Should we be more critical of Singapore’s judicial system?

Annabel Simpson | Indo-Pacific Fellow

Image sourced from Roshan Ravi via Pexels

World renowned for its cultural diversity, economic prosperity, and safety, it is no surprise that Singapore has become both a financial and tourist hub. But in recent months, Singapore has been in the news for a very different reason. From banning Massive Attack’s display of a Palestinian flag to a French teenager risking two years in prison for a prank in poor taste, Singapore’s strict laws have been in the global spotlight. And these well publicised cases are just the tip of the iceberg — the continued use of corporal and capital punishment has become increasingly normalised in Singapore, and their use cases keep expanding. Importantly, foreign politicians are also starting to look to Singapore’s system as inspiration for criminal justice.

A Friendly Face

With two-thirds of the global population now on social media and the average person spending over 18 hours a week on a variety of platforms, social media has become a great marketing tool not just for companies, but also for government institutions.

The Singaporean Police Force has noticed this and adapted the focus of its accounts toward video content that engages with the public. This has allowed the police force to cultivate a positive image, in stark contrast with countries where public trust in the police has continued to decrease, such as France and Australia. Following Singapore Police’s online success, some videos are also being recreated by foreign counterparts. Their viral success has highlighted the efficiency of such an approach, engaging the general public in a fun way while spreading awareness on important issues linked to public safety.

However, it is important to recognise that behind this friendly public face is a system rife with human rights abuses. Singapore suppresses political activism by silencing critics and harassing non-governmental organisations that work on human rights issues, making it harder for voices that diverge from the government's desired narrative to be heard. This suppression of criticism and control over public discourse has allowed the government to gradually normalise human rights abuses, and could contribute to why Singapore’s approach is perceived favourably despite the human rights abuses present in the system.

Corporal and Capital Punishment

The expanding use of corporal and capital punishment are two clear examples. In recent decades, the global trend has been to move away from these punishments because of their conflict with human rights. As of 2025, 113 countries have abolished capital punishment for all crimes entirely, and another 23 are considered abolitionist in practice. This number continues to rise, spurred by developments such as Lebanon in August 2026 becoming the first Middle Eastern country to abolish it. And yet, so too does the number of executions. Between 2023 and 2025, the number of death penalty executions carried out in the United States nearly doubled. In Singapore they have more than tripled.

Singapore also continues to expand corporal punishment, both in its education and criminal justice systems, with a particular impact on those already in prison. Between 2011 and 2020, 2,149 inmates were subject to caning for prison offences, making an average of 214.9 inmates per year. Conversely, of the 279 people found guilty of a crime that bears mandatory or discretionary caning as a punishment in 2024, it was only carried out on 76 of them. This disproportionate application to the existing inmate population is particularly troubling as, while Singaporean authorities do not release statistics on the ethnicity of its incarcerated population, it has admitted that minorities are overrepresented. Many commentators have also highlighted the lack of humanity in the Singaporean penal system in general, highlighting the corporal punishment procedure and the general treatment of prisoners.

This approach has yet to be condemned by foreign governments, and has even come to be seen as an inspiration by foreign politicians. Such is the case in Taiwan, where Kuomintang (KMT) legislator Hung Mong-kai saw Singapore's judicial caning as a solution to tackle online scams. After first raising the idea in October 2025, Hung spearheaded a campaign to hold a referendum on whether Taiwan should reintroduce caning, which had been banned entirely in 2009 when the country implemented the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights — an international human rights convention that Taiwan has been unable to officially sign because of its contested status. Singapore, on the other hand, has not implemented the treaty. Not everyone in Taiwan agrees with Hung however, with domestic criticism leading the KMT to deprioritise the referendum proposal following concerns over its potential impacts on Taiwan's international standing. Despite this, the proposal nonetheless passed the KMT controlled legislature on August 14^th, paving the way for Taiwan to potentially follow in Singapore's footsteps.

There are a myriad of reasons that could explain why we do not criticise Singapore's continued use of corporal and capital punishment: the role of the media, geopolitical alliances, or perhaps that it is currently applied to acts that are illegal in the vast majority of countries like drug trafficking, rather than perceived moral issues such as sexual orientation or infidelity like in other countries. That said, and while there is much we can learn from Singapore, we also have a responsibility to ourselves and our allies to tackle the normalisation of human rights abuses, something Australia is failing to do. What this case shows is that normalisation contributes to expansion of these policies, both domestically and internationally, something which the Australian government would do well to remember.

Annabel Simpson has a master’s in Taiwan Studies from SOAS, University of London, and a bachelor’s in Applied Foreign Languages from Aix Marseille University. After completing her master’s, Annabel studied mandarin at National Sun Yat-sen University in Kaohsiung. Some of her past research has been published in Taiwan Insight and Global Taiwan Brief.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Young Australians in International Affairs. No AI tools or plagiarism have been used in the preparation of this article.