A Nation is Born

In 1965, Lee Kuan Yew faced a formidable challenge as Prime Minister of newly independent Singapore. As Stefan Kroll notes in his article “Risk or Trust? The Legal Management of Diversity in Singapore,”  published by the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), Singapore was experiencing a new sense of autonomy. It had been a British colony from 1819 to 1945, was under Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945 and had only recently separated from Malaysia. The young nation was deeply fragmented. Its population consisted of approximately 75% Chinese, 14% Malays, 8% Indians and Pakistanis and 3% others. Just a year earlier, ethnic riots had left 23 people dead and hundreds injured. Coupled with a lack of natural resources, high unemployment and a precarious geopolitical position, Lee Kuan Yew inherited a nearly impossible situation.

Lee Kuan Yew’s Choice

Amongst other economic and social policies, Lee Kuan Yew chose to unite Singapore through building a harmonious multicultural society. He outlined what this would mean in his December 1965 speech, promising that progress and provisions would be spread equally, regardless of race, religion or language. This approach aimed to avoid further internal conflict and riots in precarious times. In doing so, the goal was to accomplish a united society that would work together to achieve Singapore’s development goals. As referenced in Stefan Kroll’s piece, the 1966 Constitutional Commission Report highlighted the geopolitical need for this approach, describing it as a “necessity” for Singapore’s survival in the midst of power conflicts and as “new nationalisms” attempted to assert themselves in the absence of old European empires in Asia. Thus, the Singaporean government believed a united society was needed for both domestic growth and to ensure the security of the country on the global stage.

Early Years

The first stepping stone in the legislature to achieve harmony appears in the 1965 Constitution. The Constitution enshrines that there should be “no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground of religion, race, descent or place of birth”. Five years later, in 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established. It was tasked with examining all potential legislation and ensuring it was not discriminatory towards any particular group. The Penal Code is another central foundation to the goal of harmony. It was updated in 2007 and 2021 to ensure the safeguarding of harmony. It provides for punishments of three years in prison and/or fines for inciting “disharmony”.

A Key Principle: Maintenance of Religious Harmony

Another milestone piece of legislation was the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, 1990. It was based on two key principles: to keep religion and politics separate, and to ensure tolerance between different religious groups. Amongst other policies, the act introduced restraining orders for those who instigate enmity between religious groups. Violating the order could result in fines of up to S$10,000 or up to two years in prison. The act was updated in 2019 to further strengthen the response to cases of disharmony, and to safeguard against foreign influences. To do so, the act introduced the Community Remedial Initiative for those who have caused offense to other communities to learn about other the various religions and make amends. It also demands that religious groups disclose donations from foreign sources of S$10,000 or more, in the hope to safeguard against foreign influences.

Another Key Principle: Maintenance of Racial Harmony

Planning for the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act (2025) began in 2021. The act is structurally very similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. It was introduced to reduce the risk of ethnic conflict by strengthening the response to threats to racial harmony. Further, it aimed to signal that racial harmony is just as important as religious harmony. To do so, it replaced the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony with the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, reflecting its increased scope to cover race-related matters. It also extended the aforementioned restraining orders to instances of racial disharmony, and expanded the safeguards against foreign influences to include entities dealing with race relations. This piece of legislation represents the ongoing process to manage ethnic diversity in Singapore.

The CMIO Model

At the foundation of all these acts lies the CMIO model, which is central to all administrative decisions in Singapore. Established in 1959, the model places citizens into categories of Chinese, Malay, Indian or Other. This is where the acronym CMIO is derived from. It aims to prevent dominance of a larger ethnic group through rules for coexistence, and ensures that the rights of individuals are independent of their ethnic group. This policy is particularly visible in the HDB Ethnic Integration Policy. This policy uses the CMIO model to ensure a mix of ethnic groups in public housing, therefore preventing any emergence of ethnic enclaves. The CMIO model is also the basis for the Group Representation Constituencies System (GRC), which mandates the representation of minority communities in parliament. It furthermore provides the foundation for section 19b of Singapore’s constitution, which reserves candidate status for presidential elections for individuals from communities that have not held office for five or more consecutive terms. For example, the 2017 election was reserved solely for Malay candidates.

Putting it in Practice

When in Singapore, multiculturalism is evident almost everywhere. The efforts to preserve multicultural harmony are extensive. Beyond legislation, initiatives such as Racial Harmony Day or Inter-Racial and Religious Harmony Circles work to preserve the country’s peaceful interethnic relations. Moreover, inter-ethnic marriages are on the rise, currently making up almost one in five of all marriages. As a result, more individuals may find it challenging to identify with a single category within the CMIO model. This shift reflects the evolving complexity of ethnic identity in Singapore. A 2021 survey found that nearly half of Singaporeans trusted other religions. In comparison, only 12% of Brits said the same. In the same survey, 67.5% of Singaporeans said they saw occurrences of racist behaviour “not at all frequently”, whilst only 32.3% of Malaysians and 34.6% of Americans said the same about their experiences. Whilst it is important to note that the context of these societies differ, the case of Singapore presents an insightful comparison.