Singapore
How well is Singapore respecting people's human rights?
Use the tabs below to explore the scores.
Singapore at a glance
Quality of Life
Economic and Social Rights
(2023)
Summary score
N/A
How well is Singapore doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Summary score
N/A
How well is Singapore doing compared to the best in the world?
Right to
0
% of global best benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Safety from the State
Civil and Political Rights
(2025)
Summary score
8.5
How well is Singapore's government respecting each right?
Right to freedom from
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Empowerment
Civil and Political Rights
(2025)
Summary score
4.5
How well is Singapore's government respecting each right?
Right to
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life
Compared with all other high-income countries, Singapore is performing close to average when we look across the rights for which we have data (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
Compared with all other high-income countries, Singapore is performing close to average when we look across the rights for which we have data (this comparison is calculated using the 'Global best' benchmark).
Safety from the State
Singapore's Safety from the State score of 8.5 out of 10 suggests that while most people are safe from government abuse, some may have experienced one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, death penalty or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in Southeast Asia, Singapore is performing better than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Empowerment
Singapore's Empowerment score of 4.5 out of 10 suggests that many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, and democratic rights, and religion and belief).
Compared with the other countries in Southeast Asia, Singapore is performing close to average on empowerment rights.
Quality of Life - overview
(2023)
How well is Singapore doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Summary score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
How well is Singapore doing compared to the best in the world?
Summary score
0
% of global best benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Income adjusted benchmark
Global best benchmark
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Compared with all other high-income countries, Singapore is performing close to average when we look across the rights for which we have data (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
Compared with all other high-income countries, Singapore is performing close to average when we look across the rights for which we have data (this comparison is calculated using the 'Global best' benchmark).
Quality of Life - full details
See more detail on how Singapore performs on the
?Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
By sex
How does Singapore perform by sex for
?By sex
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
To see how Singapore's performance by sex has changed over time for a specific indicator, use the Over time graph below and select the indicator from the menu.
Over time
How does Singapore perform over time for
using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark and 'High income' assessment standard?Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2025)
Which people in Singapore were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was particularly unlikely to enjoy their right to education in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
People who are homeless and people living in extreme poverty, due to administrative and financial barriers to education, difficulties navigating state-supported programmes, and unstable living conditions
-
Students and children with low social or economic status, due to high education costs including early childhood education
-
Children and young people who are stateless, due to lack of automatic eligibility for free or subsidised education, documentation requirements, administrative barriers, and financial costs
-
People without legal status, due to lack of automatic eligibility for free or subsidised education, documentation requirements, and administrative barriers
-
Non-citizens, due to lower school admission priority and higher school fees based on immigration status
-
Domestic workers, due to education and training opportunities often depending on employer permission and financial support
Safety from the State - overview
(2025)
How well is Singapore's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Singapore's Safety from the State score of 8.5 out of 10 suggests that while most people are safe from government abuse, some may have experienced one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, death penalty or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in Southeast Asia, Singapore is performing better than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2025)
Which people in Singapore were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their Safety from the State violated?
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Right to freedom from arbitrary arrest
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to arbitrary or political arrest and detention by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
People participating in protests or expressing dissenting political views, including anti-death penalty and labour rights activists
-
Migrant workers risk being detained during security or political violence-related investigations, including in cases where their connection to suspected offences is indirect, such as through workplace or accommodation links
-
Sex workers, including migrant sex workers, due to criminalisation and high risks of arrest and detention linked to immigration
-
People accused of terrorism-related offences, due to detention without trial under the Internal Security Act
-
People accused of political violence or security-related offences, due to risk of detention under the Internal Security Act, including forms of preventive detention based on security-related suspicion
-
People accused of drug-related offences, particularly Malay and Indian people who are disproportionately affected by drug enforcement practices
-
Because people are not allowed to conscientiously object to mandatory National Service, those such as Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse to bear arms risk being sentenced to spend the duration of their required service in military detention centres
Right to freedom from forced disappearance
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to disappearance by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- no data
Right to freedom from the death penalty
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to death penalty executions by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
People convicted of drug-related and trafficking offences, especially migrants and non-citizens, including Malaysian migrant workers, Indian people, and people with low social or economic status
-
People convicted of murder or the use of firearms under domestic law
-
There is a lack of transparency regarding death penalty charges and executions
Right to freedom from extrajudicial execution
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to extrajudicial killing by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- no data
Right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
Migrant workers and people expressing dissenting political views face ill-treatment in detention
-
Detainees and people accused of criminal offences, due to physical, psychological, and verbal abuse by state authorities
-
Detainees, including death row prisoners, due to arbitrary restrictions regarding visits and communication with family members
-
Detainees, due to interference with their ability to communicate with their legal counsel, including their correspondence being disclosed to state prosecutors without the detainees' prior consent
Empowerment - overview
(2025)
How well is Singapore's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Singapore's Empowerment score of 4.5 out of 10 suggests that many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, and democratic rights, and religion and belief).
Compared with the other countries in Southeast Asia, Singapore is performing close to average on empowerment rights.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2025)
Which people in Singapore were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their Empowerment violated?
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Right to assembly and association
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their rights to assembly and association by the government or its agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
Activists, human rights defenders, and people participating in peaceful political actions, due to police investigations, permit restrictions, and prosecution risks under public order laws, especially those involved in Palestine solidarity actions and anti-death penalty advocacy
-
Organisations and participants in LGBTQIA+ events such as Pink Dot SG, due to permit and security requirements, restrictions on foreign participation, and significant compliance costs for public events
-
Civil society organisations and advocacy groups working on politically sensitive issues face risks of police investigations, permit restrictions, prosecution under public order laws, and other enforcement actions
-
People participating in small-scale public protests, including one-person protests and peaceful petition actions, due to risks of investigation and prosecution for unlawful assembly
-
Migrants and non-citizens, due to restrictions on foreign participation in public assemblies and protests under public order laws
-
Migrant workers may join registered trade unions but are restricted from forming independent associations
-
Migrant domestic workers and sex workers face restrictions to forming or joining labour organisations
-
Migrant workers and low-income workers, due to employer dependence, insecure immigration status, fear of retaliation, and limited access to independent organising channels
-
Academics, professionals, and public sector employees reportedly face scrutiny by employers, universities, or state institutions for participation in political advocacy, activism, or public criticism of government policies
Right to opinion and expression
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their rights to opinion and expression by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
People who criticise government policies or express dissenting political views, due to monitoring and restrictions under laws such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)
-
Human rights defenders, activists, and civil society actors advocating on politically sensitive issues, due to police investigations, legal risks, and administrative pressures
-
Activists involved in anti-death penalty advocacy, Palestine solidarity, migrant worker rights, LGBTQIA+ equality, labour rights, and public accountability campaigns, due to risks linked to police investigations, and regulatory enforcement under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the Foreign Interference Act
-
Members of the LGBTQIA+ community and advocates, due to social stigma and restrictions affecting public and media representation, including correction directions, licensing controls, defamation risks, and limits on reporting or public discussion of politically sensitive issues, under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)
-
Journalists, independent media platforms, and political commentators, due to defamation lawsuits, regulatory controls, and financial penalties linked to political reporting
-
Journalists and online media platforms, including foreign-owned outlets, due to correction orders, financial deposit requirements, and risks of fines or imprisonment for non-compliance under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)
-
Independent and overseas media platforms and journalists reporting on political issues, including The Online Citizen and Bloomberg, due to legal actions and defamation proceedings
-
Migrant workers and non-citizens expressing political opinions, due to risks of employment consequences, deportation, and threats to residency status
-
Academics, professionals, and public sector employees, due to restrictions and employment-related pressures limiting political expression and public commentary
-
People using online platforms, due to monitoring, content removal demands, correction orders, and risks of legal enforcement under online speech regulations
Right to participate in government
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their political participation by the government or its agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
Activists, journalists, and civil society actors, due to restrictive legal and regulatory frameworks, and registration and funding pressures that discourage criticism of government policies and participation in public affairs
-
Civil society organisations dependent on registration approval, public funding, or state-regulated funding channels, due to pressures that discourage criticism of government policies
-
Labour rights advocates, non-governmental organisations working on labour issues, and workers seeking to organise independently, due to restrictions on independent unions, investigations, threats, and employment retaliation
-
Opposition politicians and supporters, election candidates, and campaign volunteers, due to lawsuits, police investigations, licensing and registration requirements, funding restrictions, regulatory pressures, defamation campaigns, public harassment, and exposure of private information in state-linked media
-
Migrants and non-citizens, due to legal restrictions on forming migrant-led organisations and participating in political advocacy
-
Non-citizen academics who participate in politics or advocacy, due to threats affecting their ability to continue teaching or working in Singapore
-
People with low incomes, migrant workers, and minority communities, due to economic vulnerability, insecure legal status, fear of repercussions, and limited access to institutional channels for political participation
-
Academics, professionals, and public sector employees, including doctors, lawyers, and teachers, due to employment-related restrictions on political participation and public criticism of government policies
Right to freedom of religion and belief
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their freedom of religion and belief by the government or its agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
-
Muslim communities, particularly Malays and Muslims expressing views related to Gaza and Palestine, due to risks of being suspected of or labelled as potential security or radicalisation risks
-
Hindu communities, due to unequal recognition of religious practices and observances, including Thaipusam not being recognised as a public holiday
-
Religious organisations and religious leaders, due to monitoring and regulatory oversight under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
-
People discussing sensitive religious, social, or political issues, due to pressures contributing to self-censorship of religious expression
-
Because eople are not allowed to conscientiously object to mandatory National Service, those such as Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse to bear arms risk being sentenced to spend the duration of their required service in military detention centres
-
Jehovah’s Witnesses and other minority religious groups, due to restrictions on registration, recognition, and public practice of their beliefs
Which people are most at risk?
We asked human rights experts to choose from a list of options for which people were particularly at risk of having this right violated. The images below show their answers.
Highlight
in the word clouds below.Quality of Life
People at risk for
Right to education
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to food
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to health
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to housing
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to work
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Safety from the State
People at risk for
Safety from the State
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Empowerment
People at risk for
Empowerment
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Behind the numbers
Quality of Life
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which China has signed, all countries commit to using the maximum of their available resources to progressively improve rights for their people in these areas.
HRMI has calculated what China could be achieving at its current level of income. The scores are given as a percentage of that realistic potential achievement. China’s best score is for the right to work, where its score of 99.2% means it is doing 99.2% of what it possibly can, given its current level of income.
China also has good scores for the right to health (97.8%), and the right to food (96.5%). For these rights, China is doing nearly as well as it possibly can, given its income. Its right to housing score of 94.6% is at the top of HRMI’s ‘fair’ range.
One of China’s lowest scores is for the right to quality education, where it scores 66.2%, which falls in the ‘very bad’ range. Among 6 East Asian countries and territories with data, this score puts China at the bottom for quality education, just below Mongolia.
Right to Quality Education in East Asia
Score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
The right to housing includes scores for the right to sanitation and the right to water.
With a GDP per capita of US$12,951 in 2023, China has the resources to ensure all its people have running water and toilets in their homes.
However, China’s right to sanitation score of 94.9% shows that it could afford to do better. If China efficiently used its available resources, it could achieve a score of 100%, which would mean that 39.2 million more people could have access to basic sanitation.
When it comes to the higher standard of safely managed sanitation, China’s score of 73.6% means that if China effectively and efficiently used its available resources an additional 350 million people could have access to safe sanitation.
If China improved its performance on the right to water from its current score of 94.3% to 100%, 59.8 million more people would have water on their premises.
The good news is that China’s scores for the right to housing have improved steadily over the past decade. China’s score on the right to basic sanitation increased by 20.5 percentage points and that of the right to water by over 9.2 percentage points. The gains have been even greater for safe sanitation. Here China’s score rose from 50.8% to 73.6%, an increase of nearly 23 percentage points. China’s improvements in income adjusted scores show that country’s policies have become more effective at turning resources into good human rights outcomes.
When it comes to the right to food, if China lifted its current score of 96.5% to 100%, around 1.2 million more children under five years old would have enough nutritious food to grow well – that would mean all children in China under five would have enough nutritious food to grow well. This is an achievable goal.
With a current score of 96.5%, China has improved in respecting people’s right to food over the last 20 years, with its score increasing markedly from 84.1% in 2000.
On the right to work, China has made dramatic progress in eliminating absolute poverty. Its score on ensuring people enjoy at least a subsistence income (that is, income above the absolute poverty line of $4.20 per day, measured in 2021 PPP$), has risen from 37.4% in 2002 to 99.2% in 2022, nearly eliminating absolute poverty.
The bigger challenge China currently faces, however, is eliminating relative poverty. That is, ensuring people enjoy at least half the median income and can therefore enjoy a decent life. China’s score on a fair (relative) income stood at only 37.5% in 2018 (the most recent year with data). Projecting the relative poverty rate forward to 2023, this means that while nearly 1,124 million people have enough money to enjoy decent lives, over 213 million are unnecessarily denied this right.
China comes second in the world in using its available resources to ensure people’s right to health is fulfilled, with a score of 97.8%. This is the right where China is most constrained by resources. An increase in income will be necessary to make significant further improvements.
However, at its current income level, China should already be able to do as well as any country in the world in meeting the rights to food, housing, and work.
People at risk
While China has room for improvement in all the rights we measure, a further consideration is inequity. There are several groups of people whom experts identified as being at higher risk of missing out. These include:
- People with lower social or economic status, including farmers and people in rural areas, remote, mountainous or underdeveloped areas
- Human rights advocates, protesters, activists, and anyone who criticises the government; and their family members
- People who are blacklisted by the government for political reasons
- People from ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Mongolians
- People in Xinjiang, especially Uyghurs
- People in Tibet
- People with disabilities
- Older people
- People in prison
- People from religious minorities
- People who are stateless or are not in the household registration system
- People who are homeless
See the people at risk tab on the Rights Tracker for the full lists. The data also show a strong connection between political activity, especially criticism of the government, and lack of enjoyment of economic and social rights.
Room for improvement
China has made outstanding progress in ensuring people enjoy their basic economic and social rights. However, all of China’s Quality of Life scores show that the country could still make significant improvements to its people’s lives by using its existing resources more effectively.
If China were using its resources more efficiently to ensure its people’s wellbeing, it could achieve 100% for all the rights we measure. Yet, while its best score nearly reaches that goal – 99.2% on right to a subsistence income – its worst score using the low and middle income country assessment standard – 66.2% on the right to quality education – is far from that level.
If China better upheld its rights obligations and achieved a full 100% score on all the rights we measure, we would see millions more Chinese people living lives of dignity. For example, if China’s scores reached 100% we would see the following number of extra people benefitting:
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional nearly 1.2 million children under five to grow well and not be stunted.
-
If China were operating at best practice, each year we would expect an extra 12,600 newborn baby girls and 13,400 newborn baby boys to survive until their fifth birthday.
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect 92,300 more newborns to be born at a healthy birth weight.
-
If China were reaching its full potential, given its income constraints, an extra 159,000 15-year-old girls and 419,000 15-year-old boys could eventually reach the age of at least 60.
-
If China used its resources efficiently, an additional 39.25 million people could have access to basic sanitation at home, 350 million could have access to safe sanitation at home, and an extra 60 million people could have access to water in their homes.
-
If China were operating at its full potential given its current resources, it could lift 213 million people out of relative poverty.
Safety from the State
China scores 3.1 out of 10 for our overall Safety from the State category, telling us that a great many people are at risk of arbitrary or political arrest or detention, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing. This is one of the lowest scores in our sample of 40 countries.
One of China’s lowest scores in this category is 2.1 out of 10 for freedom from torture and ill-treatment.
The human rights experts we surveyed said that people protesting against or criticising the government, people from ethnic and religious minorities, and people in prisons or being questioned by police were at extra risk of being tortured or ill-treated.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that human rights advocates, protesters, journalists, and people who criticised the Chinese Communist Party were at particular risk of a wide range of rights violations, especially arbitrary arrest and detention, forced disappearance, and torture and ill-treatment. Respondents particularly noted risks to political dissidents, detainees, and people supporting democracy.
Other vulnerable groups include:
- Detainees and those accused of crimes, especially people suspected of terrorism
- Anyone criticising the government
- Journalists
- People in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong
- Muslims, Christians, and people following other religions such as Falun Gong
Among other East Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, China has among the lowest scores for all five Safety from the State rights, generally equal with North Korea.
Right to Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Forced Disappearance in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Death Penalty in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Extrajudicial Execution in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Torture and Ill-treatment in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Empowerment
The Chinese government limits civil liberties and political freedom, with China scoring a very low 2.5 out of 10 in empowerment rights. This is one of the lowest scores in our sample of 39 countries, with only North Korea doing worse.
For the rights to assembly and association, opinion and expression, participation in government, and freedom of religion and belief all of China’s scores fall into the ‘very bad’ range.
When it comes to the right to assembly and association, China scores 2.2 out of 10, and human rights experts identified a wide range of people not enjoying their rights, including human rights advocates, protesters, and people criticising or opposing the government, as well as those from ethnic and religious minorities.
China’s score for the right to opinion and expression is a very low 3.1 out of 10. Respondents highlighted restrictions on political expression. They also noted that online expression is also restricted and reported widespread surveillance and censorship.
China also scores in the ‘very bad’ range for the right to participate in government, with a score of 2.4 out of 10. Respondents noted that pro-democracy supporters, including those in the New Citizens’ Movement, the Southern Street Movement, the China Democracy Party, the White Paper Movement, and independent candidates were not free to participate in government. They also said that people from religious or ethnic minorities could not exercise their democratic rights freely.
For the right to freedom of religion and belief, China scored 2.9. Respondents noted that the government restricts all religious practices, and is particularly repressive towards people following unregistered minority religions such as Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong members, and people who attend house churches.
Groups that are particularly vulnerable to empowerment rights violations include:
- Human rights advocates, protesters, and anyone who criticises the government
- Pro-democracy supporters
- Journalists
- People from ethnic and religious minorities
- Detainees and those accused of crimes
- The general public, because of pervasive surveillance and censorship
Among other East Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, only North Korea scores worse than China.
Right to Assembly and Association in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Opinion and Expression in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Participate in Government in East Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom of religion and belief in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Transnational repression
The Chinese government engaged in transnational repression in a number of ways in 2025.
Transnational repression is activity that violates the human rights of people outside a government’s own territories.
Where is China engaging in transnational repression?
According to77 human rights expert respondents whose work focuses on China and Hong Kong, in 2025 the Chinese government or its agents targeted people for transnational repression in the following places:
In which countries were people targeted?
Graph shows how many respondents identified each country.
0
Percentage of respondents
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100
How many people were targeted?
Graph shows how many people were targeted in each country, from ‘none’ to ‘a very large number'.
< Less people
Number of people targeted
More people >
None
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Very large
Experts also gave the following additional information on specific regions where the Chinese government or its agents engaged in transnational repression in 2025:
- Southeast Asia
- East Asia
- Central Asia
- Europe
- Sikkim, India
- Non-democratic countries
- Netherlands
- Italy
- United States
- Thailand
- Kazakhstan
People at risk
According to human rights expert respondents, in 2025 the Chinese government or its agents targeted the following kinds of people for transnational repression:
Who was targeted?
Graph shows how many respondents identified each group of people.
0
Percentage of respondents
100%
Experts gave the following additional information on some of the groups the Chinese government or its agents targeted for transnational repression in 2025:
- Chinese citizens acting abroad who promote democracy
- China-based family members of overseas pro-democracy activists
- Chinese citizens who criticise the Chinese government, especially those living in non-democratic countries that have close ties to China
- Hong Kong activists and dissidents
- Human rights activists
- Human rights lawyers
- People living abroad who advocate for Uyghurs and Tibetans
- Chinese citizens living abroad
- Chinese students abroad
- Foreign journalists
- Members of non-governmental organisations
- Foreign nationals with Uyghur heritage, from countries such as Kazakhstan heritage
- Small business owners
- People in the diaspora
Human rights violations
According to human rights expert respondents, in 2025 the Chinese government or its agents targeted people for transnational repression in the following ways:
Physical harm, harassment, and coercion
- Chinese citizens overseas are harassed and pressured by the Chinese consulate where they reside
- Members of the China Democracy Party who live in the Netherlands have faced threats against themselves and their families
- Family members of pro-democracy activists abroad face harassment within China by the government, including regular visits by government officials, intimidation, threats, and detention
- Chinese international students who study abroad and then return home to China can be detained over political statements made while abroad, such as in the cases of Zhang Yadi and Hu Yang
- Families of dissidents are threatened and harassed in several ways, including freezing banking accounts
- The use of warrants and bounties
Repatriation and overseas law enforcement activity
- Forced returns
- Relatives of dissidents abroad are coerced into cutting contact or persuading targets to return to China
- Uyghur people have been targeted for repatriation, including the arrest of several people in Thailand who were later deported to China
- Misuse of Interpol notices
Surveillance, digital activity, and suppression of free speech
- The Chinese government exerts its influence overseas through organised groups, Chambers of Commerce, and international student groups
- Chinese ‘Overseas Police Service Stations’ monitor Chinese citizens in the diaspora, particularly in the United States and Italy
- Overseas police stations and covert operations are used for surveillance and intimidation
- The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London is reportedly used to collect intelligence and conduct overseas law enforcement
- There are reports of the government exposing the addresses and locations of Chinese dissidents abroad (doxxing)
- Supporters of the Chinese Communist Party abroad become voluntary agents in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, and provide information about dissidents
- The Chinese government engages in digital harassment
- Overseas police stations and covert operations are used for surveillance and intimidation
- The Chinese government has produced deep-fake, sexually explicit images of activists and distributed them among their communities
- Distribution of flyers with bounty information about activists in the neighbourhoods they live in
- Chinese students at universities in the United Kingdom with links to the Chinese Communist Party monitor comments about China and report those to the government
- People who criticise or oppose the government are barred from entering the country, including foreign journalists, politicians, and activists in Europe
Country details
Population
6m (2024)
GDP/capita
$90,674 (2024)
current US dollars
$132,570 (2024)
2021 PPP dollars