Preamble
The ‘CMIO’ model stands for the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others model and is the dominant organising framework of race in Singapore. This model has been modified from the original British version so as to create racial inclusivity and equality in society and ensure adequate representation in the government.
The CMIO model divides the society into four major races and denotes the proportion of society each race makes up, hence defining the majority and minority races.
However, discourse has arisen and persisted over the years of the relevance of this social model: is it still applicable to today’s context? How does it differ in theory and practice?
Most importantly, are Singaporeans able to accept and appreciate the racial diversity it entails?
The Model Solution
The implementation of the CMIO model in public housing, by ensuring that each block has a set percentage of minorities, in turn ensures affordable and quality housing for minority races, protecting them from property agents that may have biases against them.
The CMIO model is taught in Social Studies, a compulsory subject for all Primary school students that teaches students about the Singaporean society, where young children are exposed to the racial makeup of the Singaporean society. The model divides society into four easy-to-understand categories, which helps young children understand racial diversity in Singapore.
This is especially important for children who may not have as many interactions with people of other races to learn about the existence and the respective cultures of all races. This allows them to learn to respect and understand the different experiences of all races in Singapore.
As the model defines the racial diversity in the Singaporean society, it has been used to secure representation in political parties and government bodies. By defining what the minority races are, it has made guidelines on racial diversity and representation in the government more specific, allowing for better representation.
According to the Parliamentary Elections Act (1), it is mandatory for each Group Representative Constituency (GRC) to include one member of a minority race. This ensures that each political party makes a concerted effort to include and listen to minority races and their issues to garner their support, hence ensuring that minority races are somewhat represented in the government to address their concerns.
The implementation of the CMIO model has helped with the preservation of minority cultures. Dr Mathews, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, argues that the structure itself preserves the traditions and cultures of minority races as it prevents people of minority races from conforming to the traditions and cultures of the majority races (2).
In more culturally homogenous societies where respect for minority races or even nationalities are not acknowledged on a state-wide level, many people of minority races and cultures are made to feel ashamed of the fact that they are different from their peers and are pressured to hide their cultures in an effort to fit in and thrive in society.
Japan is one such society that failed to recognise its racial minorities earlier, leading to a deep-rooted lack of respect for the differences within its nation. Indigenous minority identities such as the Ainu people and Okinawans had only been officially recognised by the Japanese government in 2019 (3). Even as late as 2003, graduates from Korean schools in Japan were not eligible for Japanese universities, although eligibility had been extended to international schools and graduates, thus placing Korean students at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the student pool in Japan (4).
Theory Versus Practice
With all the representation that CMIO affords, it must be noted that it can verge on tokenistic, too.
The enforced representation in the stipulated election of a member of a racial minority to President has sparked much controversy (5). Through this policy, the true merits of the presidential candidate are undermined: are Singaporeans electing him or her because of true capability or simply race?
Despite the laudable intentions of this racial representation, such programmatic representation can come off as contrived and disingenuous, leading to widened racial divisions.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the CMIO model is outdated in properly understanding the changing racial diversity of Singapore (6).
Worker’s Party’s chairman Ms Sylvia Lim has stated that the Government itself has recognised the increasing number of mixed marriages, by introducing the double-barrelled ethnicity registration for children of mixed racial identity (7). It is evident that there has been an urgency to redefine how we understand race in the Singaporean context as the lines between each racial category blur.
As the “Others'' category increases from 1.1% in 2010 to 1.5% in 2019, there have been increasing concerns about being categorised as such (6). Not only is it dehumanising, but it also fails to acknowledge the rich and diverse experiences of all races and ethnicities in Singapore.
As previously discussed, the CMIO model is being applied to discussions on topics like government policies, education and housing. By failing to acknowledge the different minority races within the ‘Others’ category, they might eventually be neglected by the government when it comes to discussions to improve their experiences.
The lack of nuance within each category of the CMIO model also gives Singapore less credit for being a multicultural society. By only recognising four distinct categories of people residing in Singapore, it fails to acknowledge the nuances of ethnicity within each category.
What, you may ask, is ethnicity? The words seem to be used almost interchangeably; however, they are in reality anything but.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, race is defined as “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”, showing that racial indicators are more rooted in biology.
Ethnicity, however, is “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background”.
Within the Chinese category, there are Chinese people from China, Malaysian Chinese, Chinese Americans, etcetera. Within the Indian category, there are different language groups like Tamil-speaking Indians and Hindi-speaking Indians, and different religious groups like Hindu Indians, Christian Indians and Muslim Indians.
Even within the Others category, there are subcategories. The broader Others category is further split into Fillipinos, Caucasians, Eurasians, Thais, Japanese and Others (7). Only by truly acknowledging the diversity of nationalities, races and ethnic identities of Singaporean residents can we call ourselves a globalised city and society with an appreciation for this diversity.
The “Other” in CMIO
What of the harm that the CMIO model has caused, and will continue to cause?
The CMIO model has been historically criticised for creating more pronounced racial divisions — Singaporeans are made acutely aware of the differences between themselves and others, instead of the shared cultures, values and experiences we may have.
With Singaporeans’ growing racial and cultural consciousness, CMIO’s delineation of races may cause hesitancy when interacting with someone of a different race, causing people to rely on racial stereotypes.
Indeed, the application of the CMIO model in various government policies has also widened racial disparities.
The Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB) stipulates that employers are to contribute part of their employee’s income on their behalf to race/religion based Self-Help Groups (SHGs) based on their employee’s race and religion.
These SHGs are namely the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), the Council for the Development of Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (Yayasan Mendaki) and the Eurasian Association, which are formed under the CMIO model (8).
Workers’ Party Mrs Sylvia Lim stated that these SHGs reinforce racial consciousness, and may lead to an imbalance of resources. This is because the size of the racial groups are proportional to the amount of resources each group will have, hence resulting in CDAC having the most amount of resources (7).
Some may argue that it makes sense for the CDAC to have the most resources as they will serve the majority of Singaporeans. However, it is important to understand that wealth inequality between the Chinese and minority groups such as the Indians and Malays exist.
In the same vein, the existence of local SAP (Special Assistance Programme) schools that cater specifically to Chinese students is a prime example of such resource imbalance.
This is due to the “segregation of ethnic minorities in lower-paying jobs and occupations across all industries”, as stated in a journal article by William Keng Mun Lee on the economic marginality of ethinc minorities (9).
Hence, it is important to ensure that financially-struggling minority races receive the same adequate proportion of help as the Chinese do.
‘Divide and Rule’: still relevant?
Ultimately, the roots of the CMIO model lie in history: they stem from British colonists' attempts to conveniently demarcate the four dominant races in Singapore at the time, in the policy of ‘divide and rule’ (10).
The CMIO model’s status as a colonial inheritance hence leads naturally to the question: is such a model originating from and propagated more than a century ago really still successful for Singapore?
While that may have been an effective method of governing over Singapore’s significantly smaller racial pool in the 1870s, it is undeniable that the Singapore of the present has undergone vast changes, not least the exponential increase of her population’s racial diversity.
Times have changed — and with them, the paradigm. In the 21st century, Singapore stands as a developed and wealthy country, with a population now comprising more than 20 races in varying percentages: certainly more than the simple 3 categories of old.
The CMIO model may have generated admirable efficacy in state policies and have the intention of recognising and preserving racial diversity in theory, but its oversimplification of these undermines its relevance today.
Naturally, this problem has no immediate panacea, nor does it invalidate the CMIO model’s existence. Its solution can, however, start with us: as young people, as Singaporeans, as inheritors of diverse and beautiful cultures.
Although Chinese, Malay and Indian remain the dominant races, we must appreciate the nuances of our increasingly diverse society. Automatically designating races not our own — or races that do not neatly fit into any of the 3 dominant categories — as any ‘Other’ would be reductive and myopic.
If we are able to change our mindsets toward Singapore’s burgeoning ethnic diversity to ones of openness, we can foster a long-term appreciation and respect of the myriad of races that go beyond mere tolerance, Social Studies or wearing traditional costumes on Racial Harmony Day. These are concrete steps toward an overarching Singaporean identity that transcends ethnic or racial faultlines.
Ultimately, the CMIO model’s intention of multiracial inclusivity in Singapore must prevail in our hearts and minds — whether we are Indian, Peranakan, or anything in between.
Written by: Leia Ong and Naydene Tan
Edited by: Varshini
References
Comments