Calls for evidence that Singapore meets Horizon democracy criteria

A leading MEP and human rights organisations want the European Commission to explain how it gave Singapore a clean enough bill of health on democracy and human rights to join the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.

Singapore is moving closer to Horizon Europe association, having opened exploratory talks in April. Earlier this month, competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager was in the city-state for further talks, and recommended the European Council open full negotiations.

But to join Horizon Europe, countries outside the European region must have “respect of human rights, backed by democratic institutions”, according to the framework programme’s rules. The “like-minded” democracies of New Zealand, Canada and South Korea have already agreed to join, but it’s unclear if authoritarian Singapore also meets these criteria.

The governing People’s Action Party (PAP) has ruled the country since independence in 1965. There are multiparty elections, and the PAP maintains some genuine popularity for a record of enormous economic growth, good public services and state housing.

However, the party has entrenched its power using defamation or criminal charges against independent journalists, economic power over the media, control over the courts, and laws allowing the government to restrict content online.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) itself raised concerns last year over the country’s execution of drug traffickers, weak press freedoms, government control over online content, and said that the rights of migrant workers “continued to be an area of concern”.

Despite this, Signe Ratso, the Commission’s chief negotiator in association talks, has said that an internal report into Singapore, conducted with the EEAS, “didn’t see any conflict” with Horizon Europe’s democracy and human rights requirements.

Yet the Commission is refusing to release this assessment, with Ratso arguing that it’s too sensitive, given ongoing negotiations. Science|Business has submitted a freedom of information request for the report.

Singapore “has a stance on upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Ratso told Science|Business in May. The country had supported sanctions against Russia. “While progress has been made, for sure there is still room for improvement,” she said.

Secret report

But this isn’t good enough for Christian Ehler MEP, a rapporteur for Horizon Europe. He wants the Commission to provide evidence for how it has given the green light to Singapore. “We expect the Commission to present clear and convincing evidence that the countries associated fulfil all criteria set by the Horizon Regulation,” he told Science|Business.

“For Singapore, questions about its democratic nature can legitimately be raised so the burden of proof is on the Commission to show that Singapore complies with our democratic norms. Simply saying that the Commission assessed them as being compliant is not good enough.”

Ehler has in the past threatened to block the association of other countries, like New Zealand and Canada, for not giving MEPs enough of a say in the negotiations. He repeated this warning over Singapore. “If the Commission does not deliver, it risks a rejection from the Parliament,” he said.

Human rights groups

Human rights groups are also highly critical of the Commission’s stance.

It is “indefensible” for the EU to “ignore the serious human rights violations that have repeatedly been committed by the Singaporean government,” said Andrea Giorgetta, Asia desk director for the International Federation for Human Rights.

“Any EU assessment claiming that Singapore is democratic and respects human rights should be made publicly available and be subjected to proper scrutiny by the competent institutions and civil society organisations,” he said.

He pointed to the EU’s own repeated criticisms of Singapore for its use of the death penalty. Singapore has a “deeply flawed democracy dominated by one political party and characterized by a severely limited civic and political space,” Giorgetta said.

Last year, Singapore blocked the Asia Sentinel, a US-based news site, after it refused to make “corrections” on an article demanded by the government under controversial media powers. Reporters Without Borders ranks Singapore 126th in the world for press freedom.

Singapore is rated “partly free” by the US think tank Freedom House, which says the country “allows for some political pluralism” but nonetheless “constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.”

Amnesty International also said it was “disappointing” that the Commission had “reached a conclusion that Singapore respects human rights.”

"Singapore authorities continue to target human rights defenders and government critics with repressive laws,” a spokeswoman said. Last year, Amnesty raised the alarm about a crackdown on critical activists, with one human rights lawyer having his licence suspended after criticising the “overzealous” pursual of the death penalty.

Academic freedom

Aside from general concerns about democracy and human rights, there are doubts Singaporean researchers have full academic freedom.

In a 2021 survey, one third of Singaporean academics said they, or colleagues they knew, had been told to modify or withdraw their research findings. Although administrative justifications are given, the vast majority believe they were leaned on for stepping on political red lines.

“If your research findings paint the state in a not too positive light, you will be dissuaded by the government funding agency to publish your data,” one respondent said.

Around a third also said they did not feel free to talk about “sensitive or controversial” topics in class.

Singapore ranks in the bottom fourth decile of the Academic Freedom Index, along with countries like Pakistan, Ukraine and Iraq. It’s considerably lower than any EU member state, with the exception of Hungary, which is in the bottom third decile.

“Including Singapore in the Horizon Europe project may end up being a way for Singapore to claim that it has no or little human rights or democracy concerns,” said Ian Chong, a researcher at the National University of Singapore, who has co-authored a book chapter detailing the country’s restrictions on academic freedom.

“I am not sure how much the European Commission and EU would like involvement in such an exercise,” he said.

Chong’s work also alleges a system of secret political vetting, whereby academics can be blacklisted for hiring and promotion after publishing sensitive work.

It’s now down to member states whether to take talks with Singapore to the next level of formal negotiations.

A spokesperson for the mission of Singapore to the EU said that the bloc was an important research partner.

“Singapore is of the view that closer R&I collaboration would be beneficial to both Singapore and the EU,” they said. “The Commission, which had approached Singapore with the offer of association, clearly believes this too.”

Editor's note: This story has been updated to make clear that Christian Ehler MEP has not called for the public release of the European Commission's assessment of Singapore's democracy and human rights record. Instead, he wants the Commission to provide evidence of Singapore's compliance with Horizon Europe rules.