Singapore Human Rights Report by US Dept. of State

[Read]

The government has broad powers to limit citizens' rights and to handicap political opposition, which it used in practice. Caning was an allowable punishment for numerous offenses. The following human rights problems were reported:

• preventive detention
• executive influence over the judiciary
• infringement of citizens' privacy rights
• restriction of speech and press freedom, and the practice of self-censorship by journalists
• restriction of freedom of assembly and freedom of association
• some restriction on freedom of religion
• some trafficking in persons

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

In March 2004 a detainee claimed that in 2003 police officers used physical means to force him to confess and threatened to arrest his wife. The trial judge ruled that the confession was involuntary, refused to allow it into evidence, and subsequently acquitted the man of all charges. In August 2004 the High Court sustained the ruling that the confession was involuntary and disallowed it. It nonetheless found the accused guilty and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The police force took no action against the officers accused of using "physical means" because the detainee had not lodged a complaint prior to the trial.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

The government did not allow human rights monitors to visit prisons; however, diplomatic representatives were given consular access to citizens of their countries.

Denial of Fair Public Trial

Some judicial officials, especially supreme court judges, have ties to the ruling party and its leaders. The president appoints judges to the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the prime minister and in consultation with the chief justice. The president also appoints subordinate court judges on the recommendation of the chief justice. The term of appointment is determined by the Legal Service Commission, of which the chief justice is the chairman. Under the ISA and the CLA, the president and the minister for home affairs have substantial de facto judicial power, which explicitly (in the case of the ISA) or implicitly (in the case of the CLA) excludes normal judicial review.

Government leaders historically have used court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics. Both this practice and consistent awards in favor of government plaintiffs raised questions about the relationship between the government and the judiciary and led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.

Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

it(government) had a pervasive influence over civic and economic life and sometimes used its broad discretionary powers to infringe on these rights. Normally the police must have a warrant issued by a court to conduct a search; however, they may search a person, home, or a property without a warrant if they decide that such a search is necessary to preserve evidence. The government has wide-ranging discretionary powers under the ISA, CLA, MDA, and UPA to conduct searches without a warrant if it determines that national security, public safety and order, or the public interest is at risk. Defendants may request judicial review of such searches.

Law enforcement agencies, including the Internal Security Department and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Board, have extensive networks for gathering information and conducting surveillance and highly sophisticated capabilities to monitor telephone and other private conversations. No court warrants are required for such operations. The law permits government monitoring of Internet use. It was believed that the authorities routinely monitored telephone conversations and the use of the Internet.

The government enforced ethnic ratios for publicly subsidized housing, where the majority of citizens live and own their own units. The policy was designed to prevent ethnic/racial ghettos. When a housing development is at or near the limit for a particular ethnic group, the policy could make it difficult for owners to sell their apartments and require them to sell to a person of an underrepresented group, potentially at a price below market value.

Freedom of Speech and Press

The government's authoritarian style fostered an atmosphere inimical to free speech and a free press. Government intimidation and pressure to conform resulted in self-censorship among journalists.

Government leaders urged that news media support the goals of the elected leadership and help maintain social and religious harmony. In addition, strict defamation and press laws and the government's demonstrated willingness to respond vigorously to what it considered personal attacks on officials sometimes led journalists and editors to moderate or limit what was published.

Government restrictions limit the ability to speak freely at the Speakers' Corner in a public park. Prospective speakers must be citizens, must show their identification cards, and must register in advance with the police.

In April the government allowed a foreign researcher from Amnesty International to attend a public forum on the death penalty but not to speak. Plainclothes police who were present at the forum demanded to see the forum moderator's identity card to verify that she was a citizen. In May the government denied entry to a foreign national, Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, who had been invited by the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) to speak at a public workshop on nonviolent action. The Ministry of Home Affairs noted that foreigners were not allowed to interfere in domestic politics. The government also reportedly banned the workshop on nonviolence that he was scheduled to attend.