Politics: Hanging Halimah out to dry
In early May, following two months of aid blockades to Gaza, and with one in five people facing starvation, Israel began its latest offensive in its war on Gaza. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s foreign minister, said that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed”, and that its Palestinian population will “leave in great numbers to third countries”. With over 50,000 Gazans already killed, fresh allusions to ethnic cleansing have sparked global revulsion. A joint statement from the leaders of Canada, France and the UK said that the “level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable” and that it may be breaching international humanitarian law. The clearest sign of the tide turning was that last week, Piers Morgan, a TV show host who hitherto had been an apologist for Israeli retribution, said that he finally agrees with Mehdi Hasan, a critic, about what Israel is actually doing, including “genocidal language” amidst the “starvation of people”.
But in Singapore? Barely a whimper. On May 20th, a day after the aforementioned joint statement from Western leaders, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs “spokesperson” issued a tepid rehash of Singapore’s stated positions on the issue. Their statement reflected deep thought and empathy; ours could have been written by ChatGPT. On May 23rd, Halimah Yacob, a former member of Parliament (MP) with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and former president, said that keeping quiet about the “humanitarian catastrophe” makes us “complicit in the violations of international humanitarian laws and encourages similar aggressions elsewhere.”
Cue the backlash. Critical Spectator, the nom de guerre of Michael Petraeus, a Polish visitor to Singapore and PAP fanboy, attacked Halimah, which in turn drew a rebuttal from Faishal Ibrahim, acting minister in charge of Muslim affairs. Irene Ng Berry, a former PAP MP, issued a thinly-veiled criticism of her former colleague, effectively saying that four of Singapore’s “great presidents”, all Halimah’s predecessors, understood their roles. “Nobody expected them to speak up for their religious or racial groups, or to make public appeals on behalf of any group on external conflicts whatever the circumstances.”
Ng has demeaned Singapore’s first female and first elected Muslim president. Why must Halimah adhere to some imagined diplomatic playbook from our past? Many Singaporeans are eager to interrogate our historical relationship with Israel, and are looking for leaders who can voice our concerns. If anything, she’s demonstrated a moral certitude often sorely lacking. It’s perhaps time Halimah interrogated her own relationship to the party. In 2017, it instrumentalised her race in order to elevate her to the presidency, partly to keep out its nemesis, Tan Cheng Bock. In 2023, she could have run for a second term as the party’s choice, but was possibly dissuaded from doing so because leaders didn’t trust her to win an open election. And now, she’s again being put in her place. Do exactly as you’re told, Madam Halimah, seems to be the message.
Some further reading: In “Genocide in Gaza? Our moral responsibility”, Jom examines the history of that loaded term, its applicability today, and also explores Singapore’s historical ties to Israel.
Politics: Ketchup Bros swoon over Bilahari
Like elsewhere, podcasters have proliferated as an important alternate source of political commentary and information in Singapore. At one level, we should cheer this diversity. But at another, we must be skeptical when guests are allowed to regurgitate their biased views on contentious topics without pushback. Bilahari Kausikan, former diplomat, used his recent appearance on “The Daily Ketchup” to do just that with Israel’s war on Gaza. The show’s hosts allowed him to chart a history of the conflict that begins in 1947—a convenient starting point for Zionists. A fairer and more robust view would begin with the 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by British colonialists in support of the Zionist Federation and without proper Arab involvement, a farce that the writer Arthur Koestler described as: “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.” Kausikan’s selective reading of history and the conflict have been questioned by K Shanmugam, home affairs minister, Jom, and many others. Surely “The Daily Ketchup” hosts could have pushed him?
