In September 2026, a flood of racist comments on social media and comments sections of Singapore news websites led to the country’s Senior Minister K Shanmugam calling them “shameful, nasty and totally unacceptable.” He added that the police would look into them. The nastiest of these comments (often aimed at people who allegedly got Singaporean citizenship because of an economic cooperation agreement with India) came after reports emerged of pilgrims missing from the devastating floods in Nepal and China.

The term CECA, which comes from the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement that India and Singapore signed in 2005, is often used as a racist slur for newer citizens of the city-state. This kind of xenophobia existed even in the 1950s when Singapore was still a British colony. Malayalis became a target of xenophobia when the Immigration Ordinance of 1953 was passed simultaneously in Malaya and Singapore.

The ordinance laid down strict border controls and required potential immigrants to possess two-year work contracts from local firms as well as minimum salary threshold. When news of the ordinance spread to southern India, those who wanted to work in Singapore and Malaya rushed to make the voyage before it was implemented. This led to resentment among some members of the resident Tamil community, already unhappy with the efforts of Singapore Malayalis to assert their own unique identity.

One S Ramachandra wrote a letter to the Straits Times in June 1953 complaining about what he termed the “infiltration” of people from Travancore and Cochin. Also terming this an invasion, he wrote, “If the figure for Indian immigrants is analysed, it will be discovered that the majority of the white collar immigrants have their homes in Travancore and Cochin (S W India), although all South Indian immigrants board ship at Madras. Consequently, they pass as Madrasis.”

Ramachandra said this “particular class” was mainly found in the naval, air force and military establishments and had "infiltrated" into government and city council offices, as well as private businesses. He added that it was fine for Indian firms employing Indian nationals but suggested that “locals” would be driven out from public and private establishments. “It is common knowledge that once this type of immigrant gets into a local office, it will be flooded with his fellow immigrants within a short time,” Ramachandra wrote. Such views are now aired on social media, particularly in the US by Donald Trump supporters.

He concluded his letter to the newspaper by writing that there was “no reason why this type of immigrant should be tolerated when conversely there is never any possibility of any Colony-born – be he also an Indian – going to the immigrant’s own country, solely for employment.”

Ramachandra’s letter led to a flood of responses from Singapore Malayalis. A reader who went by the name of “Travancorean” said that people from Travancore and Cochin were “not proud to pass as Madrasis.” He added that it was “efficiency that controls the employer and counts to the employer.”

Two weeks after Ramachandra’s letter, the Straits Times published several letters from Malayalis in one page and said, “It is regretted that no further correspondence on the subject of Travancore can be published.” The letter, indeed, managed to stir up a hornet’s nest.

“A citizen of the Republic of India, whether he belongs to Travancore or Kashmir, Madras or Bombay, passes out at any port as an Indian citizen, A E Thomas wrote. A reader who used the alias “A Cochinite” said that employers would prefer to recruit “Colony-born” workers but if profit was their main motive, they would want to hire the most suitable person for a job. “Further, if certain employers prefer the Malayalees, it is because they recognise the fact that Malayalees are far more efficient and educated.”

Another reader, E T Itty, cited Jawaharlal Nehru as saying he was in New Delhi, he was “surrounded by Travancore”, but those people got into the highest posts by “sheer merit and not through favour.” Itty added, “Evidently, Mr Nehru had in mind Dr John Mathai, Dr P J Thomas, Mr N R Pillay, and several others who are guiding India’s destinies at home and abroad with outstanding ability.” Others called out the “appalling ignorance” of Ramachandra, while the man who started the whole controversy took exception to replies from Malayalis who claimed they were more efficient and qualified for jobs than those born in Singapore.

Looking ahead, a mass depletion of resources combined with politicians fanning the flames of hatred to win elections will only lead to more anti-immigrant rhetoric globally and even within India and Indian communities. Even if global inequalities are seriously addressed, human beings will continue to seek greener pastures. That’s just the nature of existence on this planet.