SINGAPORE: Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam launched a pointed attack on Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai during a parliamentary session on 5 February 2025, accusing him of making racist remarks and undermining Singapore’s multiracial values.
The exchange arose when Leong questioned Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong about the government’s review of the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) framework, which shapes Singapore’s race-based policies but was answered by Shanmugam.
Tong had previously stated at a 20 January 2025 conference that the model required ongoing reviews.
Shanmugam responded by highlighting the framework’s role in maintaining racial harmony through policies like the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), and racial self-help groups.
While acknowledging criticisms that the model is simplistic, he stressed its necessity, citing surveys showing strong public support for CMIO policies.
He warned against scrapping the framework, citing France’s 1978 ban on race-based data collection, which he claimed led to greater racial tensions instead of reducing them.
Minister Shanmugam Accuses Leong of Racist Remarks Amid Policy Debate
Leong clarified that he was inquiring whether the government planned a major review to address the framework’s limitations, particularly regarding mixed or complex racial identities. After receiving Tong’s response, he indicated he had no further questions.
However, Shanmugam then pivoted to Leong’s past remarks on public housing and the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), alleging that they had racist undertones.
He cited a 2023 Facebook post where Leong stated Singaporeans would not be “condemned to living in HDB flats” under his policies, claiming this implied a disregard for public housing and integration efforts.
Shanmugam also revisited Leong’s past CECA-related statements, arguing they had fuelled anti-Indian sentiment.
Quoting a 2021 parliamentary session, Shanmugam reminded the House that Leong had admitted some of his CECA comments could be perceived as racist, noting that even some Progress Singapore Party (PSP) members shared this view.
He distributed handouts containing Leong’s past statements to reinforce his accusations.
Leong rejected the racism allegations and reiterated that PSP supports the EIP but takes issue with the economic disadvantages it imposes on minorities. He advocated for compensating affected groups.
On CECA, Leong maintained that his criticisms were focused on job security and economic concerns rather than racial issues.
Despite Leong’s clarifications, Shanmugam insisted that the NCMP had not denied making the controversial remarks.
“Mr Leong doesn’t deny saying that 80 per cent of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned, and that his comments were racist,” he concluded.
Netizens Criticise Minister Shanmugam’s Use of Ad Hominem Attacks
Shanmugam’s personal attack on Leong, accusing him of making racist remarks, has sparked widespread online discussion, garnering over 670 comments on CNA, Mothership, and The Straits Times.
Many netizens expressed regret over the nature of Shanmugam’s attack, criticising it as personal and ad hominem.
One user voiced concern about the exchange, stating that it involved one individual using ad hominem attacks and putting words in the other’s mouth, while the other simply stated their position on the issue.
They questioned which mode of parliamentary conduct would improve Singapore and why the reportage focused on the apparent “exposure” of the individual in the debate.
They asked whether such an approach enhances the quality of national discourse.
Another user remarked that when politicians have nothing to defend their policies, they use the deflect card and accuse others of racism, causing everyone to forget their own policy shortcomings.
A different commenter described the use of ad hominem attacks as a sign of weak-mindedness, suggesting that those who rely on such tactics often lack the substance to support their claims.
One user also criticised the exchange for wasting parliamentary time.
They argued that if politicians wanted to engage in arguments and criticism, they should do so elsewhere, and that they should respect others by answering the questions asked.
Netizens Question if the CMIO Framework is Still Relevant
Many netizens debated the relevance of the CMIO framework and EIP, with some arguing that both policies were outdated and placed disproportionate burdens on minorities.
One user suggested that the EIP should be abolished in residential areas and instead applied in workplaces.
They described it as an infringement on personal freedom, stating, “I decide who I wish to talk to, and you don’t have to force it onto me via your policies.”
They further criticised the EIP as inherently discriminatory.
Another commenter acknowledged that while the policy may have served a purpose in the past, it was no longer viable after 60 years of independence.
They pointed out that the EIP applies only to HDB estates, arguing that if integration was the main goal, the policy should extend to all residential properties to prevent the formation of enclaves.
A user shared their personal experience with the policy’s challenges, highlighting the difficulties minorities face when selling their flats.
They recounted how their Malay friend struggled for over a year to sell a four-room flat in Bishan and eventually had to sell it at a loss due to EIP restrictions.
Others questioned the selective application of the policy. One user asked why, if EIP is so critical, it is not extended to all forms of housing, including private condominiums.
They criticised Shanmugam for politicising the issue ahead of the General Election (GE) and argued that his allegations of racism against the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and Leong Mun Wai were uncalled for.
Another commenter took issue with the classification of Eurasians under the CMIO framework, questioning why they were categorised as “Others” despite previously being recognised separately by the National Registration Office (NRO).
They contended that the framework failed to reflect Singapore’s evolving racial diversity.
Some took issue with the CMIO framework itself, calling it outdated and irrelevant in modern Singapore.
One user argued that such racial categorisation is inherently divisive and insisted that Singaporeans should be recognised as Singaporeans first, rather than being classified by race.
PAP Internet Brigade (IBs)?
However, among the comments shared online, a noticeable pattern has emerged: several identical or closely phrased remarks have appeared across multiple platforms, prompting questions about potential coordinated efforts to shape public discourse.
The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Internet Brigade (IB) has long been a topic of speculation and debate in Singapore’s political sphere.
Discussions surrounding the IB often centre on its role in managing the ruling party’s online image and countering criticism in cyberspace. While some view the group as a necessary extension of political engagement, others see it as a tool for manipulating public opinion.
In 2007, The Straits Times reported that the PAP had taken a proactive stance against online criticism, sometimes confronting detractors openly and, at times, adopting more discreet approaches.
Over the years, this strategy has been refined, with supporters and online activists—both paid and voluntary—playing a role in defending the party’s positions and addressing misinformation.
These online efforts, often referred to as “setting the record straight,” can occur through transparent posts or under the guise of anonymity. In some instances, contributors may openly identify as party supporters, while in others, they operate through pseudonyms or anonymous accounts to maintain a low profile.
In the current situation, some users have been observed posting different comments that, on the surface, appear distinct.
However, closer inspection reveals that these remarks consistently convey the same core message or narrative, raising the possibility of an orchestrated campaign.
Other users simply copy and paste their comments across various platforms.
One recurring comment, seen across different accounts, claimed that “Leong was called racist by his party member.”
It is worth noting that many of these accounts have hidden profiles, are inactive, or were newly created within the past year.
