza, 24 July 2025. https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/07/MFA-Spokesperson-Comments-on-Gaza-July-2025 

Mohamad, A. (2023, October 23). The Growing Significance of Malaysia and Indonesia’s Non-Recognition of Israel. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2023/10/the-growing-significance-of-malaysia-and-indonesias-non-recognition-of-israel/ 

Mungcal, A., Ang, Q., Raguraman, A., Hamzah, A., Marin, C., Chin, S. F., Chua, C., Tan, C., Yong, C., Ganesan, D., Loi, E., Chan, G., Goh, Y. H., Ong, H., Liew, I., Yegambaram, J., Tan, J., Kok, Y., Lee, L. Y., . . . Mohamed Yusof, Z. (2025). Here’s all you need to know about your constituency. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/multimedia/graphics/2025/04/ge2025-constituencies/index.html

Nakhoul, S. & Saul, J. (2023, October 13). How Hamas duped Israel as it planned devastating attack. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-israel-was-duped-hamas-planned-devastating-assault-2023-10-08/ 

National Population and Talent Division. (2024). Population in Brief 2024. https://www.population.gov.sg/files/media-centre/publications/Population_in_Brief_2024.pdf 

Ng, J. (2024, February 14). Israel-Singapore JV delivers Blue Spear missile system to Estonia. Asian Military Review. https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2024/02/israel-singapore-jv-delivers-blue-spear-missile-system-to-estonia/ 

Noureddine, M. (2023). Global Media Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Bloomsbury Publishing. 

Prime Minister’s Office. (2024, May 10). PM Lee Hsien Loong’s Interview with Local Media – Section 3: Social Safety Nets and Social Cohesion (May 2024).

https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/PM-Lee-Hsien-Loong-English-Interview-Social-Safety-Nets-and-Social-Cohesion-May-2024

Public Order Act (2020 Rev Ed) (Singapore). https://sso.agc.gov.sg/act/poa2009 

Rahim, L. Z. (2009). Singapore in the Malay world: Building and breaching regional bridges. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876107 

Rajanthran, A. (2023, November 6). The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Why it Matters to Singapore’s National Security. RSIS Commentary Series. https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-why-it-matters-to-singapores-national-security/ 

Rankin, J. (2025, June 20). EU cites ‘indications’ Israel is breaching human rights obligations over conduct in Gaza. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/20/eu-israel-human-rights-obligations-gaza-document 

RICE. (2024, March 13). Gaza Monologues: What Happened at a Government-Approved Event on Palestine?. Rice Media. https://www.ricemedia.co/gaza-monologues-singapore-government-event-palestine/ 

Shanmugam, K. (2024, May 8). Oral Reply to Parliamentary Question on the Next Steps for the Incident Where a Social Media Posting Was Taken Down by the Israeli Embassy in Singapore on 24 March 2024 [Oral replies to parliamentary questions]. Ministry of Home Affairs. https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/oral-reply-to-pq-on-the-next-steps-for-the-incident-where-a-social-media-posting-was-taken-down-by-the-israeli-embassy-in-singapore-on-24-march-2024/ 

Shanmugam, K. (2025, October 15). Assessment of Racial and Religious Relations in Singapore [Written replies to parliamentary questions]. Ministry of Home Affairs. https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/assessment-of-racial-and-religious-relations-in-singapore 

Singapore Customs. (n.d.). United Nations Security Council Sanctions. Singapore Customs. https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/united-nations-security-council-sanctions/#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20Security%20Council,resolutions%20adopted%20by%20the%20UNSC 

Singapore Palestine Film Festival [@sgpalestinefilmfest]. (n.d.). Posts [Instagram profile]. Instagram. Retrieved 20 June, 2025, from https://www.instagram.com/sgpalestinefilmfest/?hl=en 

Singapore Police Force (2023, October 18). Advisory on Events and Public Assemblies in Relation to Israel-Hamas Conflict [Press Release]. https://www.police.gov.sg/media-room/news/20231018_advisory_on_events_and_public_assemblies_in_relation_to_israel_hamas_conflict 

Singaporeans for Palestine [@sgpforpalestine48]. (n.d.). Posts [Instagram profile]. Instagram. 

Retrieved 20 June, 2025, from https://www.instagram.com/sgpforpalestine48/?hl=en 

Stephens, L. (2023). Contentious Acts in Controlled Spaces: A Protest Event Analysis of Singaporean Demonstrations. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 55(1), 50-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2023.2252427 

Students for Palestine Singapore [@sgacadboycott]. (n.d.). Posts [Instagram profile]. Instagram. Retrieved 12 October, 2025, from https://www.instagram.com/sgacadboycott/?hl=en 

Sun, D. (2024, November 13). Singapore must never let external events affect ‘precious peace’: Shanmugam on Israel-Hamas war. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-must-never-let-external-events-affect-precious-peace-shanmugam-on-israel-hamas-war 

Tham, D. (2024, March 25). Israeli embassy told to take down ‘completely unacceptable’ Facebook post on Palestine: Shanmugam. Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/israel-embassy-singapore-palestine-facebook-post-shanmugam-4219541 

Tham, Y. (2024, March 1). Singapore won’t sever ties with Israel, Vivian urges Singaporeans to put national interests first. AsiaOne. https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/singapore-wont-sever-ties-israel-vivian-urges-singaporeans-put-national-interests-first 

The Online Citizen. (2025, April 8). Netizens criticise Masagos for tepid response to Calvin Cheng’s controversial remarks. The Online Citizen. https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2025/04/08/netizens-criticise-masagos-for-tepid-response-to-calvin-chengs-controversial-remarks/

The Workers’ Party. (2025). The Workers’ Party Manifesto 2025: Working for Singapore. https://www.wp.sg/manifesto 

Toh, E. M. (2023, November 21). Why Singapore is ‘friend of all, enemy of none’ in Israel-Gaza war. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/21/why-singapore-is-friend-of-all-enemy-of-none-in-israel-gaza-war 

UNICEF. (2025, July 29). UN Agencies warn key food and nutrition indicators exceed famine thresholds in Gaza [Press release]. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/un-agencies-warn-key-food-and-nutrition-indicators-exceed-famine-thresholds-gaza 

Walden, M. (2025, June 13). Singaporeans fund Gaza clinic as government strengthens criticism of Israel. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-13/singaporeans-fund-gaza-clinic-government-strengthens-criticism/105371232 

Wong, L. (2023, November 6). DPM Lawrence Wong on the Israel-Hamas Conflict (Nov 2023). 

Prime Minister’s Office. https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/DPM-Lawrence-Wong-on-the-Israel-Hamas-Conflict-November-2023 

Wong, S. (2024, November 6). Those wearing symbols linked to Israel-Hamas war can be jailed: MHA. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/those-wearing-symbols-linked-to-i

srael-hamas-war-can-be-jailed-mha 

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2025, July 27). Malnutrition rates reach alarming levels in Gaza, WHO warns [News release]. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-07-2025-malnutrition-rates-reach-alarming-levels-in-gaza–who-warns 

[PDF]