Hsien Loong - Singapore does have to make a stand

At the Davos Dialogue on Climate Change Hsien Loong was reported to be defending Singapore's position in making a stand when necessary.  'Because we are making decisions for Singapore, and not because we a cat's paw for one side or the other...that means you must have the courage to stand up and call things as they are and, from time to time, you will incur, well, at least a raised eyebrow and sometimes more than one raised eyebrow from one side or the other, and occasionally both.'

This is what Singapore stood for and it spoke so loud and clear over the funny Aquino govt's funny Hague Tribunal and the funny decision from a panel of funny judges that made Singapore stood up like a sore thumb in the region. And Singapore did not just raised eyebrow for being the only sore thumb that spoke so loudly but was taught a bitter lesson in not to meddle with big power politics. The bottom line was and is still believed in Singapore that Singapore would speak out loudly, would make a stand on grounds of principles and international law.

Now we have several incidents of Trump and the Americans violating international laws, interfering in the domestic politics of other countries and attempting to conduct regime change with their own candidates, would Singapore take a stand, or did Singapore take a stand? Or is it because the violator is the Americans so better to keep quiet, principle or not principle, breaking international law or not breaking international law also never mind?

If Singapore would not open its big mouth on such arrogant and blatant violation of international laws and principles, in the assassination of Soleimani and the support of opposition parties to overthrow a legitimate govt in Venezuela, Columbia and Bolivia, how would China think when Singapore talked so big and so loud against China in the funny Hague Tribunal judgement?

Did Singapore make a stand or it did not in these cases?