The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a process at the United Nations (UN) where each country has its human rights record peer reviewed every four to five years.
This year, Singapore was up for review. It is the fourth time Singapore is participating in the UPR process – with the first three times being in 2011, 2016, and 2021.
What Happens During the UPR Process?
In the lead up to the review, civil society organisations (CSOs) such as DPA submit reports outlining our independent take on the state of human rights in Singapore. This fourth cycle for Singapore witnessed a total of 37 submissions from civil society organisations.
As part of the process, the Singapore government also submits a report (known as the state report) outlining their take on the human rights situation in Singapore. You can read the government’s state report to the fourth UPR here.]
The UPR Working Group, part of the UN Human Rights Council, then uses the reports from CSOs, the state report from the Singapore government, along with other reports from UN experts, to review and assess the human rights situation of Singapore.
The review (also known as the “interactive dialogue”) takes place at the UN headquarters in Geneva. It is a 3.5-hour meeting where representatives from other countries can make statements and recommendations based on such reports.
This year, delegates from a total of 142 countries made statements and recommendations to Singapore during the interactive dialogue which took place on 12 May 2026.
We thank in particular the delegates from the 34 countries that made disability-related recommendations during their statements. Specifically, we thank the delegates from Mexico and Peru for amplifying recommendations we made in our own submission – such as the need to expand the definition of disability to be more inclusive and to prohibit disability-based discrimination in all its forms.
After the interactive dialogue, the UPR Working Group compiles a list of recommendations from the interactive dialogue. The government of the country under review – in this case, the Singapore government – then has to respond to each recommendation with “Support” (meaning the government agrees to work on that recommendation) or “Note” (meaning that the government does not agree to that recommendation). The Singapore government’s response to each recommendation is formally adopted at the Plenary Session – which will take place likely in September of this year at the UN Geneva headquarters.
Summary of DPA’s Submission to the Fourth UPR
As we did for previous cycles, DPA submitted a report outlining our take on the human rights situation in Singapore – in particular focusing on our assessment of the state of rights protections of persons with disabilities in Singapore.
[You can read our full submission to the Fourth UPR here.]
When preparing our report, meeting a tight word limit was one of the more prominent factors we had to take into consideration. The UPR Working Group sets for a word limit for single CSO submissions (i.e. CSOs submitting a report on their own) of 2815 words. Thus, figuring out which topics to fit within the constraints of the word limit was a challenge given the many issues of rights protections that persons with disabilities face in Singapore.
We thus held a webinar in August 2025 – where we explained about the UPR process and its importance, and invited persons with disabilities to submit their thoughts as to which issues they would like to see in the report.
We thus take this opportunity to thank again those who wrote in to us expressing their thoughts and contributions.
Our submission focused on the following five areas:
- The Definition of Disability
- Employment
- Education
- Accessibility
- Liberty/Security of the Person and Legal Capacity
While Singapore has made improvements in some of the above areas, significant gaps remain especially in light of the important standards of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) – which the Singapore government ratified in 2013. [You can read our submission for an elaboration of such points.]
An Analysis of the Singapore Government’s State Report to the Fourth UPR (a disability perspective)
[You can read our full analysis and commentary of the government’s state report from a disability perspective here.] Below is a summary and overview of our analysis and commentary.
The government’s state report is divided into several sections – each section covering a different topic area and outlining the government’s initiatives on that topic since the last UPR in 2021. Section IV.D of the government’s state report pertains to disability. It covers six areas:
- Lifted Singapore’s reservation on Article 25(e) of the CRPD
- Legislative protection from discrimination
- Employment
- Inclusive education
- Inclusive public spaces and transport
- Retirement adequacy
Singapore has made some notable improvements in each of the six areas. However, as we note in our response to the government’s state report, there are definitely gaps that remain.
For example, while we celebrate the government’s lifting of their reservation of Article 25(e) of the UNCRPD pertaining to healthcare insurance discrimination, it is worth noting that Singapore does not have anti-discrimination legislation pertaining to private insurance coverage. The enhanced guidelines by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) remains as guidelines (not legislation). Advocates also note that the guidelines still leave too much discretion to private insurers to unilaterally define the perimeters of discrimination.
On the point of legislative protections and employment, Singapore’s first workplace anti-discrimination law – the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) – is a step in the right direction. However, as we note in our submission, the WFA only prohibits direct discrimination. It does not address nor prohibit common forms of discrimination such as indirect discrimination and the denial of reasonable accommodations.
On the point of education, while 80% of students with disabilities or special education needs (SEN) are in mainstream schools, findings from CSOs show significant need for improvement in terms of the quality of the integration. As we note in our submission, questions also remain about how Singapore schools are teaching concepts of disability.
Singapore has made significant improvements to the accessibility of public spaces and transport over the years – a point that should not be taken for granted. However, gaps remain in ensuring persons with disabilities can navigate Singapore as accessibly and affordably as possible – especially in digital spaces run by the private sector that members of the public frequently use.
Recent enhancements to retirement savings schemes are much welcomed, and improvements to other financial assistance in recent years are positive steps. However, the question of whether such important assistance is reaching all the people it needs to is still often left unanswered. This is a key reason why we note in our submission for the need for the definition of disability used by the Singapore government to be expanded and optimised for inclusivity.
[You can read our full analysis of the government’s state report for an elaboration on such points.]
As we note in our submission, we highlight such gaps and points of recommendation not to criticise nor to disparage the efforts of the Singapore government and civil service. We acknowledge the important efforts by the government and civil service, and are appreciative we have been able to share and engage with members of the government on a number of such points of recommendation. We note such points, in accordance with the spirit of the UPR, to offer our independent assessment of the state of rights protections in Singapore to advocate for a Singapore that is aligned with best standards such as that found in the UNCRPD.
Overall Takeaways and Reflections
Overall, the UPR is thus an opportunity for advocates and activists within a country to raise awareness about concerns on the state of rights protections.
It is an important opportunity to reflect on how rights of all – but especially those historically marginalised – are or are not protected in a given country.
Thus, it is important to assess how a country and its government approaches the topic of human rights.
In their state report, the government emphasised that it takes a “pragmatic” approach to human rights. This is not a new sentiment from the government. The government has cited this approach of pragmatism in the previous UPRs, and emphasised this approach again not only in their state report but also during the interactive dialogue of the fourth UPR.
Yet, as we note in our analysis of the government’s state report, there are a number of instances pertaining to rights protections in Singapore where it is difficult to understand how the approach used may be practical for most of the parties and especially the more vulnerable members involved.
For an example, we can return to the WFA. As highlighted above, the WFA does not prohibit the denial of reasonable accommodations nor does it address reasonable accommodation provision.
In our conversations over the years, many of the issues faced by persons with disabilities in Singapore pertaining to employment can be traced to the denial of reasonable accommodation and/or the lack of reasonable accommodation policy in Singapore workplaces. This is not surprising given how reasonable accommodations, by definition, are essential for persons with disabilities to participate in the workplace.
Yet, the government has chosen an encouragement approach – where they are providing important guides and grants to encourage employers to provide reasonable accommodations, but unlike other OECD jurisdictions, they have stopped short at requirement. This comes despite the fact that reasonable accommodations, by definition, pose no undue burden on employers – as there would need to be financial and technical assistance available to the employer for an accommodation to be considered reasonable.
However, an encouragement approach has notable practical limitations.
For instance, the more errant employers who are resistant to change are likely not to be influenced by a mere encouragement approach. Yet, the workplaces where persons with disabilities are experiencing the most difficulty in attaining reasonable accommodations are the same workplaces overseen by the more errant employers who are resistant to change.
Putting aside concerns on rights protections, if one of the objectives is to target where the problem may be the most prevalent, it is difficult to conceive how a mere encouragement approach is an effective and for that matter a practical one.
Ultimately, pragmatism is a means to an end.
Pragmatism can be a tool to assist in prioritising competing needs and concerns. However, when not clearly defined, it leads to important questions that often remain unanswered such as
- Practical for what purpose?
- Practical for whom?
- Who gets to define what is considered “practical”?
- What costs should a society accept in the name of set pragmatism, and who bear such costs?
It is understandable if the government wants to take a practical approach to the topic of human rights. However, if so, such questions need to be clearly answered in any discussion to ensure that it is not those who are already marginalised who are disproportionately bearing the costs of set pragmatism, and that “pragmatism” is not used to justify indefinitely delaying rights protections.
Ultimately, the UPR process should give us pause to reflect upon what it is we as a society are aiming towards. This is why instruments and conventions such as the UNCRPD are important.
The UNCRPD was a truly disabled-led effort and outcome – drafted, revised, and established by advocates with disabilities from all around the world – including from Singapore and across the Southeast Asia region.
The UNCRPD, along with important documents such as the UNCRPD General Comments, thus constitutes the most internationally-recognised framework and set of standards on how best to respect, protect, and fulfil disability rights. The UNCRPD thus presents us with an important tool and metric to use in evaluating the state of rights protections.
It is the metric to which we formulated our independent assessment in our submission to the fourth UPR, and in our commentary on the government’s state report.
Yet, it should not be a metric only used at the UN or during the UPR once every five years. Having ratified the UNCRPD, Singapore and the government should seek to ground regular conversations in the important standards of the UNCRPD. (This is why we at DPA often refer to the UNCRPD in our recommendations.)
Yet currently, discussions on disability in Singapore – whether in policy circles or in the media, unfortunately rarely mention important principles of the UNCRPD. Additionally, public awareness campaigns by a number of community organisations in Singapore still rely on vague notions of empathy. This often leads to unstructured ways of discussing disability – at times even producing or reinforcing harmful stereotypes and perceptions of disability.
Singapore has made progress in various areas. However, significant gaps remain. By using important standards such as that found in the UNCRPD as a tool to identify what we as a society should aim towards, it will help us also better identify and articulate the gaps that remain. It can provide better structure, clarity, and definition when we discuss terms such as “inclusion”, “equality”, and “equity” – terms that otherwise are vague without proper definition. As a result, it will help in strengthening the coordination of efforts and collaborations – as such efforts are usually stronger when there is a clear and common understanding of shared goals. This is the kind of pragmatic approach to rights protections that we hope to witness in Singapore.
