Prejudice in Plain Sight

After rising hostility against Indians in countries like the United States, Britain, and Australia, Singapore—a city-state long celebrated as a model of multiculturalism and communal harmony—has also seen a subtle but growing wave of anti-Indian sentiment. Traditionally known for its strict laws against racial discrimination and its carefully cultivated social compact, Singapore has become a surprising stage where resentment toward Indians, especially new migrants from India, has surfaced online and in public discourse. Viral videos of Indians allegedly littering beaches, misbehaving in public, or clashing with locals have circulated widely, sparking outrage and fuelling stereotypes. For a country that prides itself on racial harmony, the intensity of this reaction is both striking and concerning.

In recent years, several high-profile incidents have underscored this trend. In one widely reported case, a 55-year-old Indian woman was physically assaulted while walking outdoors, prompting police intervention and parliamentary condemnation. Other viral episodes included an Indian couple harassed while exercising, and an Indian family in a condominium told to “go back to your country.” Even Indians who were born and raised in Singapore have reported being treated as outsiders, mistaken for recent arrivals. The impact on the Indian community has been profound: ordinary activities such as speaking Tamil in public, walking in parks, or socialising have become moments of heightened vigilance and unease.

These incidents, while alarming, are perpetrated by a relatively small minority. Yet, their amplification on social media makes them feel ubiquitous. Platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, and Telegram have allowed clips and anecdotes—often edited or stripped of context—to circulate rapidly, reinforcing stereotypes and magnifying perceived threats. Fringe groups have weaponised these narratives, framing Indians as a symbolic stand-in for broader anxieties over economic competition, cultural change, or immigration. One recurring theme is the India–Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), which has been misinterpreted online as a mechanism for “Indians taking local jobs,” despite repeated clarifications from the government that CECA does not grant automatic employment or citizenship rights. The result is a dangerous alchemy where economic frustration mutates into racial prejudice.

The rise in hostility also reflects the greater visibility of Indians in Singapore’s economy and society. As the city-state strengthens its position as a hub for technology, finance, and multinational corporations, Indian professionals naturally occupy a larger share of these sectors. Visibility, rather than scale, has made them targets for resentment. In societies with pre-existing racial fault lines, minorities who are prominent in public and professional spaces are often conflated with perceived societal threats, whether in employment, social influence, or culture. In Singapore, the distinction between expatriates and locally born Indians has sometimes blurred in the public imagination, making all Indians potential targets of criticism or hostility.

This pattern is not unique to Singapore. Across the globe, minorities are increasingly portrayed as the source of national or cultural anxiety. Anti-Mexican rhetoric in the United States, anti-African sentiment in Tunisia, and anti-immigrant agitation in Europe all illustrate the same dynamic: the minority becomes a convenient symbol for complex social and economic insecurities. Singapore’s experience shows that even societies with strong institutional safeguards are not immune. The danger is not isolated incidents, but the normalisation of “acceptable prejudice”—the framing of racial or cultural criticism as legitimate concern, or economic resentment as cultural judgment.

Fortunately, Singapore has demonstrated both legal and moral clarity in responding to these incidents. Senior ministers, including the Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister, have repeatedly condemned attacks and stressed that racism and xenophobia are fundamentally incompatible with the nation’s core values. Legal protections—including the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act and laws against online falsehoods—ensure that speech and acts that threaten racial cohesion can be addressed. Arrests and prosecutions in high-profile cases serve as a deterrent to potential offenders.

Yet legislation alone is not enough. True social harmony requires constant vigilance, especially in an era where misinformation spreads instantly and echo chambers amplify resentment. The Singaporean public, alongside its institutions, must actively counter xenophobic narratives, rejecting simplistic explanations and the temptation to generalise a whole community based on a few incidents. The Indian community itself continues to be encouraged to foster a confident “Singaporean Indian” identity—one that is proud of cultural heritage yet fully integrated into the social fabric.

The recent anti-Indian hostility is more than an isolated phenomenon; it is a warning signal. It shows how even a society celebrated for tolerance can become a stage for the quiet spread of xenophobia. For Singapore, the question is not whether a few individuals misbehaved in public. The challenge is whether the country can resist the broader global tide of “othering” and reaffirm the principles that underpin its success: equality, respect, and communal trust. In the battle against prejudice, silence is not neutral; vigilance, empathy, and courage are essential.

Views expressed are personal. The writer has worked in senior editorial positions for many renowned international publications