Debated in Parliament on 5 Feb 2025.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) when does the Government plan to review the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) race model; and (b) what is the form that such a review will take.
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.
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 helps us to administer race-based policies and programmes that promote social cohesion, identify those who need help and safeguard the rights of minorities.
Let me name a few examples. The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) 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 Constituency (GRC) system, 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.
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 but nonetheless, race remains a key identifier for many individuals. An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study in 2021 found that 87%, nearly nine 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.
And the evidence overseas does tend to suggest this. Let us look at France. France banned the collection of race-based data since 1978. You have to ask whether that has removed the issue of race from political debate. Racial tensions remain and, in fact, France has seen a surge in race-related offences in recent years.
Sir, I do not want to draw a simple, straight-line conclusion from France banning collection of race-based data to its racial situation today. But it is one point of reference amongst several such points in a multifaceted 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. Our model of multiculturalism, multi-racialism, with the data and framework we have, has worked quite well for us so far.
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 the framework. It has worked well for us and has helped us to forge a more harmonious set of race relations in our society today.
Sir, this has been explained a number of times. In fact, I touched on it yesterday too. So, I am 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 or whether there is any clarification that he needs from what I have said.
Mr Leong.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his clarification. I had originally directed this Parliamentary Question at Minister Edwin Tong actually, because he made comments at the IPS conference that we should be constantly reviewing the CMIO model. So, I just wanted to clarify whether the Government is thinking of a change and whether a review, a bigger review is being undertaken and what that review will be.
I am satisfied with the clarifications of the Minister and I have actually no further comments on that.
Sir, picking up from what Mr Leong has said, I realise that the question arises from what Mr Edwin Tong has said.
Perhaps we have very different perspectives from Mr Leong on CMIO and its implications, for example, on the EIP. And I think that those different perspectives are clear when, for example, you see some of the things that Mr Leong has said in the past, for example, on Housing and Development Board (HDB) living, if you look at Mr Leong's Facebook post of February 2023, and I quote, he says that "Singaporeans are not condemned to living in HDB flat[s]".
Mr Leong has also made comments in this House which are racist and he has quite freely admitted to that too. So, if I can read out from the Hansard of 14 September 2021. I asked him, "Sir, through you, does Mr Leong accept that his and his party's statements on CECA having been interpreted by some of PSP members as being racist, may well be interpreted by Singaporeans as racist as well?" And since there was no answer, I had to repeat the question. I asked him again, "Some of Mr Leong's party members interpreted his statements as being racist and I quoted. One of the quotes is, 'You are targeting the Indian community and it is totally a racial undertone'. My question was, if his own party members can think like that, it is entirely possible for other Singaporeans to take a similar view."
And I had to repeat it in a different way and asked again, "Mr Leong, it is commonsensical, is it not, that those PSP members will not be the only ones who think that your statements are racist? If they can think like that, your own party members, then, other Singaporeans can reasonably think that your statements are racist too. It is a simple point."
And Mr Leong was good enough to say, "There will be some people who will think that there is racial undertone [to his statements], yes". [Please refer to "Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods, and Foreign Talent Policy", Official Report, 14 September 2021, Vol 95, Issue 38, Motions section.]
And I will hand out these, Sir. But the point I will make arising from his question is this. Sir, if you look at his comments, the 80% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned and if you combine that with his racist comments – Mr Leong may not put much value in our multiracial approach; he may not put value in our ethnic integration in our housing estates, but the EIP, for example, is a key plank of our policy to ensure that people live together, are integrated and we put a lot of value in making sure our housing estates are well managed because we care for Singaporeans. And the CMIO is a key plank of those policies. I hope that clarifies, Sir.
And if I can, with your leave, hand over, just for the record, the copies, and for Mr Leong to refresh his memory, through the Clerk. One for yourself, Sir, and one for Mr Leong.
Can someone collect that and pass it to me and to Mr Leong? [A set of documents was handed to Mr Speaker and Mr Leong Mun Wai.] Mr Leong.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to put on record that the Progress Singapore Party supports the EIP that we have for the HDB flats. What we take issue with is that the EIP has caused economic disadvantages. There is an economic cost to the minorities. So, we have recommended in this Parliament that we should compensate the minorities for that economic cost they have incurred. So, that is all we have said. We are not against the EIP at all.
Sir, I note that Mr Leong does not deny saying that 80% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned and that his comments were racist.
PAPERCUTS