Multiracial Societies: The Trade-Offs Between American Liberty & Singaporean Order

By Amelyn Koh Yee '29

---

A multiracial country is one whose population is made up of multiple distinct ethnic and racial backgrounds. The United States and Singapore are two multiracial countries that have taken different approaches in developing an equal and nondiscriminatory society. The United States’ bottom-up reactive approach and Singapore’s top-down proactive framework have resulted in varying degrees of success in fostering inclusivity and racial harmony.

In the United States, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause states that everyone should be treated alike by the law, but to what extent is that ideal realised? (1) The United States’ history of slavery and colonization has resulted in systems of racial discrimination that are embedded in the institutions of society. The country’s historical reputation as a land of opportunity, family reunification policies, and a strong economy has attracted waves of immigrants that now make the US home to one of the largest immigrant populations. (2) The resultant bloom in ethnic diversity in the US was met with fear among primarily White Americans descended from previous generations of Northern and Western European immigrants who were afraid of the changing cultural landscape and the loss of economic opportunities to new waves of immigrants. (3) This political rhetoric labels immigrants as a threat to national security, leading to anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia, which materialised into race-based discrimination against immigrants and non-white Americans alike. (4) Disparities in employment, education, access to healthcare, and rates of arrests disproportionately affect people of color who continue to be subject to racial profiling, hate speech, and racial violence. (5) This unjust racial discrimination has resulted in anti-discrimination movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Chicano Movement, Black Lives Matter, and Stop AAPI (Asian American and Pacific Islanders) Hate to demand greater equality for these demographics. 

Singapore’s history of colonization, migrant settlers, and immigration similarly brought together people of different ethnicities, creating the multiracial society seen today. The majority Chinese population creates a cultural and linguistic dominance that often excludes non-Chinese minorities. (6) Systemic racial discrimination that favors the Chinese majority over their Malay and Indian counterparts can be traced back to the racial stereotypes perpetuated by British colonial rulers. The “divide and conquer” strategy used by British colonial rulers cast the indigenous agrarian Malays as being lazy, Chinese immigrants as hardworking entrepreneurs, and imported Indian labour as military or plantation labor. (7) These unfounded stereotypes continue to persist today as subtle employment and workplace biases. (8) Post-independence, Singapore found itself as a Chinese-majority country surrounded by a Malay-muslim archipelago. Skepticism and distrust of the geopolitical loyalty of the local Malay population resulted in institutional exclusion from high-ranking military positions that took decades to thaw. (9) Finally, it was the racial riots that broke out between the Malays and Chinese during the 1960s that propelled the government to take steps in bridging interracial tensions. (10)

In the United States, bottom-up change came about through anti-discrimination movements that demanded legal reforms. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was introduced in the United States as a response to the Civil Rights Movement. (11) The Act outlawed legal racial segregation in public spaces, halted federal funding for any program that racially discriminates, and guarded against employment and workplace discrimination through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (12)  Following the Chicano movement, amendments were made to the Voting Rights Act in 1975 to protect language minorities, mandating the provision of bilingual ballots in regions with large Spanish-speaking populations and ensuring that minority voices would still be heard. (13) The 1982 Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe ruled that local school districts cannot constitutionally deny public education to undocumented immigrant children, as it violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by taking away their chance of education and securing a future. (14) In 2021, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act was signed following the Stop AAPI Hate campaigns, requiring the Department of Justice to facilitate the review of hate crimes and mitigate racially discriminatory language used during the pandemic. (15)

While this flurry of legal responses marks a valiant effort in preventing discrimination, it largely focuses on addressing the aftermath of discrimination rather than its root causes. While the Civil Rights Act and COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act legally protect people of color from discrimination, they rely on the criminal justice system to punish offenders, failing to address the underlying xenophobia, structural barriers, and media rhetoric that cause discriminatory employment practices and hate crimes. Legal punishment and lawsuits are used as extrinsic deterrents against discriminatory acts rather than cultivating true intercultural understanding. Despite the Plyler v. Doe decision that gives all children equal rights to education, there is continued economic inequality where structural poverty causes disparities in wealth to persist in majority-white versus majority-black and Latino neighbourhoods. (16) The legal framework that the United States provides creates consequences for discriminatory actions, only punishing offenders after harm has been inflicted. It does not, in itself, foster an environment of inclusivity and mutual harmony, doing little to address the root causes of such discrimination.

Singapore, on the other hand, in seeing the violence created by interracial conflict, views racial harmony as a foundational pillar of society. Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated that “crucial [to Singapore] is interracial, interreligious harmony. Without that, [...] we are doomed,” and over the years, the government has taken proactive steps by using a top-down approach to ensure minority representation and to foster racial harmony. (17)

The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), official national holidays, Group Representation Constituencies (GRC), and the Reserved Election mechanism all work together to form a legal and constitutional framework that is intolerant of race-based hostility and which encourages intercultural understanding. The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), implemented in the 1980s, regulates the proportion of a public housing block or neighbourhood that can be bought by a specific ethnicity to prevent the creation of cultural enclaves. The EIP quotas were set to reflect the ethnic demographic of the country, setting the cap at 84% Chinese, 22% Malays, and 12% for Indians and other ethnic minorities in each block and neighbourhood (18). In 2014, a Non-Citizen quota was added to prevent clusters of foreign communities from forming (19). The EIP aims to proactively prevent discrimination and promote racial harmony by creating spaces where multicultural interactions are incorporated into the day-to-day life of Singaporeans. (20)

Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) mandate that teams of candidates running for election have to include at least one minority race, ensuring multiracial representation in Parliament. (21) Under the 2016 Constitutional Commission, Singapore implemented the Reserved Election mechanism, declaring that a presidential election would be reserved exclusively for candidates of an ethnic group if the ethnic group (Chinese, Malay, Indian/Others) has not held presidential office in the last five consecutive terms. Through GRCs and the Reserved Election mechanism, Singapore institutionalises inclusion and power sharing, safeguarding minority representation in the executive and legislative branches of the state. (22)

Under the Ministry of Manpower, various festivals from all major religious and ethnic groups are recognised as official paid public holidays. These include Chinese New Year, celebrated by the Chinese; Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji celebrated by the Malay and Muslims; Deepavali, celebrated by Indians and Hindus; Vesak Day, celebrated by the Buddhists; and Christmas, celebrated by the Christians. (23) The inclusion of minority festivals validates the minority groups of Singapore, giving each ethnicity and religion equal recognition. Their status as official public holidays provides economic validation, as workers of minority ethnicities or religions do not need to use paid leave to celebrate their religious festivals. This equal recognition establishes institutional equality, signaling to all Singaporeans that cultural differences in Singapore are viewed as a national asset rather than a threat to national security. These public holidays encourage intercultural exchange by creating opportunities for Singaporeans of different races and religions to celebrate their respective festivals together. In Singapore’s public housing blocks, residents are given first-hand exposure to the celebrations of their neighbours, demystifying cultural differences in the country. (24)

While not a public holiday, Racial Harmony Day was introduced in 1997 to commemorate the 1964 racial riots, serving as a reminder of the importance of racial tolerance and understanding. The mandatory commemoration of Racial Harmony Day in all schools actively fosters national awareness, cultural appreciation, and inter-racial understanding, especially among the young generation of students. (25) 

Singapore’s multiracial framework was introduced as a deliberate nation-building strategy after its separation from Malaysia in 1965, focusing on positive liberty, where the state actively intervenes to give citizens the freedom to exercise certain rights. (26) Singapore proactively intervenes with deliberate policies to empower citizens from diverse backgrounds to have equal opportunities, but despite this top-down proactivity, the existence of Chinese privilege is still a topic of debate. Some deny its existence, citing that the Chinese population was greatly disadvantaged in the nationwide adoption of English as the country’s official language and the lack of “unearned assets that [a person] can count on to cash in” that defines white privilege. (27) In a survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies, respondents from minority groups gave Singapore a lower rating in terms of racial harmony level than their Chinese counterparts. Malays and Indians were more likely to feel discriminated against in their workplace. (28) This suggests that despite Singapore’s best intentions, it is not yet post-race. The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the Public Order Act suppress free speech and free expression of dissent, and also bring into question the extent to which minority grievances are heard instead of covered up by the loud voices that insist that Singapore has reached true racial harmony. (29)

The United States and Singapore are two multiracial countries whose different historical contexts led each to adopt different approaches towards fostering inclusivity. Singapore institutionalizes racial harmony at the expense of free speech, while the United States trades it for the protection of individual liberties. The United States’ legal framework to achieve racial equality was built to strive towards fulfilling the founding democratic ideal that everyone is equal. After British monarchical rule, great emphasis was placed on ensuring that voices of the people could be heard, and even greater was the skepticism placed on any sort of concentrated government power that infringes on individual liberties. The considerations made for the people of color in the United States were largely fought for by the people themselves over centuries. Singapore, on the contrary, was a young country that was able to learn from the mistakes others had made. It used its concentrated state power to socially and politically integrate its various ethnicities, deliberately crafting legislation and policy to engineer a society that deeply institutionalizes racial harmony. 

Endnotes

1. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

2. USAFacts Team, "Why Do Immigrants Come to the US?," USAFacts, August 1, 2024, https://usafacts.org/articles/why-do-people-immigrate-us/.

3. McGuire, Matthew P. "The Long History of Xenophobia in the United States," Inserting Philosophy (Medium), November 17, 2020, https://medium.com/inserting-philosophy/the-long-history-of-xenophobia-in-the-united-states-fd7c9fa44b1.

4. "Anti-Immigrant," Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed July 31, 2026, https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/anti-immigrant/.

5. Paula A. Braveman et al., "Systemic and Structural Racism: Definitions, Examples, Health Damages, and Approaches to Dismantling," Health Affairs 41, no. 2 (February 2022), https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01394; 

6. Sai Siew Min, “Why there is Chinese privilege in Singapore, but it’s not analogous to White privilege,” Academia | SG, June 17, 2021, https://www.academia.sg/academic-views/why-there-is-chinese-privilege-in-singapore-but-its-not-analogous-to-white-privilege/.          

7. Lee Chin Wee, "Colonial Scars Remain in Singapore, Even if You Can't See Them," Cherwell, January 5, 2018, https://www.cherwell.org/2018/01/05/colonial-scars-remain-in-singapore-even-if-you-cant-see-them/; Bhattacharya, Jayati. “Stories from the Margins: Indian Business Communities in the Growth of Colonial Singapore.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 50, no. 4 (2019): 521–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463420000041.

8. Bryan Cheang and Donovan Choy, "Culture of Meritocracy, Political Hegemony, and Singapore’s Development," International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 37 (2024): 265, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10767-023-09458-x.

9. Suriani Suratman, “‘Problematic Singapore Malays’ – The Making of a Portrayal” (paper presented at the International Symposium on Thinking Malayness, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, June 19–21, 2004).

10. "Racial Riots (1964 and 1969)," SG101, Government of Singapore, last modified October 3, 2025, https://www.sg101.gov.sg/society/examples/racialriots/.

11. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).

12. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed July 3, 2026, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964.

13. Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-73, 89 Stat. 400 (1975).

14. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

15. COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, Pub. L. No. 117-13, 135 Stat. 265 (2021), https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/937/text.

16. Briana Sullivan, Donald Hays, and Neil Bennett, "Households With a White, Non-Hispanic Householder Were Ten Times Wealthier Than Those With a Black Householder in 2021," U.S. Census Bureau, April 23, 2024, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/04/wealth-by-race.html; Plyler, 457 U.S. 202.

17. Tessa Wong, "Lee Kuan Yew: Which way now for Singapore?," BBC News, March 28, 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31939304.

18. Ti, Edward. “Living in Diversity: Singapore’s Unique Ethnic Integration Policy,” City Perspectives, February 2, 2026, https://cityperspectives.smu.edu.sg/article/living-diversity-singapores-unique-ethnic-integration-policy.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, art. 39A; Parliamentary Elections Act (Singapore, Cap. 218, 1989 Revised Edition), sec. 8A

22. Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, art. 19B 

23. Singapore Ministry of Manpower, "Public Holidays: Entitlement and Pay," Ministry of Manpower, last updated July 30, 2025, https://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/public-holidays-entitlement-and-pay.

24. "About Us," Housing & Development Board, accessed July 31, 2026, https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us.

25. Loh Pei Ying and Jamie Han, "Racial Harmony Day," Singapore Infopedia, National Library Board, last modified October 27, 2025, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=d584f038-2d67-4a3b-b786-7d2116dbec3b.

26. Independence of Singapore Agreement, art. 2, Malaysia and Singapore, August 7, 1965, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 563, no. 8206, p. 89.

27. Sai, “Why there is Chinese privilege.”

28. Ng Wei Kai, “Racial Discrimination at Work Has Fallen, but Minorities Continue to Face More Prejudice: IPS Study,” The Straits Times, February 3, 2025, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/racial-discrimination-at-work-has-fallen-but-minorities-continue-to-face-more-ips-study.

29. Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Singapore); Public Order Act 2009 (Singapore)