09/08/2026
๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ ๐พ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐โ๐จ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐๐ก ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ ๐๐๐จ๐จ๐๐๐ 2026 ๐ธ๐ฌ
Think Centreโs 2026 National Day message brings together our longstanding calls and observations on recent developments as Singapore marks its 61st year of independence.
It asks what citizenship and development should mean after more than six decades, and whether Singapore can continue strengthening its economic achievements while also giving greater space to political participation, labour rights, social protection, compassion and human dignity.
๐๐ฃ ๐๐ง๐๐๐:
โก๏ธ ๐พ๐๐ซ๐๐ก ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฅ๐ค๐ก๐๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ
We revisit the GRC system, vacant parliamentary seats and our longstanding calls for electoral reform. We also ask whether Singapore leaves enough room for alternative political views to remain genuinely alternative, rather than having to be absorbed into the prevailing government framework.
โก๏ธ ๐ผ ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐๐ก๐๐จ๐๐ ๐จ๐ค๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ
As AI, ageing, climate change, cost-of-living pressures and insecure work reshape society, we ask what people should reasonably expect from a prosperous Singapore. Social protection should be grounded in rights and dignity, not only in managing administrative burdens.
โก๏ธ ๐๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ง ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ค๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ง๐ฃ๐๐จ๐จ
We return to questions raised in our May Day 2025 message: are workers receiving a fair share of Singaporeโs prosperity, do they possess meaningful bargaining power, and are labour protections keeping pace with gig work, occupational risks and international labour standards?
โก๏ธ ๐๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ, ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ค๐ข๐ฅ๐๐จ๐จ๐๐ค๐ฃ
Following the ex*****on of 79-year-old stateless man Teo Yiu Kin Tee two days before National Day, we reiterate our opposition to capital punishment and ask whether Singapore can protect society without abandoning compassion, proportionality and human dignity.
Ultimately, we return to a simple question: What is development for?
Singapore was built not only by governments and institutions, but by Singaporeans, workers, migrant workers, families, communities and civil society. Nation-building remains a continuous effort to make Singapore a place where people can live with dignity and meaning, not merely work for survival.
Editorial note: This post has been lightly edited for clarity, formatting and readability, with a summary added. The substance of the National Day message remains unchanged.
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ ๐พ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐๐ก ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ ๐๐๐จ๐จ๐๐๐ 2026
As Singapore marks its 61st year of independence, there is much that Singaporeans can rightly take pride in. Over these decades, we have built a prosperous economy, strong public institutions and a society that has achieved significant improvements in housing, education, healthcare and living standards.
Giving credit where credit is due, however, does not mean success in one area should allow failures or weaknesses in another area to be swept under the rug. A government should not be afraid to acknowledge its shortcomings. We should prefer one that tries harder to improve its weaknesses while expanding its strengths, rather than one that is unwilling to admit where things are not working.
This is particularly important as Singapore enters another period of economic, technological and social change. Artificial intelligence is transforming workplaces and society. Climate change is creating new pressures. The cost of living continues to weigh on households and workers. Questions about political representation, labour rights, social protection and human dignity remain unresolved.
More than sixty years after independence, we should therefore ask again: what is the meaning of being a Singapore citizen? Is it mainly about work, money, assets and economic productivity? Or should citizenship also mean having a meaningful voice, security, dignity, rights and the space to live a life beyond simply working for survival?
Nation-building did not end when Singapore achieved economic success. It remains a continuous effort to make this country a better place to live.
๐พ๐๐ซ๐๐ก ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฅ๐ค๐ก๐๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ: ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐จ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ ๐ข๐ช๐จ๐ฉ ๐ข๐๐๐ฃ ๐จ๐ค๐ข๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ฃ๐
Barely more than a year after GE2025, another vacancy appeared in a Group Representation Constituency following the resignation of an elected Member of Parliament.
Associate Professor Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim resigned on 20 July 2026 as a political office holder, Member of Parliament and member of the Peopleโs Action Party. The remaining MPs in Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC were to continue serving residents in Kembangan.[4] PAP chairman Desmond Lee subsequently said no by-election would be called and that additional arrangements would be made to strengthen the team.[5]
We could question whether this arrangement is permitted under existing law and whether it is equitable to the remaining MPs who must absorb the deficit. However, whether the extra work is manageable is entirely separate from whether it is fair. Workload distribution is not the primary issue. The integrity of the electoral mandate is.
This is not a new concern for Think Centre. In our GE2025 statement, ๐๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ข ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ช๐ณ ๐๐2025, ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ข ๐๐ฆ๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ, we noted the situation in which six parliamentary seats had become vacant through resignations since 2021, equivalent to the largest constitutionally allowable six-member GRC, with no by-elections called to replace those seats. We said then that MPs are elected primarily to represent votersโ interests and voices in Parliament and that such an outcome was not acceptable for a functioning democracy.[6]
Our position has not changed.
This issue also exposes a familiar, flawed expectation in Singaporeโs governance: that people should always go the extra mile to cover systemic gaps. We operate in a perpetual fire-fighting mode, where going above and beyond oneโs duties is no longer just appreciated, but increasingly expected.
Can we really say that we are a healthy democracy, one that at least practises electoral democracy, if elected representation can be reduced in this way without replacement?
A parliamentary mandate is not a corporate workload to be redistributed. It is a civic contract between the state and the voter.
There is another issue. A political party that holds a GRC may understandably use the remaining term to expose potential future candidates to residents through political, grassroots and community activity. That is the partyโs prerogative. However, a GRC is not the exclusive property of the political party that won it. Winning a constituency merely gives a party a mandate to represent and serve the people who live there. It should not create a sense of ownership over the constituency itself, nor an assumption of exclusive political control over the area until the next election.
Potential future candidates may be introduced to residents and encouraged to undertake political or community work. They cannot substitute for an elected MP. The mandate belongs to voters and is conferred through an election.
The vacancy therefore brings us back to our longstanding call for electoral reform.
Think Centre has repeatedly called for the Elections Department to be removed from the Prime Ministerโs Office and for a genuinely independent elections body. We have questioned the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee process and the absence of public consultation. We have called for the abolition of the GRC system and a return to single-member constituencies, longer campaign periods and greater opportunities for direct political engagement such as townhall-style meetings.[6]
These are not just technical matters. They concern whether citizens have confidence that political participation is meaningful and whether political institutions provide sufficient space for competing views.
That question was again illustrated in Parliament on 5 August 2026 during debate on a Workersโ Party motion concerning a more equal and inclusive future economy, in the context of the broader Economic Strategy Review, which is the Governmentโs current strategic framework for Singaporeโs next phase of economic growth and jobs.[7]
Instead of allowing the WPโs alternative proposals to stand independently for debate, the motion was amended and reshaped until it was made compatible with the ruling partyโs existing policy direction.
Do we have enough confidence as Singaporeans to examine an alternative proposal or view without rushing to erase its alternative elements?
Must an alternative idea eventually be absorbed into an existing government framework before it becomes acceptable? If an alternative proposal must be reshaped until it is made compatible with the ruling partyโs existing policy direction, how much space remains for genuine disagreement?
A healthy Parliament should be capable of accommodating disagreement, including disagreement over the means of achieving goals that most Singaporeans may broadly share.
Genuine representation requires space to argue not just about the destination, but also about how we get there. Such disagreement can be beneficial. It forces policymakers to test their assumptions, exposes hidden costs and risks and ensures that alternatives are considered before a future crisis.
This brings us to Singaporeโs developmental model. Powerful agencies have played a major role in managing land use, population, housing, urban development, labour and many other aspects of social life. This model contributed greatly to Singaporeโs development.
However, has the same model become too deeply embedded, too controlling and too rigid? Do measures which seem pragmatic and manageable separately accumulate over time into an excessive grip over political, social and civic life?
These questions do not deny what the developmental phase achieved. The issue is whether a model built for rapid development should remain the unquestioned model for political and social life after more than sixty years of independence. Is it not prudent to review and overhaul it where necessary?
๐ผ ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐๐ก๐๐จ๐๐ ๐จ๐ค๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ
In 2017, Think Centre said that Singaporeโs social contract needed revitalisation.[1] That need is even more urgent today.
The conditions around us are changing quickly. Artificial intelligence is transforming workplaces and society. Automation may change or remove jobs. Digital technologies raise new questions about privacy, workplace monitoring and the use of personal data.
Rapid digitisation of our work and social environments can also affect the quality of human relationships, our cognitive habits and mental well-being. Compounding these pressures are climate change, an ageing Singapore and the continuing rise in the cost of living. A growing number of workers are also entering insecure and platform-based forms of employment.
The Governmentโs own Economic Strategy Review identifies AI, the transition to a greener economy, geopolitical fragmentation and an ageing population with slower workforce growth as major forces reshaping Singaporeโs economic future.[7] These are not simply separate policy problems. They change the relationship between the state, employers, workers and citizens.
The social contract cannot remain based only on the expectation that people study, work, accumulate enough to survive and eventually retire.
We should ask what all contributing members of society are entitled to expect for maintaining a prosperous society after more than sixty years of development.
Cost of living remains one of the most immediate pressures. Singaporeans have become familiar with vouchers, rebates and cash support intended to offset rising costs. Such measures provide real relief and should be acknowledged. But are repeated vouchers becoming a substitute for addressing the structural questions behind affordability, wages and social protection?
This question also extends beyond citizens. Migrant workers live and work in the same economy. They face increases in food, transport and other daily expenses as well. Yet they are often left outside what little social protection is afforded to residents.
When costs rise for everyone, how do we decide who deserves protection?
Migrant workers are not dependants asking for charity.
Structurally, they have become shock absorbers of Singaporeโs economy. When global supply chains fracture or inflation spikes, migrant workers at the lower end of the labour market also bear the impact, but generally without access to the same cost-of-living buffers available to citizens.
Social policy should not be concerned only with how to reduce pressure on public systems or how to unburden institutions.
A rights-based approach requires that all who bear the physical and economic pressures of maintaining our pace of development are afforded the protection necessary to live and work with dignity, whether local or migrant workers.
Efficiency matters. Public resources are not unlimited. But institutions exist to serve people, not the other way around.
This is why the question of citizenship remains important. What does it mean to be a Singapore citizen today? Is citizenship increasingly tied to having money, holding assets and remaining economically productive? Is national identity being reduced too much to material success?
What is development for?
If development does not eventually give people more security, more time, more dignity and greater freedom to live meaningful lives, then economic growth becomes an end in itself.
There must be more to life in Singapore than working for money and survival. Many of us were told in our younger years that our people are the only asset our nation has. How many of our fellow Singaporeans can honestly say they feel valued as a person, in their workplace, in their community and in society?
๐๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ง ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ค๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ง๐ฃ๐๐จ๐จ
In our May Day 2025 message, Think Centre asked a simple question: Where do Singapore workers stand?[8]
The answer requires us to look at the basic mechanism of labour rights: bargaining power.
How many of our fellow workers know what collective bargaining is?
Singapore places great emphasis on tripartism, but consensus reached at the national level is not the same as bargaining power held by workers in the workplace. Has tripartism come to be treated in practice as a replacement for collective bargaining rather than a framework that should support it?
Cooperation and dialogue with government and employers, and a labour movement retaining the capacity to represent workers independently when their interests diverge, are not incompatible. Both coexist in other developed societies.
When workers lack structural bargaining power, the economic outcomes deserve attention. The data we highlighted in 2025 showed a long-term decline in labourโs share of Singaporeโs economic output, falling from 49.4 per cent in 2014 to 42.9 per cent in 2024, while national statistics cited showed compensation of employees falling from 42.0 per cent of GDP in 2015 to 36.6 per cent in 2022.[8]
Singapore recorded a record-low workplace fatal injury rate in 2025,[9] which deserves recognition. However, a safe workplace requires more than preventing immediate fatalities. It requires addressing chronic occupational harms.
Heat exposure, repetitive strain, chemical exposure and fatigue are hidden costs borne by workers over years. Labour inspection should therefore go hand in hand with preventive occupational safety inspections before workers become chronically ill, not only after a fatal or serious breach.
Ultimately, these economic and physical vulnerabilities point to gaps in our labour protections. As of 2026, Singapore has still not ratified ILO Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise or Convention No. 111 on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, nor the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
These are not abstract obligations. They are important protections to ensure that workers have a dignified place in Singaporeโs success story.
A year after SG60, important questions still need to be asked. As Singaporeโs economy grows, are workers receiving their fair share? How far have we come and how much further do we need to go to ensure that workers have a dignified place in Singaporeโs success story?
At the same time, we are witnessing the growth of precarious employment. Government data show that around 58,000 platform workers received Workfare Income Supplement in at least one month of Work Year 2025. Only 29 per cent of those recipients received it for all 12 months, while 30 per cent received it for fewer than six months.[10]
This does not by itself tell us why people enter platform work, but it shows the scale and variability of lower-income platform work in Singapore.
Is gig work becoming a last resort for workers unable to find secure employment? Whatever the answer, it should not become a trade-off between flexibility and fundamental employment protections.
๐๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฉ๐จ, ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ค๐ข๐ฅ๐๐จ๐จ๐๐ค๐ฃ
Two days before National Day, Singapore executed 79-year-old Teo Yiu Kin Tee, a stateless man convicted of trafficking diamorphine.
The High Court judgment identifies Teo as stateless and records that the case involved not less than 24.81g of diamorphine. It states that Teo was 75 at the time of the 2023 judgment and had been unemployed at the time of arrest.[14] The CNB issued a statement that he was hanged on 7 August 2026 at the age of 79.[15]
The official position, as reported, is that Teo was accorded full due process, was represented by legal counsel during trial and appeal and that his clemency petitions were unsuccessful.[15]
Those facts are relevant.
However, due process does not address some very important ethical and human-rights questions.
Where a death sentence is mandatory once the statutory conditions are met, the issue is not simply the judgeโs decision. It is whether the law itself should leave no room to consider age, vulnerability, personal circumstances or other factors before a human life is taken.
That is ultimately a question for our Parliament and for our society.
His statelessness also raises questions. Public reporting tells us very little about how he became stateless or about the circumstances of his life. We should not speculate where facts are unavailable. However, the fact that a man could live into old age under the authority of the Singapore state, be tried and ultimately executed while belonging to no country deserves reflection.
Singapore is not listed as a party to either the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons or the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.[16][17]
Think Centre has consistently opposed capital punishment. Our 2026 UPR advocacy brief calls for an immediate moratorium, review of the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences and stronger safeguards, transparency and clemency procedures in capital cases.[3]
Death is irreversible. The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment. We reiterate our call for an immediate and indefinite moratorium on ex*****ons and for a thorough review of the death penalty, including mandatory sentencing.
This concern is shared internationally. In May 2025, UN Special Procedures raised serious concerns that provisions of Singaporeโs Misuse of Drugs Act were inconsistent with international human-rights standards relating to the presumption of innocence, fair trial, the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.[18] UN experts have also repeatedly stated that mandatory death sentences are incompatible with the individualised sentencing required under international human-rights law.[19]
Opposing capital punishment does not mean denying the harm caused by drugs. The harm is real, to users, families and communities. Sustainable Development Goal 16 rightly calls on all nations to combat trafficking and organised crime in building peaceful and inclusive societies.
However, we must ask whether our current mechanism actually achieves this, or merely gives an appearance of security.
Organised crime networks operate as complex supply chains. Vulnerable, low-level couriers can be treated by these organisations as expendable. Executing individuals at the lowest levels does not by itself dismantle the criminal networks behind the drug trade.
Is settling for administrative efficiency, without asking how effective it is against the actual architects of the drug trade, what we call justice?
SDG 16 calls for both peace and justice. The true measure of institutional maturity is not the severity of a stateโs punishments, but its commitment to proportionate justice, human rights, dignity and the rule of law.
We can and must protect our society from organised crime without resorting to an irreversible punishment that strips the offender of human dignity.
We also ask Singaporeans to reject the harsh and dehumanising comments that so often follow ex*****ons on social media. An inclusive society should be capable of condemning an offence without stripping the offender of human dignity.
Singaporeans frequently ask whether our governance culture has lost its compassion. We suggest a more precise question: does our current application of the law still demonstrate a fundamental commitment to proportionate justice, human rights and dignity?
Singaporeโs governance model places heavy emphasis on deterrence, discipline and efficiency. These can contribute to administrative order. But a system focused heavily on deterrence risks losing sight of mercy, rehabilitation, vulnerability and human dignity.
A rights-compliant society does not ignore the harm of offences. It insists that even the most severe penalties recognise the inherent dignity of the human person.
This returns us to a broader point about how Singapore discusses human rights.
Good outcomes matter. Public safety matters. Economic security matters. Effective public services matter. However, success in one field does not answer a deficiency in another.
If commuters complain that a feeder bus is consistently late and overcrowded, an operator cannot answer the complaint simply by pointing to excellent MRT reliability. The MRT achievement may be true, but it does not address the problem being raised.
Likewise, good housing outcomes do not answer concerns about freedom of expression. Economic success does not answer questions about labour rights. Public safety does not by itself settle the debate about capital punishment. Efficient administration does not answer concerns about political representation.
Human-rights concerns should be answered on their own merits. Past credit and successes do not equal blanket immunity from independent checks and criticism.
๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ฅ๐ค๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐๐ช๐๐ก๐ฉ ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐ก ๐ค๐ ๐ช๐จ
National Day should also be a time to recognise the people who built Singapore and who continue to keep it running.
Singapore was not built only by governments, policies or institutions. It was built, and continues to be built, by people.
Generations of Singapore workers built the economy and public services we depend on today. Healthcare workers, teachers, cleaners, transport workers, caregivers, service workers, professionals, small business owners, public officers and countless others contribute every day.
So do migrant workers.
Construction workers built much of the physical Singapore around us. Migrant domestic workers care for children, older persons and households. Migrant workers clean our spaces, maintain infrastructure, work in services and support sectors essential to everyday life.
They should not be left out of Singaporeโs success story, its recognition or its consideration during periods of economic hardship. Civil society, volunteers, families and communities also contribute to nation-building, often without recognition.
Nation-building is not a completed project handed down to us. It is a continuous effort. Every generation inherits what worked, what did not work and what remains unfinished. Every generation has a responsibility to improve what it inherits.
A better Singapore should give people the security and freedom to live with dignity and meaning. It should allow us time for family, community, participation, care, rest and purpose.
It should not remain a country where the measure of a good life is simply how much we earn, how much we own or how long we can continue working.
Singapore should continue aiming for economic success and stability, but its prosperity should serve its people.
After sixty-one years, the task of building Singapore continues.
It belongs to all of us.
Majulah Singapura.
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
๐๐๐๐๐ง๐๐ฃ๐๐๐จ
[1] Think Centre, โSingaporeans Need A Revitalized Social Contractโ, 10 August 2017.
https://www.thinkcentre.org/article.php?id=3275
[2] Think Centre, โThink Centreโs 2020 National Day Messageโ, 10 August 2020.
https://www.thinkcentre.org/article.php?id=3281
[3] Think Centre, Singapore UPR 2026 materials:
โข Think Centreโs Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Singapore for the 52nd Session, submitted 10 October 2025.
โข Singapore UPR 2026: Selected Human Rights Concerns for Member State Consideration, prepared for the 12 May 2026 review.
[4] Prime Ministerโs Office Singapore, โStatement by PM Lawrence Wong on the Resignation of Associate Professor Muhammad Faishal Ibrahimโ, 20 July 2026.
https://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/statement-by-pm-lawrence-wong-on-the-resignation-of-associate-professor-muhammad-faishal-ibrahim/
[5] Channel NewsAsia, โNo by-election after Faishal exit, PAP to strengthen Marine Parade-Braddell Heights team: Desmond Leeโ, 20 July 2026.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/faishal-ibrahim-resigns-no-election-marine-parade-braddell-heights-6265851
See also: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/faishal-ibrahim-duties-marine-parade-braddell-heights-covered-mps-6264971
[6] Think Centre, โFor a Free and Fair GE2025, for a Better Singaporeโ, Facebook post, 2025.
[7] Government of Singapore, Economic Strategy Review.
Overview:
https://www.gov.sg/features/esr/
Final recommendations:
https://www.gov.sg/features/esr/final-report/
[8] Think Centre, โTHIS MAY DAY 2025: WHERE DO SINGAPORE WORKERS STAND?โ, Facebook post and infographic series, 1 May 2025.
[9] Ministry of Manpower, โRecord-low workplace fatality and major injury rates in 2025 place Singaporeโs workplaces among the safest globallyโ, 25 March 2026.
https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/2026/0325-wsh-report-2025
[10] Ministry of Manpower, โWritten Answer to PQ on Number of PWs Receiving WISโ, 6 May 2026.
https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/parliament-questions-and-replies/2026/0506-written-answer-to-pq-on-number-of-pws-receiving-wis
[11] ILO NORMLEX, Ratifications for Singapore.
https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COUNTRY_ID:103163
[12] ILO NORMLEX, Conventions and protocols not ratified by Singapore.
https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11210:0::NO::P11210_COUNTRY_ID:103163
[13] United Nations Treaty Collection, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, status of parties.
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&mtdsg_no=IV-3&src=IND
[14] Singapore High Court, Public Prosecutor v Yogesswaran C Manogaran and another [2023] SGHC 170.
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_170
[15] Central Narcotics Bureau, โExecution of a convicted drug trafficker โ 7 August 2026โ.
https://www.cnb.gov.sg/mediaroom/news/ex*****on-of-a-convicted-drug-trafficker---7-august-2026/
[16] United Nations Treaty Collection, Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954), status of parties.
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=5&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=V-3&src=TREATY
[17] United Nations Treaty Collection, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961), status of parties.
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=5&mtdsg_no=V-4&src=TREATY
[18] UN Special Procedures, Joint Other Letter SGP 4/2025, 1 May 2025, concerning Singaporeโs Misuse of Drugs Act and capital punishment.
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TmSearch/SearchCode?code=SGP+2%2F2025%3B+MYS+2%2F2025%3B+SGP+4%2F2025%3B+SGP+1%2F2025
[19] UN Special Procedures communication concerning Singaporeโs death penalty framework and mandatory sentencing.
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=29526
