In conversations about multiculturalism, Singapore often serves as a prime example of effective diversity management. Built on a mix of Chinese, Malay, Indian, and smaller minority communities, the city-state has long supported “multiracialism,” a principle aimed at uniting people while preserving their unique cultural identities. From housing policies that promote integration to education systems designed to foster mutual respect, Singapore’s model offers both inspiration and lessons to learn from. Like other Asian societies, such as South Korea, which have been facing increasingly diverse populations in recent years, Singapore’s experiences provide valuable insights into what it takes to build inclusive, cohesive, and future-oriented countries.

Bridging Communities—Singapore’s Multicultural Journey

Located at the crossroads of trade between the East and West, Singapore has long served as a meeting point for people of various ethnic and religious backgrounds. Its multicultural nature developed well before independence in 1965, yet under British colonial rule, communities were separated into distinct residential areas: the Chinese in the city center, Malays in Kampong Glam and Geylang Serai, and Indians in Serangoon and Sembawang. Such segregation limited interaction and understanding among groups, leading to social tensions that resulted in the racial riots of the 1960s.

Photo: News on the racial riot in Singapore, 1950 (Source: SG101)

In 1964, Singapore experienced one of its most severe racial riots. On July 21 of that year, a confrontation between the Chinese and Malay communities during a procession celebrating the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday left 23 people dead and 454 injured. The violence flared up again in September, leading to 13 more deaths and 106 injuries. These tragic events emphasized the urgent need for unity in the young nation. After gaining independence, Singapore’s leaders made multiracialism a fundamental part of national policy, enshrining it in the Constitution and promoting integration through education, housing, and community programs. Five years later, in 1969, another racial riot broke out, causing four fatalities and 80 injuries, which re-emphasized the significance of the policy measure. Today, the idea of living peacefully amid diversity remains central to Singapore’s identity, shaping a society that values respect, equality, and social cohesion.

While the freedom to practice religion is constitutionally protected, the Singaporean government introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) in 1990 to promote tolerance and moderation among religious groups and to prevent the rise of extremism. The MRHA was amended in 2019to strengthen the government’s ability to manage religious tensions and prevent foreign interference. It requires key religious leaders to be Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents and mandates disclosure of any foreign affiliations. Beyond legal protections against discrimination, the government also implemented measures to foster stronger bonds among different ethnic communities. A key step was the adoption of a common language to unite the population, given the diversity of languages and dialects. Historically, Chinese communities spoke dialects such as Teochew, Hokkien, and Cantonese; Malays primarily spoke Malay, and Indians mostly spoke Tamil. Before independence, private schools teaching in Chinese, Malay, or Tamil were more popular than government-run English schools. To create unity without favoring any group, the government established English as the language of administration and instruction starting from 1987, which also supported international trade and diplomacy. Singaporeans continue to study their mother tongues as second languages, preserving cultural heritage. Additionally, Malay is maintained as the national language, recognizing the Malays as Singapore’s indigenous people.

Photo: Housing block in Singapore (Source: CCPA)

In addition, to strengthen racial harmony and integration, the Singaporean government has implemented housing policies that encourage interaction among different ethnic communities. A central initiative is the Housing Development Board’s (HDB) Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), introduced in 1989 to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves in public housing estates. The policy sets limits on the number of flats each ethnic group can own within a block, ensuring that the ethnic composition reflects the national population. Over time, this has helped HDB estates become microcosms of Singaporean society, where people of all races live side by side. With more than 80% of the population residing in HDB flats, these measures play a key role in fostering daily interactions and mutual understanding. These public housing flats are so widespread that in 2018, Singapore’s former Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, described them as the country’s “national housing.” As Singapore’s population grew and the number of Permanent Residents (PRs) increased, concerns emerged about the concentration of foreigners in certain areas. In response, quotas for PRs were introduced to prevent the creation of immigrant enclaves and maintain social cohesion. These policies not only promote racial integration among Singaporeans but also encourage connections between locals and newcomers, reinforcing a sense of shared community and belonging across the city-state.

Harmony in Transition—Singapore’s Multicultural Challenge

Building on the legacy of nation-building efforts to promote racial harmony throughout the decades, in January 2025, Minister Edwin Tong stressed the need to update Singapore’s Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others framework to reflect its evolving multicultural society. He highlighted the importance of integrating naturalized and local-born citizens, especially amid a record-low fertility rate of 0.97 in 2023. He noted that fostering interaction between local and international students who represent 4% of the non-resident population is key to social cohesion, with programmes from the People’s Association, integration champions, and companies helping newcomers adapt to local norms.

While programmes and quotas help foster interaction between locals and newcomers, such measures have also drawn criticism abroad for being too rigid, challenging the delicate balance Singapore seeks between integration and individual freedom. Policies such as Singapore’s housing measures have faced criticism in the West for being prescriptive or authoritarian. In response, the Singaporean government maintains that active intervention is necessary for successful social integration. As Shanmugaratnam explained, “If we believe in social inclusion and equal opportunities, we must recognize that these outcomes do not happen automatically through market forces or society alone.” Additionally, despite the positive aspects, Singaporean policies on multiculturalism still have room for improvement. For example, although around 80% of Singaporeans live in state-subsidized public housing,  LGBTQ individuals are facing barriers, as same-sex relationships are not legally recognized in Singapore, and first-time married applicants with children are given preferential treatment in accessing public housing.

Photo: Multiculturalism in Singapore (Source: Andrew Teoh)

Lessons for South Korea

As of June 2025, South Korea is home to 2.11 million foreign residents, representing 4.1% of the population and approaching the 5% threshold commonly used to define a multicultural society. Unlike Singapore, which has long embraced diversity as a cornerstone of nation-building, Korea’s approach to multiculturalism has been more focused on social integration and welfare support than on fostering cultural pluralism. In Korea, discussions on multiculturalism have primarily centered on helping migrants assimilate into Korean society, rather than encouraging genuine cultural coexistence. The nation’s strong sense of ethnic homogeneity is rooted in its historical experience of resisting foreign domination, overcoming national crises, and achieving rapid economic growth. As a result, South Korea’s approach to multiculturalism has developed largely as a welfare-driven response to the social challenges of immigration and xenophobia. It includes basic support such as language education and social support to low-income multicultural families with children, rather than as an active celebration of cultural diversity. Acceptance of migrants in South Korea varies by context and type, with permanent residents generally more supported than migrant workers. Discrimination persists in daily life in sectors like banking, and legal protections are limited. Tensions came to light following a high-profile case in Daegu, where local opposition to the reconstruction of a small mosque included leaving pigs’ heads at the site, reflecting deep-seated resistance to foreigners in some communities. Experts note that integration efforts remain one-sided, focusing on educating migrants rather than the host society, and emphasize that true inclusion requires viewing migrants as equal members of the community.

Despite the South Korean government’s growing efforts to promote inclusion, exclusionary practices continue to persist within its multicultural framework, highlighting the need for a critical re-examination of its underlying assumptions. For multiculturalism to be truly inclusive, it must acknowledge and respect the varied histories, identities, and lived experiences of migrants, moving beyond mere assimilation toward genuine cultural coexistence. South Korea’s evolving approach to multiculturalism can draw meaningful lessons from Singapore’s long-standing model of managed diversity. While Singapore has embraced managing diversity, South Korea’s approach remains largely assimilation-focused, presenting both challenges and opportunities for policy adaptation. Singapore has shown that integration requires more than welfare policies; it depends on deliberate, sustained efforts to build shared spaces, foster daily interaction, and cultivate a common identity while respecting cultural differences. By embedding multiculturalism in national policy, education, and community life, Singapore has turned diversity into a strength rather than a source of division. For South Korea, adopting a similar approach, one that values coexistence and participation alongside social support, could help move beyond assimilation toward a more inclusive and resilient multicultural society.

Sadia Masharuf
Latest posts by Sadia Masharuf (see all)
facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet
FollowFollow us