Fiji
How well is Fiji respecting people's human rights?
Use the tabs below to explore the scores.
Fiji at a glance
Quality of Life
Economic and Social Rights
(2020)
Summary score
81.5%
How well is Fiji 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
Safety from the State
Civil and Political Rights
(2022)
Summary score
7.2
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Right to freedom from
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Empowerment
Civil and Political Rights
(2022)
Summary score
4.7
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Right to
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life
Fiji scores 81.5% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
To change the performance benchmark or assessment standard, please click on ‘Switch view’ above
Safety from the State
Fiji's Safety from the State score of 7.2 out of 10 suggests that a significant number of people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on the right to be safe from the state.
Empowerment
Fiji's Empowerment score of 4.7 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).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing worse than average on empowerment rights.
Quality of Life - overview
(2020)
How well is Fiji 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
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life rights (or 'economic and social rights') include the rights to food, health, education, housing, and work. HRMI gives two scores, measuring against two different benchmarks.
Fiji scores 81.5% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark. This score takes into account Fiji's resources and how well it is using them to make sure its people's Quality of Life rights are fulfilled.
This score tells us that Fiji is only doing 81.5% of what should be possible right now with the resources it has. Since anything less than 100% indicates that a country is not meeting its current duty under international human rights law, our assessment is that Fiji has a long way to go to meet its immediate economic and social rights duty.
When measured against the Global best benchmark, comparing Fiji to the best performing countries in the world, Fiji's score is 80.2%, indicating that it has a long way to go to meet current Global best standards for ensuring all people have adequate food, education, healthcare, housing and work.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
To change the performance benchmark or assessment standard, please click on ‘Switch view’ above
Quality of Life - full details
See more detail on how Fiji performs on the
?Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
By sex
How does Fiji perform by sex for
?By sex
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
Over time
How does Fiji perform over time for
?Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2022)
Which people in Fiji 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 2023 rightstracker.org
Expert respondents did not provide any specific information about who is especially vulnerable to violations of this right.
Safety from the State - overview
(2022)
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
Fiji's Safety from the State score of 7.2 out of 10 suggests that a significant number of people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on the right to be safe from the state.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2022)
Which people in Fiji 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 2023 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to arbitrary or political arrest and detention by government agents in 2022, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- Critics of government leaders are oppressed and detained by security forces, whose purpose shifted from protecting people to oppressing them
- Members of the military and state agents, including the suspended police commissioner, are given positions of state power to increase control over the population
- Advocates, specifically those of Indo-Fijian or Indigenous descent
Empowerment - overview
(2022)
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
Fiji's Empowerment score of 4.7 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).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing worse than average on empowerment rights.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2022)
Which people in Fiji 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 2023 rightstracker.org
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 2022, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- People with particular political affiliations and beliefs, including members of the National Federation Party (NFP), Social Democratic Liberal Party (Solepa), and People Alliance Party
- Candidates for the 2022 election were detained and interrogated after they led a non-violent political rally
- Members of rights unions and movements, particularly those advocating for trade, women's, and teachers' rights
- Public dissidents of the government, including journalists, civil society leaders, and activists, many of whom are women, along with their relatives and friends
- State agents continuously harass and question people, particularly civil society leaders, many of whom are women, at all times of the day and night
- The government uses state agents and resources to target people they deem as enemies
- State agents who follow the government's orders are appreciated, while those refusing to support the government's repressive tactics are fired
- Some people refuse to live under the government's repressive regime and emigrate
- Fiji's dictatorship has become an example for leaders of other Pacific Island countries to repress public dissent and control news outlets
- Union members are arrested, charged, acquitted, and monitored by police forces
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
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to food
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to health
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to housing
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to work
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
Safety from the State
People at risk for
Right to freedom from arbitrary arrest
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from forced disappearance
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from the death penalty
Expert respondents didn’t select any group of people for this right.
People at risk for
Right to freedom from extrajudicial execution
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
Empowerment
People at risk for
Right to assembly and association
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to opinion and expression
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to participate in government
(2022)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2023 rightstracker.org
On this tab you can find data collected only in Pacific countries, on five themes.
Jump to:
Climate crisis
(2021)
How much has the climate crisis worsened human rights conditions in Fiji?
4.6
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Greatly (5)
Extremely (6)
When asked to provide more context about how the climate crisis has worsened rights conditions in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- Salination of arable land, floods, and riverbank erosion have destroyed local farms and impacted local food production. Commercial farming has also been affected, notably sugar cane, one of Fiji's national exports
- Coral bleaching has contributed to food insecurity
- The climate crisis has affected sanitation and access to clean water
- Storms, droughts, and tropical cyclones have worsened
- Rising sea levels have forced people in low lying areas to relocate
- Continued pollution caused by industrial activity, and rubbish disposal from hotels and shipping vessels aggravate conditions
- The climate crisis has increased social unrest in the form of child neglect, and has exacerbated gender inequality
- There is a risk of violence against vulnerable groups in evacuation centres
- Diseases have also been on the rise due to climate crisis
Indigenous sovereignty
(2021)
To what extent are Indigenous and/or native communities in Fiji able to exercise self-determination?
3.3
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about Indigenous self-determination in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- Indigenous knowledge and protocols have been preserved, such as traditional medicines and bartering systems
- Indigenous people are able to self-govern and determine how their land is used, with 14 administrative units that look after Indigenous interests
- Indigenous rights are enshrined in the Fijian constitution
- Indigenous autonomy is viewed as limited, with government retaining a lot of control
- Indigenous people face the threat of legal repercussions if they do speak out or seek to be consulted about matters which affect them, such as the effects of businesses and industries on their land.
- Indigenous rights have been eroded through the loss of institutions like the Council of Chiefs, and government data do not sufficiently reflect the needs of Indigenous people
- Recent legislative changes have eroded land rights. Bill 17 is an example of laws passed without public consultation, which seeks to amend the iTaukei Land Trust Act (TLTA)
- Indigenous self-determination is compromised by reliance on government and international aid, contributing to lack of awareness for self-determination, especially with increased weather crises
- International business interests also affect Indigenous self-determination
Indigenous lands
(2021)
To what extent do Indigenous and/or native communities in Fiji have possession and enjoyment of their traditional lands?
3.6
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about Indigenous land rights in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- A majority of land is owned by Indigenous clans communally, and is protected by the constitution. Land is held by a statutory body called the iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB), however, whether landowners are fully consulted on decision-making is disputed
- Land disputes have become a significant issue in recent years, when the government has an economic motive to make land accessible to foreigners
- Much of Indigenous-owned land is considered unused, partly because there is little government support for development or management. This has contributed to a negative stereotype of Indigenous people appearing unindustrious
- The laws around land rights are perceived as dealing with management and access, but not ownership
- Indigenous land rights have been eroded by land banks who commercialise land, circumvent negotiation, and exploit resources
- A third party like the government can use Indigenous land if 60% of landowners agree to it
Cultural rights
(2021)
To what extent do people in Fiji enjoy their cultural rights?
4.1
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about the extent to which communities can practise their cultural rights in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- Fiji's multicultural society allows the enjoyment of many cultural rights, where children are brought up among their culture
- There have been cases where religious institutions have been broken into
- Non-Indigenous politicians are viewed unfavourably when they discuss Indigenous issues, it is seen as diminishing the voice of the Indigenous Fijian people
- English is the main language taught in schools and teaching Indigenous languages has been neglected. However, there are vernacular schools and examination systems for the Fijian languages
- Media have become more inclusive of Indigenous Fijian culture, as has the education system
- The government does not use Indigenous Fijian languages or Fiji Hindi in parliament, only English. Local languages and dialects are perceived as dying out due to Western influences
- The media use English, Indigenous Fijian languages, and Fiji Hindi
- There is some discrepancy between the legitimacy of Fiji Hindi and Modern Standard Hindi, where Modern Standard Hindi is perceived to be the more legitimate lingual heritage for Hindi speakers in Fiji
- Fijian culture has become commercialised to appeal to tourists. Protection of intellectual and cultural property is a concern when Fijian designs have been appropriated and commercialised
Violence
To what extent are people in Fiji free from violence in the community?
Violence against
0
Score
10
Less safe
More safe
Violence against children
When asked to provide more context about violence against children in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- Corporal punishment is still seen as acceptable and effective, and is practised domestically
- Children are used for child labour in some cases
- Children can experience violence when there are family disagreements and when family members are under the influence of drugs and alcohol
- Children have experienced increased violence during Covid-19 lockdowns, where family frustration is taken out on them
- There are more children running away from home due to domestic violence
- Children experience sexual violence, including the case of a rape of a two-year-old child
- Violence against children is sustained through a culture of silence, and hinders young victims' ability to reach out for help
- The availability of toll-free call centres has brought more cases of violence against children to light
Violence against people with disabilities
When asked to provide more context about violence against people with disabilities in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- Stories and data about violence against disabilities are uncommon in the media
- Verbal abuse against people with disabilities is commonplace
- People with disabilities are left out of decision-making, and are extremely vulnerable
- Gender-based violence is worse against those with disabilities
- There was a statement in 2021 by a human rights NGO calling for police to stop harassing people with disabilities living on the streets
- People with disabilities are heavily stigmatised in society
Violence against MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+
When asked to provide more context about violence against MVPFAFF+ and LGBTQIA+ people in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people are abused and neglected by parents
- There is increased physical and cyber violence against MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people
- Verbal abuse is a daily reality for MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people
- Violence against MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people are often drug and alcohol related, and perpetuated by online hate and religious belief
- MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people face systemic discrimination, and are denied opportunities
- The government has an explicitly anti-LGBTQIA+ position
- There is not enough legal protection for MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people in Fiji, nor support for their identity expression such as gender-affirming surgeries
- While many cases of violence are reported, they are often not acted upon, and in some cases the authorities are the perpetrators
- There have been cases of MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ deaths that have stayed unresolved
- Data and knowledge of violence against MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ is uncommon
Violence against women and girls
When asked to provide more context about violence against women in 2021, respondents mentioned the following:
- Women and girls do not have equal rights and are not treated the same as men
- Women and girls are often silenced and prevented from making decisions. This is exacerbated by other women enforcing this silence as well
- Domestic violence and rape are the two most common forms of violence
- Violence commonly happens under the influence of drugs and alcohol
- There are cases of violence against women and girls made public on social media
- Victims fear further victimisation if they report the violence to police, rather than follow the Indigenous Fijian traditional apology bulubulu process to forgive perpetrators
- Covid-19 has exacerbated domestic violence when victims spend extended periods of time at home. There is not enough support from police and there has been an increased demand for counselling services
- Religious teachings are used to justify violence against women and children
Behind the numbers
Quality of Life
Overall, China is performing better than average in economic and social rights compared with other East Asian countries, according to our income-adjusted benchmark, though it still has significant challenges. We produce scores for China for the rights to education, food, health, housing, and work.
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which China has signed, all countries agree to devote their maximum available resources to making things progressively better 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 scores are for the right to health, where it is achieving 98.1% of what we calculate should be possible, and for the right to food (96.4%). For these rights, China is doing nearly as well as it possibly can, given its level of income. China could still afford to make some gains now, but then would need to increase its income to make further improvements.
Of the five quality of life rights we measure, China needs to improve the most in the right to quality education, where it scores 61.4%, which falls in the ‘very bad’ range. Among 17 East Asian countries, this score puts China in the bottom half for quality education, just below Mongolia and Myanmar, and just above Malaysia and Thailand.
Right to quality education in East and Southeast Asia
Score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
China’s other lower score is for the right to housing, where it is currently achieving only 88.7% of what we calculate should be possible at its level of income.
We further break the right to housing down into scores for the right to sanitation and the right to water.
With a GDP per capita of US$12,556 we calculate that China has the resources to ensure all of its people have running water and toilets in their homes.
However, China’s right to sanitation score of 86.3% shows that many people are missing out, even though China could afford to do better. If China efficiently used its available resources, it could achieve a score of 100%, which would mean that 108 million additional Chinese would gain access to basic sanitation in their homes.
If China improved its performance for the right to water from 91% to 100%, 101 million more people would have water on their premises.
The good news is that China’s scores for the right to housing have been steadily improving since 2001, when the nation scored 68.6%. The progress from 2019 to 2020 suggests around 28 million people gained access to basic sanitation over that period, and around five million people gained access to water in their homes. China’s scores for the right to sanitation are rising more quickly than those for the right to water.
When it comes to the right to food, if China lifted its score to 100%, around 1.1 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 96.4%, China has improved a little in respecting people’s right to food over the last 20 years, with its score increasing from 86% in 2000.
On the right to work, China’s score has climbed strongly up to 95.8% in 2020 from 34.6% in 2000, meaning many fewer people have been living in absolute poverty over the last two decades, and bringing it into the 'good' band of scores. Still, the latest score means 4 million Chinese are unnecessarily living in absolute poverty (living on less than $3.65 per day, measured in 2017 PPP$), so significant improvement is still possible and necessary.
However, for the right to health, expert respondents noted significant problems with air and water pollution, food safety, and the impacts of the government response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Respondents also noted inequities in access to healthcare, including regional differences, and differences in access according to wealth and political influence.
China comes in second in the world in ensuring people’s right to health is fulfilled, with a score of 98.1%, when using the low and middle income assessment standard (when using the high income standard, China still comes in fifth in the world, when taking countries' income into account). For countries doing this well with their current level of income, an increase of income will be necessary to make significant further improvements. This is the right where China is most constrained by resources – for all of the other rights we measure, China should already be able to do nearly as well as any country in the world, at its current level of income.
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 who experts identified as being at higher risk of missing out. These include:
-
People with lower social or economic status
-
People from ethnic minorities, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and Kazakhs
-
Human rights advocates, protestors, and anyone who criticises the government
-
People living in rural areas, particularly older people, and women
-
Single parent families
-
People who are homeless
-
Disabled people
-
Detainees
-
People from religious minorities, particularly those practising Christianity, Islam, or Falun Gong, or other unregistered religions
-
Internally displaced people
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
All our Quality of Life scores show that China could make significant improvements to its people’s lives, even without more resources.
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 is close to that mark — 98.1% on the right to health — its worst score — 61.4% 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, even without income growth. For example, if China 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 1.1 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 39,500 newborn babies to survive until their fifth birthday.
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional 161,000 newborns to be born at a healthy birth weight.
-
If China were reaching its full potential, given its income constraints, an extra 444,000 15-year-olds could eventually reach the age of 60.
-
If China used its resources efficiently, an additional 108 million people could have a toilet at home, and an extra 101 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 4 million people out of absolute poverty.
Safety from the State
China scores 2.9 out of 10 for our overall Safety from the State category, telling us that many people are at risk of arbitrary or political arrest or detention, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing. This is the lowest score in our sample of 30 countries.
China’s worst score in this category is 1.3 out of 10 for freedom from the death penalty, the lowest score among all the countries we measure.
The human rights experts we surveyed said that agents of the state, particularly police, had total impunity to engage in torture of those detained.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that human rights advocates, protesters, and people who criticised the government were at particular risk of rights violations, especially arbitrary arrest and detention, forced disappearance, and torture and ill-treatment. Respondents particularly noted risks to people participating in the White Paper protests, and those criticising the government response to the Covid-19 pandemic, or disobeying quarantine and lockdown rules.
People from ethnic minorities were at extra risk for all five Safety from the State rights.
Other vulnerable groups include:
-
People from ethnic minorities, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and Kazakhs
-
Human rights advocates, protesters, and anyone who criticises the government
-
Detainees and those accused of crimes
-
People from religious minorities, particularly those practising Falun Gong, Christianity, or Islam
-
Internally displaced people
Among other East and Southeast Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, China has the lowest scores for all five Safety from the State rights.
Right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from forced disappearance in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from death penalty in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from extrajudicial execution in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Empowerment
The Chinese government limits civil liberties and political freedom, with China scoring a very low 1.9 out of 10 in empowerment rights. This is the lowest score in our sample of 30 countries.
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. For all four rights, the human rights experts we surveyed agreed overwhelmingly that ‘all people’ were at risk of violations of these rights.
When it comes to the right to assembly and association, China scores 1.8 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. They also noted that people from religious minorities cannot freely gather, and that even small social gatherings in homes have been broken up by authorities.
China’s score for the right to opinion and expression is a very low 2.4 out of 10, with no improvement over the three years we have measured this right. Respondents noted that no one can speak freely, even online, and that doing so can lead to a range of punishments and reprisals.
China also scores in the ‘very bad’ range for the right to participate in government, with a score of 2 out of 10. Respondents noted the lack of free elections, and that ordinary people have no ability to participate in political life.
For the right to freedom of religion and belief, China scored 2.5, the lowest in our sample of nine countries in a new pilot study. Respondents noted that the government restricts all religious practices, and is particularly repressive towards people following unregistered minority religions such as Falun Gong, as well as Uyghur Muslims.
Groups that are particularly vulnerable to empowerment rights violations include:
-
Human rights advocates, protesters, and anyone who criticises the government
-
People from ethnic minorities, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and Kazakhs
-
Detainees and those accused of crimes
-
People from religious minorities, particularly those practising Falun Gong or other unregistered religions, Christianity, or Islam
-
Internally displaced people
Right to assembly and association in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to opinion and expression in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to participate in government in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom of religion and belief in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Country details
Population
924.6k (2021)
GDP/capita
$4,647 (2021)
current US dollars
$10,359 (2021)
2017 PPP dollars