Singapore: Government criminalises human rights defenders
CIVICUS Monitor
October 29, 2026
Singapore’s civic space is rated as ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor. There are ongoing concerns about the use of restrictive laws as well as the harassment of human rights defenders. The 2019 Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) provides excessive powers to the government and has been used to target activists and critics, and block websites, while there are ongoing restrictions on peaceful assembly under the 2009 Public Order Act (POA).
The adoption of Singapore's fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR) occurred at the UN Human Rights Council. Singapore supported 243 out of the 342 recommendations it received during the review However, the government failed to support 12 of the recommendations related to civic space including to repeal restrictive laws, ensure an enabling environment for civil society and human rights defenders, and strengthen the protection of the freedoms of expression, assembly and association.
In recent months, at least 14 human rights defenders have been charged for their activism, including vigils and other forms of protest against the death penalty or for Palestine from as way back as 2024. An activist is on trial around a POFMA correction direction.
Peaceful Assembly
Human rights defenders charged for their activism
Singapore heavily restricts public assemblies and processions under the Public Order Act. Authorities maintain that under the Act, even small-scale protests, vigils, marches and other forms of public advocacy require prior police authorisation.
On 7th September 2026, activist Jolovan Wham appeared at the State Court where he was handed charges. Three charges under the Public Order Act (POA) concerned his participation in candlelight vigils held without permit near Changi Prison on 22nd November 2024, 29th November 2024, and 23rd January 2025, ahead of the executions of death row prisoners. A fourth charge under the POA concerned his organisation, on 3rd February 2025, of a public assembly without a permit in a prohibited area near the State Courts to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty. The fifth charge, brought under Section 179 of the Penal Code, concerned his refusal to answer questions from police during questioning about the vigil conducted on 22nd November 2024.
On 9th September 2026, six other human rights defenders - Elijah Tay, Kyal Sin Linn Naing, Dayana Noor Mohamed, Nur Sabrina Kamel, Nurul Afiqah Kamel and Amirah Binti Mokhlis - were charged at the State Court for taking part in or organising peaceful activities related to solidarity with Palestine and the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and opposition to the death penalty. The six are facing a range of charges under the Public Order Act, the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act. In addition, other participants in the same activities were reportedly given “conditional” or “stern” warnings by the police. Elijah Tay was charged on nine counts under the POA and the Penal Code.
The activities include a procession to deliver a letter to the Presidential Palace, a kite-flying activity and shoe memorial in solidarity with Palestinians killed in the Gaza conflict, aside from candlelight vigils outside Changi Prison for those facing imminent execution, all of which took place without a police permit.
Human rights groups have raised concerns around the unprecedented use of Section 179 of the Penal Code against activists for refusing to answer police questions, which raises profound concerns about the protection of the right to a fair trial, particularly in a system where individuals are denied access to legal counsel during police questioning. The lengthy delay between many of the alleged acts and the decision to bring charges also appears designed to create a climate of prolonged uncertainty for activists and human rights defenders.
Workers’ rights activist charged
Workers' rights activist S Suraendher Kumarr, founder of Workers Make Possible, was charged on 25th September 2026 with three offences under the Public Order Act (POA).
Kumarr is accused of attending candlelight vigils near Changi Prison in November 2024 and January 2025, marking the executions of Masoud Rahimi Mehrzad and Syed Suhail Syed Zin respectively. Kumarr is also accused of taking part in the February 2025 assembly at the State Courts calling for the abolition of capital punishment.
Women charged for public assemblies related to the Falun Gong spiritual group
A woman was charged on 25th September 2026 with participating in public assemblies at Merlion Park and Anderson Bridge without a permit.
Ng Chye Huay, 62, faces six charges for allegedly participating in public assemblies to support the Falun Gong spiritual group without a permit from October 2024 to February 2026. Ng said she would dispute all charges and requested time to find legal representation.
Six charged for their involvement in peaceful assemblies and vigils.
On 28th September 2026, six individuals – Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, Howe Wen Khong Rocky, Kirsten Han, Lim Kay Siu and Neo Swee Lin Winifred – were charged under the Public Order Act in the State Court for their alleged involvement in peaceful assemblies and vigils.
Five were charged for a gathering outside the State Courts on 3rd February 2025. Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie was charged in relation to two candlelight vigils held outside Changi Prison in November 2024, while Howe Wen Khong Rocky faces additional charges relating to three vigils held between November 2024 and January 2025. Some of those charged were required to remove or cover their T-shirts displaying slogans or symbols in order to access the courtroom. Those charged were also required to surrender their passports, were placed in shackles, and spent time in police custody before being released on bail.
Human rights groups said that the recent wave of charges against participants in peaceful assemblies reflects a broader pattern of restrictions on civic space and criminalisation of human rights work, deepening the chilling effect on individuals and groups challenging or advocating for reform of government policies, including those related to the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore and peaceful expressions of solidarity with Palestinians.
Activist on trial around POFMA correction direction
On 7th October 2026, anti-death penalty activist Kokila Annamalai stood trial for allegedly failing to comply with a correction direction issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). The direction concerned social media posts she published in October 2024 about the execution of a person convicted of drug trafficking. In the posts, Annamalai questioned whether the government scheduled and stayed executions arbitrarily and raised concerns about the legal burden of proof in drug trafficking cases. She was charged in April 2026 with allegedly failing to comply with the correction direction without reasonable excuse.
The prosecution argued that Annamalai knowingly chose not to comply with the direction, while her defence argued that the direction was invalid because POFMA does not apply to true facts or honest opinions. The case raises concerns about the criminal consequences of refusing to comply with government-issued correction directions, particularly when the underlying expression concerns public policy and the administration of the death penalty. Annamalai also faces a separate pending charge relating to an assembly intended to publicise the abolition of capital punishment. Her trial was ongoing at the time of reporting.
Since its introduction in 2019, POFMA has overwhelmingly been used to target human rights defenders and government critics, including anti-death penalty campaigners. The law grants authorities sweeping powers to criminalise online expression and lacks a public interest defence. Overly broad restrictions on sharing information, including those based on concepts such as ‘false news’ or ‘misinformation’ are incompatible with international human rights law and risk being used to silence critics, activists and human rights defenders.
Association
Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act comes into force with new presidential council
Singapore's Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act came into operation on 15th September 2026, consolidating race-related powers previously scattered across several statutes and adding new safeguards against foreign influence.
On the same day, a new Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony (PCRRH) began its inaugural three-year term. It replaces the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, which had existed since 1990.
The law allows the Minister for Home Affairs to issue restraining orders (ROs) against individuals or organisations responsible for creating or sharing content that threatens racial harmony.
As previously documented, concerns have been raised around the Act’s potential impact on freedom of expression and public discourse concerning racial issues and the vague and overly broad provisions that could disproportionately criminalise minorities discussing race and racism.
Further, Restraining Orders allowing pre-emptive government action without proving criminal conduct can prohibit individuals or entities from communicating or distributing specified information or material to designated audiences on specific subjects.
