Singapore - Housing Practise Series
Singapore - Housing Practise Series
Singapore - Housing Practise Series
SINGAPORE
HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE
Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) 2020
All rights reserved
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
P.O. Box 30030 00100 Nairobi GPO KENYA
Tel: 254-020-7623120 (Central Office)
www.unhabitat.org
HS NUMBER: HS/030/20E
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the secretariat of the
United Nations concerning the legal status of any county, territory, city or area or its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries regarding its
economic system or degree of development. Excerpts may be reproduced without
authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. Views expressed in this
publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, the United Nations and its member states.
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by UN-Habitat and its Housing Team within the Land
Housing and Shelter Section, in partnership with experts: Michael Glass, K.C. Ho, Kok-
Hoe Ng and Ern-Ser Tan.
Kok-Hoe Ng (Chapter 2 - Social Housing) would like to thank Asher Goh and Melissa
Toh for their assistance in the preparation of this chapter.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................................... V
CHAPTER 1: THE DECISION TO BUILD PUBLIC HOUSING IN SINGAPORE............................................................................. VI
1. History of Public Housing Provision...............................................................................................................................................................1
2. Assessing the record........................................................................................................................................................................................5
3. The Social Change which Public Housing Engendered in Singapore.................................................................................................6
4. Public Housing Issues and Policies..............................................................................................................................................................7
5. Introduction to the Monograph .....................................................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2: SOCIAL HOUSING.......................................................................................................................................................10
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2. Policy development........................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
3. Policy provision................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
4. Policy impact..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
5. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC HOUSING POLICY AND SOCIAL MIXING: PROMOTING SOCIAL INTEGRATION ALONG THE
DIMENSIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AGE AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS........................................................................................... 28
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
2. The public housing population................................................................................................................................................................... 29
3. A multidimensional public housing social landscape........................................................................................................................... 30
4. Consequences of social diversity: tension or integration?.................................................................................................................. 35
5. Race, citizenship status and social integration in public housing.......................................................................................................37
6. Preventing the formation of enclaves and ghettos: facilitating social mixing between social classes in public housing.. 39
7. Keeping seniors in public housing communities.................................................................................................................................... 40
8. What are the key take-aways from this chapter?.................................................................................................................................... 41
9. Are Singapore’s public housing policies applicable to other social contexts?.............................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PUBLIC HOUSING ESTATES............................................................... 47
1. Community Development as a building block in the lives of a young nation................................................................................. 48
2. Community Organizations and Political Mobilization............................................................................................................................50
3. The Collective Life of the Neighbourhood............................................................................................................................................... 52
4. Newer Policy Initiatives in Community Development........................................................................................................................... 55
5. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER 5: POST-1990 HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD UPGRADING PROGRAMMES..................................... 63
1. Public Housing Upgrading Programmes in Singapore.......................................................................................................................... 64
2. Upgrading in Action ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
3. Learning from the Singapore housing model...........................................................................................................................................74
CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC HOUSING AND SOCIETY........................................................................................................................... 77
1. How Can Public Housing Be Part of the Social Welfare Infrastructure?............................................................................................. 81
2. Can Public Housing Create an Undivided, Inclusive and Cohesive Society?................................................................................. 81
3. Can Public Housing Keep Pace with the Changing Aspirations of Society?................................................................................... 81
The UN-Habitat Housing Practices Series This volume presents the Singapore model authorities that similarly seek to enhance the
is an ongoing publication developed and of public housing, which is unique among physical environment of their properties.
produced by UN-Habitat in partnership countries with public housing systems in
with academic institutions and National terms of both: the proportion of residents This publication is intended for policy makers,
Governments. It provides reliable and living in public housing; and of its focus public sector officials and urban practitioners.
independent documentation of innovative and on home ownership of public housing Accordingly, it aims to outline the design
large-scale affordable housing programmes flats. Today, more than 80% of Singapore’s and effect of programmes on the multiple
in countries around the world. Rather than residents live in housing provided by the dimensions of housing (housing needs and
drawing from theory or abstract models, the Singapore Development Board (HBD). The demands, land, finance, infrastructure, the
Housing Practices Series shares insights volume highlights tangible, evidence-based construction sector, among others).The first
drawn from countries’ experience. Each measures implemented by the HBD in part of the publication gives a broad overview
volume holistically documents one housing addressing housing unaffordability since the of the history of the public housing sector
programme that has achieved significant 1960s, as well as its shift from understanding in Singapore and highlight its significance
results and is therefore showcased as a “best public housing as shelter for resettled in its context. The second part outlines
practice”. The volumes are based on sound families and the poor, to mass production. the programme and how it was tailored to
research that clearly describes the country’s Since 1961, in fact, HBD completed more address the poor and vulnerable segments of
housing sector context, the elements of than 1 million housing units. Furthermore, society. The third and fourth parts document
the programme, key achievements and the unit production was complemented by a the programme’s performance, especially
challenges, and suggestions for further comprehensive and integrated planning to in community building, and how it has been
programme improvement. create a self-sufficient environment conducive used to strengthen place identity. Finally,
for residents to live, work, play and learn - the fifth part outlines the ‘lessons learnt’ and
UN-Habitat believes that disseminating making housing the centre of a social welfare achievements of Singapore’s public housing
up-to-date information on country-specific infrastructure. system and its record of meeting the needs of
large-scale housing programmes is vital in the society.
revealing to other developing countries the This shift to mass production has also given
programmatic opportunities for addressing Singapore the opportunity to solve social and
their housing shortages, reducing slum political issues (eg. ethnic integration and
formation and growth, and improving the community building) by tackling them through
housing conditions of their citizens. The hope public housing.
is that these publications will contribute to
deepen the understanding of the available Furthermore, the recent focus on upgrading
measures to be taken to ensure access to the existing housing supply is based on
adequate, affordable, and sustainable housing principles of engagement, scale, and market
for all. research, and can be an example for housing
The Decision to
Build Public Housing
in Singapore
Author: K.C. HO
1. History of Public Housing Provision1
The British had founded Singapore as a clearly seen than in the three years after conjunction with mercantile and port activity.
base to carry out essential distributive, the Second World War, where ten and a Accordingly, locations were planned only
financial, transportation and communications half million Malaysian dollars were spent for the immigrant merchant population (i.e.
functions, with Malaya as both a hinterland rebuilding and expanding port facilities (Allen, the Chinese and the Indians) which were
for agricultural and mineral products, as well 1951:6). The fact that the amount spent on placed close to the mercantile area. The local
as a consumer market for British goods. port development for these three years came Malays, which were mainly fishermen, were
Given the geographically strategic position close to the total amount spent on housing not residentially planned for and were found
that Singapore had, this type of entrepôt for the entire 140-year colonial period gives along the coast well outside the town area
trade became very lucrative and remained an indication of the colonial attitude towards (Hodder, 1953:27).
the backbone of Singapore’s economy. Its social expenditures. This colonial attitude
continued success over this period create the towards trade influenced housing location. Under the colonial municipal authorities,
demand and guaranteed investment in the Residential areas for the various ethnic groups the Central Area had developed into
facilities connected with entrepôt trading. The were determined when the commercial/port an area of highly congested mixed land
dominance of entrepôt trading also gave rise area was planned in the 1820’s. Given colonial use. In it were the entrepôt infrastructure
to a complex network of financiers, traders, priorities, residential allocation was planned in
semi-wholesalers and agency house and
skills that involved transhipment, grading,
processing, packing, storage, breaking of bulk
and access to markets and credit facilities Residential areas for the various ethnic groups were
(McGee, 1967:57-60, 137; IBRD, 1955:95). determined when the commercial/port area was planned
The settlement around the harbour and river
in the 1820’s
area began to grow in density and economic
diversity as trade grew. According to Choe
(1975: 97), this settlement, known as the
Central Area, is estimated at about 1,700
acres (about 1.2% of the total land area of
the Island). The economic activities which
encompass the Central Area radiated from the
mouth of the Singapore River.
It is important to note that providing low cost A few years later, a housing commission (1918 However, twenty years of managing central
housing was not the major reason for the Housing Commission, 1918: A48) set up to area congestion and experimenting with
formation of SIT (Quah, 1975:135, 222). SIT look into the deteriorating housing condition back lanes also led to the growing realization
viewed the issue of housing provision with reached the conclusion that the construction within the SIT that the back lane scheme
great reluctance, as the following passage of back lanes is “the most important scheme was only a stop-gap measure. A SIT report
indicates: of all, one that will be most used”. The (1948: 10) observed that the reconstruction
continuity of this scheme was ensured when that had to be done for the rear portions of
Mr. William Bartley took over as Chairman the houses affected had only intermediate
of the Singapore Improvement Trust in 1931. rather the long term value, since the housing
Under Bartley, the policy of the Trust was stock was “obsolete and overdue for
During the early years the Trust directed to an intensification of the back demolition and rebuilding”, adding that “the
had no power to build except lane programme which was considered to reconstruction of the rear portion of a house
where expressly laid down in an be the “best means of opening up insanitary for back lane purposes cuts down the living
improvement scheme but was blocks of back to back houses to light, air and accommodation by about one half in many
obliged to provide accommodation municipal services” (SIT, 1948:10). Between cases, and thus creates rehousing problems
for people actually dishoused... 1910 and 1947, a total of 252 back lanes were and aggravates overcrowding.”
The Trustees were for many years scheduled to be constructed by the Municipal
reluctant that the Trust should Government. With the realization of the short term value
undertake any housing on a large of the back lane scheme there was a
scale as such was apparently not the Instead of new housing provision, municipal gradual shift in thinking towards providing
original intention when the Trust was efforts at solving the congestion and for public housing. In response to the
created. sanitation problem involved efforts directed worsening housing shortage, SIT was given
at solving the problem on site, in the crowded power to build more houses in 1932, and
(Fraser, 1948:7,8) central area. The perceptions of officials faced built about 2,049 units with 54 shops by
with the task of improving the Municipality December 1941 (SIT Annual Report, 1959).
was such that the back lane scheme was In 1936, the first public housing scheme at
offered as the only solution to the problems Tiong Bahru was started. This project is
facing the Central Area: significant because it marked the beginnings
Allen, D.F. (1960), Report on the Goh, K.S. (1956) Urban Incomes and Singapore Housing Commission Simpson, W.J. (1907) Report on the
Major Ports of Malaya, Government Housing: A Report on the Social (1948) Report of Housing Committee Sanitary Condition of Singapore.
Press, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Survey of Singapore, 195354, 1947 Singapore. Waterlow and Sons, London.
Singapore: Government Printing
Chan, H.C. (1976) “The Political Office. International Bank for Reconstruction Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT)
System and Political Change”, in and Development (IBRD) (1955) The (1959) Annual Report.
Singapore: Society in Transition, Hassan, R. (1977) Families in Economic Development of Malaya,
R. Hassan (ed), Oxford University Flats, Singapore University Press, IBRD, Singapore. Tai, C.L. (1988) Housing Policy
Press, K.L. Malaysia. Singapore and High-Rise Living: A Study
Kaye, B. (1960) Upper Nanking of Singapore’s Public Housing.
Chang, C.T. (1975) “A Sociological Ho, K.C. (1993) “Issues on Industrial Street Singapore Singapore: Chopmen: Singapore.
Study of Neighbourliness”, in Public and Urban Development in Local University of Malaya Press.
Housing in Singapore, Stephen H.K. Literature: Public Housing in Teh C.W. (1975) “Public Housing in
Yeh (ed), Singapore University Press, Singapore” Malaysia and Singapore: Liu T.K. (1982) “A Review of Public Singapore: An Overview” in Public
Singapore. Experiences in Industrialization Housing” in Our Heritage and Housing in Singapore, Stephen H.K.
and Urban Development Lee Boon Beyond, S. Jayakumar (ed), NTUC, Yeh (ed), Singapore University Press,
Choe, Alan F.C. (1975) “Urban Hiok and K.S. Susan Oorjitham (eds) Singapore. Singapore.
Renewal” in Public Housing in Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
Singapore, Stephen H.K. Yeh McGee, T.G. (1972) The Southeast Thompson, G.G. (1968) “The
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Asian City, Bell, London. Emergent Political leadership in
(ed), Singapore University Press,
Singapore. Hodder, B.W. (1953) “Racial the Change from Colonialism to
Pang, E.F. and H.P. Khoo (1975) Nationalism in Leadership and
Groupings in Singapore”, Journal of “Patterns od Industrial Employment
Department of Social Welfare Tropical Geography, vol.1: 25-36. Authority G. Wijeyewardene
[DSW] (1947) A Social Survey of within Public Housing Estates” (ed), University of Malaya Press,
Singapore: A Preliminary Study of Housing and Development Board in Public Housing in Singapore, Singapore.
Some Aspects of Social Conditions (HDB) (2016) Annual Report 2015/16, Stephen H.K. Yeh (ed), Singapore
in the Municipal Area of Singapore, HDB. University Press, Singapore. Vreeland, N., Dana, G. B., Hurwitz,
Singapore. G. B., Just, P., & Shinn, R. S. (1977).
Source: http://www20.hdb.gov.sg/ Pugh, C. (1985) “Housing and Area handbook for Singapore,
Department of Statistics, (1992), fi10/fi10221p.nsf/arxvi/ebooks.html Development in Singapore”, Government Printing Office,
Census of Population 1990 Release (accessed on 20 Jan 2018) Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol.6
Washington.
No.2 Household and Housing, no. 4: 275-307.
Singapore: Dept. of Statistics. Singapore Housing Commission Yeung, Y.M. (1973) National
(1918) Proceedings and Report of the Quah, J. (1975) Administrative Reform
Development Policy and Urban
Fraser, J.M. (Comp.) (1949) The Work Commission appointed to inquire and Development Administration in
Transformation in Singapore,
of the SIT 1927-1947, Singapore into the course of the present Singapore: A Comparative Study of
Department of Geography Research
Improvement Trust. housing difficulties in Singapore, SIT and the HDB, PhD Dissertation,
Paper no. 149, Chicago.
and the steps which should be College of Social Sciences, Florida
Gamer, R. (1972) The Politics of Urban taken to remedy such difficulties, 2 State University.
Development in Singapore, Cornell volumes, Singapore.
University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Social Housing at Toa
Payoh, Singapore. Image
courtesy of the Housing
& Development Board.
© HDB
CHAPTER 2:
Social Housing
Author: Kok-Hoe NG
1. Introduction units are provided directly instead of
housing allowances or benefits, although
Social housing2, or public rental housing there are rebates for some housing costs
in local terminology, is a critical but easily such as utilities. At 4% of the total housing
overlooked component of Singapore’s public stock, social housing stock in Singapore is
housing system. Today it is overshadowed by lower than in many parts of Europe, where
owner-occupied public housing which makes it reaches 32% in the Netherlands (Scanlon,
up 94% of the total public housing stock and Whitehead, & Arrigoitia, 2014), and in Hong
accommodates 79% of the population (HDB, Kong, where it is 29% (Hong Kong Housing
2016a). Social housing, on the other hand, Authority, 2017). While rents are lower than
represents just 6% of all public housing units market rates, they rise steadily in line with
and caters for 3% of the population. However, incomes and families with much improved
historically, Singapore’s comprehensive earnings are urged towards homeownership. Owner-occupied public
public housing system began as social Tenancies are kept short to signal that social housing makes up to 94%
housing. Social renting remains the primary housing is not a permanent arrangement, of the total public housing
housing option for low-income persons and but in practice they are routinely renewed. stock and accommodates
is therefore an important part of the social Whereas sold flats, subsidised when first 79% of the population.
welfare response to poverty. Its particular purchased from the HDB, are considered
features and logics, alongside one of the part of the social wage, public rental flats
world’s largest owner-occupied housing strictly target low-income persons and puts
programme driven by a combination of Singapore firmly in the category of dualist or
individual savings, public grants, and property residual social housing regimes (Harloe, 1995;
market dynamics, also articulate the country’s Kemeny, 1995).
distinctive liberal welfare philosophy.
The rest of this chapter is divided into four Social housing, on the other
Compared to the social housing programmes sections. Section 2 reviews the history hand, represents just 6%
in other advanced economies, public rental of social housing in Singapore, outlining of all public housing units
housing in Singapore stands out in many three main phases in policy development. and caters for 3% of the
ways. As the country lacks the traditions and There are many references to sold public population.
geographical scale for local government, housing because the trajectory of social
social housing is owned and operated housing policy is closely related to the rise
centrally as a unitary national programme, of homeownership. The section is kept fairly
with the Housing and Development Board concise due to space constraints. A more
(HDB) responsible for developing, allocating, thorough discussion of the history of public
and managing all social housing. Housing housing can be found in Chapter 1 of this
2 Social housing is generally defined as housing that is allocated on the basis of need and at below
market rents, although its ownership and management vary across countries (Scanlon, Whitehead, &
Arrigoitia, 2014). The HDB’s public rental housing programme, which is highly subsidised and targets
persons with no other housing options, fulfils the function of social housing. There are no alternative
suppliers of subsidised rental housing in Singapore, although several social service providers offer
shelter and support for a small number of people facing more complex social issues, some of them
in premises provided by the HDB.
Over three decades, the SIT laid the foundations for public housing in Singapore,
closely following a social housing model based on renting to low-income persons. But
homeownership was also considered sporadically at the time. As early as 1936, a block
of flats was built in the central precinct of Tiong Bahru with the intention of selling them
(SIT, 1959). However, the plan was later abandoned as the target selling price could not
be achieved. The sale of public housing continued to be discussed in subsequent years
and in the 1950s, some public housing in the precinct of Queenstown were sold. The
administration also encouraged private housing developers to build more housing, even
though these were generally unaffordable to lower-income people. Thomas Mure Hart,
the Financial Secretary then, declared that:
3 The survey was conducted in 2016 with
1,075 public rental households in 148 “The government is making every effort, through the agency of the Singapore
different blocks. The selection of blocks was Improvement Trust, to build as many houses and flats as possible for letting at low rents,
proportionate to the geographical distribution
of all rental housing blocks in Singapore. but we consider it desirable that the opportunity should be given to members of the
Within each block, households were selected public in the lower income groups to buy their own homes… [The] main objective of the
using systematic sampling with a random start. proposal is to foster a community of responsible home-owners, a community which will
The study was funded by National University
of Singapore, Research Grant R-603-000-170- add to the strength and stability of the new Singapore which we are planning.” (Hansard,
133. 10 February 1956, col 1605–8).
1960s to 90s
Within a year, the new government In 1964, there was a marked shift in other welfare provisions were meagre in
replaced the colonial-era SIT with a public housing policy as policymakers Singapore (Deyo, 1992).
new statutory body, the HDB, with the decided to promote homeownership
explicit mandate to expand the public over public renting, making HDB flats In practical terms, homeownership could
housing system. Initially the HDB focused available for purchase on a 99-year only be realised with support from other
on providing rental housing, as the SIT leasehold basis. The policy campaign policy measures. The first was a critical
did. They described their objective at was branded as “Home Ownership reform to the nation’s mandatory savings
the time as “building as many housing Scheme for the People”. There have scheme, the Central Provident Fund
units at the shortest possible time and been different interpretations of the (CPF). The CPF was implemented in the
the lowest possible cost” (HDB, 1976, p. underlying policy motivations. The 1950s as a defined contribution pension
9). The priority was to deliver quantity HDB pitched it as a move towards “a system based on individual accounts.
rather than quality in order to address the property-owning democracy” (HDB, 1965, But a reform in 1968 made it possible
pressing housing shortage and ensure p. 9). The Prime Minister argued that this to withdraw some savings to pay for
affordability to the public. It was readily would “give every citizen a stake in the housing prior to retirement, putting
acknowledged that housing standards country and its future… [If] every family homeownership within the financial reach
had to be “austere”. This plan was swiftly owned its home, the country would be of many families (HDB, 1969). Secondly,
delivered. By the end of 1963, the HDB more stable” (Lee, 2000). It has been from 1970, there were measures
had completed 31,317 flats, surpassing suggested that the commitment to a to encourage and support existing
its target of 26,521, and was able to mortgage obliges individuals to remain tenants to purchase their rental flats.
declare that “any Singaporean citizen employed, hence creating a disciplined For instance, the down payment was
who satisfies the minimal qualifying workforce that is attractive to foreign reduced and later completely waived;
conditions…will be housed within a investment and advantageous for the the qualifying income ceiling to purchase
matter of days provided the applicant nation’s sustained economic growth housing was lifted; a range of fees were
is not over particular about the locality (Chua, 2014). This function of subsidised, absorbed into the housing loan to lower
or the floor level of the flat which is widely accessible public housing has initial payments; and the period of loan
allocated to him” (HDB, 1964, p. 1). also been described as a social wage repayment was extended. The HDB also
to ensure labour peace, at a time when took on the role of mortgage provider,
4 In HDB’s terminology for flat sizes, the living room is counted as a room. Hence “1-room flats” are in fact studio flats, “2-room flats” are
one-bedroom flats, “3-room flats” are two-bedroom flats, and so on.
5 This target has never been reached. In recent years, homeownership rates have stabilized at around 90%. It is important to note that
ownership figures do not reveal the extent to which family members may co-reside due to the lack of alternative housing options,
including social renting.
450,000
80,000
400,000
70,000
350,000
1-room
60,000
300,000 2-room
50,000 3-room
1-room
250,000
40,000 2-room 4-room
200,000 5-room
3-room
30,000
4-room 150,000 Executive
20,000 Studio
100,000
HUDC*
10,000
50,000
0
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
* HUDC stands for Housing and Urban Development Company. HUDC flats are a premium category of public housing built
in the 1970s and 1980s to cater for a rising middle class. All HUDC estates have since been privatised.
450,000
350,000
1-room
2.3 Policy pressures and recalibration:
2000s onwards
The 2000s began with a series of to housing quality, with several flats became available in this way (HDB,
economic shocks in Singapore. Even refurbishment programmes targeting personal communication, September 13,
before the effects of the 1997 Asian rental housing in the early 2000s. These 2017). Another initiative was an Interim
financial crisis had completely worn off, a were in addition to the upgrading that Rental Housing programme introduced
slowdown in the technology sector and had taken place in neighbourhoods in 2009 which catered for families
the September 11 attacks in the United where the purchased flats were also needing urgent accommodation while
States triggered a recession in 2001, undergoing refurbishment. But to waiting for the allocation of sold or
followed by the outbreak of the Severe encourage a move into purchased public rental housing, for six months to
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) flats once tenants’ economic situations a year, using old housing stock vacated
in the region which hit sectors such as improved, rents were graduated, with and scheduled for demolition (HDB,
hospitality and tourism (Choy, 2010). households earning between $801 and 2010). The intention for this to be a short-
This affected public housing in many $1500 charged more than households term measure is reflected in the rule
ways. Economic uncertainty heightened earning up to $800. The Tenants’ Priority that two families must share a 3-room
concerns about the risks of mortgage Scheme was introduced to give priority flat, which led to overcrowding, lack of
commitments and discouraged young to tenants who wished to purchase their privacy, and social conflict (Hansard,
people from entering the housing market own flats and a small percentage of flats 14 February 2012). In recent years, the
as well as existing homeowners from were set aside for this purpose (HDB, demand for social housing has remained
moving to larger flats (Chua, 2014). There 2007). strong. On average, the HDB receives
was also a noticeable shift in preference requests from around 8,700 households
to smaller 3-room flats, which the HDB Then in 2006, the HDB announced that for rental housing each year, of which
had stopped building in 1985 due to they would resume the building of new 2,300 are successful (Hansard, 24 March
falling demand. At the lower end of the rental flats to meet the demand from 2016).6 According to policymakers,
income distribution, concerns about low-income families (HDB, 2007). The the expansion of rental housing was
affordability displaced demand from target was to increase the 1- and 2-room a response to prevailing economic
purchasing to renting, adding to the rental housing stock from 42,000 in conditions, stagnating incomes at the
pressure on the existing rental housing 2007 to 60,000 by 2017 (Hansard, 29 bottom end, and demographic changes
stock. Policymakers therefore embarked February 2016; Figure 1), an expansion such as increasing numbers of divorces
on a careful but significant recalibration of more than 40%. In fact, the need for and elderly households (Hansard, 15
of the public housing system, in which rental housing was judged to be so February 2007; 15 February 2008).
social renting would occupy a larger role. acute that the HDB adopted two new However, the significance of this
measures. First, they began to convert development goes beyond a reaction
In 2003, the income ceiling to qualify larger unsold flats into smaller rental flats to cyclical economic pressures or
for rental housing was almost doubled which could be let immediately (Hansard, macrosocial changes. The decision to
from $800 to $1500 per month (HDB, 15 September 2008). Between 2007 and build new rental housing effectively
2004). There was also greater attention 2016, about 2,000 1- and 2-room rental nullified the 1980s policy to suspend
6 These numbers include both first-time applicants for social housing and those appealing against the rejection of their applications.
3.1 Distribution Traditionally there are no mixed-tenure some uncertainty about the demand for
In 2016, there were 274 blocks of 55,131 housing blocks by design. In practice, tenure sold flats in these mixed-tenure blocks as
public rental flats in Singapore, consisting became mixed in places where tenants this configuration of housing had not been
of 26,585 1-room flats, 26,849 2-room flats, bought over the flats they were occupying; attempted before. But according to the HDB
1,586 3-room flats, and 111 4-room flats (HDB, where 3-room rental flats were released (personal communication, September 13,
2016a, 2017b). Rental blocks are mostly sited for sale after the tenants moved out as this 2017), the take-up rate of sold flats in these
as adjacent pairs or even singly, among flat type was phased out from the social blocks did not seem to be affected by co-
other blocks of sold flats, as an intentional housing programme; and in one-off housing location with rental housing.
strategy to promote socioeconomic diversity developments to accommodate tenants
and avoid the formation of large, low-income relocated from demolished social housing 3.2 Quality
neighbourhoods. The concentration of social estates, among whom some may opt to Among other factors, housing quality depends
housing as seen in large public housing own their new flats. Otherwise rental flats on the age, size, and general physical
projects in the United States and council generally exist only in all-rental blocks with condition of the flat. The rental housing
estates in the UK is therefore not a feature no purchased housing. But in 2014, the first stock grew steadily from about 22,000 in
in Singapore’s housing landscape. The integrated block of mixed-tenure housing 1960 to a peak of 135,000 in 1982, when the
largest rental cluster consists of just nine was introduced at Marsiling in the north of construction of rental flats stopped (HDB,
adjacent blocks in the same residential town. Singapore with 241 sold flats and 42 rental various years). This was an expansion of more
Three other towns have seven to ten rental flats (HDB, 2014a, 2016b). This was followed than six times in a little over two decades.
housing blocks sited in close proximity but not by a second block in 2016 at Bukit Batok Thereafter, through relocation and demolition,
immediately adjacent. in the western region with 186 sold flats this rental stock was gradually cut down to
and 35 rental flats, and the third in 2017 less than 50,000 by 2008, when new rental
The small stock of rental housing is dispersed at Sengkang in the north-eastern region flats became available again for the first time
across all towns except one, Bukit Timah, an with 143 sold flats and 39 rental flats (HDB, in 25 years. Around three quarters of the
area consisting mainly of expensive private personal communication, December 5, 2017). current rental housing stock are therefore
residences. The oldest towns developed Rental flats represent 15–20% of the units more than four decades old, dating back to at
in the 1970s and before have the highest in each block, located among smaller sold least the 1970s.
proportions of rental housing, as much as flats on the lower floors. Initially there was
25% in one town, and the lowest proportions
of 5-room and larger flats. On the other hand,
the youngest towns established in the 1990s
Recently built social housing
have very small numbers of rental flats and
sited among sold flats. © HDB
some of the highest shares of large flat types.
On average, rental housing is 12% of the
housing stock in the oldest towns, compared
to just 3% in the newest ones. This uneven
geographical distribution of rental housing
reflects the historical pattern of social housing
development and mirrors differences in
socioeconomic class across residential towns.
4.1 Access
Waiting times for rental flats reflect both the
demand and supply of social housing, as
well as sold flats. In the 1980s, applicants
waited 2 to 5 years to be allocated a rental
flat (Hansard, 17 March 1983, 20 December
1983). As homeownership gained popularity
and the demand for social housing waned,
waiting times fell to less than a year in the
early 2000s (Hansard, 18 February 2005).
However, problems with the affordability
of sold flats and a growth in rental demand
soon led to a sharp rise in waiting times, In each block
peaking at 21 months in 2008 (Hansard, 05 of rental flats,
March 2010). In recent years, as the supply no more than
of rental housing was ramped up and various
%
measures dampened the prices of sold flats,
making them more affordable, waiting times 87 %
for rental flats have fallen below 6 months
(Hansard, 11 March 2015, 24 March 2016). On
average, from 2008 onwards, waiting times
of units may
be allocated 25% 15
have been around 9 months (Hansard, 03 to Chinese to Indians
households to Malays and other
March 2011, 02 March 2012, 16 September
2013, 10 March 2014). ethnic
groups
The wait is sometimes due to ethnic quotas.
(Hansard, 10 July 2012).
Like for sold housing, these quotas are meant
to prevent ethnic enclaves from developing
in residential neighbourhoods (see Chapter group has been reached in a particular (Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association,
3). Officially, in each block of rental flats, no locality, there will be a longer wait. This has 2016), 4-9 years in the London Borough of
more than 87% of units may be allocated to affected Malay and Indian more than Chinese Lambeth, UK (Lambeth Council, 2016), and
Chinese households, 25% to Malays, and 15% applicants. In 2012, the average waiting time more than 10 years in some parts of New
to Indians and other ethnic groups (Hansard, was 7 months for Malays, 6 months for Indians South Wales, Australia (Housing Pathways,
10 July 2012). Where necessary, these and other ethnicities, and 4 months for the 2017). However, waiting times are not always
quotas may be pushed up by 10 percentage Chinese (Hansard, 10 July 2012). a precise measure of unmet housing demand
points to respond to demand. Recent figures and simple comparisons like this do not
show that the Malay population have been Singapore’s public rental waiting times in fully reveal the complex differences across
overrepresented in the social housing sector. recent years compare favourably with those housing systems. In particular, the stringency
They make up 13% of the national population of other social housing systems. These can of eligibility criteria strongly influences waiting
but 36% of the social housing population vary widely. The average waiting time is 3-5 times since housing rules that let more people
(Department of Statistics, 2017b; HDB, 2014b). years in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Housing through inevitably generate longer waiting
Where the quota for an applicant’s ethnic Authority, 2017b), 4 years in Ontario, Canada lists. In England, it was observed that the
Singapore’s social housing programme can social housing construction in 1982 and the Given these challenges, what policy lessons
look back on a number of achievements. subsequent reduction of the social housing might the Singapore case offer? In the mature
The ramping up of the public rental housing stock would have many consequences. European welfare states, the history of social
stock by more than six times during 1960- The most obvious is the bifurcation of the housing has followed an upward post-war
1982 is one of them and reflects the HDB’s public housing system over time into two trajectory of reconstruction and social housing
administrative capacity and resolve. Up tiers – newer, larger sold flats, and older, expansion up to the 1980s, when a wave
to the present day, the lowest rents have smaller rental flats. The 100% homeownership of privatization inspired by neoliberalism
been kept far below market rates. Even declaration, though never achieved, was led to the largescale reduction of housing
though qualifying is difficult, once accepted, a commitment to “zero rental units” or the stocks, reinforced in recent years by the
applicants do not have to wait long to be eradication of social housing. As sold housing strain of fiscal debt and austerity (Elsinga,
allocated their flats. Tenants were on the continued to innovate and build upwards Stephens, & Knorr-Siedow, 2014). There are
whole satisfied with their housing experiences towards near-private housing options, rental also unique national experiences. In the UK,
apart from concerns about certain aspects housing became noticeably inferior in terms the stopping of housing construction and the
of the physical environment and seem of diversity and quality. This residualisation loss of housing stock through the Right to
to have built strong ties with their local of rental housing was at times matched Buy scheme were major factors in the decline
community. Tenancies, though short, are by a sharp policy discourse about poverty of social housing (Malpass, 2014). Singapore
routinely renewed and there have been no and personal endeavor, as well as stringent seems to be ahead in terms of residualisation,
documented instances of eviction by the HDB. and discretionary allocation mechanisms to having embarked on a homeownership
Some tenants were worried about their long- gate-keep the limited housing stock. One drive a decade earlier, achieved a very high
term housing prospects, but others felt settled of the more surprising observations is that homeownership rate, and reduced the stock
and considered social housing their home. the eligibility criteria for social housing in of social housing extremely efficiently. Some
In the face of mounting pressures in the Singapore do not mention housing needs of the problems discussed in this chapter
2000s, policymakers were willing to perform at all, focusing instead on conserving the therefore illustrate the possible consequences
a U-turn by restarting the construction of housing stock, promoting family norms, and of going down this path. However, innovations
rental housing after a hiatus of 25 years. The evaluating individuals’ past housing decisions. such as the dispersal of public rental blocks
introduction of mixed-tenure housing most The restriction of social housing to the across different residential neighbourhoods
recently will create new opportunities for smallest, cheapest flat types leaves a cost are perhaps transferrable. In Singapore, this
social diversity. This phase of renewed policy gap between social renting and purchase, may have helped to lower the visibility of
interest in social housing will ensure the and makes the step up to ownership even social housing and reduced its association
availability of modern rental flats comparable harder, although the increasing availability of with neighbourhood deterioration and
to the standards if not the size of sold flats in smaller types of sold flat will help to smoothen poverty concentration. More importantly, the
the years to come. the continuum of housing options. Many of Singapore case shows that it is possible to
these are deeply embedded structural issues reverse a long-term decline in social housing
At the same time, serious challenges which will not be easy to redress. They also even in a society wholly committed to
remain. Ironically, the yielding of severe embody some of the central dilemmas of the homeownership, and indicates the enduring
housing shortage to the HDB’s exceptionally liberal welfare state, where the dominance potential of social housing to contribute to
efficient building programme in the initial of market principles and a philosophy of self- social stability in times of economic insecurity.
years also prompted a swift transition to the reliance sometimes make it difficult to access
homeownership campaign and, by implication, assistance and lower the chances for social
the decline of social housing. The halting of mobility.
AWARE. (2016). Single parents’ Singapore: DOS. Hansard Parliament 6 session 1 vol Hansard Parliament 12 session 1 vol
access to public housing: Findings 45 col 13–6 (25 February 1985). 90 (16 September 2013).
from AWARE’s research project. Deyo, F. C. (1992). The political
Singapore: AWARE. Retrieved 16 economy of social policy formation: Hansard Parliament 6 session 1 vol Hansard Parliament 12 session 1 vol
August 2017, from http://www.aware. East Asia’s newly industrialized 46 col 535–95 (31 October 1985). 91 (10 March 2014).
org.sg/2017/02/single-parents-need- countries. In R. P. Appelbaum &
J. Henderson (Eds.), States and Hansard Parliament 6 session 2 vol Hansard Parliament 12 session 2 vol
more-inclusive-policies-on-public- 47 col 763–5 (20 March 1986). 93 (11 March 2015).
housing development in the Asian Pacific rim
(pp. 289-306). Newbury Park, CA: Hansard Parliament 7 session 3 vol Hansard Parliament 13 session 1 vol
Center for Liveable Cities. (2016). Sage Publications. 58 col 95–6 (28 June 1991). 94 (29 February 2016).
Urban redevelopment: From squalor
to global city. Singapore: CLC. Elsinga, M., Stephens, M., & Knorr- Hansard Parliament 8 session 1 vol Hansard Parliament 13 session 1 vol
Siedow, T. (2014) The privatisation 61 col 353–6 (30 July 1993). 94 (24 March 2016).
Chang, R. (2013, June 20). Rental of social housing: three different
relief. The Straits Times. pathways. In K. Scanlon, C. Hansard Parliament 10 session 2 vol Hansard Parliament 13 session 1 vol
Whitehead & M. F. Arrigoitia (Eds.), 79 (18 February 2005). 94 (1 March 2017).
Choo, E. (2014). Responsive Social housing in Europe (pp.
regulation at HDB. Singapore: Civil Hansard Parliament 11 session 1 vol Hansard Parliament 13 session 1 vol
389–413). Chichester: John Wiley
Service College. 82 col 1346–9 (15 February 2007). 94 (7 March 2017).
& Sons.
Choy, K. M. (2010) Singapore’s Hansard Parliament 11 session 1 vol Harloe, M. (1995). The people’s
Fraser, J. M. (1948). The work of
changing economic model. In 84 col 423 (15 February 2008). home? Social rented housing
the Singapore Improvement Trust
T. Chong (Ed.), Management of in Europe and America. Oxford:
1927–1947. Singapore: Singapore Hansard Parliament 11 session 1 vol
success: Singapore revisited (pp. Blackwell.
Improvement Trust. 85 col 39–44 (15 September 2008).
123–38). Singapore: Institute of
HDB. (1962). HDB annual report
Southeast Asian Studies. Haffner, M., Hoekstra, J., Oxley, M., & Hansard Parliament 11 session 2 vol 1961/62. Singapore: HDB.
van der Heijden, H. (2009). Bridging 86 (05 March 2010).
Chua, B. H. (2014). Navigating the gap between social and market HDB. (1963 ). HDB annual report
between limits: the future of public rented housing in six European Hansard Parliament 11 session 2 vol 1962/63. Singapore: HDB.
housing in Singapore. Housing countries? Amsterdam: IOS Press. 87 (03 March 2011).
Studies, 29(4), 520-533. HDB. (1964). HDB annual report
Hansard Parliament 0 session 1 vol 1 Hansard Parliament 12 session 1 vol 1963/64. Singapore: HDB.
Department of Statistics. (2014). Key col 1604–21 (10 February 1956). 88 (20 October 2011).
household income trends, 2013. HDB. (1965). HDB annual report
Singapore: DOS. Hansard Parliament 5 session 1 vol Hansard Parliament 12 session 1 vol 1964/65. Singapore: HDB.
42 (17 March 1983). 88 (14 February 2012).
Department of Statistics. (2017a). HDB. (1967). HDB annual report
Key household income trends, 2016. Hansard Parliament 5 session 1 vol Hansard Parliament 12 session 1 vol 1966/67. Singapore: HDB.
Singapore: DOS. 43 (20 December 1983). 88 (02 March 2012).
HDB. (1968). HDB annual report
Department of Statistics. (2017b). Hansard Parliament 5 session 1 vol Hansard Parliament 12 session 1 vol 1967/68. Singapore: HDB.
Yearbook of statistics, 2016. 43 col 891–4 (13 March 1984). 89 (10 July 2012).
HDB. (1969). HDB annual report and preferences. HDB Sample webapp/BB29MTHLY/BB29SMTHLY September 1982 at 8.00 pm
1968/69. Singapore: HDB. Household Survey 2013. Singapore: [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://
HDB. Heng, J. (2016, April 11). Parliament: www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/
HDB. (1971). HDB annual report Rental flat families in Fresh Start data/pdfdoc/lys19820908s.pdf
1970/71. Singapore: HDB. HDB. (2016a). HDB annual report scheme will have to live in flats for at
2015/16. Singapore: HDB. least 20 years. The Straits Times. Malpass, P. (2014) Histories of social
HDB. (1976). HDB annual report housing: A comparative approach.
1975/76. Singapore: HDB. HDB. (2016b). February 2016 BTO Hong Kong Housing Authority. In K. Scanlon, C. Whitehead & M. F.
Exercise. Retrieved 16 August 2017, (2017a). Housing in figures, 2016. Arrigoitia (Eds.), Social housing in
HDB. (1978). HDB annual report from http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/ Hong Kong: HKHA.
1977/78. Singapore: HDB. Europe (pp. 259–74). Chichester:
infoweb/press-releases/feb-2016- John Wiley & Sons.
bto-exercise-24022016 Hong Kong Housing Authority.
HDB. (1982). HDB annual report (2017b). Number of applications
1981/82. Singapore: HDB. MND, & HDB. (2015, August 19). Joint
HDB. (2017a). Fresh Start Housing and average waiting time for press release by MND & HDB. Two-
HDB. (1983). HDB annual report Scheme. Retrieved 16 August 2017, public rental housing. Retrieved room Flexi Scheme, Meeting diverse
1982/83. Singapore: HDB. from http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/ 16 August 2017, from https://www. housing needs.
infoweb/residential/buying-a-flat/ housingauthority.gov.hk/en/about-
HDB. (1987). HDB annual report new/schemes-and-grants/fresh-start- us/publications-and-statistics/prh- Ontario Non-Profit Housing
1986/87. Singapore: HDB. housing-scheme applications-average-waiting-time Association. (2016). 2016 waiting lists
survey report. Ontario: ONPHA.
HDB. (1990). HDB annual report HDB. (2017b). Map to find location of Housing Committee. (1948).
1989/90. Singapore: HDB. rental flats. Retrieved 16 August 2017, Report of the Housing Committee, People’s Action Party. (1959). The
from https://services2.hdb.gov.sg/ Singapore, 1947. Singapore: tasks ahead: PAP’s five-year plan,
HDB. (1994). HDB annual report
webapp/AA11EMAP/AA11PMainPage Government Printing Office. 1959–1964: Part 1. Singapore: Petir.
1993/94. Singapore: HDB.
HDB. (2017c). Public Rental Scheme: Housing Pathways. (2017). Scanlon, K., Whitehead, C., &
HDB. (1995). HDB annual report
Eligibility. Retrieved 16 August 2017, Expected waiting times. Retrieved Arrigoitia, M. F. (2014). Introduction.
1994/95. Singapore: HDB.
from http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/ 16 August 2017, from http://www. In K. Scanlon, C. Whitehead & M. F.
HDB. (2000). HDB annual report infoweb/residential/renting-a-flat/ housingpathways.nsw.gov.au/how- Arrigoitia (Eds.), Social housing in
1999/2000. Singapore: HDB. renting-from-hdb/public-rental- to-apply/expected-waiting-times Europe (pp. 1–20). Chichester: John
scheme/eligibility Wiley & Sons.
HDB. (2001). HDB annual report Ibrahim, Z., Goh, S., Fernandez, W.,
2000/01. Singapore: HDB. HDB. (2017d). Public Rental Scheme: George, C., Looi, P., & Chiang, Y. SIT. (1959). The work of the
Application procedure. Retrieved (1991, August 12). Policy changes to Singapore Improvement Trust, 1958.
HDB. (2002). HDB annual report 16 August 2017, from http://www. help average S’poreans and slower Singapore: SIT.
2001/02. Singapore: HDB. hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/ learners. Target - 95% of S’poreans
renting-a-flat/renting-from-hdb/ should have own homes. The Straits Straits Settlements. (1930).
HDB. (2004). HDB annual report Ordinances enacted by the
2003/04. Singapore: HDB. public-rental-scheme/application- Times.
procedure governor of the Straits Settlements
HDB. (2007). HDB annual report Kemeny, J. (1995). From public with the advice and consent of
2006/07. Singapore: HDB. HDB. (2017e). Renting from the open housing to the social market: Rental the Legislative Council thereof in
market: Rental statistics. Retrieved policy strategies in comparative the year 1930. An ordinance to
HDB. (2010). HDB annual report 16 August 2017, from http://www. perspective. London: Routledge. amend the Singapore Improvement
2009/10. Singapore: HDB. hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/ Ordinance 1927 (No. 13 of 1930).
renting-a-flat/renting-from-the-open- Lambeth Council (2016, April 22). Singapore: Government Printing
HDB. (2013a). Public housing market/rental-statistics Lambeth social housing waiting Office.
in Singapore: Key highlights. list. Retrieved from: https://www.
[Brochure]. Singapore: HDB. HDB. (2017f). CPF housing grants whatdotheyknow.com/request/ Tan, HY. (2006, April 8). HDB to offer
for HDB flats. Retrieved 16 August lambeth_social_housing_waiting_l 80 more 2-room flats in Sengkang.
HDB. (2013b). Public Rental Scheme 2017, from http://www.hdb.gov.sg/ The Straits Times.
[Pamphlet]. Singapore: HDB. cs/infoweb/residential/buying-a-flat/ Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world
new/cpf-housing-grants-for-hdb-flats to first: The Singapore story 1965- The Singapore Free Press. (1957,
HDB. (2014a). HDB launches 6,454 2000. Singapore: Singapore Press July 26). Land shortage holds up
flats. Retrieved 16 August 2017, HDB (2017g). Build-to-Order/Sale of Holdings. S.I.T. The Singapore Free Press.
from http://www20.hdb.gov.sg/ Balance Flats/Re-offer of Balance
fi10/fi10296p.nsf/PressReleases/ Flats. Retrieved 16 August 2017, from Lee, Y. S. (1982). Speech by Mr Wilson, W., & Barton, C. (2017).
AB457B0B40A617 648257CE0000 http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/ Lee Yock Suan, Minister of State Allocating social housing (England).
5DB5B?OpenDocument residential/buying-a-flat/new/bto-sbf (National Development) at the Briefing paper number 06397.
inaugural dinner of the Singapore London: UK House of Commons.
HDB. (2014b). Public housing HDB. (2017h). Enquiry on maximum Institute of Surveyors and Valuers
in Singapore: Residents’ loan. Retrieved 16 August 2017, (SISV) at the Neptune Theatre
profile, housing satisfaction from https://services2.hdb.gov.sg/ Restaurant on Wednesday, 8
CHAPTER 3:
Public Housing Policy and
Social Mixing: Promoting
Social Integration along
the Dimensions of
Race, Class, Age and
Citizenship Status
11 Each precinct comprises about 10 blocks or between 400 and 800 flats.
12 This section and the next two are expanded and updated versions of the ones contained in a chapter I wrote titled “Public Housing and Community
Development: Planning for Urban Diversity in a City State” in Heng Chye Kiang, ed., (2017), 50 years of Urban Planning in Singapore. Singapore: World
Scientific. They are adapted here with the kind permission of the publisher, World Scientific, Singapore. They provide background information on the HDB
population as well as some survey findings on social networks and community in Singapore public housing.
13 Chua (1997:122) pointed out as examples that the most significant cause of the failures in public housing in Britain and the United States “may be the fact
that these estates concentrate all the multiple-disadvantaged individuals and households, often unable to maintain themselves and the living environment
simultaneously.” By the same token, Liu and Tuminez (2015:98) noted that public housing in Singapore “does not suffer the stigma of sub-standard quality,
nor is it equated with only the lower socioeconomic stratum of society.”
14 For the purpose of this paper, I shall use the term “race”, instead of ethnicity, in recognition of the fact that Singapore’s multiracial policy defines “the
Singapore population as divided into ‘races’” and that the ruling party “regards the relationship between society, culture, race, ethnicity, and the individual
as unequivocally interchangeable” (Benjamin, 1976: 115 and 118, quoted in Hill and Lian, 1995:94).
15 The indicators used to measure class or identify class categories in this chapter include education, occupation, income, and flat type.
16 Of the two, social distance could be a greater barrier to the forging of social ties than physical distance. It is possible for one not to have any interaction
with one’s immediate neighbours, while constantly in touch via digital devices with a close friend living on the other side of the globe.
17 In addition to an “ethnic quota” policy implemented in 1989 to prevent the formation of “ethnic enclaves”, a “permanent resident quota” policy was
introduced in 2010 to ensure that “no distinctive enclaves of immigrants” emerge on the HDB landscape (Fernandez, 2011:223).
18 In this paper, “HDB towns, neighbourhoods, and precincts” refer to the three levels of neighborhood size and organization of the HDB’s planning
hierarchy, while the term “HDB neighborhood” is used in a generic sense to refer to any of these levels.
19 The demographic profile data reported in this paper are from the HDB Sample Household Survey 2008 and 2013 monographs. Figures on some
dimensions found in the former are not available in the latter monograph.
20 Broadly speaking, mature towns refer to those built before the 1980s; middle-aged towns, during the 1980s; while young towns are those developed in
the 1990s or later.
30 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE
the highest median income of S$6,569 (HDB, middle class has grown considerably over
2010a:52). This income difference could be the last twenty years, rising from 41.3 per cent
explained by the fact that the mature town has in 1987 to 77.0 percent in 2008 and dipping
a higher proportion of elderly residents, who slightly to or perhaps stabilising at 76.3 per
are likely to have lower or no education and cent in 2013.
be economically inactive, and if employed,
more likely to be performing low skilled tasks The data on educational attainment likewise
in jobs such as “cleaners or labourers” (HDB, indicate a significant increase in the size
2014:49). However, the demographic profile of the middle class. The proportion of HDB
of mature towns can change over time, as residents aged fifteen years or older who
younger, higher income families move in to, have attained polytechnic or equivalent
for instance, stay nearer to their parents, diploma or university qualifications rose from
workplace, or preferred schools for their 19.9 per cent in 1998 to 31.4 per cent in 2008
children. and 42.7 per cent in 2013. At the same time,
the proportion with primary or no qualification
Overall, it can be observed in Table 3 that was somewhat high at 30.5 per cent in 2008,
a large majority of HDB residents live in but declined sharply to 15.3 per cent in 2013.
four-room or larger flat type, which one may
describe as “middle income housing”. Hence,
if we use flat type as a crude indicator of
class, it can be inferred that the size of the
4-room 29.0 41.3 41.0 77.0 41.1 76.3 a HUDC (Housing and Urban Development
Company) is a company set up by the
5-room 9.9 26.7 26.6 government to build middle-income housing
in 1974. By 2017, all HUDC units have been
Executive 1.6 9.3 8.6 converted into private housing. The HDB took
over the HUDC’s functions in 1982 and has
HUDCa 0.8 -- -- since 1987 moved on to build other types of
middle income housing, such as executive
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
condominium (Straits Times, March 18, 2017).
Source: HDB, 2010a:14 and 2014:23
HDB Residents
Occupation
1998 2008 2013
Legislators, Senior Officials, & Managers 10.9 40.4 10.7 45.2 13.3 50.6
21 An elderly household is defined as one in which the head (that is, the main lessee or registered
tenant of the apartment) is aged 65 years or older (HDB, 2014a:xxi).
Table 6: Monthly Household Income (S$) from Work by Ethnicity, 2008 (%)
Another correlation to note is that between
22
race and class—again using income as a Monthly Household Chinese Malay Indian
proxy indicator of class. Table 6 shows that Income (S$)
% cum.% % cum.% % cum.%
in 2008, 57.8 per cent of Malay households
earned less than the median monthly No earned income 8.8 48.7 6.6 57.8 8.1 51.3
household income, compared to 48.7 per
cent of the Chinese, and 51.3 per cent in the Below 1,000 4.2 5.3 4.9
case of Indian households. On the higher
1,000-1,999 11.3 15.8 12.3
segments of the income ladder, it can be
seen that 21.7 per cent of Chinese households 2,000-2,999 11.8 15.2 12.5
earned S$8,000 or more in 2008, while the
comparative figures for Malay and Indian 3,000-3,999 12.6 14.9 13.5
households were 9.5 per cent and 18.5 per
4,000-4,999 9.7 12.4 10.6
cent respectively.
5,000-5,999 8.5 8.8 8.8
22 In this chapter, I shall use the term “race” 8,000-8,999 4.6 21.7 3.2 9.5 4.1 18.5
and “ethnicity” interchangeably. Technically,
“race” is based on biological and physical
characteristics, while “ethnicity” centres more
9,000-9,999 3.4 1.7 2.2
on values, beliefs, and cultural practices. In
everyday usage, laypeople usually think of 10,000 & above 13.7 4.6 12.2
race in terms of both physically features and
cultural beliefs and practices. The physical Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
features are socially significant, serving as
Source: HDB, 2010a:55
ethnic markers, rather than a determinant of
human behavior.
23 The term “foreign talent’ refers primarily to foreign professionals, rather than foreign workers. It is now hardly used as it tends to provoke some negative
sentiment among citizens who perceive it as a “put down” of their own status, relegating them to “second class citizens”, and a constant reminder of the
competition they face for similar jobs. `
24 This survey is a collaboration between Channel News Asia (CNA) and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
As noted earlier, the public housing cooking curry or, better still, stop eating it.
population can be understood as a microcosm
of Singapore society. It comprised 73.5 per Living in close Given that curry is very much a part of the
cent Chinese, 15.8 per cent Malays, 8.9 per proximity can also Singaporean palate across the various
cent Indians, and 2 per cent of a mix of other be a source of races, the “demand” is seen as insensitive
races in 2013. and unreasonable. The case eventually
annoyance, if not
went through mediation, which produced
Given such a racial composition, the
tension or conflict. an outcome which Singaporean netizens
probability of a Chinese household living considered outrageous, even though it was
next to a Chinese one remains very high. the Indian family that graciously agreed not to
However, the public housing population cook curry whenever the Chinese family was
is far more heterogeneous and ethnically petty occurrences. This renders the home.
spread out to prevent the formation of occasional--but widely circulated usually
ethnic enclaves, compared to the “ethnically via social media—episode all the more The second case appeared in October 2012.
exclusive communities” predominant in important for understanding how racial It involves an ethnic-Chinese, Singapore
Singapore prior to the advent of the PAP harmony cannot be taken for granted, despite permanent resident who posted “offensive
Government’s large-scale public housing Singapore’s long record of racial integration and expletives-laced comments about
programme begun in 1960 (Chua, 1997:142). and multiracial practices. I will cite two highly Malay weddings traditionally held in public
Furthermore even if, for instance, a Chinese publicized episodes which happened in the housing void decks, and about Malays on
household does not live next to or a few context of a HDB neighbourhood. These her Facebook page”, because she was
doors away from a Malay household, there is cases are comprehensively described by Lai upset by the noise coming from a Malay
a likelihood that their members would meet and Mathews (2016). wedding taking place near her apartment
or even interact as friends or acquaintances block (Lai and Mathews, 2016:30). The person
when sharing common amenities, such as the Two racist episodes demanded that void deck weddings be
lift landings, void decks, walkways, bus stops, The first case surfaced in the public domain banned and subsequently went on to make
hawker centres, playgrounds, or schools in in 2011, several years after the racist episode racist comments about Malays.
the neighbourhood. had occurred. It arose as a result of a
newspaper report citing a mediation case Following her racist diatribes going viral
But living in close proximity can also be handled by the Community Mediation Centre through social media, a chorus of voices
a source of annoyance, if not tension or (CMS) of the Ministry of Law (Lai and Mathews, emerged to condemn her action. This led to
conflict. Indeed, when asked whether they 2016:16-17). her almost immediate dismissal from the job
have encountered any intolerable nuisances, she held at the Singapore’s confederation
almost one of four households surveyed This case involves an ethnic Chinese family of labour unions. Notably, there were some
indicated that they faced littering, noise and which had just arrived from China at that time. suggestions that the response to such
dripping water caused by neighbours (HDB, The point of contention was the aroma, which episodes of racism is to educate the offending
2014b:23). It is not known if race is a factor they found unpleasant, of the curry regularly party, rather than allow the racist sentiment to
in these broad categories of unneighbourly prepared by their Singaporean, ethnic-Indian simmer and emerge another day.
occurrences reported. neighbour. The latter did make some attempts
to minimise the smell wafting into their These two cases illustrate that a
There is, however, evidence that race can Chinese neighbour’s apartment, but to no heterogeneous public housing population
be a source of tension in public housing avail. Subsequently, the Chinese neighbour with people living in close proximity to
neighbourhoods, though more likely asked, or perhaps expressed in stronger one another could potentially be a source
manifested in terms of everyday, unreported tone, that their Indian neighbour put a stop to of social conflict. They also suggest that
25 It is interesting to note that the newly installed President of Singapore and her family reside in a public housing neighbourhood. She was sworn-in as
Singapore’s eighth President on September 14, 2017.
26 One of the authors of the paper, Liu Thai Ker, has previously been the chief executive officer of the HDB (1969-89) and the URA (1989-1992).
27 The old-age support ratio, defined as the number of residents aged 20 to 64 years per resident aged 65 years or older, declined from 6.0 in 2014 to 5.4 in
2016 (Ministry of Social and Family Development [MSF], 2016 and 2017).
28 The CAI is one of the series of high-level committees established by the government to address ageing issues since 1982.
29 The main source literature for the policies and measures cited in this section is Yuen and Soh (2016).
30 A plural society, according to Furnivall (1967[1947]) is one in which the different ethnic groups do not have much to do with each other, except in the market
place. They live “side by side, yet without mingling”. The concept of “plural society” differs from, yet is often confused with, that of “pluralistic society”.
9. Are Singapore’s public The government also enjoys a high degree Suffice it to say that the Singapore approach
housing policies applicable to of legitimacy over its long tenure of almost of encouraging social mixing and preventing
other social contexts? 60 years. These conditions make it much the concentration of ethnic or social minorities
easier for the government to implement may be instructive as broad principles,
Singapore’s public housing programme has policies which may not be popular with some with wide applications, which point to the
long been recognized as a social policy categories of people and would therefore challenges that would need to be addressed
success story, and therefore worthy of likely meet with some strong resistance in to achieve successful outcomes.
emulation. However, is Singapore a unique other national contexts. Nevertheless, to
case? Could its public housing policies and achieve a stable, peaceful and inclusive social Finally, it should be reiterated that public
practices work just as well in other social order, there are good reasons to prevent the housing-related policies as discussed in this
contexts? All things being equal, it should be formation of any kind of enclaves--be it race, chapter may not in and of themselves be
so. class, or citizenship status--which could hinder sufficient to facilitate social integration. They
social integration or generate tension and must be complemented by social policies
In the Singapore context, there is a strong conflict, as well as the emergence of seniors’ and community support aimed at equalizing
government with a massive and successful ghettos, which would lead to the social educational and economic opportunities;
housing programme which covers more than exclusion and marginalization of an expanding promoting dialogues, understanding, and
80 per cent of the population of households. segment of a rapidly ageing population. mutual trust and confidence; enhancing
31 These figures are based on the survey data from a study on social capital in Singapore conducted by Vincent Chua, Gillian Koh and me during 2016-17 for
the Institute of Policy Studies.
32 Chaskin and Joseph (2017) deals with mixed-income public housing, but the implications of its findings can, in my view, extend to other types of social
mixing as well.
Benjamin, G. (1976) “The Cultural Whither Integration?” In M. Mathews Profile, Housing Satisfaction gov.sg/Newsroom/News/News-
Logic of Singapore’s ‘Multiracialism’”. and Chiang, W.F., eds., Managing and Preferences (HDB Sample Page/ID/1782?category=Speech).
In R. Hassan, ed., Singapore: Society Diversity in Singapore: Policies and Household Survey 2013). Singapore: Retrieved June 7, 2017.
in Transition. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Prospects. Singapore: Institute of Housing and Development Board.
University Press. Policy Studies and Imperial College Ministry of Social and Family
Press. Housing and Development Board Development (MSF) (2016)
Chaskin, J.C. and M.L. Joseph (2017) (HDB) (2014b) Public Housing in Singapore Social Statistics in Brief
Integrating the Inner City: The Fernandez, W. (2011) Our Homes: Singapore: Social Well-Being of 2016. Singapore: MSF.
Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income 50 Years of Housing a Nation. HDB Communities (HDB Sample
Public Housing Transformation. Singapore: Straits Times Press. Household Survey 2013). Singapore: Ministry of Social and Family
Chicago: University of Chicago Housing and Development Board. Development (MSF) (2017)
Press. Furnivall, J.S. (1967[1947]) Singapore Social Statistics in Brief
Netherlands India; a Study of Khoo, L. (2017) “Living with Diversity” 2017. Singapore: MSF.
Cheong, K.H. (2017) “The Evolution a Plural Economy. Cambridge: Urban Solutions, Issue 10, Jan 2017.
of HDB Towns”. In Heng, C.K, Cambridge University Press. Mohammed Talib (2012) “The
ed., 50 Years of Urban Planning Lai, A.E. and M. Mathews (2016) problem of a racialized mind” Today,
in Singapore. Singapore: World Hill, M. and Lian K. F. (1995). The “Navigating Disconnects and Oct 11, 2012.
Scientific. Politics of Nation Building and Divides in Singapore’s Cultural
Citizenship in Singapore. London: Diversity”. In M. Mathews and Narayanan, G. (2004) “The Political
Chua, B.H. and Tan J.E. (1995) Routledge. Chiang, W.F., eds., Managing History of Ethnic Relations in
Singapore: New Configuration of a Diversity in Singapore: Policies and Singapore”. In Lai, A.E., ed., (2004)
Socially Stratified Culture. Sociology Housing and Development Prospects. Singapore: Institute of Beyond Rituals and Riots: Ethnic
Working Paper No. 127. Singapore: Board (HDB) (2010a) Public Policy Studies and Imperial College Pluralism and Social Cohesion in
Department of Sociology, NUS. Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Press. Singapore. Singapore: Institute
Profile, Housing Satisfaction of Policy Studies and Eastern
Chua, B.H. (1997) Political Legitimacy and Preferences (HDB Sample Liu, T.K. and A.S. Tuminez (2005) Universities Press.
and Housing: Stakeholding in Household Survey 2008). “The Social Dimension of Urban
Singapore. London: Routledge. Singapore: Housing and Planning in Singapore”. In D. Chan, People’s Association (PA) (2014)
Development Board. ed., 50 years of Social Issues Community 2015: Master Plan.
Committee on Ageing Issues in Singapore. Singapore: World Singapore: People’s Association.
(CAI) (2016) Report on the Ageing Housing and Development Board Scientific.
Population. Singapore: Ministry of (HDB) (2010b) Public Housing Phang, S.Y. and K. Kim (2011)
Community Development, Youth and in Singapore: Well-Being of Mathews, M. (2016) Channel News “Singapore’s Housing Policies: 1960-
Sports. Communities, Families and the Asia-Institute of Policy Studies 2013”. In Frontiers in Development
Elderly (HDB Sample Household (CAN-IPS) Survey on Race Relations, Policy: Innovative Development
Department of Statistics (DOS) (2014) Survey 2008). Singapore: Housing unpublished report. Case Studies. Seoul: KDI School and
Population Trends 2014. Singapore: and Development Board. World Bank Institute.
Department of Statistics. Ministry of National Development
Housing and Development (MND) (2013) “Written answer by Pow, C.P. (2016) “Creating a
Faizal Yahya (2016) “Trans-migrants Board (HDB) (2014a) Public MND on Ethnic Integration Policy for Liveable City for Whom? A Critical
and the Flow of Human Capital: Housing in Singapore: Residents’ HDB rental flats.” (http://app.mnd. Examination of Singapore’s Recent
Urban Transformation”. In M. Relations and Nation-Building Tan, E.S (2017) “Public Housing and Jin Hui, Tong C.K., and Tan E.S., eds.,
Mathews and Chiang, W.F., eds., in Southeast Asia: The Case of Community Development: Planning Understanding Singapore Society.
Managing Diversity in Singapore: the Ethnic Chinese. Singapore: for Urban Diversity in a City-State”. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Policies and Prospects. Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian Studies In Heng, C.K, ed., 50 Years of Urban
Institute of Policy Studies and and Institute of Southeast Asian Planning in Singapore. Singapore: Yap, M.T. and C. Gee (2015) “Ageing
Studies. World Scientific. in Singapore: Social Issues and
Imperial College Press.
Policy Challenges”. In D. Chan,
Quah, S. (2016) “Singapore Families: Tan, E.S. (2004b) Does Class Tan, S. (2017) “Where young and old ed., 50 years of Social Issues
Stability and Diversity in Challenging Matter? Social Stratification can play together,” Straits Times, in Singapore. Singapore: World
Times”. In M. Mathews and Chiang, and Orientations in Singapore. August 29, 2017. Scientific.
W.F., eds., Managing Diversity in Singapore: World Scientific.
Teh, C.W. (1969) “Public Housing”. Yeoh, B. and T. Lam (2016)
Singapore: Policies and Prospects.
Tan, E.S. and G. Koh (2010) Citizens In Ooi J.B. and Chiang H.D., eds., “Immigration and its (Dis) Contents:
Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies
and the Nation: Findings from NOS4 Modern Singapore. Singapore: the Challenges of Highly Skilled
and Imperial College Press.
Survey. Singapore: Institute of Policy University of Singapore Press. Migration in Globalizing Singapore.”
Sim, L.L., Yu S.M., and Han, S.S. Studies. American Behavioural Scientist, 60
Wong, A., Ooi G.L. and R. Ponniah
(2003) “Public Housing and Ethnic (5-6): 637-658.
Tan, E.S. (2015) Class and Social (1997) “Dimensions of HDB
Integration in Singapore,” Habitat
Orientations: Key Findings from the Community”, Reprinted from Aline Yuen, B. and E. Soh (2016) Housing
International, 27(2):293-307.
Social Stratification Survey 2011. Wong and Stephen Yeh, eds., for Older People in Singapore:
Tan, E.S. (2004a) “Ethnic Relations IPS Exchange Series. No 4, July (1985) Housing a Nation: 25 Years An Annotated Bibliography.
in Singapore: evidence from survey 2015. Singapore: Institute of Policy of Public Housing in Singapore. Switzerland: Springer.
data”. In L. Suryadinata, ed., Ethnic Studies. Singapore: Maruzen Asia. In: Ong
CHAPTER 4:
Community Development
within Public Housing
Estates
Author: K.C. HO
The community centre was first the new government and its citizens. Can this were present in the older urban and rural
forged in 1960 to provide a meeting form of mobilization result in a non-partisan neighbourhoods and which had been
ground for the various ethnic- and apolitical social organization? Thirdly, if damaged in the process of resettlement to
language-religious groups. We saw the community centre was the “first units of public housing estates, a process which had
the need for non-partisan or an the building bricks for a nation”, has the basic picked up speed in the 1960s and 1970s.
apolitical social organization, backed policies of community development changed
up by the elders of the various over time? How do we assess the success of A year after self-government, in 1960, 9.1%
communities and helped by the these policies? of the population resided in public housing.
resources of the government. It has By the year of independence in 1965, 23.2%
brought together people with bonds
of the population had public housing, and
of common economic and social
1. Community Development as by 1970, the figure was 34.6% (Teh, 1975: 9).
interests. It has engaged people in
joint social and recreational activities a building block in the lives of a Singapore’s record of rapid public housing
young nation development has ironically created new
in each constituency. The PA, through
problems for the society by changing the
the community centre, has played a
residential environment of significant portions
catalytic role. It has crystallised the
of the population.
first units of the building bricks for a “Communal solidarity implies
nation in the making. some form of social organization
It is important to capture a sense of what
of the people with an intensive
exactly was changing by referring to
form of social integration, sense of
PM Lee Kuan Yew, Opening Address, 14 April 197833. ethnographic studies of rural villages in the
belonging and involvement in the
area. This is not seen in the study early 1960s. Joseph Tan’s 1964 study of Lye
block which for most people is just Soon Hin village represents one such study.
This quote from Singapore’s founding prime a place to live in. It is described as Lye Soon Hin was a farming community
minister provides a convenient way of clean and quiet, however there is growing vegetables and poultry for the city. It
thinking about community development in no mention of living like a big family, was a community in the sense that the local
the context of Singapore’s public housing or living in the security which is the residents managed several key institutions
system in several ways. First, Singapore was common expression of community of the locality, such as the school and the
a newly independent country undergoing living for relocatees in their former temple. Some villagers held overlapping
rapid economic and social changes. While neighbourhood. A feeling of memberships in school and temple
the investments made in education will insecurity surrounds the air. Most of committees, and religious festivals were held
pave the way for an industrializing economy, the people are afraid of robbers and in the school compound. Before the adoption
organizations need to be in place to enable juvenile delinquency. Social control of television, movies were also shown in
the adjustment for shift from essentially at neighbourhood level is lacking”34. the school compound as a major source
traditional urban to rural villages to the high of entertainment. A key development was
rise high density environment of Singapore’s In 1973, Lim Soo Hong’s study was part of increasing state intervention in community
new towns. Second, the idea of community a larger collection of resettlement studies development. In 1963, the school formed a
development should be seen against the done in the 1970s. Her conclusion (1973: welcome committee to host the Prime Minister
context of a newly independent country 36-7) above points to the important need when he visited the village. This committee
where there was a need to connect between to recreate the set of local ties which petitioned for a community center, road
33 People’s Association, the Role of Community Centres in the 1980s, Third Conference of Community Centre Management Committees, 14-16 April 1978.
34 Passage quoted by Hassan (1976: 260).
34.6%
patterns compared to children staying in high
rise and low rise public housing environments
35 Sections (a), (b) and (c) are drawn from Ho (1993: 382-386). I am grateful to Dean Danny Wong from Faculty of Arts and Society Sciences, University of
Malaya for granting permission and to Associate Professor Shanthi Thambiah for facilitating this process.
36 In the city center, Barrington Kaye’s 1955 survey of Upper Nankin street noted that the overcrowding has not changed since the 1947 housing survey (see
Tables 51 and 52). And on the lack of light in these dwelling units, Kaye (1960: 85) observed that “while the majority of kitchens, being open verandahs, are
well lit enough by day, the halls and particularly the stairways are so dark that it is often necessary, coming in from the street, to stand for several minutes
at the foot of the stairs in order to accustom one’s eyes to the dark, before ascending them”.
37 People’s Association, The Role of Community Centres in the 1980s, Third Conference of Community Centre Management Committees, 14-16 April 1978.
38 Quoted by Seah (1973: 59).
42 According to Wikipedia, Each CC serves about 15,000 households or an average of 50,000 people.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_
Association_(Singapore)
0.0
2008 2013
45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_deck
Plate 1: Inserting new play space to complement existing facilities. Source: Author
Plate 2: Working with residents to create a café on the ground floor (void deck) of a public housing block. Source: Author
Chart 4: Palmwalk RC Coffee counter traffic for Friday (11Dec2015) Sunday (13Dec2015) and Tuesday (15Dec2015)
45
41
40
35
30 30
29
30
26
25
25
21
20
19 19
20 17
16
15
11
10
9 9
10 8 8
7
6
5 5 5
5 2
0
7:30-8:00 8:01-8:30 8:31-9:00 9:01-9:30 9:31-10:00 10:01-10:30 10:31-11:00 11:01-11:30
Plate 3: Working with residents and Nparks to develop a plant trellis along a neighbourhood walkway. Source: Author
All three examples show how residents Association 2017, page 16). The number of The integration effort is built on the back
in public housing estates can play a part permanent residents increased from over of the network of CCs and RCs in terms of
in coming together to suggest and plan 112,100 in 1990 to 287,500 in 2000 and have residents to engage newcomers, facilities
neigbhourhood amenities using fairly modest stayed stable at just over half a million since to host meetings and activities and event
budgets. Moreover, the example of the 2010. It is Singapore’s global city status and planning around objectives of interaction,
café and the plant trellis involves residents its economy that has led to the growth of its learning about Singapore and its diverse
volunteering in provisioning (the café) and non-resident population, from 311,300 in 1990 cultures. With PA’s established network of
up-keeping (the trellis) the amenity. The mini- to over 1.5 million since 2013. The People’s grassroot leaders, it was easy to develop
hardcourt (Plate 1) and the café (Plate 2) show Association continues to play an important a new network of volunteers (called the
significant traffic of users of different age role in bringing the local Singaporeans and Immigration and Naturalization Champions
groups. new citizens together, to promote acceptance [INC]) to lead the integration effort. The PA
and care within the community, create started the Immigration and Naturalization
b) The Task of Integrating New Citizens opportunities for positive interaction, and Champions programme in 2007, and within
As a small city-state of 5.61 million people forge stronger bonds that make for a more a year, the number of INCs grew to 700 and
in 2017, Singapore’s population has grown resilient Singapore (People’s Association, operated in all 84 constituencies. These
increasingly diverse. Some 20,000 new 2017: 7). INCs visited 90% of new immigrants in their
citizens are added every year (People’s constituencies and had face-to-face contact
5,312.4
5,076.7 5,183.6
4,027.9
1990 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
YEAR
SINGAPORE RESIDENTS Citizens SINGAPORE RESIDENTS PRs NON-RESIDENTS TOTAL POPULATION
Source: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/publications/publications_and_
papers/population_and_population_structure/population2017.pdf (accessed 11 October 2017)
50 Co-tenants of the same household are excluded as these cases are covered under domestic disputes. Likewise mentally ill persons are excluded
(Singapore Government News, 13 March 2015).
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). (1996). Strong ties or weak ties? People’s Association (2017) Our Community Development. Springer
Social capital and community Neighbourhood networks in a new Journey, Our Stories, Integration and International Publishing.
governance. The Economic perspective. Scandinavian Housing Naturalization Champions. People’s
Journal, 112 (483): F419-F434. and Planning Research, 13(1), 3-26. Association. Thio, L.A. (2009) “Neither Fish or
Fowl: Town Councils, Community
Chang C.T. (1974) “A Sociological Kaye, B. (1960). Upper Nankin Street, Read, B. (2012). Roots of the state: Development Councils and the
Study of Neighbourliness” Singapore: A Sociological Study Neighborhood organization and Cultivation of Local Government/
pp.281-301 in Yeh, S. H. K. (Ed.). of Chinese Households Living in a social networks in Beijing and Governance in Singapore”
(1975). Public housing in Singapore: Densely Populated Area. University Taipei. Stanford University Press
a multidisciplinary study. Singapore of Malaya Press. Source: https://www.academia.
University Press. Seah, C. M. (1973). Community edu/601385/_Neither_Fish_nor_
Kearns, A and Parkinson, M. centres in Singapore: Their political Fowl_Town_Councils_Community_
Choo, A.M. (1977) “Ethnicity (2001) :The Significance of the involvement. Singapore University Development_Councils_and_the_
and Neighbouring Activities”, Neighbourhood”, Urban Studies, Press. Cultivation_of_Local_Government_
Unpublished Academic Exercise, vol.38(12): 2013-2110. Governance_in_Singapore
Department of Sociology, University Tan, J. (1964) The School and the (Assessed: 30 September 2017).
of Singapore. Lai, A. E. (1995). Meanings of Community: A Study of a Chinese
multiethnicity: A case study of Village School and its Significance
Chen, P.S.J. and C.L. Tai (1978) ethnicity and ethnic relations in for the Community in which it is
“Urban and Rural Living in a Highly Singapore. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford situated, Final Year Research Paper, News Articles
Urbanized Society, in Studies in University Press. Department of Social Studies, Straits Times (1992) “A Sense of
ASEAN Sociology, edited by P.S.J. University of Singapore. Community” (26 February).
Chen and H.D. Evers, Chopmen, Laurier, E., Whyte, A., & Buckner,
Singapore. K. (2002). Neighbouring as an Tan, R.K.L. (1972) Impact of Straits Times (1997) “HDB void decks
Occasioned Activity Finding a Lost Relocation on HDB Tenants. now buzzing with activity” (27 June)
Evans, P. (1996). Government action, Cat. Space and Culture, 5(4), 346- Unpublished M.Soc.Sci Thesis,
social capital and development: 367. Department of Sociology, University Straits Times (2007) “Building Block
reviewing the evidence on synergy. of Singapore. for Community” (7 August)
World development, 24(6), 1119-1132. Lim, Soo Hong (1973) Relocation,
Social Networks and Neighbouring Teh, Cheang Wan (1975) “Public Today (2011) “PA’s stance on
Hassan (1977) “Public Housing” Interaction in a Block of Flats – A Housing in Singapore: An Overview” grassroots advisers under spotlight”
pp. 240-268 in Hassan, R. (Ed.). Case Study. Unpublished Academic pp.1-21 in Public Housing in (2 September).
(1976). Singapore: society in Exercise, Department of Sociology, Singapore: a Multi-Disciplinary
Yahoo News, “PA stands firm over
transition (p. 246). Kuala Lumpur: National University of Singapore. Study, edited by Stephen H.K. Yeh
election of grassroots leaders”, 2
Oxford University Press. Housing and Development Board.
MacIntyre, M.E. (1976) ‘A Study of September 2011. source: https://
Ho, K.C. (1993) Public Housing in Malay Family Lifestyles in High Rise Thang, L. L., Lee, S. J., & Kee, Y. sg.news.yahoo.com/opposition-
Singapore”, pp. 369-392 in Malaysia and Low Rise Houses, Unpublished (2015). Community Bonding and question-pa-stance-on-grassroots-
and Singapore: Experiences Academic Exercise, Department of Community Well-Being: Perspectives advisers.html (accessed: 29
in Industrialisation and Urban Sociology, University of Singapore. from a Community Development September 2019)
Development, edited by Lee Boon Council in Singapore. Pp.39-55,
Hiok and K.S. Susan Oorjitham. People’s Association (1979) The Role In Lee, S. J., Kim, Y., & Phillips,
Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Arts and of Community Centres in the 1980s: R. (Eds.) Community well-being
Social Sciences, University of Third Conference of Community and community development:
Malaya. Centre Management Committees Conceptions and applications.
14-16 April 1978, conference Community Well-Being and
Henning, C., & Lieberg, M. proceedings People’s Association.
CHAPTER 5:
Post-1990 Housing and
Development Board
Upgrading Programmes
Author: Michael R. GLASS
1. Public Housing Upgrading and other facilities to support sustainable 75-90% of the costs for precinct, block, and
Programmes in Singapore communities. Core functions such as flat works, with flat owners responsible for
transport hubs, retail and business centers, paying the remaining balance. Straw polls
By the early 1990s, Singapore’s considerable and government services were concentrated were conducted for residents to share
investment in public housing had created a at a town centre, typically located at the their views and give suggestions on the
landscape of housing estates that spanned geographical centre of a town. This new town preliminary design proposal. All feedback and
the country, catering to the shifting aspirations pattern was replicated across the island, suggestions were carefully considered and
of Singapore’s citizens. As with any public alleviating pressure on the Central Area and incorporated into the final design proposal
infrastructure investment, the housing providing the potential for a local sense of if feasible and if the budget allowed. The
supply requires consistent reinvestment to community and place to develop over time. programme was voluntary, requiring at least
ensure that units remain viable for existing By 1970 the HDB had constructed 117,225 a 75% majority of eligible flat owners voting
residents and desirable for prospective flats, and as of March 2016 1,107,835 dwelling in favour before MUP work proceeded.
residents. This chapter describes the housing units had been completed, and 992,472 flats Despite the opportunity to opt-out of the
upgrade programmes enacted after 1990, were under HDB’s management. By 1990 MUP, very few precincts did so because of
using examples from four housing estates the original estates were over 25 years old, the benefits and heavily subsidized nature of
of different ages. A key finding from the and required significant maintenance and the programme. Flat-level upgrades included
post-1990 upgrading programmes is that upgrading to remain serviceable for residents. concrete repair, the optional addition of extra
the successive programmes that were Rehabilitation and the ‘asset enhancement’ space, and toilet upgrading. At the block
implemented have enabled the social plans developed by the Ministry of National level, lift lobbies were upgraded and new
regeneration of mature estates, as renewal Development under Prime Minister Goh’s letterboxes were provided. At the precinct
ensures that the housing and amenities of administration provided different features level, features including covered linkways,
these locations remain attractive for new at different scales: from upgrades and drop-off porches, and fitness corners were
generations of occupants. maintenance inside individual flats to block-, provided. Given the success of the MUP,
precinct-, and neighborhood-scale plans. an Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP)
Singapore’s housing towns/estates can was introduced in 1993. This programme
best be conceived both horizontally, and The first national housing upgrading resembled the MUP, requiring flat owner
hierarchically. HDB towns and estates have programme introduced was the Main support but targeting middle-aged estates
been planned since the 1970s using a New Upgrading Programme (MUP). The first that were not old enough to qualify for the
Town Structural Model plan based on a precincts were selected in 1990, and MUP. The IUP focused solely on block-
hierarchal system of land use (Cheong 2017). expanded after implementation at these pilot and precinct-level improvements, with
This plan builds from the individual housing sites. The programme ended in 2011 with improvements carried out inside flats. The
block, with community assets organized completion of the last precinct. The MUP government bore the entire cost of the
and allocated according to population provided improvements at the flat, block, improvements undertaken through the IUP.
characteristics and land area in what Field and precinct levels to blocks built in 1980
described as a ‘textbook’ formula (Field 1992). and earlier, and hence targeted the oldest The MUP was open until 2006, when the last
These blocks were clustered in precincts estates that were at most risk of functional batch of precincts were selected. As the MUP
that provide certain key facilities/services, obsolescence or significant problems, is a capital-intensive programme, to benefit
such as local retail, playground, and dining such as spalling concrete.51 Affordability more residents, new targeted and smaller
options. Precincts were arranged around of the upgrades was a key concern for scale upgrading programmes focusing on
neighborhood centers, which comprised food the government, and so the costs were different aspects of the HDB’s housing stock
outlets, provision shops, community centres heavily subsidized: the government bore were introduced. The Home Improvement
51 Spalling refers to the flaking or peeling of concrete as a consequence of water penetration. This is a chronic circumstance in tropical environments,
although the term also describes concrete damage from freeze-thaw cycles in temperate and cold climates.
HDB Dwellings
2000 284,970 210,120 7,880 71,900 76,560 49,770 25,020 46,610 3,220
2005 280,060 196,270 8,040 63,360 73,540 49,680 35,800 45,490 2,500
2010 294,520 203,560 9,240 66,970 76,230 51,120 41,910 45,920 3,140
2015 289,750 193,060 9,640 62,060 72,370 48,990 48,690 45,160 2,840
HDB Dwellings
2000 97,860 85,730 8,650 49,780 15,970 11,320 6,800 3,700 1,630
2005 92,970 78,670 7,240 42,930 16,480 12,020 9,500 3,530 1,270
2010 98,500 83,000 8,300 40,700 20,660 13,350 10,330 3,700 1,470
2015 98,050 81,870 9,070 34,190 24,290 14,320 11,140 3,740 1,300
HDB Dwellings
2005 174,520 166,100 300 35,780 89,700 40,320 4,620 3,180 630
2010 185,210 174,080 690 39,380 92,830 41,190 5,360 4,970 800
2015 201,970 186,770 4,130 39,960 99,030 43,660 8,970 5,290 950
Source: Singapore Dept. of Statistics, Residents & Housing Types by Planning Area/Subzone 2000-2016. Note that Planning Areas do not
correspond precisely to HDB town boundaries.
Yishun is an HDB Town located in Singapore’s northern playgrounds, and electricity upgrades were also provided
region. Yishun was selected as a case study because it as part of the scheme, with several of these upgrades to be
was one of the first three towns to participate in the ROH completed by 2017 (Naido and Noorainn, 2016). The Yishun
programme in 2007. The area was prepared for intensive Town Centre is planned for revitalization in stages through to
urban development by the government in the 1970s under the 2020. Developments planned for Yishun Town Centre include
New Town plan; Yishun Town began construction in the mid- commercial retail spaces, private housing residences, a new
1970s, and by 1986 the town included over 28,000 units and air-conditioned bus interchange, a new community club and a
110,000 residents (NHB 2017). According to the HDB Annual new Town Plaza.
Report 2014/15, there were 56,698 dwelling units under HDB’s
management and the estimated resident population staying Figures 6-9 illustrate some of the features at the Yishun Estate
in HDB flats was 186,600 as at 31 Mar 2015 in Yishun (HDB developed as part of the ROH programme. There is a mix of
Town). Yishun is notable for the ring road that was designed housing blocks adjacent to the Town Center, including the
to facilitate mobility around the town; the Yishun Town Centre 11-storey blocks commonly built by the HDB during the 1980s,
is located at the epicenter of the ring road, and includes the and newer Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) units like
town’s Mass Rapid Transit station, a nearby bus interchange Adora Green. The Yishun Pond (Figure 6) provides a central
and major shopping center. As with other new towns, Yishun amenity for the Town Center, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, and
contains a mix of religious, commercial, and social facilities, residents of the town. Walking around the town, different
and a mixture of housing types. upgrades are evident that complement the mix of new and
established HDB blocks. For instance, commercial areas
Since 1990, Yishun’s physical appearance has changed across the estate feature newly painted facades and improved
due to several upgrading plans. The first of these upgrades pavement, while playground spaces and rejuvenated public
was not part of an HDB project, and was instead due to areas are intended to facilitate use by different generations
grassroots action by shopkeepers who sought to keep their of residents (Figure 7). Evidence of communication efforts
businesses viable after the Yishun Town Centre’s Northpoint with residents included signage providing information about
Shopping Centre opened in 1990. The local response to this the type of improvement programmes being undertaken, as
development was the coordinated rebranding of a commercial well as contact information about the people responsible for
area along the Yishun Ring Road as Chong Pang City. This such programmes. Such information serves multiple purposes.
area of shops, businesses, and dining facilities was designed For instance, it provides accountability for residents, as they
with a unified appearance, and illustrates that not all urban are aware of whom to contact if there are problems with the
redevelopment is initiated by the Government. State-directed programmes (Low et al. 2012). It also informs residents about
upgrades were announced in 1996 and 2008, both focusing the less visible forms of upgrading that are in progress, such
on neighborhood and town-level infrastructure. The 1996 as electrical upgrades. Finally, there is also the pragmatic
plan provided for upgraded shopping and dining areas and political purpose of the advertising, since it reminds the
across the estate, as well as significant community gathering electorate that the government facilitates and underwrites the
spaces. The 2008 plan piloted the principles of Singapore’s upgrades—with the tacit message that other parties might not
ROH programme, seeking to rejuvenate Yishun through provide the same focus. It is therefore important to note that
new community facilities. These plans included significant the Singaporean housing story includes an implicit political
green spaces, including the rejuvenation of Yishun Pond and component, where the upgrading policies are linked to a
construction of a 3-storey lookout tower and walking trails that broader assertion of state authority over the country’s growth
linked to the new Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. Cycling tracks, and development.
3.
The rejuvenation of Yishun town shows how the HDB has residents about the plans to be undertaken in the community
prioritized mobility, transit-oriented development, and reduces the likelihood for misunderstandings, and establishes
communication as part of their ROH plans. Improvements clear lines of communication with residents who might have
include the enhancement of natural amenities like the Yishun questions about the proposed or ongoing works within
Pond and other green spaces for recreational use. New their town. There is certainly a clear political component
cycling tracks along the pond and adjacent to the MRT line are to the communication, since local elected officials can tout
enhancing the capacity of residents to select between different neighborhood upgrades as an achievement. The ROH
modes of transportation for commuting, or to use these new programme in Yishun also shows how the HDB is concerned
communal facilities for exercise. Enhancing the multi-modal with meeting shifts in consumer behavior. As citizens become
transportation options for the estate through upgrading of the more health conscious and environmentally aware, different
Bus Interchange provides greater connectivity between Yishun modes of transportation are necessary. The provision of new
and other parts of Singapore, and internal connectivity between bike trails helps to promote more active lifestyles, and creates
the different neighborhoods of the estate. new interconnections across the housing estate. Walking trails
through the estate that link natural amenities also create new
The Yishun case study demonstrates the priority placed on points of interest, and benefit the senior population who wish to
community engagement by the HDB. Communicating with age in place within Yishun.
Bedok is located along the eastern part of Singapore and was allowing for new, younger families to move into core areas
planned and developed as the first town of the Eastern Region. of the estate. The success of these programmes has created
Early plans to develop Bedok into an HDB town began in 1963. an environment where further upgrading and development is
That was when HDB, on behalf of the Government, undertook a embraced and accepted by most of the population.
pilot East Coast reclamation scheme using earth excavated from
the Bedok area. Clearance of the town and the fishing kelongs Announced in 2011, Bedok is part of a larger East Coast area
began in 1965, with squatters in the area resettled to Upper that was identified to be rejuvenated under the second phase
Changi Road Estate. In terms of population, Bedok continues of the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme. Positioned
to be ranked in the top ten largest estates (Eng 2009). Bedok as the “Gateway to the East Coast,” the proposals were framed
has an estimated population of 196,400 residents, with a total to capitalise on the area’s strength and opportunities. Since
of 61,100 dwelling units managed by the HDB (HDB Annual the announcement of the ROH plans, the East Coast area
Report 2016/17). This large population reflects the greater has been revitalised holistically. In particular, the Bedok Town
national diversity, but also maintains one of the largest elderly Centre has been transformed into a vibrant Gateway hub
populations of all estates (Eng 2009). As a mature town, Bedok with the opening of the Bedok Mall that is integrated with the
has continued to attract the younger generations, with its well- Bedok bus interchange and a private condominium (i.e. Bedok
developed transportation nodes and a wide array of amenities, Residences), introduction of a new Bedok Interchange Hawker
e.g. variety of commercial facilities such as the more recently Centre, an injection of a new Bedok Town Square cum heritage
completed Bedok Mall, parks including Bedok Reservoir Park. corner to facilitate community bonding, and an enhanced
Bedok includes a variety of flat types including 3-room, 4-room, pedestrian thoroughfare (i.e. Pedestrian Mall) to provide
and executive flats (URA 2013). Other important features of residents with seamless connectivity to the new developments
Bedok include the Bedok Reservoir, a popular recreation in the town centre. The latest addition to the town centre is the
location, and Bedok Stadium, with a variety of fitness facilities recent completion of the Bedok Integrated Complex (namely
(ActiveSG 2017). Heartbeat@Bedok) that houses Kampong Chai Chee Community
Club, Bedok Sports Centre (comprising a swimming complex, a
Strategic upgrading and rejuvenation has helped to transform sports hall and a tennis centre), Bedok Polyclinic, an Eldercare
Bedok into a bustling town. The Main Upgrading Programme Centre and Bedok Public Library.
provided residents with improvements including new
playgrounds, covered walkways, and landscaped areas. Flat Beyond the Town Centre, residents can also use the Outdoor
improvements continue today, and residents can select from Play Corridor (OPC), which is a dedicated cycling and pedestrian
a variety of options to meet their needs and income capacity. paths connecting Bedok Town Centre to East Coast Park
Residents are able to remain in their households through the and Bedok Reservoir Park, on top of the enhanced cycling
process (URA 2013). This non-intrusive improvement programme network that connects to the main activity nodes such as the
increases resident satisfaction and maintains community ties neighbourhood centres. In addition, a Bedok Heritage Trail
over time. Residents of the estate have had access to home consisting of storyboards located at areas of historical interest
improvement programmes, and older blocks have benefited within the East Coast area has been implemented, to provide
from the Upgrading Programme. Today, most blocks within residents and visitors an opportunity to connect with the rich
Bedok have lift access on every floor. The HDB and its affiliates history of the area. The East Coast ROH plans also include the
have also increased density within the estate through rebuilding upgrading of eight Neighborhood Centres to better enhance
of entire blocks through the SERS scheme. This scheme gives residents’ shopping experience. Upgrades at this level included
priority to those who lived in the block previously, while also entrance markers, community plazas, improving landscaping
Figure 9: Bedok Heritage Corner (photo by author) Figure 10: Bedok Pedestrian Mall (photo by author)
Queenstown was the first satellite town organized by the had a population of 98,050 in 2015, of whom nearly 82,000
Singapore Improvement Trust in the 1950s, in response to live in HDB flats. The public housing available in Queenstown
postwar concerns about the country’s housing situation. is diverse in terms of both style and age, from first generation
Subsequently in the 1960s, the Housing and Development public housing to new “Build to Order” (BTO) projects including
Board took over the development of Queenstown as part of SkyVille @ Dawson and SkyTerrace @ Dawson. Queenstown
HDB’s first Five-Year building programme. Queenstown shows also includes several announced SERS sites that have gradually
the imprint of successive generations of experimentation and been redeveloped to optimize land use and rejuvenate this
change in Singapore’s housing policy. Located to the South- mature satellite town.
West of Singapore’s Central Business District, Queenstown
Queenstown’s Dawson Estate was one of the first three towns/ history and its iconic landmarks over the years as well as the
estates (along with Yishun and Punggol) selected for the conservation of the former wet market at 38 Commonwealth
ROH programme in 2007. Under the ROH plans, Dawson is Avenue that would be refurbished to house shops that serve
envisioned to be an estate with public housing set in a park- the daily needs of residents in the area.
like environment based on a ‘Housing-in-a-Park’ concept. The
transformation plans for Dawson are aimed at creating a new In addition to the modern and architectural design aspects that
and improved living environment for residents, and injecting were integrated into the public housing projects in Dawson,
greater vibrancy into the estate by attracting younger families the projects also feature pilot schemes to cater to the changing
to it. The aforementioned SkyVille @ Dawson and SkyTerrace @ needs of Singaporean citizens. The Multi-Generational Living
Dawson launched under the ROH initiative for Dawson estate, Scheme at SkyTerrace @ Dawson allows parents and children
have incorporated new housing concepts, such as flexibility to buy paired units - two separate units with connecting doors
in designing internal layouts, loft units and paired units for to allow families to stay close and yet maintain their individual
multi-generational living. The two housing projects of between privacy. The Flexi-layout Scheme at SkyVille @ Dawson gives
40 to 47 stories include unique features such as sky gardens buyers three flexible layout options to serve different family
and landscaped sky terraces that create a scenic park-like requirements. After announcement of the Dawson ROH plans,
environment for residents (Figure 11). The housing projects are 30 old blocks comprising 3,480 flats along Tanglin Halt Road
situated adjacent to the Alexandra Canal Linear Park—a park and Commonwealth Drive were subsequently announced for
connector linking Commonwealth Avenue to Tanglin Road. In SERS in 2014. To provide replacement housing for the SERS
addition, the ROH plan includes preserving the rich heritage residents, HDB would provide about 3,700 new housing units,
of Dawson such as the Heritage Wall at SkyVille @ Dawson new commercial spaces, and a hawker center at the Dawson
that comprises a series of wall murals that trace Dawson’s estate.
ActiveSG (2017), Bedok Stadium, Eng, P. C. (2009), Geographic Housing Estates’, in B. Yuen (ed), https://www.citypopulation.de/php/
accessed 2 June 2017 at www. Distribution of the Singapore Planning Singapore: From Plan to singapore-admin.php?adm1id=201.
myactiveSG.com/facilities/Bedok- Resident Population, Singapore, Implementation, Singapore: National
stadium. accessed at https://www.singstat. University of Singapore Press, pp. Pow, C. P. (2009), ‘Public
gov.sg/docs/default-source/default- 42–53. intervention, private aspiration:
Cheong, K. H. (2017), ‘The Evolution document-library/publications/ Gated communities and the
of HDB Towns’, in C. K. Heng publications_and_papers/geo_ Low, S. P., D. Xiaopeng and L. condominisation of housing
(ed), 50 Years of Urban Planning spatial_data/ssnsep09-pg8-12.pdf. Lye (2012), ‘Communications landscapes in Singapore’, Asia
In Singapore, Singapore: World management for upgrading public Pacific Viewpoint, 50 (2), 215–27.
Scientific Publishing, Co., pp. Eng, T. S. and L. Kong (1997), ‘Public housing projects in Singapore’,
100–25. Housing in Singapore: Interpreting Structural Survey, 30 (1), 6–23. StreetDirectory (2013), Bedok District
“Quality” in the 1990s’, Urban Guide, accessed 2 June 2017 at
Club, K. C. C. C. (2016), Heartbeat@ Studies, 34 (3), 441–52. Naido, R. T. and A. Noorainn (n.d.), http://www.streetdirectory.com/
Bedok, accessed 2 June 2017 at Yishun New Town, accessed travel_guide/singapore/singapore_
http://www.heartbeatbedok.sg/ HDB (2013), Strong Support for the at http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/ district/240/bedok.php.
about. SERS Scheme, Singapore. infopedia/articles/SIP_363_2005-
01-18.html. Tan, E. S. (2017), ‘Public Housing and
Committee, B. H. C. C. (2016), HDB (2015), HDBs Remaking Our Community Development: Planning
Braddell Heights Newsletter, Heartland-Rejuvenation of East NHB (2017), Yishun Sembawang: A for Urban Diversity in a City-State’, in
accessed 1 June 2016 at http://www. Coast Area, accessed 2 June 2017 Heritage Trail, Singapore, accessed C. K. Heng (ed), 50 Years of Urban
braddellheights.org.sg/newsletter/ at http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/ 2 June 2017 at https://roots.sg/visit/ Planning In Singapore, Singapore:
Braddell Heights Newsletter press-releases/hdbs-remaking- trails/yishun-sembawang-heritage- World Scientific Publishing, Co., pp.
October 2016.pdf. our-heartland-rejuvenation-of-east- trail. 257–72.
coast-area.
Council (2013), Ang Mo Kio Town Phang, S. Y. (2001), ‘Housing policy, URA (2013), Bedok Draft Master
Council Annual Report and Financial HDB (2017), HDB Organization wealth formation and the Singapore Plan, accessed 17 April 2017 at
Statement for FY 2012/13, accessed Structure, accessed 10 October 2017 economy’, Housing Studies, 16 (4), https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/-/media/
at https://www.parliament.gov.sg/lib/ at http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/ 443–60. dmp2013/Planning Area Brochures/
sites/default/files/paperpresented/ about-us/organisation-structure. Brochure_Bedok_1.pdf?la=en.
pdf/2015/S.94of2013.pdf. Population (2016), ‘Bedok Population
Lau, W. C. (1998), ‘Renewal of Public Statistics’, accessed 2 June 2017 at
CHAPTER 6:
Public Housing
and Society
Author: K.C. HO
Chart 6: Percentage of Singapore households in public housing (1950-2016)
It is significant that the writing for this
particular publication started in 2017 and this
coincides with 90 years of public housing in % Population Housed
Singapore under two housing authorities, the
Singapore Improvement Trust (1927-1959) and
the Housing and Development Board (1960- 100
2017). Within this 90-year period, we have 90
Percent of Key Policy Elements and the Evolution of a Public Housing System
Households Living
in HDB dwellings
2.8% in 1950 1927 to 1950
The development of an official narrative around housing as a public responsibility, the legislative changes, which are
necessary, and the financing which has to be committed (see Chapter 1)
1927 Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) formed as an urban improvement authority
1939 SIT given power to build.
At 2.8%, public housing allocation is highly restricted because of the small public housing stock. This can represent the
beginnings of a welfare policy to help the urban poor.
9.1% in 1960 The 1960s
23% in 1965
The growing stock of public housing establishes a critical set of services around planning, site evaluation, and estate
management. Increased government commitment to public housing was evidenced in several policies.
The introduction of the home ownership scheme in 1964 (Chua and Ho 1975, pg. 65) is a radical shift away from a public
housing rental system and envisions a move towards affordable housing for a larger segment of society (see Chart 1).
The decision to shift from rental to home ownership in public housing is a pivotal moment in 1964 because this requires
a much more elaborate housing system. The 1964 decision became the foundation for the 1968 decision to finance
purchase out of retirement funds. New applications for housing purchases jumped from 8048 units in 1969 to 20, 598
in 1970 (Chua and Ho, 1975, p. 65). In contrast to rental, home ownership allow for recirculation of resources back to the
housing production system.
At 9%, the system is still catering to the urban poor and for special access groups like civil servants. However, as the
figure climbed to 25%, the reach of public housing went beyond the urban poor and incorporated low middle class home
owners by the late 1960s.
In 1973, the government announced its intention to build middle income public housing (Liu, 1975: 129).
In 1977, there was an associated commitment to new town planning and with it, a systematic consideration to amenity
provision. As pointed out by the HDB, “The turning point from a flat builder to a new town developer was around 1977
when the waiting list fell to a trough. That led the Board to believe that the backbone of public housing shortage was
broken and it was time to pay more attention to qualitative improvements of the housing estates (HDB, 1985: 13).
Lui Thai Ker, the chief executive of the HDB at that time noted that by 1981, 77% of the public housing units were in new
towns (1982: 135).
This is testimony of the major new towns built during this period, after Queenstown in the 1950s, Kallang Basin and Toa
Payoh in the 1960s, Telok Blangah, Woodlands phase 1, Bedok, Ang Mo Kio, Clementi and Ayer Rajah were initiated in the
1970s (Liu, 1975: Table 11).
Yeh (1985: 87) noted that Bedok and Ang Mo Kio have a wider variety of room types and therefore accommodate a wider
cross-section of the population. At arounfd 50,000 dwelling units, both are almost one and a half times the number of
flats in Toa Payoh. In 1985, they jointly accommodated 20 per cent of the Singapore population.
This focus on new town development was on a much larger scale and dramatically increased the number of public
housing units available. As a result, the percentage of households living in public housing reached 47% in 1975.
At 35%, we see the beginnings of a nation-wide policy to benefit larger segments of society. And by the time we reached
47%, the possibility of a policy disseminated within public housing estates could have the status of a national policy. The
community mobilization programmes of the People’s Association is a good example (see Chapter 4)
67% in 1980 1980s
81% in 1985 Focus on Home Ownership leads to a stop in construction of rental flats in 1982 which resumed in 2006 (see Chapter 2).
The percentage of households living in HDB apartments has reached 80 plus per cent by the 1980s. Haila (2016: 100-101)
observes that this is a very high figure compared to comparable figures in Europe ranging from 10% in Munich to 56% in
Amsterdam (see Table 5.2).
There are several implications of such a high figure. First, the 80% mark creates a way of orienting other policy initiatives
around public housing estates, community development, transportation, health and education planning. Second, the 80%
creates a large public housing resale market. Worries about ethnic segregation via resale market reallocation led to the
development of the Ethnic Integration Policy in 1989 where ethnic quotas are set to maintain the ethnic balance at the
neighbourhood level (see Chapter 3). Third, Chua (2017: 96) raises the question of public housing supply having to meet
the challenging goals. This has to do with ensuring the supply of new flats for first time owners and low-income families
without creating an oversupply which hurts public housing resale market and affect particularly the elderly who will have
to depend on the apartment resale amount for their retirement years when they downsize their apartments.
52 See Haila (2016: 72-78) for a systematic treatment of modern land reform in Singapore.
53 Fraser (1952: 13) had earlier noted how although the Singapore Improvement Trust had the legal power to condemn buildings unfit for human habitation
with compensation payment, the right of owners to contest the matter resulted not just in delays but also in the Privy Council ruling in favour of the
owner. The HDB (1975: 40-42) provides an account of the successive amendments to the 1920 Land Acquisition Ordinance which made it easier for the
government to acquire land. Commenting on the clearance of Singapore’s squatter areas, resettlement of squatters, and the redevelopment of the city, the
HDB (1975: 41) noted that “compulsory acquisition of land, undoubtedly, is the most efficient and effective way of obtaining land for public development,
considering that most of the buildings on land in the Central Area were old, dilapidated, rent-controlled and under fragmented ownerships…compulsory
land acquisition through the Land Acquisition Act and established resettlement policies also enabled large areas of squatter land to be cleared and the
squatters rehoused in low-cost flats. Land acquisition has thus enabled a large portion of the squatter population to enjoy much better housing standards
in comprehensively developed estates and new towns”
Concerns about the number of new citizens in Singapore gives raise to the Immigration and Naturalization Champions
programme in 2007 to help new citizens adjust and integrate in HDB estates.
Efforts to allow families to stay together have been in existence since the 1982 Multi-tier family housing scheme. With the
elderly population growing in Singapore, concerns about the care and welfare of aging residents have led to a number
of new initiatives. The Multi-Generation Priority Scheme introduced in 2012 enable married children and the parents
to get new flats in the same precinct. 3Gen Flats offered in 2013 represent a new effort at designing for the needs of
multi-generation families who want to live together for mutual care and support (MND 2013). The Proximity Housing Grant
scheme in 2015 help Singaporeans buy a resale HDB flat with or near their parents or married child (MND and HDB 2015).
Chua, Beng Huat (2017) Liberalism Housing and Development Board Public Housing in Singapore” pp. MND and HDB: Affordable Homes,
Disavowed: Communitarianism and (1985) Housing a Nation. 132-154 in Our Heritage and Beyond, Closer Families, Stronger Ties: 24
State Capitalism in Singapore, NUS edited by S. Jayakumar. National August 2015” retrieved June 20
Press. Housing and Development Board Trades Union Congress, Singapore. 2017. http://www20.hdb.gov.sg/
(2016) “priority schemes” Retrieved fi10/fi10296p.nsf/pressReleases/
Chua, Wee Meng and Ho Koon June 20, 2017 http://www.hdb.gov. Ministry of National Development D51979168C682B21482
Ngiap (1975) Financing Public sg/cs/infoweb/residential/buying-a- (2013) “3Gen Flats are Coming” 57EAB002450B1? OpenDocument
Housing, pp. 58-80 in Public flat/new/eligibility/priority-schemes “Housing Matters” Blog. Retrieved
Housing in Singapore, edited by S. June 20 2017 http://mndsingapore. Straits Times, (1993). “Three special
H.K. Yeh, Housing and Development Liu, Thai Ker (1975) Design for wordpress.com/2013/09/21/3gen- schemes to help flat owners pay for
Board, Singapore. Better Living Conditions, pp. 117-184 flats-are-coming/ upgrading” 14 September.
in Public Housing in Singapore,
Haila, A. (2016) Urban Land Rent: edited by S. H.K. Yeh, Housing and Ministry of National Development Yeh, S.H.K. (1985) Households and
Singapore as a Property State, Development Board, Singapore. and Housing and Development Housing, Census Monograph No. 4,
Wiley Blackwell. Board (2015) “Joint Press Release by Department of Statistics, Singapore.
Liu, Thai Ker (1982) “A Review of
www.unhabitat.org
@UNHABITAT