Reviewing the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) Race Model

1. Sir, Singapore’s approach to multi-racialism has been to recognise our differences, while actively building mutual respect and fostering understanding between the different racial groups in the community.

2. The Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) framework is part of this approach. Individuals can register their race based on lineage, and there are currently over 200 different races that Singaporeans are registered under. But for the purposes of policy administration, these races are categorised into four groups based on the size of the communities – Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Others. So the CMIO framework does not prescribe one’s racial identity, but it helps us to administer race-based policies and programmes that promote social cohesion, identify those who need help, and safeguard the rights of minorities.

3. Let me name a few examples. The Ethnic Integration Policy draws from the CMIO framework to ensure a good mix of races in our public housing estates. Race also features in some of our political structures, such as the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), to ensure that minorities are represented in Parliament. To promote community building, the Government works with self-help groups to uplift low-income households and the less privileged within the various racial communities. It has also allowed the Government to monitor the outcomes of the various groups, and provide more targeted interventions. These will be more difficult to do without the CMIO framework in place. 

4. It has been said by some that the CMIO framework is overly simplistic and rigid, in our increasingly complex and heterogenous society. There is some truth to this. Nonetheless, race remains a key identifier for many individuals – an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study in 2021 found that 87% - nearly 9 in 10 of Singapore residents, considered race important to their identity. A 2021 CNA-IPS Survey on Race Relations also found that over 60% of Singapore residents thought that the CMIO policy helped to preserve racial harmony and should be retained. If we eliminated the framework, we may well get worse outcomes as a result.  

5. And the evidence overseas does tend to suggest this. Let’s look at France – France banned the collection of race-based data since 1978. And you have to ask whether that has that removed the issue of race from the political debate. Racial tensions remain, and in fact France has seen a surge in race-related offences in recent years. But you know, Sir, I don’t want to draw a simple, straight-line conclusion from France banning a collection of race-based data to its racial situation today. But it is one point of reference among several such points in a multi-faceted and complex issue. Our view is that the lack of race-based data prevents measuring and understanding the difficulties that different races face in different areas. And it prevents effective intervention to resolve those issues. And our model of multiculturalism, multiracialism, with the data and framework we have, has worked quite well for us so far. 

6. But as Minister Edwin Tong said, we do keep in mind the issue, review periodically, ask ourselves about the CMIO framework, amongst other issues, and see whether it continues to be relevant. The CMIO framework has been adjusted over the years too, for example, to allow registration of double-barrelled races. But we have been cautious about moving away from a framework. It has worked well for us, and has helped to forge the harmonious set of race relations in our society today. 

7. Sir, this has been explained a number of times. In fact, I touched on it yesterday too, so I’m not quite sure the context of Mr Leong’s question. And so perhaps through you, I can ask Mr Leong to perhaps explain the rationale for whether there is any clarification that he needs from what I’ve said.