SINGAPORE: As of 31 December 2023, an estimated 853 stateless persons reside in Singapore, as shared by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law.

In a written parliamentary reply on 15 October, he noted that there are seven stateless persons under the age of 12 and thirteen between the ages of 12 and 18, which constitutes 2.3% of the total number of stateless individuals in Singapore.

He explained that their circumstances vary, with one reason being that some were born in Singapore to foreign parents who did not secure citizenship for their child in their home country.

Minister Shanmugam emphasised that it is the responsibility of parents or legal guardians to ensure the child’s well-being, including obtaining citizenship for their child.

However, he assured that if a child or young person lacks a willing or capable parent or caregiver for guardianship in Singapore, they may receive statutory protection under the Children and Young Persons Act.

Minister Shanmugam disclosed the number of stateless persons in response to questions from Members of Parliament concerning stateless children and young people living in Singapore.

Nominated Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim submitted three PQs regarding the number of stateless children and young people in Singapore, legal parental responsibilities, the country’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the support services available for their accommodation, healthcare, and education.

Singapore’s Reservation to Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

In response, Minister Shanmugam reiterated that Singapore does not automatically grant citizenship to a child simply because they are born here.

He highlighted that the Singapore Constitution automatically confers Singapore citizenship (SC) on children born in Singapore to married parents, provided that at least one parent is an SC.

“If the child is born to foreign parents, we do not automatically confer citizenship, and would assess any citizenship application alongside all other applications.”

He explained that applications for SC are evaluated based on various criteria, including the applicant’s conduct and contributions, their links to Singapore (such as family members who are Singaporeans), and the duration of their stay in Singapore. The circumstances surrounding a person’s statelessness are also considered.

Due to Singapore’s citizenship policy, the city-state has made a reservation to Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as explained by Minister Shanmugam.

Article 7 stipulates that every child has the right to be registered immediately after birth and to have a name and nationality, in accordance with national laws and obligations under relevant international instruments.

Access to Healthcare, Education, and Housing for Stateless Persons

Nevertheless, Minister Shanmugam stated that regarding access to healthcare, education, and housing, stateless persons who are Permanent Residents (PRs) are treated the same as other PRs.

Stateless individuals who are not PRs can utilize the MediSave accounts of their SC or PR family members. Stateless children and young people under state care can access healthcare subsidies through the Medical Fee Exemption Card and may also consult the healthcare institution’s medical social workers.

For education, stateless students may enroll in mainstream schools and tertiary institutions, provided they meet the admission criteria. They can seek school-based assistance and also consult social service agencies for advice on available financial aid.

In terms of housing, stateless individuals who are not PRs cannot buy or rent a flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB).

However, they can reside in an HDB flat as an occupier if they are part of an eligible SC or PR family.

For those facing genuine housing difficulties and lacking alternative options, Minister Shanmugam said HDB will collaborate with relevant agencies, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development, to assess how best to assist them.

Minister Shanmugam Emphasizes the Need for Discerning Citizenship Policies

Separately, Mr Shareal Taha, MP for Pasir Ris–Punggol GRC, in a PQ filed on 14 October, inquired about the current number of stateless residents who have lived in Singapore for more than 20 years and whether MHA would consider granting citizenship to stateless seniors who have resided in Singapore for over two decades.

Minister Shanmugam explained that while the overall figures for stateless persons in Singapore may vary, data on their length of residency is unavailable due to the different circumstances under which individuals may have become stateless.

For instance, some individuals may have chosen to give up or lost their foreign citizenship during their time in Singapore, while others were born to foreign parents who did not secure citizenship for them.

Their stateless status may only be identified when they approach or are referred to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), he added.

“Given that there are such cases, we won’t have precise data on how many stateless persons there are; and the precise period for which they have been stateless,” Minister Shanmugam explained.

He reiterated that applications for Singapore citizenship are evaluated based on a range of criteria, including whether the applicants have family ties in Singapore.

Minister Shanmugam cautioned that as one of the world’s smallest and most densely populated countries, Singapore must be highly discerning in granting citizenship.

“Hence, we carefully consider all applications for citizenship, on a case by case basis.”

The Stories of Stateless Youth and Seniors in Singapore

Last month, The Straits Times highlighted the story of a 25-year-old stateless person living in Clementi who has never attended school and struggles with basic literacy, despite being born in Singapore.

Raised by a Singaporean couple, he only learned of his statelessness in 2019 when police officers checked on him, leading to assistance from the Foundation of Rotary Clubs Singapore Family Service Centre, which helped him secure a Special Pass to work.

Despite being authorised to work, he faces significant challenges in finding employment due to his status and often feels isolated and inadequate compared to his peers who have received an education.

Singapore has introduced significant amendments to its election laws to prevent the spread of digitally manipulated depictions of candidates during election periods. The Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill, referred to as the Eliona Bill, was passed by Parliament on 15 October 2024.

The legislation modifies the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954 and the Presidential Elections Act 1991 to prohibit the publication of online election advertising containing certain digitally altered or generated content about candidates.

This law claims to aim at maintaining the integrity of Singapore’s electoral process by blocking the dissemination of false or misleading representations of candidates, especially in the context of rapidly advancing technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake manipulation.

Josephine Teo, Minister for Digital Development and Information, described the law as necessary to counter “the most harmful types” of election-related misinformation that could deceive the public.

With Singapore’s next general election expected by November 2025, the law is designed to target content that presents realistic yet false depictions of candidates.

Legal Framework and Application

To fall under the prohibition, content must meet four conditions: it must be related to online election advertising, be digitally manipulated, depict an untrue representation of the candidate, and be realistic enough for some members of the public to believe it.

This includes not only AI-generated content but also traditional methods of manipulation such as Photoshop and video splicing.

Teo referenced similar legislative measures in countries like South Korea and Brazil, where deepfakes have proliferated. A recent Verian research study found that 60% of Singaporeans are concerned about the impact of deepfakes in the upcoming election, underscoring the urgency of this law.

However, the law makes exceptions for clearly unrealistic content, such as satire, memes, and cosmetic alterations like beauty filters. Despite these exceptions, merely labelling manipulated content as altered will not guarantee compliance, as labels can be ignored or removed during redistribution.

The law applies regardless of the content’s political bias. It also covers the sharing and reposting of manipulated content in large chat groups on platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram, where public dissemination is possible. Private messages between individuals or in small groups are not subject to this regulation.

Enforcement and Provisions

The law grants the returning officer the authority to issue corrective directions, such as requiring the removal or disabling of access to prohibited content during the election period.

It applies from the issuance of the Writ of Election to the close of polling on Election Day and covers only candidates officially declared by the Elections Department.

Individuals found guilty of publishing prohibited content face legal penalties. Under the new law, any person convicted of this offence in a District Court will be liable to a fine not exceeding S$1,000, imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both. This provision seeks to deter the intentional spread of manipulated content while allowing for a defence for those who inadvertently commit the offence, such as unknowingly sharing manipulated media.

Social media platforms that fail to comply with the removal of prohibited content may be fined up to S$1 million, while individuals may face a fine not exceeding S$1,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months. These penalties are consistent with those imposed under similar content regulation legislation in Singapore.

Teo addressed concerns raised by MPs Yip Hon Weng of the People’s Action Party and He Ting Ru of the Workers’ Party regarding misleading information potentially influencing public opinion before the official election period. She acknowledged the risk but explained that the law cannot take effect until an election is officially underway due to the legal framework of the Writ of Election.

To bridge this gap, the government is developing a Code of Practice that would require social media platforms to implement safeguards against manipulated content before the election period. The code is expected to be finalised by 2025.

Candidates will play a key role in identifying false content, as they are best positioned to quickly verify the accuracy of representations. To prevent misuse, any candidate who knowingly makes a false or misleading declaration will face penalties.

An independent technical assessment will also be conducted to detect manipulated content, using both commercial detection tools and in-house solutions. A dedicated team will be deployed during election periods to monitor and act on prohibited content.

Positive AI-generated content of candidates is also prohibited

During the debate, Workers’ Party MP Gerald Giam raised a crucial point about how the Eliona Bill might limit the use of AI technology in political campaigns, particularly for opposition parties that face a resource disadvantage compared to the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

Giam questioned whether using AI to deliver a pre-approved, scripted message from a candidate—despite being accurate—would be restricted under the law.

Giam drew parallels to television, which has long used virtual images of candidates to communicate with the public, asking why AI-generated videos should be treated differently.

In response, Minister Teo clarified that AI-generated content, even if pre-approved by a candidate, would fall under the law’s restrictions.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the script was approved by me and it could have been penned by me, that image itself is problematic. I did not actually stand in front of a camera and articulate those words. So the way the bill is designed is to not offer any room for misunderstanding,” said Teo.