An overview of Integration in Singapore
Historical factors have played key roles in integration policies/frameworks around the world, although their lasting impacts on peoples’ identities are often forgotten about in the wider literature and media. Singapore is one such country that scholars understudy. Historical factors have influenced Singapore’s integration policies/frameworks with lasting impacts on people’s identities. This reflects how people often have to neglect one country from their identities to be accepted in the other.
Why Have People Historically Migrated to Singapore?
Migration to Singapore from around the region has been influenced by British colonisation and settlement history. Many people migrated to Singapore in the “19th and early 20th Centuries”, creating “an ethnically and culturally diverse” country (Yang, 2020, 5). Singapore has had historic migration from China, India, and Malaysia.
Natural disasters, rebellions, and revolutions caused many Chinese to leave their homeland between 1896 and 1941 due to their oppressive government and poverty (Ee, 1961). These migrants originated from South China, specifically Kwangtung and Fukien (Yeoh & Lin, 2013). Singapore was also a “British entrepôt”, so they had strong trading links to China, resulting in many Chinese migrating to Singapore as labourers for the new “labor-intensive industries” (Yeoh & Lin, 2013, 34)
British colonisation also had impacts on Indian and Malay migrants. Many Indians, specifically those from Tamil Nadu, migrated to Singapore as British colonisers called them to work as indentured labourers (Chacko, 2017). Malays primarily migrated to Singapore between the mid-19th Century and the Second World War (Minority Rights Group, n.d.). Malays were viewed as reliable and loyal, resulting in the British employing them as police and the armed forces (Minority Rights Group, n.d.). Due to British colonisation, many Chinese, Indians, and Malays have migrated to Singapore which has impacted their integration policies/frameworks.
What Integration Policies/Frameworks Does Singapore Have?
Singapore’s most predominant integration policy/framework is the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) Model. The People’s Action Party adopted this model in 1959, which is continuously used to shape the country’s ethnic profile (Solomon, 2018). This model has links to its colonial past as Chinese, Malay, and Indians came to Singapore due to the British. In effect, Singapore views Eurasians and Jews as Others (Vasu, 2012). The model also serves as an example of Singapore’s multiculturalism as Singapore understands and manages the race of individuals in a way where peoples’ racial identities are not subject to change (Vasu, 2012). As a result, the CMIO Model is also used during “public celebrations like the annual National Day Parade” to recognise Singapore’s multiculturalism (Solomon, 2018, 95). Singapore frequently uses this model in its “public administration and governance framework” (Koh et al., 2015, 20).In governmental terms, the CMIO Model has been used to “manage language policies, access to public housing, statistical and census data and public holidays” (Solomon, 2018, 95). Although the CMIO Model tries to promote multiculturalism, in reality, it has resulted in more people experiencing challenges with their identities.
How Do Singapore’s CMIO Model Impact Peoples’ Identities?
Emily Tolentino – a Singaporean citizen originating from the Philippines – provides an example depicting how the CMIO Model has impacted her identity (Solomon, 2018). She explains an instance where, in communicating with someone, she mentioned how she identified herself as a Singaporean, but they just laughed at her as she was “not a real Singaporean” due to her Filipino ethnicity and appearance (Solomon, 2018, 96). This caused Emily to just introduce herself to others as a Filipino since “it was easier” (Solomon, 2018, 96). She further highlights how the CMIO Model impacts her identity by stating that she is visibly Filipino and “not Chinese or Malay or Indian or White”, reflecting how others will never see her as being “Singaporean enough” (Solomon, 2018, 96). However, this also reflects how the CMIO Model refers to those who are visibly white when they are talking about those in the Other category. This shows how others do not see Emily as a true Singaporean because her physical appearance and ethnicity are excluded from the CMIO categories. Emily’s example thus reflects how she refrained from identifying herself as a Singaporean so that society would accept her.
An unnamed former female national table tennis player also illustrates how the CMIO Model impacted her identity as her loyalty to Singapore was questioned (Chan-Hoong& Wai Wai, 2015). She is seen as a foreigner and not a local by society, despite previously representing the country at the Olympics, marrying a Singaporean and having two children who were Singaporean citizens by birth (Chan-Hoong& Wai Wai, 2015). This example shows that since she is excluded from the CMIO Model, she is seen as a foreigner, instead of a Singaporean as she was born elsewhere. Her identity was impacted as despite wanting to identify herself as a Singaporean, society did not enable her to do so because they would always see her as a foreigner.
An anonymous Indian permanent resident was interviewed, shedding further light on this issue. The interviews stated how it is hard to maintain two cultural identities, so you primarily have to choose one over the other (Chacko, 2017). They add that despite identifying as an Indian, they have many local friends due to their shared common interests which are not dependent on their cultural background (Chacko, 2017). As the interviewee is a permanent resident, the CMIO Model has impacted their identity. The interviewee fits into the CMIO Model as they identify themselves as Indian, while only referring to themselves as a permanent resident when asked (Chacko, 2017). They choose to identify themselves as Indian rather than a permanent resident because other citizens are more likely to accept them for who they are without question since they are included in the CMIO Model.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Singapore’s CMIO Model has been influenced by Britain calling people from their colonies to come and work in their growing industries. This reflects how Singapore’s policies have been influenced by different historical events and times. The examples of impacts on peoples’ identities reflect how they have to neglect one country from their identities for Singapore to accept them. For instance, Emily wants to be identified as Singaporean, but her physical characteristics constrain her from identifying herself as Filipino. The unnamed former female national table tennis player is also constrained to being a foreigner because she did not originate from Singapore. The anonymous Indian permanent resident interviewee talks about how people cannot maintain two cultural identities; however, the CMIO Model’s impacts would be better judged if we knew where they originate from, as they only say they are Indian.
However, the CMIO Model can now be viewed as more of an exclusionary policy/framework than the traditional integration one that promoted multiculturalism.In effect, it will be interesting to see how Singapore will approach this model in the future. A person’s individual and national identity should not be limited to their race as several factors influence a person’s identity.[1]
[1] If you would like to read more about the future implementation of the CMIO Model, Justin Ong has published the article ‘Singapore’s CMIO race model an administrative tool to manage policies: IPS panel’ which is an interesting read and is hyperlinked above.
Bibliography
Chacko, Elizabeth. 2017. “Policies and Practices of Integration: High-Skilled Migrants from India in Singapore.” Papers in Applied Geography 3, no. 3-4: 262–274.
Chan-Hoong, Leong & Yang Wai Wai. 2015. “Social markers of integration What matters most to Singaporeans?” In Migration and Integration in Singapore: Policies and Practices, edited by Yap Mui Teng, Gillian Koh and Debbie Soon, 39-64. London: Taylor and Francis.
Ee, Joyce. 1961. “Chinese Migration to Singapore, 1896-1941.” Journal of Southeast Asian History 2, no. 2: 33-51.
Koh, Gillian, Debbie Soon and Yap Mui Teng. 2015. “Introduction.” In Migration and Integration in Singapore: Policies and Practices, edited by Yap Mui Teng, Gillian Koh and Debbie Soon, 1-24. London: Taylor and Francis.
Minority Rights Group. N.d. “Malays – Minority Rights Group.” Accessed 21 July 2022. https://minorityrights.org/minorities/malays/.
Solomon, John. 2018. “Not Singaporean Enough? Migration, History and National Identity in Singapore.” In History, Historians, and the Immigration Debate”, edited by Eureka Henrich and Julian M. Simpson, 93-112. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Vasu, Norman. 2012. “Governance through Difference in Singapore.” Asian Survey 52, no. 4: 734-753.
Yang, Peidong. 2020. “Differentiated Inclusion, Muted Diversification: Immigrant Teachers’ Settlement and Professional Experiences in Singapore as a Case of ‘middling’ Migrants’ Integration.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies: 1-18.
Yeoh, Brenda S.A, & Weiqiang Lin. 2013. “Chinese Migration to Singapore: Discourses and Discontents in a Globalizing Nation-State.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal: APMJ 22, no. 1: 31–54.
Himani Chauhan is an International Relations & History graduate and is currently pursuing a Masters of Migration Studies from Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand). She comes from a family of immigrants which has shaped her experiences, views, and interests in wanting to further explore and work in this area of study. Her area of interest includes – Migration, History and Human Rights.