Questions surrounding the removal of Singapore’s Chinese-Malay-Indian-Other (CMIO) framework appear from time to time. On Feb 5, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai raised a question in the House about the government's plans to review this administrative tool which it uses to manage policies concerning race. 

This was partly in response to a comment made by Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong at the Singapore Perspectives Conference in January. Asked whether the CMIO framework needed a rethink, Mr Tong had said that the model needed to be constantly reviewed in light of Singapore's increasingly complex multicultural landscape. 

This categorisation has attracted the criticism that it stifles the movement of Singaporeans towards a truly multicultural society. 

CAN THE CMIO FRAMEWORK STAND THE TEST OF TIME?

The CMIO system is rooted in British colonial rule. Guided by European racial theory that emphasised boundaries between ethnic groups and hierarchies within these groups, colonial administrators divided the population according to erroneous notions of cultural traits. 

The foundation of the model was essentially built on stereotypes, with expectations that once categorised into an identity, individuals would fit their ascribed racial group’s presupposed qualities and relevant niches within the economy that most suited these qualities. This is certainly problematic, given the uniqueness of individuals. 

Following the racial tensions that led to its separation from the Malayan Federation and independence, Singapore retained the CMIO framework in a bid to acknowledge and respect ethnic and racial differences while promoting equality and unity. By officially recognising four groups, the model helped prevent dominance by any single racial group and facilitated equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. 

The CMIO classification system offered a pragmatic solution to Singapore’s multicultural landscape by reducing the complex identities of the population based on linguistic, religious and cultural differences into a “quadratomy” so all communities could feel represented and valued in the nation’s social and political spheres.

Today, however, many question if the CMIO model can “withstand the test of time”, as said by Workers’ Party MP Sylvia Lim in a parliament session in 2020. 

GREATER CONCERNS TODAY

Critics of the model point to how it affects and structures people’s everyday lives. With interracial marriages on the rise in Singapore, some parents question whether continuing to assign identity categories to each child will result in the erosion or even loss of heritage for those with multiracial backgrounds. 

Being categorised as "Other" in the CMIO system presents even greater concerns. It can lead to a sense of marginalisation and identity uncertainty, causing individuals in this category to feel excluded from the national narrative. 

Some also argue that with national identity being the “most important” form of identity, in order to safeguard and strengthen unity and equality, citizens should simply be identified as Singaporean and not by any racial identifier.     

In response, the government has stressed that the CMIO identifier is merely an administrative category, to facilitate the planning and enacting of various policies. It is not meant to function as a source of personal identity for individuals.

Since 2011, parents in interracial marriages have been offered the option of using double-barrelled racial categories for their children. For administrative matters, however, parents are still required to choose one race out of nearly 200 possible options.

But questions still arise, given the lack of unanimity on this issue. 

WHAT DO SINGAPOREANS WANT?

In the latest 2024 Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey on Race, Religion, and Language that polled 4,000 Singaporean residents, when asked whether to keep, remove or change the CMIO framework, as many as one in five respondents (22 per cent) chose the “not sure” option.

Perhaps a substantial proportion of the population has not given much thought to this issue or has accepted that it is highly complicated. 

Among those with an opinion on the CMIO framework, 7.7 per cent wanted it removed (compared with 12 per cent in 2018). 

However, nearly six in 10 (58.1 per cent) want the framework to stay, up from 46.2 per cent in 2018. This corresponds closely to a 2022 survey by CNA-IPS, where 63 per cent of the 2,000 residents polled felt that the CMIO framework is effective in preserving racial harmony.

Additionally, a significant portion of respondents (32.1 per cent) want the CMIO framework to be expanded to be more inclusive. 

While some may want the CMIO framework to be modified or removed altogether, the 2024 survey shows that the majority still desires the policy outcomes of the framework. More than eight in 10 respondents agree that it is important for immigration policy to maintain the racial make-up of the population. Three-quarters agreed that it is important to know how many of each race live in Singapore.  

A further 84.8 per cent agreed that having proportionate representation of minorities in parliament is important. Each result, including the nine in 10 who support ensuring a racial mix within the neighbourhood, would not be possible without some kind of framework that categorises the population by racial background.

Indeed, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam had stressed in parliament on Feb 5 that “the CMIO (framework) is a key plank of those policies”, and that it “has helped to forge the harmonious set of race relations in our society today”.

At the IPS 35th Anniversary Conference in 2023, Mr Shanmugam also pointed out that keeping to the CMIO model’s proportions was particularly important to the Malay community as it provides a kind of assurance that “they are not going to be overtaken”.  

Unintended consequences may result from such policies, but their broader ambit seems to provide the basis for outcomes that Singaporeans desire and care about. 

SEEKING NEW, CREATIVE WAYS

Nonetheless, the survey results make it clear that a sizeable group - especially younger people - feels the system needs to be modified. While just 12.6 per cent of the over-65s favour modification, the proportion swells to 51.6 per cent for the 18-35 group. 

The feasibility of expanding categories used for administrative purposes is questionable. Even now, those with double-barrelled racial identities select a single CMIO racial identity to fulfil the requirements of Ethnic Integration Policy quotas. 

How then can we open up space for official recognition of further racial identities without getting caught up in the weeds of which groups to recognise?

Given the rich heritages forged in the intersections of race, religion and ancestry in Singapore, a plethora of identity categories and labels is possible. With about 30 per cent of citizen marriages involving transnational couples over the past few years, the possible permutations are immense.

It then seems practical to continue acknowledging the CMIO framework as both an administrative tool and a necessary evil for desired policy outcomes. But at the same time, it is also important to increase awareness of heterogeneity within groups and fight against the tendency to typecast individuals within rigid racial boxes and taunt or punish those who do not fit neatly in any one. 

Perhaps in popular discourse on the model, we can find creative ways to convey that collective structures should not determine or characterise citizens’ individuality. In this vein, one of our former colleagues, Mr Shamil Zainuddin - currently a PhD student in sociology and science studies at the University of California, San Diego in the US - has been advocating that the model be read as O-I-M-C, so the “Others” will be put first in popular imagination.

The work to produce a more expansive representation and understanding of the many ethnic identities and cultures here is ongoing, with various non-governmental organisations like OnePeople.sg championing this cause. Such educational initiatives particularly focus on reducing or combating stereotypes, so that labels do not exhaust the extent of our unique individual identities.

For now, the CMIO model may be necessary for administrative purposes and preserving the racial harmony which Singaporeans so treasure. Even so, it doesn’t have to define our daily lives as Singaporeans.



Mathew Mathews is Head of the Social Lab and Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore. Izzul Haziq Bin Murad is Research Assistant at the same Institute.

This piece was first published in CNA on 14 Feb 2025.

Top photo from Freepik