Introduction

Singapore’s economic development as a trading port, and societal development as a global hub of diversity, has been phenomenal over the past half-century mainly due to its strategic location in the heart of SouthEast Asia allowing for trade links across the region, and its top-down national policies centered upon multiculturalism. Singapore’s government promotes their national identity through its CMIO model, which aims to be a racial utopia for Chinese, Malay, Indians, and Others. However, one might be surprised to find that such a country that focuses on national identity didn’t have a nationality, an indigenous population with one culture, history, and more, to begin with. In other words, decolonization based on single nationality was not possible for Singapore, as they started with multiple ethnicities. This may have been the reason for Singapore’s success with its top-down approach focusing on multiracialism, creating a racially harmonious culture that prevented conflicts. But on the social(bottom-up) level, Singaporean public still faces significant problems – policies have become racially codified, bringing attention to the myth of multiculturalism. Through this historical analysis, one would better understand Singapore and what led it to become an economically and racially leading Southeast Asian country, and possibly provide answers for other countries seeking racial harmony.

Contents

Section 1: Historical Context 

Understand the current situation of Singapore through its unique history as a country without an indigenous population, from British Rule to Independence from Malaysia.

Section 2: Top Down Approaches 

Learn about the different racial and cultural policy choices of Singapore for nation-building through analysis and evaluation of how it’s working.

Section 3: Analysis of Status Quo and Limitations 

Delve into what the reality is in the Singaporean society from these racially utopian policies, especially with limitations in economic and racial inequality.

Section 4: Implications and Conclusion

Long-term implications and importance of Singapore case in racial diversity among immigrants as guide for other countries.

Section 1: Historical Context

A region without indigenous population 

So how did Singapore look like before the British takeover? We must understand the very beginning before diving into two major historical events of British Colonization and Singapore's separation from Malaysia.

In January 1819, one month before the signing of 1819 Singapore Treaty to formally hoist British flag in Singapore, the region of Singapore had around 1,000 inhabitants at best. The ethnic composition was of "500 Orang Kallang, 200 Orang Seletar, 150 Orang Gelam and other Orang Laut." It would be these Orang Laut(Malay for "sea people") that would technically count as indigenous people to Singapore as its first inhabitants, living on houseboats near mangroves or living off the sea, fishing in the rivers and ocean for food calculating tides, and turned to plants and seafood to treat the sick or injured. [1] 

However, it would be clear that Singapore simply wasn't what one would call a civilization with distinct culture and history, as it was closer to a jumping off point for sea nomads, until the British came. In other words, Singapore never had national identity to fall back to, as it was a multiethnic country from the beginning.

British Colonial Rule (1819-1963)

The British officially arrived in Singapore when Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles landed, with a treaty proposal in hand that would transform the region forever. On Feburary 6th of 1819, Stamford Raffles, along with Temenggong Abdu’r Rahman and Sultan Hussein Shah of Johor, signed a treaty that established Singapore as a trading post for the British East India Company. [2] 

Sir Stamford Raffles devised the Raffles Town Plan, to remodel Singapore from disordered colony into a modern city. The plan formed ethnic clusters in housing, segregating residents into four main areas, European Town for Europeans and merchants, Chinatown for Ethnic Chinese, Kampong Gelam for Malays and Arabs/Muslims, and Chulia Kampong for Ethnic Indians. The plan was also intent on providing roads, schools, and land for government buildings. [3] 

Under British Colonial Rule, Singapore continued to grow as a trading station, a global hub attracting immigrants and indentured laborers from China, India, Malay Archipelago and beyond.

Discussion: Was Colonialism bad for Singapore?

On the topic of Colonialism, Singapore brings a very interesting connection. During the period of European colonization of Southeast Asia, the British and Dutch were in rivalry. The British East Indies wanted an international trading port as well, that could outcompete the Dutch East Indies' Java, which was utilized as a base for trading and expansion. Singapore was the chosen base for the British, and that is how it became the trading hub we know now, with economic support and development. This is why many Singaporeans don't have the hatred of the British like other Southeast Asian countries, like Burma or Borneo. 

However, the debate on seeing British Colonialism varies even within Singapore. In 1969, Singapore's first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew even said "there was no organized human society in Singapore, unless a fishing village can be called a society."[4] Majority of the Singaporean public follow this view, considering how resourceless of a region Singapore was before British rule, and how British were heavily involved in creating the foundations of today’s government and law. Unlike other colonial masters in Southeast Asia, the British did leave Singapore with positive elements for success, both in economy and society formation. Some of the positive legacies include: English as lingua franca, free trade(port), an open economy, developed infrastructure, rule of law, good civil service, and modern science & medicine. [5] 

On the other hand, to see it purely good, one must not forget there is no denying that the colonial regime was racist. It promoted opium smoking, endangering countless lives in Singapore. British rule also led to high unemployment levels with working conditions often horrendous. Moreover, one cannot justify the racial hierarchy that stems from British colonialism for its achievements in social and economic sectors. The ongoing debate on British Colonialism will continue for Singapore and the international community. [5]

Singapore's Independence (1963~)

Singapore declared independence from British rule in 1963, becoming a part of Malaysia. This occurred because Britain's new Labour party government was forced to reduce its national defense spending, which was already burdened by weakened British economy, and devaluation of pound, national currency of the Britain. Maintaining the military bases in Singapore was too costly for British to continue its campaign abroad. [6] The choice to join Malaysia didn't last long however, as in 1965, Singapore became an independent and sovereign state, rapidly recognized in the international community. 

Furthermore, Singapore, alongside Phillippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, formed ASEAN after the cold war. In connection to non-alignment movement deriving from fears of neocolonialism, Singapore and its neighbors included a non-interference clause, that they must respect countries soverignty even if it is ethnic cleansing, along with no nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia. ASEAN was important because it meant Southeast Asia were to remain where they are from then on, unlike the SEA history of expanding. [2]

Discussion: Why did Singapore separate from Malaysia?

In analysis, Singapore separated from Malaysia mainly due to political and economic differences. These differences between the ruling parties of Singapore and Malaysia led to communal tensions and racial riots, and ultimately to Singapore's Independence. 

Chinese-Malay Contest: Existence and Nonexistence of Nationality

If Singapore were to remain as part of Malaysia, the majority population would be Chinese! This was something Malaysians(Malays) couldn't accept, and what led to Singapore's separation, so that the Malays can be majority in Malaysia. We must note here that Malay is the original nationality / indigenous population of Malaysia, while Singapore didn't have an indigenous population. The strive for "Malaysian Malaysia", added to historical backing as the original nationality, eventually led to separation and the Bumiputera policy. This is a domestic policy that stand to this day, favoring Bumiputera Malaysians, which other races saw as racially discriminating. In sum, the main difference between the two was the existence of nationality. Unlike Malays, no one in Singapore had that historical claim, that one culture, history, and more to utilize in decolonization. [7]

Different Strategies: Political and Economic

In national policies with regards to political and economic sectors, Malaysia portrayed self-sufficiency ideologies, unlike successfully open Singapore. Politically, Malaysia wanted more conservative tactics while Singapore wanted a more free and open state, closer to Western nations. Malaysia's fear of recolonization was greater than Singapore's. Therefore, in its economic strategies, Malaysia wanted to focus on its natural resource production, mainly rubber plantation. On the other hand, Singapore, being a small district, realized it can't self-sustain and compete with its agriculture due to limited land spaces. Singapore wanted to switch quickly to all-out focus on trade, which they eventually did, building a whole city through economy thanks to its strategic location attracting international commerce. [7]

Important Figures

Endnotes 

[1] National Library Board Singapore, “1819 Singapore Treaty,” n.d., https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=92bb56f0-e821-40d1-bd8c-cf8fa7e7f172#:~:text=On%206%20February%201819%2C%20Stamford,a%20trading%20post%20in%20Singapore. 

[2]  “A History of Singapore: A Timeline of Events,” The Telegraph, November 6, 2019, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/discover-singapore/history-timeline/. 

[3] Bonny Tan, “Raffles Town Plan (Jackson Plan),” n.d., https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=ed0c1981-882f-42c2-9acf-e5dae577a3ba. 

[4] Tanya Ong, “This Is What Lee Kuan Yew Said During the 150th Anniversary of Modern S’pore’s Founding in 1969,” Mothership.SG - News From Singapore, Asia and Around the World, n.d., https://mothership.sg/2018/01/lee-kuan-yew-150th-anniversary-1969-raffles/. 

[5] Stephen Dziedzic, “Singapore’s Quarrel Over Colonialism,” Lowy Institute, 2020, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/singapore-s-quarrel-over-colonialism. 

[6] National Library Board Singapore, “British Withdrawal From Singapore,” n.d., https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=eb6f9fc3-51e8-4b19-b69c-a56416fbf76a. 

[7] National Library Board Singapore, “Singapore Separates From Malaysia and Becomes Independent,” n.d., https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=dc1efe7a-8159-40b2-9244-cdb078755013#:~:text=On%209%20August%201965%2C%20Singapore,in%20July%20and%20September%201964. 

[8] National Library Board Singapore, “Stamford Raffles’s Career and Contributions to Singapore,” n.d., https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=3916c818-89dd-461b-9d45-81e27a08984a. 

[9] National Library Board Singapore, “Premiership of Lee Kuan Yew,” n.d., https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=84334fae-dc29-427b-9a5f-30b3d77e4087. 

[10] Arthur Cotterell, A History of Southeast Asia (Marshall Cavendish International (Asia) Pte Limited, 2014).

Section 2: Top-Down Approaches

CMIO Policy 

The four major races in Singapore are Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Others. The Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) model is the national framework of organizing race in Singapore.

Upon its independence in 1965, Singapore's dominant social and racial policy for societal organization has been multiracialism and multiculturalism, often used interchangeably in Singapore. The government overtly promoted its framework, under its narrative of nationbuilding and national culture formation, promising for racial harmony. [11]

This top-down approach for racial diversity is quite unique, as unlike other nations who try to downplay race relations, Singapore stresses its four ethnicities as main means of social classification. The purpose behind would be that through Singaporean multiculturalism that treats all races equally and focuses on nationality, Singapore is able to de-emphasize its heterogeneous character of race and simplify through CMIO quadratomy. This would be possible, through Singaporeanization of CMIO policy, ex) Singaporean Chinese, Singaporean Malay, etc.. [12] This national strategy would implant the importance of nationality over ethnic identity. Yes, you are an ethnic Chinese, but a Singaporean before that! 

Different Multiracial Top-Down Approaches

From top-down point of view, we will now look into what a nation without a historical claim of nationality was able to accomplish through its diverse policy implementations based on multiculturalism. Its multifaceted policies centered upon creating a racially harmonious utopia was possible because of their distinct characteristics in history, race, culture, and ideologies.

Holidays - One Nation, Many Cultures

Singaporeans celebrate a variety of holidays, in respect of diverse cultures, ethnicities, and religions. Singaporeans come together to celebrate Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Ramadan, Christmas, and more. This is part of Singapore's national multiculturalism strategies, respecting different cultures and treating them equally.

Top-Down Political Approach - Speech on Nationality, "Singaporeans first"

On 1966/01/15, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye spoke about future plans and policies under the theme of national identity, at the Makara Villakku celebrations at the Port of Singapore Authority. During his speech, he spoke about building a single 'Singapore nation', which has a 'varied racial and cultural character'. He stressed Singaporeans must remember that they all are Singapore citizens before anything, even though Singapore as a community can each celebrate different traditions, cultures, and festivals. There is no Singapore nation without national identity on the base of it all. [14]

Key takeaways:

"1) 16 public holidays, mainly for religious and cultural festivals of the different communities;

2) great tolerance between the various religious, cultural and racial groups;

3) all Singaporeans are citizens, 'nationals of Singapore';

4) urgency of security of Singapore; its defence is not just Singapore's own problem, but involves international politics;

5) defence of Singapore all share 'equal responsibility';

6) duty of leaders to explain to the people, such as why Singapore is accepted into UN;

7) Singapore's international image;

8) no 'ambition of acquiring territory';

9) no intention to harm Malaysia, when Singapore acts on its security;

10) regret Singapore and Malaysia 'separated by law';

11) tolerance and cooperation between nations and nations;

12) Singapore Port Authority is 'important institution';

13) small section of port workers 'down tools and took a half holiday' over an 'emotional reason';

14) 'to succeed, be viable', people must 'calculate in cold terms, think rationally, act logically'." [14]

Top-Down Language Policy

Lee Kuan Yew stressed multiracialism via language policy by deciding on English as the lingua franca to trade with the world whilst implementing mother tongue in education to preserve ethnic identity.

The top-down language policy is shown through the Singaporean education system. Students in Singapore master two official languages as a requirement; English and one of ethnic mother tongues. For instance, a student would study English as a "First Language," and the student's ethnic mother tongue would be also learned, as a "Second Language," in Singapore. [15]

Nationalism plays a significant role here in striving for ethnic harmony, as it is the government influencing the diversity of language acquisition through its educational policies. 

• Oral History Interview - Bong, Marie Ethel

On the importance of top-down language policy in Singapore

"In Singapore, we have so many of the different cultures of the area invested in here. How we deal with all these is going to be very important as a lesson to the others in the area. We have to mix very much more, be much more open to each other. How can we tell others not to intensify their ancient animosities if we don't solve these ourselves here? I think language is going to play a very important part in how we are going to deal with these problems in future." [16]

Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in public housing(HDB)

The Ethnic Integration Policy is Singapore's public housing allocation policy, and it accurately represents Singapore's multicultural identity promoting racial integration and harmony. The EIP requires a balanced mix of ethnic communities in public housing. More specifically, the ethnic makeup of each block of HDB towns reflects national ethnic distribution through limits and quotas. This is possible via placing a quota for a number of people from each racial group who can live in one block according to CMIO ethnic distribution ratio in Singapore. For example, if a maximum quota is reached for Chinese residents, a Chinese potential buyer wouldn't be allowed to buy an apartment given that the seller is of different ethnicity, like Malay, Indians, and Others. Moreover, the EIP in public housing achieves the physical goal of destroying ethnic cluster formations, which is one of the initiating factors for ethnic conflicts. [17]

Ethnic Composition of Singapore's Citizens (For Context)

In 2020, Chinese at 75.9%, Malays at 15%, Indians at 7.5%, and Others at 1.6%. [18]

Endnotes

[11] Chan Heng Chee et al., Singapore’s Multiculturalism: Evolving Diversity, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429449949. 

[12] Sung-Gun Kim, "Problems of Race and Ethnicity in Singapore," Region Research, 2014, https://hdl.handle.net/10371/46336 

[13] National Archives of Singapore, “Stand up for Singapore - Forging a People’s Will to Overcome the Odds,” 2020, https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/sphpcard19?catId=0. 

[14] National Archives of Singapore, “Dr Toh Chin Chye at Makara Villakku Celebrations,” 1966, https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/audiovisual_records/record-details/51bed89e-1164-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad. 

[15] Ng Patrick, "Language planning in Action: Singapore's Multilingual and Bilingual Policy," Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies Volume 30, 2011, https://www.apu.ac.jp/rcaps/uploads/fckeditor/publications/journal/RJAPS_V30_Ng.pdf 

[16] National Archives of Singapore, “Bong, Marie Ethel (Mrs)  – Oral History Interviews – Record Details (Accession Number 001390),” 1993, https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/oral_history_interviews/interview/001390. 

[17] “Multiracial Singapore: Cultivating a Harmonious Society,” Global Is Asian, n.d., https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/multiracial-singapore-ensuring-inclusivity-and-integration. 

[18] Department of Statistics in Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry, “Singapore Census of Population 2020, Statistical Release 1: Demographic Characteristics, Education, Language and Religion,” 2020, https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/reference/cop2020/cop2020-sr1/census20_stat_release1. 

Section 3: Status Quo and Limitations

Myth of Multiculturalism

National ideology of multiculturalism and the booming economy under the guidance of the authoritarian ruling elites have so far minimized the negative effects of economic and social inequalities on race relations in Singapore. But talks on racial inequality is growing in Singapore, despite Singaporean government's ongoing national strategy striving for racial harmony. Singapore's state-led racial utopia proves to have its blind spots, downplaying the dividing aspects of Singapore society in the myth of multiculturalism. [19] In this section, we try to answer what the reality of the topdown approaches are in the Singapore society, understanding the status quo of Singapore's race relations and identifying the limitations of approaches that are not working, from the social(bottom-up) level.

Status Quo of Singapore's race relations

Singapore's Immigrant Population

Singapore has one of the lowest birth rates around the world, similar to South Korea. But how Singapore is handling this issue is different to South Korea. They have chosen immigrants as their answer, which is no big surprise, considering its history as a region without an indigineous population. This was an easy choice, considering how they were a melting pot from the beginning, with various ethnicities arriving and mixing in Singapore as impoverished indentured laborers for the British. With more than 43 percent of Singapore's total population as immigrants now, the number of Singapore's immigrant and foreign workers looks to increase moving forward. [20]

Recent racial controversies 

• Brownface scandal

In 2019, two Indian Singaporeans made headlines and received police warnings after a racially discriminatory response to a brownface ad via online rap video that mocked Chinese Singaporeans, portaying them as racists. [5] 

• Wealth lies in Chinese

Influx of mega-rich Chinese in Singapore in order to protect their wealth from Communist Party.

Limitations

• Remnants of racial privilege from the colonial period

Under British Colonial Rule, racial hierarchy was distinct in Singapore, with Europeans at the top, Chinese just below, and Malay and Indians at the bottom. Though unconscious, these labelings remain imprinted on many minds of Singaporeans, and passed on through generations. For Singaporeans, decolonization is not fully accomplished, at least not in the psychological sphere. With Chinese Singaporeans dominating the upper classes of government and business, Malay, Indians, and Others face continous discrimination. This adds to the risk of celebrating British colonialism as a Singaporean, because it can justify the racial and socioeconomic shortcomings of Malay people. [5]

• PAP's racially codified policies

In Singapore, policies are racially codified based on CMIO categorizations. The CMIO classification, like it or not, is fundamental in its social policies like housing, education, culture, and more. Indeed, the dominant party, People's Actions Party (PAP) declared that its policies will provide equal and fair opportunities to all races, but there is no denying that race continues to be important for social mobility in Singapore. Unlike the government's narrative in insignificance of race compared to nationality, it is next to impossible to ignore race in the current system, because race justifies PAP's intervention. Racial diversity without trouble/conflict is why government's policies are needed. Codification of race in its top-down approaches allows for sustained government presence in managing race relations through its policies. [19]

• Quantitative Data on Singaporean Public

According to a 2022 survey on Singaporean public, about 20% of Malay and Indian respondents told they didn't get the job because of race at least once, compared to 5% of ethnic-Chinese respondents with the same response. [21]

Compared to 46% in 2016, 56% of Singaporeans now consider racism as an important national issue, which is on one hand concerning but on the other hand a positive sign, considering there may be better awareness of racial bias and injustice in Singapore. [21]

Endnotes

[19] Bella, “The Myth of Multiculturalism in Singapore,” Medium, September 16, 2018, https://medium.com/@patcheezie/the-myth-of-multiculturalism-in-singapore-d0712706db4.

[20] Statista, “Singapore: Number of Immigrants,” May 29, 2024, https://www.statista.com/statistics/698035/singapore-number-of-immigrants/. 

[21] Mathews Mathew and Samantha Nah, “Commentary: Here’s How Far Singapore Has Come in Making ‘regardless of Race’ a Lived Reality for All,” 2022, https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/publications/details/commentary-heres-how-far-singapore-has-come-in-making-regardless-of-race-a-lived-reality-for-all.

Section 4: Implications and Conclusion

Implications

In the long run, the case of Singapore will be a model for future racial and cultural melting pots, which will increase with the global trend of immigrant boom due to low birth rate and globalization. Countries like Korea, without a significant solution in hand, can learn from Singapore's opening of borders. Singapore shows the pros and cons of state-led top-down approach for racial harmony, and despite its limitations, they seem to be headed in the right direction. They have not had significant racial conflicts, potentially because it is difficult to mobilize Singaporeans and get them to point to racial inequalities in a country that promotes racial utopia as one of its main goals. Their state-led policies have handled low-birth rates and made Singapore one of Southeast Asia's most economically and racially successful countries. But we should remember that Singapore has a unique characteristic of absence of nationality; without a history, culture, or indigenous population to fall back on. This may be why they were able to come up with such racially utopian policies. This is why Singapore's case matters especially for historians. It proves all that is socially constructed is historically constructed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we discussed the history of Singapore from its start as a region without an indigenous population, to the colonial British rule, to its independence from Malaysia, and to its ongoing process of decolonization and modernization. We connected this unique history of Singapore with top-down approaches for racial harmony, finding the justification for governmental intervention as purpose behind its multiculturalism strategies. The myth of multiculturalism in status quo of Singapore and its various limitations also show Singapore is not as utopian as its policies sound. The use of nationality for a country without a significant history in nationality shows how unique process of decolonization and independence was for Singapore, but also a much needed guide for other countries looking for economic development and racial harmony, as their containers and cultural streets show.