\n<\/p>\n
Mr Shanmugam cited an example of Ambassador for International Law Rena Lee who has been elected as a judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), becoming the first Singaporean and first woman from Southeast Asia to do so.<\/p>\n
Ms Lee, 57, secured the highest number of votes in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly with 151 out of 191 votes, and also received the joint-highest number in the UN Security Council with 13 out of 15 votes.<\/p>\n
The Ministry of Law and Ministry of Foreign Affairs worked very hard to lobby countries, said Mr Shanmugam, adding that he too was involved in early meetings.<\/p>\n
Ms Lee’s votes were a “testament” to Singapore’s skill in diplomacy and the way the country conducts itself, he added.<\/p>\n
He put forth a scenario of meeting the five permanent countries of the UN Security Council and bringing up the weapons they have supplied to conflict zones where there are breaches of international law.<\/p>\n
“You start out by listing this category of international law issues, and then you say, ‘by the way, can you please support us?’ I think Members and Singaporeans can see how absurd and novel such a position is,” said Mr Shanmugam.<\/p>\n
Mr Shanmugam said that there was a \u201cmore fundamental point\u201d about Mr Fadli\u2019s statements.<\/p>\n
“To jump on this Haaretz article, make absurd suggestions on how we conduct and how we should engage in the belief that people won’t understand how inter-ministry conversations really take place, in the complete belief that people will ignore the details of how Singapore conducts its relationships, and try and present the picture that the government is unprincipled and soft on Israel.”<\/p>\n
Mr Shanmugam added that it is wrong to try to view Singapore’s international relationships through the prism of race and religion.<\/p>\n
Mr Fadli rejected the characterisation that his position was motivated by race and religion.<\/p>\n
“This is primarily an issue about how Singapore can uphold its commitments to international law, consistently impartially and objectively,” he said.<\/p>\n
He added that Singapore should be raising concerns only when they are \u201crelevant\u201d.<\/p>\n
He maintained that in the case of the Israeli meeting, the existence of illegal settlements was relevant as the Haaretz article had named two officials in the Israeli delegation linked to the construction of illegal outposts in the West Bank.<\/p>\n
In response, Mr Shanmugam said he could not understand how the issue of settler violence is relevant to MHA\u2019s discussions when Mr Fadli does not know what was discussed between both sides.<\/p>\n
\u201cI have said in my speeches that the primary point of international law and approach has got to be enlightened self-interest,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He added that Mr Fadli should have realised from Mr Shanmugam\u2019s question that his position was \u201cabsurd\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cInstead of that, he walks in further and doubles down,\u201d said Mr Shanmugam.<\/p>\n
On whether Singapore requested that the meeting with Israeli officials be kept a secret, Mr Shanmugam said meetings between MHA and its counterparts are almost always kept confidential, except when parties request for them to be made public.<\/p>\n
He reiterated that he had given his answer that one party requested that the meeting be made public.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n