Singapore’s decision to enact the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act 2025 marks a notable shift in how the city-state regulates civil society, associations tied to racial identity, and foreign influence in a multi-racial society. The law, designed to “provide for the maintenance of racial harmony” and to establish a dedicated Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, also introduces explicit safeguards against external actors seeking to exploit race-based organisations or business/clan associations.
Under the new framework, so-called “race-based entities” defined by their primary purpose of representing or promoting interests of a particular racial group or addressing issues relating to any race , can be designated and regulated. These entities will be required to declare foreign or anonymous donations, reveal foreign affiliations, and in some cases that might receive a directive to return or cease accepting foreign monies. The authorities will also have discretionary power to issue restraining orders against individuals or entities deemed likely to undermine racial harmony.
The impetus behind the legislation is rooted in Singapore’s consistent emphasis on racial and religious harmony as foundational to its national stability. In parliamentary debates, ministers noted that Singapore’s “small, open, and digitally inclusive” society makes it vulnerable to “malicious foreign influence” which could exploit race and racial-group dynamics as entry points for destabilisation. Historically the city-state has regulated associations and media to ensure that racial or religious fault-lines do not become conduits for external interference. What is new is the explicit linkage of foreign-funding disclosure and control mechanisms to the racial-harmony agenda.
Supporters of the legislation argue that it modernises Singapore’s legal architecture by consolidating a number of race-related offences, aligning enforcement tools with existing frameworks for religious harmony, and signalling to both citizens and the international community that racial harmony is treated with the same urgency as other dimensions of national cohesion. From this vantage point, the law is viewed as proactive, providing clarity and strengthening rights by way of transparency, rather than merely sweeping powers.
Critics, however, raise concerns about the broad sweep of definitions and the potential chilling effect for civil society organisations, diaspora associations, and businesses that operate transnationally. The law’s ability to designate associations as “race-based entities” at the discretion of competent authorities, and to place heavy compliance burdens, raises questions about administrative discretion and oversight. Some civil-society watchers caution that while the objective of safeguarding harmony is laudable, the tools must be carefully calibrated so as not to suppress legitimate association, debate or minority-group expression.
Moreover, the foreign-influence safeguards echo Singapore’s earlier landmark legislation, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 (FICA), which already granted the state power to designate individuals as “politically significant persons”, compel technology platforms to remove content or hand over user data, and block accounts. The new racial-harmony act extends that logic into the domain of race-based entities, adjusting the levers of transparency and regulation to the sensitivities of racial grouping and communal dynamics.
From a governance perspective, Singapore’s approach reflects its premium on social stability: the belief that unchecked external influence whether in funding, organisation, or narrative formation could undermine trust between racial communities and in institutions. By requiring disclosures and enabling oversight of associations that organise around race, Singapore seeks to pre-empt foreign networks from disrupting the balance in a society where the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities must live in constant proximity. In a region where ethnic and religious fault-lines have sparked conflict elsewhere, Singapore’s pre-emptive strategy appeals to risk-averse stakeholders and global investors alike.
Yet the broader implications deserve caution. First, institutional capacity will matter. Effective enforcement and fair administration of designation, disclosure, and restraining powers depend on transparent processes, appeal mechanisms and proportionality. Singapore has a strong track-record of social control and stability; the test will be whether these new powers operate with both rigor and restraint. Second, transnational business associations and diaspora organisations that link back to overseas networks might feel a heavier burden even if their aims are benign simply by virtue of historic ties. This raises the possibility of higher administrative cost, reputational risk, or self-censorship among benign groups.
Third, in an era of digital globalisation and constant cross-border exchange, the boundary between “foreign influence” and legitimate international linkage is increasingly porous. Singapore’s challenge will be to draw a meaningful line that protects social cohesion without inhibiting global business, cultural exchange, or multi-national collaboration. The law’s success may thus hinge on its implementation – how associations interpret the thresholds, how regulators exercise discretion, and how the broader public perceives fairness and transparency.
In conclusion, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act 2025 positions Singapore at the intersection of civic regulation, racial-community management and foreign-influence oversight. For a country that has long treated social harmony as a pillar of national identity and economic competitiveness, the legislation is a logical extension of that ethos. Its real test will be whether it fosters the intended trust and cohesion, or whether it inadvertently narrows association space in a way that reduces vibrancy and openness. Either way, the act will become a case-study for other diverse societies balancing global connectivity, racial pluralism and national security in a rapidly shifting world.