SINGAPORE: Singapore has responded to a United States trade probe by stating it doesn’t tolerate forced labour and has found no evidence linking its exports to such practices.
In statements dated April 15 2026, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) said Singapore has firm laws and enforcement in place. It also pointed to a long-standing trade relationship where the US has consistently recorded a surplus.
The response addresses two investigations by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). One looks at supply chains and forced labour risks. The other examines claims of excess manufacturing capacity.
Singapore’s stance: strict laws, active enforcement
MTI said forced labour is a criminal offence under Singapore law. It falls under both the Penal Code and the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act.
Authorities such as the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) handle complaints and investigations. Workers can report suspected abuse through official channels, including hotlines and non-government groups.
The system also relies on cooperation between the government, employers, and unions. This tripartite approach is meant to keep employers accountable while ensuring workers understand their rights.
Put simply, the message is: enforcement is not passive. It is built into the system.
No record of forced labour-linked exports
Singapore said it isn’t aware of any goods produced with forced labour being exported to the US.
It noted that it has never appeared on the US Department of Labor’s list of goods linked to forced or child labour since the list began in 2009. There have also been no cases where US authorities blocked shipments from Singapore over such concerns.
In one example cited, Singapore Customs worked with US authorities in 2024 to check through a shipment flagged for possible links to forced labour. The investigation found no such connection.
This track record forms a key part of Singapore’s defence.
A global problem with practical limits
Singapore also made a broader point. Forced labour in supply chains is not something one country can solve alone.
MTI said that import bans by individual countries may divert goods elsewhere rather than stop the practice.
There are also real limits, as investigating supply chains often requires access to overseas factories, worker interviews, and documents. That depends on cooperation from other countries.
On top of that, there is no global system or agreed-upon list for identifying goods made with forced labour.
Without reliable data, tracking such practices across borders becomes difficult to sustain.
Trade ties remain strong and in the US favour
Singapore pushed back against claims about manufacturing capacity by citing trade data.
According to MTI, the US has enjoyed a trade surplus with Singapore for over 20 years. In 2025, the US recorded a goods surplus of about S$4.8 billion and a services surplus of about S$39.5 billion.
Singapore also imposes zero tariffs on US goods under the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which has been in force since 2004.
At the same time, Singapore’s investments in the US support around 350,000 American jobs. It is also one of the largest Asian investors in the country.
On industrial capacity, Singapore said occupancy rates for manufacturing spaces have stayed near 90 per cent. That suggests steady demand rather than oversupply.
Trade is no longer just about goods and prices
The probe shows that trade is no longer just about goods and prices. Labour practices and supply chain ethics are now part of the conversation.
For Singapore, the stakes are reputational as much as economic. Its role as a global trade hub depends on being seen as reliable, compliant, and transparent.
The response signals that Singapore wants to engage, but on practical terms grounded in how supply chains actually work.
The issue may be settled by how countries work together
This issue may not be settled by statements alone, as it will depend on how countries work together.
Singapore’s position is to enforce what can be enforced at home, cooperate when there is credible evidence, and build systems that actually work across borders.
That approach may not be perfect, but it is realistic. And in global trade, realism tends to travel further than rhetoric.
