Singapore underwent its regular comprehensive human rights check-up this year. Reports highlighted the government’s secretive political vetting of applicants for university jobs and visa renewals, among other academic freedom issues.

Global, regional, and national non-governmental organisations raised concerns about academic freedom at the recently concluded United Nations review of Singapore’s human rights situation.

The exercise, called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), is a regular process in which UN member states undergo peer review at the Human Rights Council, which is a 47-member intergovernmental body within the UN system headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The UPR process invites a national report from the government, submissions from stakeholders, and questions from Council members.

On academic freedom, stakeholder submissions highlighted the political vetting of academics’ job applications and visa renewals, among other issues.

This was raised in a submission by several of Singapore’s leading advocacy groups: Function 8, Network of Independent Media for Better Understanding and Support (NIMBUS), Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), SG Climate Rally, Think Centre, and MARUAH. Their joint submission said:

Academic freedom continues to be a concern in Singapore. Especially egregious is the state’s secretive practice of requiring that universities wishing to hire academics submit their applications for vetting by the Ministry of Education and possibly security agencies. Non-citizen academics also face hurdles when applying for work permits and residency renewals. This is at odds with the opinion of UN experts that academic freedom must include the freedom to participate in scholarly activity “within or related to one’s expertise or field of study, regardless of whether it takes place inside the academic community (‘intramural expression’) or outside the academic community, including with the public (‘extramural expression’).”

They cited reports by AcademiaSG editors and other sources. Scholars at Risk, the main international human rights organisation specialising in academic freedom, “urged the government to address and update restrictive laws to reflect international standards and stop restrictive practices, specifically the allegedly politically motivated vetting process for the employment proceedings at Singaporean universities” in a summary provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Scholars at Risk submission said:

Academics and universities in Singapore report facing a complex web of vaguely formulated legal norms and soft repression imposed through institutional practices, likely leading to significant self-censorship, as well as pressure from peers and superiors to avoid academic conduct that could create problems for the institution. These pressures, which seldom involve direct targeting of individual scholars, typically go unreported, and – given their pervasive nature – may not always be recognized by those affected. They are nevertheless significant and bear documentation. […] Another concern connected to university autonomy relates to the absence of transparency in the hiring processes for academics at universities. Reportedly, several academics were a) suddenly excluded from the application process without explanation, or b) despite having successfully secured a position, were dismissed within weeks without being provided with a substantive justification. The interviewed academics have reported on a blacklist of research topics within the vetting process. Incidents allegedly occurred at several AUs in Singapore. All affected individuals focused on socio-political issues and engaged in civil society spaces in Singapore. In this context, the issuance of work visas appears to serve as a political instrument to exert influence over university staff. In May 2021, an Assistant Professor of Humanities at Yale-NUS College who had been at the institution for five years was unexpectedly denied a renewal of her work visa. She was not given a reason for the denial, which she believes may have been based on her research interests in moral, social, and political philosophy, as well as social change, her organizing of public workshops on social change and her teaching of courses on politically sensitive topics, alongside her participation in civil society initiatives, such as the Singapore Climate Rally and advocacy for transgender students. After her institution appealed the decision, she was granted only a one-year renewal instead of the usual five years, which she and a senior university official understood as a warning to leave Singapore.

Several NGOs raised broader restrictions on freedom of expression, including the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act or POFMA. A joint submission by CIVICUS and the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) noted, “Authorities blocked the East Asia Forum, an Australia-based academic website, in 2023 and 2025 for its articles on Singaporean politics.”

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, also weighed in on freedom of expression. UNESCO recommended introducing an access to information law, decriminalising defamation, and reviewing existing legislation to ensure it “does not restrict the exercise of freedom of expression in ways that are incompatible with international human rights law”.

The UPR Working Group, comprising representatives from member states, recommended that Singapore amend or repeal overly restrictive legislation, including POFMA.

The Working Group also recommended that Singapore establish an independent human rights institution with a broad mandate to promote and protect human rights, in accordance with the Paris Principles.

In its official response, the Singapore government brushed aside calls to amend or repeal restrictive laws, stating that freedom of speech must be exercised responsibly, including to protect the rights of others. “Rules applied to protect these rights are applied equally and consistently,” it claimed. On the need for an independent human rights institution, it found Singapore’s existing system and “multiple feedback channels and direct avenues” were “effective in protecting and advancing human rights in Singapore”, it said.

This was Singapore’s fourth UPR. The outcome was formally adopted on 28 September 2026 during the 63rd session of the Human Rights Council.

– This article can be republished freely with attribution. See our conditions here. For more on academic freedom in Singapore, visit this page.