News report on Israeli meeting in May to discuss death penalty in S’pore is false: Shanmugam

Published Oct 07, 2026, 07:25 PM

Updated Oct 07, 2026, 07:25 PM

Shanmugam said the issue of the death penalty being discussed between Singapore and Israeli officials here, as reported in Haaretz, an Israeli publication, was false.

He said the talks were separate from foreign policy and focused on security and operational issues, which help Singapore spot threats early.

MHA has not issued POFMA yet, but Shanmugam said it could still do so later if needed.

SINGAPORE - Claims by a news outlet that an Israeli security delegation visited Singapore and discussed the death penalty with Singaporean officials were false, said Senior Minister K. Shanmugam.

And while a direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) has not been issued, it does not mean it cannot be issued later should circumstances change, he added.

Shanmugam, who is also Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, was responding to a parliamentary question from Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied GRC) on Oct 7.

The article in question was published on Sept 7 by Israeli daily Haaretz.

It falsely claimed a secret Israeli delegation flew to Singapore in May and discussed the death penalty with Singapore officials even though it was not originally on the agenda.

Fadli had asked why a POFMA order was not issued to the news outlet, whether Singapore had discussed with the Israeli officials on addressing illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank, and whether Singapore had requested that the meeting be secret.

In a written response, Shanmugam said Singapore regularly holds discussions with international counterparts on security and law enforcement matters, allowing for the exchange of information and intelligence between agencies.

This has enabled Singapore to identify potential threats, intervene early, and keep Singapore safe.

He added it is in Singapore’s national interest to maintain these channels of cooperation, including with countries in the Middle East.

The meeting with the Israeli delegation was one such engagement, but the discussions focused on operational and security-related issues, and did not extend to broader foreign policy matters, said Shanmugam.

He said Singapore’s positions on such matters are addressed through the appropriate foreign policy channels, including by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), he said that since January 2025, there have been 11 officials-level bilateral exchanges with foreign counterparts, including several with partners from the Middle East.

Shanmugam said the contents of the exchanges are confidential and generally not publicised because of the security concerns.

However, there was a press release issued for one, at the request of the counterpart concerned.

Shanmugam said MHA responded to the Haaretz article because the article’s claims concerning the meeting with Israeli security officials were categorically false.

He said that at the time of the article’s publication, it assessed that it was not in the public interest for a POFMA direction to be issued.

But it remains a possibility, should circumstances change.

Shanmugam said: “That is the approach MHA takes to discussions with its bilateral counterparts, on matters of shared operational and security concern.”

He said if Fadli believes MHA should use such engagements to raise broader concerns about the policies or conduct of the country concerned, then he should say so clearly.

He also asked Fadli to clarify whether he believes this principle should apply only to Israel, or consistently to all countries that engage with MHA.

Shanmugam said: “For example, when MHA holds operational discussions with other Middle Eastern or Asian countries, should we also raise the concerns Singapore may have with their conduct or policies?

“If that is the Member’s position, the Government would be interested to understand how he proposes that such an approach would serve Singapore’s overall interests.”

David Sun is The Straits Times’ crime correspondent. He has a background in criminology and is a licensed private investigator.

Ministry of Home Affairs

发布于 2026 年 10 月 7 日下午 7:25

更新于2026年10月7日晚上7:25

尚穆根表示，以色列报纸《国土报》报道的新加坡和以色列官员正在讨论死刑问题的说法是错误的。

他表示，会谈与外交政策无关，重点是安全和行动问题，这有助于新加坡及早发现威胁。

内政部尚未颁布《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》（POFMA），但尚穆根表示，如有必要，以后仍可颁布。

新加坡——高级部长尚穆根表示，某新闻媒体声称以色列安全代表团访问新加坡并与新加坡官员讨论了死刑问题，这一说法不实。

他补充说，虽然尚未根据《防止网络虚假信息和操纵法》（POFMA）发布指令，但这并不意味着如果情况发生变化，以后不能发布该指令。

尚穆根同时也是国家安全统筹部长和内政部长，他在10月7日回答了法德利·法兹（阿裕尼集选区）的国会质询。

相关文章于9月7日发表在以色列日报《国土报》上。

它错误地声称，一个以色列秘密代表团于 5 月飞往新加坡，与新加坡官员讨论了死刑问题，尽管死刑最初并不在议程上。

法德利曾询问，为什么没有向该新闻机构发出《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》(POFMA) 的命令，新加坡是否与以色列官员讨论过解决西岸非法定居点和定居者暴力问题，以及新加坡是否要求会议保密。

尚穆根在一份书面答复中表示，新加坡定期与国际同行就安全和执法问题举行讨论，允许各机构之间交换信息和情报。

这使得新加坡能够识别潜在威胁，及早采取干预措施，从而保障新加坡的安全。

他还补充说，保持这些合作渠道，包括与中东国家的合作，符合新加坡的国家利益。

尚穆根表示，与以色列代表团的会晤就是这样一次接触，但讨论的重点是作战和安全相关问题，并没有涉及更广泛的外交政策问题。

他表示，新加坡在这些问题上的立场是通过适当的外交政策渠道来表达的，包括通过外交部。

至于内政部，他表示，自 2025 年 1 月以来，已与外国同行进行了 11 次官员级别的双边交流，其中包括与中东伙伴的几次交流。

尚穆根表示，由于安全考虑，这些交流内容属于机密，一般不会对外公布。

但是，应相关对方的要求，其中一份新闻稿已经发布。

尚穆根表示，内政部对《国土报》的文章作出回应，是因为该文章中有关与以色列安全官员会面的说法完全是错误的。

他表示，在文章发表之时，评估认为发布《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》（POFMA）指令不符合公众利益。

但如果情况发生变化，这仍然是一种可能性。

尚穆根表示：“这就是内政部在与双边对口部门讨论共同关心的行动和安全问题时所采取的方式。”

他说，如果法德利认为内政部应该利用此类交流来提出对相关国家政策或行为的更广泛关切，那么他就应该明确地表达出来。

他还要求法德利澄清，他是否认为这一原则应该只适用于以色列，还是应该一视同仁地适用于所有与内政部有联系的国家。

尚穆根表示：“例如，当内政部与其他中东或亚洲国家进行业务讨论时，我们是否也应该提出新加坡可能对其行为或政策的担忧？”

“如果这是该议员的立场，政府很想了解他如何认为这种做法符合新加坡的整体利益。”

大卫·孙是《海峡时报》的犯罪记者。他拥有犯罪学背景，并且是一名持证私人侦探。

内政部