Republic of Singapore Joint Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 38th Session of the UPR Working Group 15 October 2020 Submission by CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, NGO in General Consultative Status with ECOSOC And The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) NGO in General Consultative Status with ECOSOC CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen FORUM ASIA Participation FORUM-ASIA Lead, Ahmed Adam CIVICUS UPR Lead, Josef Benedict Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Tel: +66 2 1082643 45 Susan Wilding, Web: www.forum-asia.org Email: [email protected] Tel: +41 22 733 3435 Web: www.civicus.org 1. Introduction 1.1 CIVICUS is a global alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world. Founded in 1993, CIVICUS has members in more than 190 countries throughout the world. 1.2 The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) is a network of 81 members in 21 countries that works to promote and protect human rights, including the right to development, through collaboration and cooperation among human rights organisations and defenders in Asia and beyond. 1.3 In this document, CIVICUS and FORUM-ASIA examine the Government of Singapore’s compliance with its international human rights obligations to create and maintain a safe and enabling environment for civil society. Specifically, we analyse Singapore’s fulfilment of the rights to the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression and unwarranted restrictions on human rights defenders (HRDs) since its previous UPR examination in April 2016. To this end, we assess Singapore’s implementation of recommendations received during the 2nd UPR cycle relating to these issues and provide follow-up recommendations. 1.4 During the 2nd UPR cycle, the Government of Singapore received 22 recommendations relating to the space for civil society (civic space). Of these recommendations, eight were accepted and 14 were noted. An evaluation of a range of legal sources and human rights documentation addressed in subsequent sections of this submission demonstrates that the Government of Singapore has partially implemented only seven recommendations relating to civic space and has not implemented the other 15. The government has persistently failed to address unwarranted restrictions on civic space since its last UPR examination, specifically related to the rights to the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression. 1.5 Singapore has yet to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which imposes obligations on states to respect and protect the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression. Further, numerous recommendations to establish a national human rights institution have been ignored.1 1.6 We are deeply concerned by the ongoing use of restrictive laws, including defamation laws, to criminalise criticism of the authorities by HRDs, journalists and critics and the restrictions on peaceful assembly, including protests held by one person, under the 2009 Public Order Act (POA). 1 Recommendations 166.57, 166.100, 166.101, 166.102, 106.103 and 106.104. See ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Singapore’, UN Human Rights Council, 15 April 2016, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/078/42/PDF/G1607842.pdf?OpenElement. 2 1.7 We are further alarmed by laws restricting media freedom and the use of the 2019 Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to harass the political opposition, HRDs, journalists and civil society. 1.8 As a result of these issues, civic space in Singapore is currently classified as ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.2 • Section 2 of this submission examines Singapore’s implementation of UPR recommendations and compliance with international human rights standards concerning the freedom of association. • Section 3 examines Singapore’s implementation of UPR recommendations and compliance with international human rights standards related to the protection of HRDs, civil society activists and journalists. • Section 4 examines Singapore’s implementation of UPR recommendations and compliance with international human rights standards concerning the freedom of expression, independence of the media and access to information. • Section 5 examines Singapore’s implementation of UPR recommendations and compliance with international human rights standards related to the freedom of peaceful assembly. • Section 6 contains recommendations to address the concerns raised and to advance implementation of recommendations under the 2nd cycle. • An annex assessing implementation of 2nd cycle UPR recommendations related to civic space can be found in Section 7. 2. Freedom of association 2.1 During Singapore’s examination under the 2nd UPR cycle, the government received four recommendations on the right to the freedom of association and creating an enabling environment for CSOs. 3 Among other recommendations, the government committed to “ensure freedom of association” and “consider the necessary legislations and policies to effectively guarantee the protection of freedom of association.” Of the recommendations received, the government accepted two and noted two. However, as evidenced below, the government has partially implemented one and not implemented three other recommendations. 2 CIVICUS Monitor: Singapore, https://monitor.civicus.org/country/singapore. 3 Recommendations 166.90 (noted), 166.91 (supported), 166.92 (noted), 166.201 (supported). See ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Singapore, Addendum: Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review’, A/HRC/32/17/Add.1’, UN Human Rights Council, 13 June 2016, https://documents-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/117/87/PDF/G1611787.pdf?OpenElement. 3 2.2 Article 14 of the Singaporean Constitution states that “all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.”4 However, despite these commitments legal barriers persist to the effective realisation of this right for CSOs. 2.3 Under the Societies Act the authorities have extensive discretionary powers to limit the right to the freedom of association. Principally, the Societies Act requires all CSOs with more than 10 members to register with the government. According to article 4, the Registrar of Societies can deny a CSO’s application on a number of broad and subjective grounds, including that a CSO’s mandate is “contrary to the national interest for the specified society to be registered” or “is identical to that of any other existing society” or “is in the opinion of the Registrar undesirable.”5 2.4 The Societies Act further includes several vague provisions that can be invoked to dissolve a CSO or sanction its members and employees. According to article 24, the Registrar of Societies can deregister a CSO that engages in activities considered “prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore.” Moreover, people who support or are employed by an “unlawful” society face severe criminal penalties. Article 15 of the law states that “any person who knowingly allows a meeting of an unlawful society, or of members of an unlawful society to be held in any house” may be fined up to S$5,000 (approx. US$3,635), or imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, or both. In addition, individuals who are members of an unlawful society, or attend a meeting of an unlawful society, can be subjected to the same penalties. 2.5 Constitutional guarantees protecting the right of workers to organise are further undermined by stringent and discriminatory legislative restrictions on trade unions. The government continues to place onerous constraints on the right to organise and collectively bargain. Of serious concern are requirements under the Trade Union Act obliging all unions to officially register with the Registrar of Trade Unions, which has wide-ranging powers to refuse or withdraw a union’s registration on various arbitrary grounds, including on the basis that a union of similar purpose already exists. In addition, under the Trade Unions Act, government employees must seek the explicit approval of the President of Singapore before joining a trade union. 2.6 Singapore has 1.4 million foreigners working in the country, out of a total workforce of 3.7 million. Of these, 981,000 are low-wage migrant workers on temporary visas.6 Foreign workers are allowed to join trade unions but are prevented from holding a number of positions within unions without the authorisation of the Ministry of 4 ‘Constitution of The Republic of Singapore’, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/sg/sg047en.pdf. 5 ‘Societies Act’, Singapore Statutes Online, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/SA1966. 6 ‘The Missing Link in Singapore’s COVID-19 Strategy’, The Diplomat, 14 April 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/the-missing-link-in-singapores-covid-19-strategy. 4 Manpower.7 In practice, foreign workers have little opportunity to organise to defend their rights or demand improvements in their conditions of work. 3. Harassment, intimidation and attacks against human rights defenders, civil society activists and journalists 3.1 Under Singapore’s previous UPR examination, the government received no recommendations on the protection of HRDs, journalists and civil society representatives. 3.2 Article 12 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders mandates states to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of HRDs. However, in spite of these protections, the Singaporean authorities have used an array of restrictive laws to investigate and criminalise HRDs for their activism. 3.3 Among the laws often used to target HRDs is the POA, which has been used to curb peaceful gatherings or protests even when undertaken by one person (see section 5 for details on the law). 3.4 HRD Jolovan Wham has faced multiple investigations for his activism. In November 2016 he was charged under the POA for his involvement in an indoor public discussion on ‘Civil Disobedience and Social Movements’.