Human rights in Singapore

The Ministry of Home Affairs Internal Security Department enforces the country's Internal Security Act (ISA) as a counter to potential espionage, international terrorism, threats to racial and religious harmony, and subversion.

The ISA permits indefinite detention without formal charges or recourse to trial, and has historically been used to imprison political opponents of the ruling party, including former parliamentary member Chia Thye Poh, accused of conducting pro-communist activities against the government, and was restricted for 23 years on Sentosa and 9 years on house arrest before eventually being released.[7] In the 2000s during the height of Islamic terrorism, 36 men were being held under the ISA, including members of the militant group Jemaah Islamiyah.[8]

The Sedition Act prohibits seditious acts and speech; and the printing, publication, sale, distribution, reproduction and importation of seditious publications.

In addition to punishing actions that tend to undermine the administration of government, the Act also criminalizes actions which promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different races or classes of the population.

Under the Public Order Act 2009, a police permit is required to hold large public processions or outdoor assemblies legally.[9] However, indoor assemblies could be held freely without the need to apply for police permits.[10] There have been multiple amendments to the Public Order Act since 2009 and as of October 2017, all event organisers are required to notify the police if they expect more than 5,000 attendees for public events or 10,000 at any one time for private assemblies.[11] Further amendments to the Act were subsequently added, including allowing the Commissioner of Police to refuse a permit for public assembly or procession if it is deemed to be directed towards a political or religious end, or is organised by or involving non-Singapore entities and citizens, due to the risk of foreign interference.[12]

The offence of scandalizing the court is committed when a person brings a court or a judge into contempt, or to lower authority. Allegations of bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence.

Internment without trial under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has been used to deal with espionage, terrorism, organised crime, and narcotics.[13]

The Act requires the chief editor or the proprietor of the newspaper to obtain a permit from the Minister in order to print or publish a newspaper in Singapore.

Section 10 of the Act gives the Minister the power to appoint the management shareholders of all newspaper companies and to control any transfers of such management shares.[14] It also gives the management shareholders, and by proxy the government, a minimum 66% majority in any votes regarding staffing decisions.

Similar to countries such as South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan, all male Singapore citizens and second-generation permanent residents (PR) who have reached the age of 18 are required (unless medically exempt) to undergo a two-year conscription known as National Service. Those who have gone AWOL (Desertion) can be fined or sentenced to jail, if there were not valid reasons in doing so.[15]

Male citizens who hold dual citizenships can only renounce their Singapore citizenship upon completion of their service,[16] unless they have citizenship of another country at age 11, and have announced to the Ministry of Defence of their intention to renounce their citizenships before the age of 11, and avoid all "socio-economic benefits of a Singapore citizenship" before their renunciation of Singaporean citizenship after attaining the age of majority.[17][18] Second-generation permanent residents who renounce their PR status without serving NS will be blacklisted if they were to apply to return to Singapore to study or work in the future.[19]

The government has restricted some freedom of speech and has limited other civil and political rights, especially during the 20th century.[20] The right to freedom of speech and association guaranteed by Article 14(1) of the Constitution of Singapore is restricted by the subsequent subsection (2) of the same Article.

The only place in Singapore where outdoor public assemblies do not require police permits (for citizens) is at the Speakers' Corner, similar to Hyde Park, London. However, foreigners still require a permit to speak at the park, and one must still register one's personal details with the National Parks Board online before speaking or protesting at the Speakers' corner, and there are also many surveillance cameras in the park, a situation that some Singaporeans and Singaporean MPs have commented on.[21][22]

Police permits are also not granted to events that are deemed to have a "significant risk of public disorder" and those that could "incite feelings of hostility between different racial and religious groups" in Singapore. This is due to the fact that racial riots has previously occurred in the country, most notably the 1964 and 1969 race riots.[23]

According to Amnesty International, laws were relaxed in 2010 to limit the freedom of expression and assembly, and to stifle critics and activists. However, lawsuits were taken out by the authorities against dissidents. Government critics and human rights defenders nevertheless held public gatherings, without much interference.[24]

Censorship of some political and racially or religiously sensitive content exists, and is imposed in the form of stringent media regulations, and indirect approaches through OB markers on local journalists and withdrawal of public arts funding.[25][26][27] Government pressure to conform has resulted in the practice of self-censorship by journalists.[28][29]

When the Singapore constitution was written, it did not include a right to privacy and the subsequent data protection act does not protect citizens from government-sanctioned surveillance.[30] The government does not need prior judicial authorisation to conduct any surveillance interception, and documents that restrict what officials can do with personal data are classified.[31][32] In a U.S State Department report in 2015, it is believed that law enforcement and government agencies have extensive networks for gathering information and conducting surveillance. A majority of Singaporeans are widely aware that authorities track telephone conversations and the use of the internet of civilians, and indirect routine checks are usually done on some government critics.[33]

The Singapore Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) was also listed as a customer of spyware maker Hacking Team in a data leak. The group is alleged to have used spyware to analyse the digital footprint of its intended audience.[34]

According to a study conducted by the Ministry of Defence, the threshold for surveillance is deemed relatively higher in Singapore, the majority of citizens having accepted the "surveillance situation" as necessary for deterring terrorism and "self-radicalisation." Singaporeans are said to have accepted the social contract between residents and their government, and expect to "surrender certain civil liberties and individual freedoms in exchange for fundamental guarantees: security, education, wealth, safety, affordable housing, and health care."[35] With the push for the Smart Nation initiative to collate and analyse big data from all aspects of urban life for decision-making, it is unclear how individual rights to privacy will continue to be upheld.[36][37][38]

In November 2017, it was announced that the government would introduce legislation in 2018 to mandate all private doctors to submit patient information for the centralised national healthcare database named National Electronic Health Records System (NEHR).[39] Patients can request for their health records to be made inaccessible to physicians and healthcare workers, but the records will still be added and updated to the electronic system. While the authorities have asserted that only relevant healthcare workers will have access to the patients' data,[40] it was noted that there have been cases of illegal access of patients' records from outside Singapore even with the privacy safeguards in place.[41]

Law dean Simon Chesterman brought up the need for greater transparency on the surveillance in smart cities to ensure that state powers are not being abused.[42][43]