Singapore - Housing Practise Series

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 90

SINGAPORE

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.

The authors would like to acknowledge Singapore’s Ministry for National


Development, the Housing Development Board and the People’s Association for their
generous cooperation.

This publication was funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation


Agency.
Table of Contents

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

IV HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


Executive summary

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

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE V


CHAPTER 1:

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.

The attention of colonial authorities focused


on nurturing and protecting the core
technology that supported the island’s key
economic activity. Nowhere was this more

1 This chapter is drawn from Ho (1993: 369-381). 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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 1


(harbour, warehousing, storage, transport, example of this attitude is illustrated by the active public participation in acquisition
communications), services (banks, trade following passage from the 1918 Housing and land development, the municipality
houses, various traders and transport and Commission. Roland Braddell, a member of was also unwilling to develop public
communication services) and various types the commission directs the following question amenities that might have assisted in private
of wholesale activities that formed the to B. Ball, who was the Municipal Engineer in housing development in the suburbs. A
nucleus of the Singapore economy. Rapid charge of municipal public works: mild condemnation on this latter point who
population growth and the inattention of the reported at the end of the hearings, when the
authorities led to high residential densities in Mr Braddell: Supposing that there was a City commission (1918:Al2) reported that one of the
the Central Area. The attempt by the colonial Improvement Trust in Singapore and that it had causes for housing shortages in Singapore
authorities to residentially segregate various “may be ascribed to difficulties arising out of,
ethnic groups in the central area also led or connected with... the want of municipal
to the identification of ethnicity with place, encouragement and assistance to builders”.
as various cultural and religious institutions the powers for the compulsory acquisition of The report went on to elaborate what this
developed in the midst of ethnic enclaves. land for the purpose of developing that area, meant:
The high residential densities in the central would this be a suitable area for the Trust to
area also supported a wide range of retail and buy the whole block up compulsorily and
recreational activities, of a more basic nature then lay out the roads and then d is p o s e of
as well as specialized goods and services the land?
supported by various ethnic populations.
“The initial difficulties by which an
Mr Ball: No... I do not think that a public body
intending builder is beset would
As a result of the original plan to residentially should be put to the expense and trouble of
be made lighter if the Municipality
locate the immigrant populations close to buying up that land and developing it.
were to drop its attitude of passivity,
the business area, there was a continued
and adopt a policy of active
tendency for the residential population (Housing Commission, 1918: para 752)
assistance. We realize that the
to continue staying at or near places of Aside from reluctance to direct intervention
Municipal Commissioners feel that
work in the inner core of the city. With in the form of legislative changes to ensure
as custodians of the rate-payer’s
the work residence arrangement, rapid
money, they are compelled to
consider carefully how they incur
natural population growth and in migration,
any expenditure in schemes which
residential land use began taking on an
tend to assist in the development
increasingly larger portion of the city
of private property. In respect to
landscape. Conventional housing became
the supply of water and light to
rapidly congested through sub-tenancy
houses lying in the outer fringes
particularly in the Central Area.
of the suburbs, the policy of the
Commissioners is undoubtedly
When faced with the prospect of an
cautious. It errs we think on the side
increasingly congested central area, colonial
of over- caution. ... We do not urge
authorities were reluctant to intervene to
the Municipality at present to lay gas
solve the problem, preferring to take a more
or water to stimulate development.
passive approach to city management. An
That is to say, we do not ask it to
lead. But we ask it to accompany
development. At present, it lags
behind it.”
Social Housing at Toa Payoh,
Singapore. Image courtesy of
the Housing & Development
Board. © HDB (Housing Commission, 1918: Vol. 1, A21,22)

2 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


This policy of concentrating public utility One major reason for this reluctance was due
expenditure in the central area at the to the government’s pre-occupation with Mr. Braddell:
expense of the rest of the island, had another urban policy. In 1907, W.J. Simpson It would be impossible would it not, in respect
the effect of reinforcing the residential was invited by the government to study the of these blocks of built-over land in Chinatown,
concentration that was already occurring in health and sanitary conditions in Singapore, these back to back houses, to improve them
the city. and recommended the construction of back in any better way than by driving back lanes
lanes between shophouses as a means of through them? ... The only improvement in
Governmental efforts at housing provision can providing better drainage, ventilation and light Chinatown would be to open it up and drive
be traced to the formation of the Singapore to residents in the congested central area, back lanes through it?
Improvement Trust (SIT) in 1927. Its original where houses were built literally back to back,
function was aimed at the provision of roads the result of rapid urbanization and population Mr. B. Ball:
and the acquisition of land for improvement growth. This recommendation was adopted That is so.
schemes. SIT’s original function was aimed at by the colonial government in section 2(2) of
the provision of roads and the acquisition of the Improvement Ordinance and 148 of the (Housing Commission, 1918: vol 2, para. 882)
land for improvement schemes. Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133, 1913).

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

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 3


of the shift in thinking and commitment from A post war housing study conducted in 1947 war housing needs rapidly growing, SIT began
onsite improvement schemes which the showed that out of a population of 938,000, to concentrate on housing construction,
municipal government had been adopting to 72% were housed within the Central Area. completing 20,907 units between 1947 and
an increasingly more comprehensive public New slums had already begun to flourish at 1959. Although far from adequate, about
housing scheme. the city fringes, as new immigrants continued 9% of the population was already in public
to flow in (Teh, 1975:5). Fuelled by the 1947 housing by 1959.
The attitude of the colonial government Housing Committee’s recommendation
began to change after the Second World (1948:9) that the government provide funds The People’s Action Party (PAP) came
War. There was an increasing attention paid for the creation of a housing programme and into power in 1959 as a result of the
towards social expenditures. Part of this that the Singapore Improvement Trust should decolonisation process that swept through
awareness resulted in two fairly detailed be empowered to implement the programme, Southeast Asia and the rest of the world in the
surveys done on Singapore’s central area the SIT began to take housing provision as years after the Second World War. The local
by the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) an increasingly important function in the late government inherited an economy that had
in 1947 and 1954. In both surveys, the term 1940s and throughout 1950s. With the post a vast commercial potential on the one hand,
“space” is used to denote the most congested
sleeping arrangement: “places like bunks in
passage ways, the tiered bedlofts common
in Singapore, sleeping selves under or over
staircases, sleeping arrangements in fivefoot
ways, kitchens and backyards, and other
places used for sleeping without enclosures
or partitions” (DSW, 1947: 70). In 1947, the
percentage of household using such spaces
consisted 21% in ward 1 (the harbour area
stretching to west Chinatown), 16% in ward 2
(the rest of Chinatown, including the business
district, extending east to Middle Road) and
26% in ward 3 (comprising areas east of
Middle road, bounded by Serangoon Road
and the Kallang River) (DSW, 1947: 71). By
1954, when the second survey was done, the
A post war housing study
figures have increased to 38% for wards 1
conducted in 1947 showed
and 2, while remaining unchanged at 25% for
that out of a population of
ward 3 (Goh, 1956: 6869). These conditions 938,000, 72% were housed
are described in Barrington Kaye’s (1960) within the Central Area.
Upper Nanking Street, arguably the first urban
sociology study attempted in Singapore.
Upper Nanking Street in the 1950s was one
of the most congested neighbourhoods in With the post war housing
the heart of Chinatown. Kaye’s interviews in needs rapidly growing,
SIT began to concentrate
particular provide an enduring account of
on housing construction,
the hardships faced as residents’ cope with
completing 20,907 units
cramped, spartan and often insanitary living between 1947 and 1959.
conditions, unemployment and ill health.

4 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


and yet, due to a laissez faire administrative calculated to mobilise the support from this resident population living in public housing
policy and minimal social expenditure, an segment of the population behind the PAP. estates provided an opportunity for Singapore
island whose town area was congested and to solve social and political issues such as
clearly in need of governmental intervention. Thus in the first five year plan (1960-1965) ethnic integration and nation building by
and for part of the second plan (1966-1970), tackling these issues at the public housing
The issue of legitimacy and popular support much of the driving force behind the public level.
in a transitional period between a colonial housing development effort was the political
government and its local successor is aptly survival of the ruling party. And housing
summed up by Thompson (1968:24): as a visible (clusters of multistoried high- 2. Assessing the record
rises) durable commodity was an essential
symbol in fostering loyalty among the ranks Public housing in Singapore has a fairly long
of the common people. In the success of history, evolving under two distinct phases:
The general problem of the period of transition the building effort the government was able 43 years under a laissez faire colonial urban
is not the destruction of authority but the to establish, in Thompson’s terminology, development phase (1927-1959) and a 56
change of the basis of authentication of the vertical linkage to the people, as one of year post colonial phase marked by heavy
authority, without an intervening period of the most basic and most pressing needs state intervention. It therefore is possible to
anarchy or lapse of authority. But the transfer was met. This support was most visibly compare these two approaches to public
was not only horizontal from an external demonstrated in the election results where housing in terms of state interest and
bureaucratic elite to an indigenous one... It the biggest victories for the PAP were in priorities, and in terms of different approaches
was a vertical transfer to the people in whose the public housing estates (Vreeland et al., to the housing question of affordable housing
name and with whose active support the 1977:32). provision.
transfer of power is achieved.
The Housing and Development Board Singapore’s public housing development
(HDB) was set up by the new government to under the two periods has provided fertile
And the task of gaining popular support had take over the functions of its predecessor, ground for comparative analyses. Several
been an arduous one for the PAP in its first SIT. The HDB building record, as noted by differing interpretations of public housing
ten years of government. As Chan (1976:35) Gamer (1972: xvii, xviii) and Vreeland et. al development in the two periods have
pointed out, the 1959 election was its first (1978:29), was one of the major achievements emerged. Teh Cheang Wan (1969: 173) writing
contest against more seasoned old parties and pride of the Singapore government. By as the Chief Architect of the HDB pointed
which flourished under colonial tutelage, the end of 1970, the HDB had completed a out that “the efforts of the SIT to solve the
while the 1963 election was yet another total of 117,225 units, (HDB AR 2015/16). The housing problem in the period 1927 to 1941
test which was fought against a formidable production figure for 1971-1980 was 251,489 could not be regarded as successful”; adding
communist fraction, the Barisan Socialis, units (HDB AR 2015/16). which more than that although the SIT began to build on a
which broke away from the PAP in 1961. At a doubled the output of the sixties. By 1965, larger scale after the Second World War, the
period where rapid post war migration and the percentage of residents living in public housing situation had by then become so
increased fertility acted to put a strain on the housing has increased to 23.2%, 34.6% in acute that “the housing shortage had become
existing housing stock, the promise of decent 1970, and 67% in 1980. one of the most serious problems in the new
affordable housing formed an important part state”. This view has since been repeated on
of PAP’s strategy to gain popular support. The After surpassing the 34.6% mark in a number of occasions by officials from the
significance of housing in PAP’s platform also percentage of residents living in public HDB (e.g. Teh, 1975: 1-5; Liu, 1982:133-134).
lies in the fact that its major rival, the Barisan housing in 1970, the focus of housing The difference is especially compelling when
Socialis had strong support from the poorer provision essentially shifted from shelter statistics such as the number of units built
working class segments through its close links for resettled families and the poor to that over a period of time, or the percentage
with the students and the unions. Making of provision for the masses. And as we will of population housed in public housing are
housing available and affordable was thus see in the following sections, the increasing used.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 5


A number of academic researchers have Also of significance in this planning movement 1970s when the HDB housing programme
provided an alternative interpretation, one was the development of Queenstown in 1954, outstripped what the SIT has done in its 32
that stressed the continuities that facilitated where it contained the first of Singapore’s year existence.
post-1960 attempts at housing provision. One planned satellite towns containing public
consideration is the presence of a developed housing, schools, factories and recreational
civil bureaucracy and its contribution to facilities. In evaluating SIT’s role in the urban 3. The Social Change which
urban development. The administrative transformation that was to come, perhaps Public Housing Engendered in
machinery for public amenities had a long the most important factor was, in Yeung’s Singapore
period of operation, although the transition (1973:46) words, SIT’s “valuable store of
of management from foreign to local officials experience”. SIT, as an administrative entity For an increasing segment of the population,
started only in the fifties, a few years before cultivated and drew together an important the 1970s marked a new era where a way of
the change of government (Gamer, 1973:15, blend of professionals: planners, architects, life was dramatically transformed. Nowhere
16). Of direct significance to the housing issue surveyors and engineers. Although not a was this more evident than in the move into
is the creation of the Singapore Improvement substantial sum compared with post-1960 public housing estates. The proliferation of
Trust (SIT) in 1927. although efforts by SIT in figures, the 20,000 or so units of public relocation studies undertaken by lecturers
its 27 years of operation looked insignificant housing created, provided the experience of and students in the Sociology Department
by comparison with HDB’s building record, land acquisition and the handling of a variety left an important record of this experience.
Yeung (1973:45, 46) quite correctly pointed out of contractors in the building process, and Tai (1988) and Ho (1993) have reviewed this
that this was due largely in part to SIT’s lack more importantly, the experience of managing large collection. Families moving into public
of statutory powers and funds to do its work. the housing stock once these were built. housing estates were generally satisfied
Gamer (1973: 14-15), who was appreciative of with the improved amenities offered by the
SIT’s work, made his assessment on what SIT Lastly a third interpretation suggests that HDB estates in the form of better access
had already achieved, rather than its record the under-provision of public housing in to schools, marketing and recreation. But
compared with that of its successor: the first period should not be seen as “the these advantages were attained at the cost
negligence of colonialism” (Pugh, 1985: of higher prices in HDB estates and the loss
278). Pugh’s (1985: 279) argument is that the of a sense of solidarity, mutual help and a
British essentially followed the same course warm social environment of urban and rural
“the Singapore Improvement Trust of housing reform in Britain, and Singapore villages (Chang, 1975; Hassan, 1976b: 343345;
had established planning control experienced this path of development with Tai, 1988: 910). Some of the adjustments
over private development, purchased some time lag. were managed through the development of
over 1,500 acres of undeveloped community centres and residents’ committees
for housing and industrial It was the success of the HDB that prompted which function to help residents adjust to their
development, and ‘ established 26 the comparison of achievement levels in new neighbourhoods (see Chapter 4).
rural resettlement areas totalling official reports. And while SIT positive legacies
over 5,000 acres. It had opened the in planning and expertise contributed to HDB neighbourhoods are also different
Paya Lebar International Airport, from traditional neighbourhoods in other
HDB’s success (Gamer, 1972; Yeung, 1973),
completed construction of a major
and while part of the SIT’s slower pace has to ways. They are characterised by social and
highway and bridge leading along
be attributed to the new experience in public economic heterogeneity as the policy of the
the ocean into the heart of the city,
housing which meant that city management HDB (via its allocation policy and in planning
and drafted rudimentary plans for a
and housing authorities have to learn by trial for flats of different sizes within the same
wide variety of development projects
and error (as suggested by Pugh, 1985: 185), precinct) was aimed at ethnic and social class
for the island’
the fact that the success of the HDB which integration within the estate (see Chapter
looked even better when contrasted against 3). Unlike low-rise villages where extended
the record by the SIT made such comparisons families can be accommodated via simple
unavoidable in the late 1960s and early extensions to the existing premise, HDB

6 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


flats do not offer this facility. Subsequent intimate setting which do not require any of providing alternative accommodation for
policy revisions encouraged the formation adjustment. This does not mean that a sense the families and businesses affected. It was
of extended family units by giving priority in of belonging to such estates has increased, essential that the building programme kept
flat allocations to extended families and by as high residential mobility characterises HDB pace with the redevelopment programme
changing the design to incorporate extended estates. The young get married and move so that resettled families and businesses
families (“granny flats”). However, the out and the upwardly mobile choose larger found homes and new premises. Just as
effectiveness of such changes in encouraging premises with better amenities in newer HDB important was a fully functional new town
extended family residential units are being estates or they upgrade to private housing. which had essential amenities like schools
eroded by the greater desire on the part of and markets and serviced by an efficient
newly formed families to live apart from their transport system. Local estimates indicate
families of orientation. Consequently, the one 4. Public Housing Issues and that the demolition of a traditional shophouse
family nucleus has increased from 71.5% in Policies in the central area needed seven units
1970, to 81% in 1980 to 84.6% in 1990 (Dept. of of public housing to rehouse the families
Statistics, 1992: 34). From a planning perspective, the scale affected (Choe: 1975, 98). Thus, the pace of
and the success of the public housing redevelopment could only proceed as fast
The transition from older, traditional enabled a number of other objectives – slum as the building programme which ensured
neighbourhoods to HDB estates and the clearance, central area redevelopment not just households to be resettled but also
accompanying adjustment process was and the development of industry – to be various small business operations to find
largely over by the end of the 1970s. In 1980, achieved. Thus, while redevelopment is new economically viable locations in the new
close to 70% of the population were living associated with the economic goals of public housing estates.
in public housing. More importantly, for the developing a modern financial district along
younger generation who have grown up in with industrial development, a key reason for It was only after the housing shortage was
HDB estates and know no alternatives, HDB the success of Singapore’s urban renewal reduced by the HDB’s first 5 year building
neighbourhoods represent a familiar and and slum clearance programme is the policy programme that a comprehensive programme

In 1980, close to 70% of the


population were living in
public housing.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 7


of urban renewal was launched, beginning order to tap the pool of labour from the 5. Introduction to the
with the creation of the· Lands Acquisition Act housing estates (Pang and Khoo, 1975:241- Monograph
in 1966, giving compulsory acquisition powers 242). These tend to be light, labor intensive
to the government and pollution free industries. Pang and Khoo Presently, Singapore’s public housing
(1975: 246) quoted a 1972 HDB employment system houses 82% of its population. The
The operation of the public housing and survey which indicated several important scale of the public housing system means
urban renewal programmes allowed for the characteristics. First, by the 1970s, workers that some of the key social problems in any
gradual deconcentrating of the population in HDB estates account for 22% of the society or in Singapore in particular, has to
from the central area. The first two building manufacturing work force in Singapore. be tackled within its public housing system.
programmes (1960-65, 1966-70) essentially Second, over half of the industrial workforce In chapter 2, we look at the issue of the
worked within the inner city/urban fringe area, in HDB estates are employed by foreign firms poor and vulnerable segments of Singapore
because planners generally assumed that the which tend to be larger operations employing society and the measures taken to house
bulk of the population would continue to seek more workers. Third, an average of 58% of these populations. Likewise, the class and
employment in or near the core for the next the workers in HDB industrial estates actually ethnic divisions of society require attempts
few decades. This assumption permitted the lived within the public housing estate which at bridging and social mixing within public
HDB to concentrate on the primary problem the industrial estate was located (see Pang housing estates. This problem is explored
of providing basic shelter without having and Khoo, Table 3). in chapter 3. As a global city and city state,
also to devote resources in creating jobs and Singapore is open to diverse migrant flows
amenities in or hear near various projects. Since 1961, HDB has completed more than and has a heterogeneous urban population.
1 million units of public housing units for the The task of community building is as
Developments after the second phase people of Singapore. In addition, HDB towns important today as it was when Singapore
like Bedok, Ang Mo Kio and Clementi are are comprehensively planned to create a became independent. Chapter 4 examines
typically sited beyond the 5 mile city limit. self-sufficient environment that is conducive the role of community centers, resident
Thus with some minor deviations, the major for residents to live, work, play and learn. committees and the role of neighbourhood
trend resulting from HDB developments is The planning of HDB towns is carried out amenities in enabling residents to interact
progressively to re-settle the population in consultation with the relevant agencies with their neighbours and also develop a
further away from the Central Area. With and Ministries. Besides safeguarding land stronger place identity. Lastly, the physical
residential dispersion into the suburbs, the for housing which accounts for about 50% housing stock which is built up over several
central area could be redeveloped for more of a typical town, land is also set aside for decades require renewal to accommodate
specialised commercial and institutional uses. supporting road network and a wide range new residents, to ensure a better mix of
of facilities (e.g. schools, shops, markets, old and new families, and to cater to new
Public housing estates in Singapore are not libraries, community centres, parks, places and changing aspirations of the population.
only constructed with commercial, social and of worship etc.) to meet the needs of the Chapter 5 deals with the challenges of
recreational facilities, but also employment residents. By so doing, the agencies work upgrading. In chapter 6, we sum up the
opportunities. Within each housing estate, together to provide the various facilities to achievements of Singapore’s public housing
some 10 to 15% of the land, usually at the meet the needs of the residents. system and its record of meeting the needs of
periphery, is reserved for industrial use in the society.

Over the last 56 years, HDB has completed


more than 1 million units of public housing
units for the people of Singapore.

8 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


References

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 11


report. Section 3 describes housing provision
2. Policy development
– the major features and operational details of
the current social housing system, including 2.1 Urban development and basic rental housing:
housing distribution, quality, and allocation.
Section 4 follows with an assessment of the Before 1960
impact of social housing in terms of access,
affordability, housing experiences, and The development of Singapore’s earliest public housing was led by the Singapore
housing mobility. The conclusion summarises Improvement Trust (SIT) which was established in 1927 by the British colonial
the chapter. The discussion here draws administration. The SIT was initially responsible for planning and infrastructure rather
heavily from archival material and more recent than housing per se, as the government was concerned about urban slums around the
policy documents. Where relevant, it also city centre (Fraser, 1948). But the problem of housing shortage grew as improvement
reports findings from a recent survey of public projects progressed and, by 1930, the SIT’s mandate was expanded to include housing
rental households in Singapore conducted development (Straits Settlements, 1930). The housing built then was let to low-income
by the author, hereafter referred to as the families earning up to $400 per month (SIT, 1959).
2016 PRH survey.3 All monetary figures are in
Singapore dollars. The 1940s were a difficult period for the SIT as war damage increased pressure on
the housing stock and senior SIT staff were imprisoned (CLC, 2016; Fraser, 1948). After
the war, population growth further strained the public housing system while the SIT’s
plans were hampered by the lack of land and statutory constraints on resettlement (SIT,
1959; The Singapore Free Press, 1957). A Housing Committee in 1947 recommended
a concerted building programme to meet housing needs (Housing Committee, 1948).
Between 1947 and 1959, the SIT built some 20,000 flats that housed approximately
9% of the 1.6 million population (HDB, 1971). Yet this fell far short of demand and more
than half a million people still lived in makeshift accommodation in slums and squatter
settlements with no access to basic sanitation and other amenities (Hansard, 31 October
1985; SIT, 1959).

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).

12 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


In 1959, Singapore achieved self- education, and low-cost housing policy motivation, public housing began
government under the political (People’s Action Party, 1959). Public to grow more quickly than ever before
leadership of a party that had housing was considered to be and the model of public housing soon
campaigned on a manifesto prioritising complementary rather than secondary to changed in fundamental ways.
full independence, employment, economic development. With this shift in

2.2 Universal homeownership and decline of rental housing:

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,

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 13


offering loans to low-income people who was also used as an opportunity to Around the same time, rental housing
would not have qualified for commercial encourage the affected tenants to became associated with social
bank loans. Applications to purchase purchase their own housing instead problems and individual deficits as
flats surged from around 2,000 in 1967, of moving into another rental flat. In various measures were introduced to
just before the CPF reform, to 22,000 1986, the HDB raised the eligibility help tenants purchase their first home.
ten years later (HDB, 1968, 1978). Over age for rental housing from 21 to 29 Parliamentary statements referred to
the years, these schemes to promote years old (Hansard, 20 March 1986). the need for “thrift and self-discipline”
homeownership have continued in The Minister at the time argued that among tenants (Hansard, 25 February
various forms. this would “discourage young people 1985, col 15), observed that the “lower
from entrenching themselves in rental income group living in their cramped
Homeownership based on the purchase flats. With a working life of another 20 flats will become more and more
of 3-room4 and larger flats had taken off to 30 years and assistance from the detached from the mainstream of our
to such an extent that by 1981, the HDB Government, these young people can society and it will remain a dark spot in
decided to stop the sale of 1- and 2-room easily save enough money to become our social fabric” (Hansard, 31 October
flats (HDB, 1982). This was soon followed home owners…If we allow the young 1985, col 541), and that “what they
by measures to cut the supply of social people to rent flats, then we defeat our need to do is to perhaps cut down on
housing. In 1982, the construction of objective” (col 764). This policy was smoking and drinking” in order to afford
new rental flats was completely stopped, reversed a few years later (HDB, 1990). homeownership (Hansard, 17 March
while new lettings of 3-room flats were On average, there were almost 6000 1983, col 1040). This is a remarkable
discontinued even though 13,000 applications for rental housing per shift in the tone of social housing policy
applicants remained on the waiting list year in the 1980s (compared to 10,600 considering renting was the norm just
for this category of flat, facing wait times in the 1970s) and the waiting times over a decade earlier.
that now stretched as long as ten years for 1- and 2-room flats were 2 and 4.5
(HDB, 1983; Lee, 1982). These changes years respectively in 1984 (HDB, various The enthusiasm for universal
essentially split the public housing years). But the policy position was that homeownership was somewhat
system into two tiers – social renting applicants on the waiting list could checked in 1991 when the Prime
of an aging stock of the smallest flats consider purchasing a flat instead if they Minister acknowledged that “it was not
(1- and 2-room), and ownership of a wished to shorten the wait (Hansard, 13 possible to achieve a 100 per cent home
growing pool of larger flats (3-room and March 1984). Curbing the supply of rental ownership rate because there would
above). In some locations, as tenants housing was therefore an active strategy always be people whose incomes were
moved out to purchased housing and to encourage ownership. In 1984, the too low, or who would be unable to save
created vacancies in rental blocks, the government boldly announced a goal of to buy their own flats” (Ibrahim et al.,
remaining tenants were relocated so that 80% homeownership by 1989 and 100% 1991). Instead the target homeownership
the original sites could be redeveloped by 1999 (Hansard, 25 February 1985). rate was lowered to 95%5. The housing
(HDB, 1987). This relocation exercise minister later announced that physical

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.

14 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


improvements or “upgrading” will be around 31,000 sold flats, consisting expense of social housing. While sold
carried out to older rental housing stock mainly of 3-room flats (87%), and small housing increased in quantity, diversity,
(Hansard, 28 June 1991; see Chapter 5). proportions of 1-, 2-, and 4-room flats and quality, and came to dominate the
At the same time, efforts to incentivise (2-8% each; Figure 2). By 2000, rental public housing landscape, the stock of
housing purchase among existing flats had dwindled to around 62,000 social housing was whittled down. Over
tenants continued, with the Sale of Flats units, made up of 2-room (44%), 1-room time, the size and appeal of the social
to Sitting Tenants Scheme in 1994 that 80,000
(37%), and 3-room (19%) flats (HDB, housing sector diminished relative to
offered discounts on housing prices, and 2001). The trend for sold flats went in the
70,000
sold housing and renting increasingly
the Rent and Purchase Scheme in 1999 opposite direction, reaching a total of appeared to be an option of last resort.
for families to first rent a 3-room flat with 790,000 units, or 25 times60,000
the number Much of this happened through a
a view to purchasing it later when they in 1970 (Figure 2). Among50,000
sold flats, confluence of changes in public demand
1-room
had the means (HDB, 1995, 2000). 4-room flats (39%) had become the most and deliberate policy design targeting
40,000 2-room
common, followed by 3-room (28%) and rental housing, such as the reduction of
By the end of the 1990s, the structure 5-room (23%) flats. There 30,000
was also a new supply, restriction to smaller flat3-room
types,
of public housing in Singapore had category of premium flats (8%) with better 4-room
and the discontinuation of construction
20,000
been completely transformed. In 1970, amenities and the option to be privatised, as the existing housing stock aged. The
there were around 87,000 rental flats, catering for the middle class.
10,000 suppression of social renting as the
made up mainly of 1-room (46%), 2-room primary alternative to owner-occupation
0
(30%), and 3-room (22%) flats, and a It is hard to avoid the perception that became a key strategy in the promotion
small proportion of 4-room flats (2%) as two parts of the shared whole, of homeownership.
(HDB, 1971; Figure 1). There were just owner-occupation developed at the

Figure 1: Number of rental flats. Figure 2: Number of sold flats.


Source: HDB Annual Reports Source: HDB Annual Reports

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

400,000 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 15

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.

16 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


criteria… [Whatever] we do, we must
not unwittingly incentivise the growth of
In recent years, the
these rental blocks. We need some, but
demand for social housing
I think if you make it too easy for rental
has remained strong. On
average, the HDB receives units to be accessed, you can unwittingly
requests from around 8,700 create other kinds of problems… [If] you
households for rental ask me, I would prefer ‘zero rental units’,
housing each year, of which meaning everybody becomes a home-
2,300 are successful owner… That I think should always be our
target.” (Hansard, 20 October 2011)
(Hansard, 24 March 2016).

In 2016, the HDB introduced the latest


policy to encourage tenants to purchase
housing. Known as the Fresh Start
Housing Scheme, it provides a housing
social housing construction and arrested leases (MND & HDB, 2015). The smaller loan and generous subsidies to tenants
a four decade-long decline of the rental flats were also intended for younger, who wish to buy a 2-room flat (HDB,
housing sector as a proportion of the low-income persons. Altogether, these 2017a). The scheme also imposes a
total housing stock, even increasing it policy developments in the 2000s began range of qualifying criteria – the children
marginally. to rebalance the public housing system must attend school regularly, the parents
towards more affordable and rental must maintain continuous employment,
Changes in social housing policy must options, as well as narrow the cost gap and the family must accept supervision
also be considered in light of parallel between social renting and ownership. by social workers for 5 years after taking
developments with sold housing. From They also demonstrate innovation, most ownership of the flat. Furthermore, unlike
the 1980s, the number of 4-room and apparent in the launch of three mixed- normal sold flats, those purchased under
larger flats increased steeply, while the tenure projects from 2014 onwards that this scheme carry a shorter lease and
stock of 2-room flats grew marginally combined rental and sold flats within the must be occupied for a longer period,
and the proportion of 3-room flats in same blocks. 20 years instead of 5 years, before they
the housing stock in fact contracted can be sold on the open market. Echoing
as the construction of 3-room flats However, these changes do not amount the policy narrative of the 1980s about
stopped completely between 1985 and to a decisive departure from the ideals poverty and personal responsibility,
2004 (HDB, various years; Figure 2). of homeownership. Even as the supply the housing minister suggested that
Ownership therefore followed a distinct of rental housing was ramped up in “we are making a major move for these
upward trajectory in terms of flat size. recent years, the housing minister in 2011 families by giving them another grant.
However, the trend reversed in the reiterated that: So I think it’s fair they must be able to
2000s, as new 3-room flats became show a certain level of commitment
available again and new 2-room and “As we build more rental flats, we must towards homeownership” (Heng, 2016).
studio flats were introduced. This was ensure that they are safeguarded This has been a careful recalibration of
partly to cater for an ageing population for poor and needy households who social housing policy and should not be
with a larger number of elderly people cannot afford to own a home, have mistaken for paradigmatic change.
wishing to live in smaller flats. For this no family support, and do not have
group, a reform in 2015 allowed them other housing options. It is important
to purchase 2-room flats on shorter that HDB maintains strict rules and

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 17


3. Policy provision

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.

18 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


In the early years, rental housing came in a
variety of sizes. For instance, in 1961, HDB
reported managing 1- to 5-room flats, with the
most common being 2- and 3-room flats (HDB,
1962). By the 1970s, as the homeownership
programme began to take off, rental housing
came to be dominated by smaller flat types,
with 1-room flats accounting for around half
of the rental housing stock, 2-room flats
around a third, 3-room flats below a fifth, and
4-room flats no more than 2% (HDB, various
years; Figure 1). After the HDB stopped letting
3-room flats in the 1980s, the share of larger
rental flats tapered off, while the proportion
of 2-room flats rose steadily. These changes
came to shape the composition of the rental
Interior of rental flat prior to
housing stock today. In 2015, 1- and 2-room
occupation. © HDB
flats each represented almost half of all rental
housing, while 3-room flats made up the
remaining 3%. Over time the average rental constructed lift landings on all floors, installed family nucleus” (HDB, 2013b): (i) legally
flat became smaller and there were fewer grab-bars in toilets, and introduced a pull-cord engaged or married couples; (ii) widowed
housing types to choose from. Typically, 1- and alarm system in every flat that was monitored or divorced persons with children under
2-room rental flats measure 30 and 40 square by a local social service provider who could their legal custody; (iii) unmarried adults and
metres respectively, compared to 3- to 5-room provide assistance to elderly residents in case their parents; and (iv) unmarried adults and
sold flats which occupy between 65 and 110 of emergencies at home. Another Rental Flat their siblings if the parents are deceased.
square metres (HDB, 2013a, 2016a). Upgrading Project was implemented in 2001 Unmarried persons may also qualify for public
and 2006 to install ceramic tile flooring and rental housing in their own right if they are at
The maintenance and renewal of rental refurbish toilets across some 70 blocks of least 35 years old and are prepared to share a
flats can be challenging as the stock rental flats (HDB, 2002; Tan, 2006). rental flat with another single person, whereas
includes some of the oldest public housing tenants in the four main categories above
in Singapore. As mentioned, various rental 3.3 Allocation qualify from the age of 21 and do not have to
blocks have been refurbished over the years The basic eligibility requirements for renting share a flat with strangers. This higher age
alongside sold housing in regular upgrading public housing are Singaporean citizenship requirement for unmarried persons has been
programmes. While homeowners take part and a minimum age of 21 (HDB, 2017c). steadily lowered over the years. Additionally,
in polls to decide whether their block would In addition, there are three other types of older people applying for rental housing
participate in upgrading as they had to pay eligibility criteria based on the applicant’s have to demonstrate that their adult children
a portion of the costs, upgrading for rental family, housing history, and income. have no spare rooms in their own homes
housing was decided by the government as and are unable to finance separate housing
tenants were not required to pay. There were In support of an overarching policy arrangements for the parents, although the
other upgrading programmes targeting rental commitment to promote particular family definitions and thresholds of these criteria
flats. For instance, a programme known as norms, eligibility depends on a set of are not disclosed. This constitutes a form of
Lift Improvement and Facilities Enhancement, rules related to marital status, family form, means-testing that extends to non-co-resident
or Project LIFE, was piloted in 1993 and later and family resources. Applications are children and their wealth.
extended to around 50 rental blocks with a only accepted from people in four family
high density of older residents (HDB, 1995). It situations regarded as containing a “proper

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 19


In 2017, persons who had sold off a purchased incomes or prices, or based on any disclosed England, the law requires local authorities
HDB flat were not eligible to rent public principles. According to the HDB (personal to give priority to people who are living in
housing for 30 months. This “debarment communication, December 5, 2017), the overcrowded or insanitary conditions, who
rule” was introduced in 1993 to suppress ceiling is regularly reviewed. But this has not are homeless, or who need social housing
demand for rental housing as the stock was led to regular revisions. Instead revisions on medical or welfare grounds, including
being cut back (HDB, 1994). There was also happen infrequently and in large steps. disability (Wilson & Barton, 2017). Local
a policy position that the debarment helped The last revision was in 2003 from $800 to authorities may then categorise applicants
to safeguard resources. As explained by $1500 (HDB, 2004), and before that from into different bands based on severity of
a policymaker, “those who sell away their $500 to $800 in 1982 (HDB, 1983). The HDB housing need. Remarkably, Singapore’s
flats have already enjoyed a subsidy from has shared that the income ceiling “serves social housing eligibility criteria for assessing
the Government. To come back to the rental as a guide” as they “evaluate holistically individual applications do not refer explicitly
flats to enjoy a second subsidy, that is not whether the family can or cannot afford other to even basic housing needs based on
what we want to encourage” (Hansard, 30 forms of housing before considering them current physical living conditions. Instead,
July 1993, col 354–5). Persons who had sold for heavily subsidised public rental flats” applicants are assessed in terms of their
two flats purchased directly from the HDB or (HDB, personal communication, December 5, family structure and support, housing history,
who had previously owned a private property 2017). Nonetheless in real terms, the income and level of income. Those who meet the
either locally or overseas were permanently threshold has become stricter over time. In criteria then join a waiting list. While priority
barred from public renting. Through these 2003, the ceiling of $1,500 was equivalent to allocation and interim rental housing may be
rules, eligibility assessment took into account 33% of median monthly household income granted to families assessed to be in urgent
not just current resources and means, but from work (based on Department of Statistics, need of accommodation (HDB, personal
also how people made housing and financial 2014). By 2017, it was just 17% (based on communication, September 13, 2017), rights to
decisions in the past7. Department of Statistics, 2017a). Not all social social housing on the basis of housing needs
housing systems impose an income limit. are nevertheless not acknowledged in the
In 2017, applicants’ total monthly household For instance, an income test is not carried formal criteria. This is unusual considering that
income – regardless of household size out in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, allocation according to “a socially determined
– must not exceed $1,500. This income Scotland, and England (Scanlon, Whitehead, & level of need” is a defining trait of social
ceiling is not strictly pegged to average Arrigoitia, 2014). housing (Haffner et al., 2009, p. 235).

7 At the time of writing (2019), these debarment


In other places, the allocation of social housing Applicants are required to submit various
criteria have been removed from official is often based on housing needs instead documents in person at the HDB office
communication and the rules for debarment of, or in addition to, income. For instance, in as evidence of their identity, citizenship,
are no longer published.
marital status, familial ties to other intended
occupiers of the flat, and income (HDB,
Public housing
2017d). They may choose to live in any one of
apartments in the
Punggol District, four large geographical zones and a specific
Singapore. flat from among those available in that zone.
© Shutterstock
The HDB officer then makes an assessment
and, if necessary, advises applicants on an
alternative location if the one they chose
has a long waiting list. Persons who cancel
their applications after two offers have been
made are disqualified from public renting for a
year. Successful applications lead to a 2-year
tenancy which is not automatically renewed.
Tenants must apply for a renewal of tenancy
in order to extend their stay.

20 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


4. Policy impact

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

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 21


Localism Act 2011 triggered a sharp fall in 4.2 Affordability
the number of people on waiting lists as it
allowed local authorities to introduce new Table 1: Social housing rental rates, 2017, Singapore dollars
local residence requirements as a qualifying Total monthly Housing history Flat type
condition for social housing (Wilson & Barton, household income
One-room Two-room
2017).
$800 or less a) Have not owned subsidised flat $26-$33 $44-75
or received any housing subsidy
Even before joining the waiting list, the
b) Have owned subsidised flat or $90-$123 $123-$165
eligibility criteria prevent access to social received housing subsidy
housing in a range of instances. Divorced
$801 to $1500 c) Have not owned subsidised flat $90-$123 $123-$165
persons have had difficulty transiting to public or received any housing subsidy
rental housing due to previous debarment
d) Have owned subsidised flat or $150-$205 $205-$275
rules (AWARE, 2016). Unmarried parents find received housing subsidy
themselves particularly vulnerable as they are
regarded as single persons under housing Source: http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/renting-a-flat/renting-from-hdb/public-rental-scheme/
rules rather than family units even though they rents-and-deposits
have children (Hansard, 7 March 2017). Larger
families are disadvantaged by the income limit Note: Applicants with total household income greater than $1500 or who have owned more than
as it is applied to total rather than per capita one subsidised flat are not eligible for public rental flats.
household income (Hansard, 1 March 2017).
The policy response has been to manage
these matters on a case-by-case basis, even
though they are not isolated instances. In fact, As shown in Table 1, current rental rates are The principles for setting the specific rates
from 2015 to 2017, nearly 2,000 single parents differentiated using flat type, housing history, have not always been the same. In the 1960s,
were allocated rental housing (Hansard, 7 and total monthly household income. Part of when renting was the norm, the rates were
March 2017). A discretionary approach allows this rental structure reflects the market logic set to ensure affordability. Specifically, the
the HDB to operate with greater flexibility and that larger flats and higher incomes should government aimed for rents to be no more
relax the rules on compassionate grounds for attract higher rents. In the HDB’s words, “the than 20% of the monthly incomes of working
cases deemed deserving. But it is resource- revised rent structure would ensure rental households (HDB, 1964). In 1976, it was
intensive to assess large numbers of appeals subsidies were targeted at low-income reported that, on average, rents were below
in this manner. There are also concerns with families that had few alternative housing 15% of monthly family incomes (HDB, 1976).
consistency and transparency as it is not options, and encourage tenants of greater Current rent levels are based on a set of
disclosed how appeals are adjudicated, for financial means to opt for other housing percentages established in the mid-2000s. In
instance, who are responsible for making options” (HDB, 2007, p. 29). From 2006, Table 1, the rates in row (a) are basic rents that
decisions, what criteria and considerations persons who had sold a flat that was bought have not been revised since 1979; rows (b)
they adopt, and whether the same process is directly from the HDB, or who had enjoyed and (c) are 30% of market rents in 2005; and
applied every time.8 a housing subsidy, had to pay higher rents row (d) 50% (HDB, personal communication,
“to ensure equitable distribution of public September 13, 2017). As tenants’ incomes
housing subsidies”. improve, their rents too are raised when they
renew their tenancies.9 While sitting tenants
8 According to publicly available information,
the HDB depends on internal guidelines and a
HDB Appeals Committee to review appeals for
public housing matters (Choo, 2014). But the 9 As 1-room flats are almost entirely meant for social housing and therefore not sold and sublet on the
committee’s composition, mandate, and work open market, while the subletting of 2-room flats was very limited until recent years, social rent levels
process are not known. are mathematical derivations from, rather than strict proportions of, market rents.

22 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


are not evicted when their incomes grow tenants crossing the $800 income threshold about their housing situations. More than
past the eligibility ceiling of $1500, they are (Chang, 2013). However, the problem has not half of the respondents in the 2016 PRH
charged progressively higher rents as a way been addressed for tenants whose incomes survey said that they worried about getting
to reduce the gap between public and market just exceed $1500. stable housing either sometimes or all the
renting in order to encourage a move to time. The most common sources of help with
ownership. Tenants with household incomes 4.3 Experience housing problems were the local Member
above $1500 and up to $2000 are charged The 2016 PRH survey found that, on the of Parliament (with 52% of tenants having
70% of 2005 market rents, while those with whole, tenants felt very positive about their visited their local MP), followed by the
incomes above $2000 are charged 90% of general housing conditions. On a four-point neighbourhood Family Service Centre10 (FSC,
market rents. The absolute rental rates for scale, over 90% of tenants reported being 40%), and the HDB (15%). Neighbours also
tenants with incomes above $1500 are not either satisfied or very satisfied with their appear to be an important source of social
published. rental flats and their neighbourhood in support. About 87% of the tenants reported
general. More than 90% also said that they satisfaction with their neighbours. Compared
There is no regular schedule for revising either felt safe in their neighbourhoods. When to the general public housing population
absolute rent levels or the formulas from which questions were asked about specific aspects (HDB, 2014b), social housing tenants were
they are derived. So, it is not known when the of their living environment, the results showed more likely to have casual conversations
current rent structure may change. In fact, the more variation but were still highly positive. with neighbours, exchange food or gifts, visit
lowest current rates have remained the same For instance, 87% were satisfied with the size one another, help to buy groceries and look
for several decades. In 1962, 1- and 2-room of their flat, 85% with leisure spaces in the after children, and borrow or lend household
flats were rented for $20 and $40 per month neighbourhood, and 83% with the number items at least once a week. At the same
respectively (HDB, 1963). With the introduction of rooms in the flat. This is in spite of the fact time, 26% of the tenants also found noise
of slightly larger 1-room flats in 1966 and rent that social tenants generally enjoy less living from neighbours to be a problem while 11%
adjustment in 1979, the cheapest rent was space than homeowners. Based on typical flat said that they felt a lack of privacy. Social
revised to $26 per month, which is still the sizes and the average number of household housing communities seem to enjoy denser
lowest possible rent for social housing today. members by flat type in 2013 (HDB, 2014b, and stronger social ties compared to the rest
various years), the floor area per person is of the public housing system, although living
While rents at the bottom may appear to be 16.5 and 17.4 square metres respectively in tight spaces within high-density housing
affordable, the author’s 2016 PRH survey in 1- and 2-room flats, compared to 23.4 blocks may make mutual accommodation
found that the average rent-to-income ratio square metres in 3-room flats, 25.1 square more challenging.
was 14% and that arrears continue to be a metres in 4-room flats, and 28.3 square
challenge for some tenants. Up to 22% of metres in 5-room flats. However, there were 4.4 Mobility
tenants reported having rental arrears. Arrears clear concerns about public hygiene. The Even with the eager promotion of
were more common among households made cleanliness and maintenance of the housing homeownership over the years, on average,
up of adults with children below 21 years old. estate drew the lowest satisfaction rating each tenant lives in social housing for 11
A third of these households had rental arrears of 74%. Furthermore, 49% of tenants found years (Hansard, 16 September 2013). This
compared to 7% of households with elderly urination in public spaces to be a problem, figure is likely to conceal wide differences
persons only. This may be partly due to higher 42% reported littering, and 27% observed between some younger families who move
rents. On average, households comprising clutter along common corridors. In contrast, out within a short time once they have
adults and children paid $172 in rent per in a recent HDB (2014b) survey of the general accumulated sufficient resources to purchase
month, while elderly person households public housing population, the percentages a flat and many elderly tenants who live in
paid just $57. There has also been concern of residents reporting these three problems
that rents that rise in line with income gains were just 9%, 21%, and 6% respectively.
may create a disincentive to work effort and 10 The FSCs are a nationwide network of non-
profit organisations that are funded by the
economic advancement. Therefore in 2013, Notwithstanding high levels of housing government to provide social work services in
the HDB introduced a 2-year rent freeze for satisfaction, the tenants also felt anxious residential neighbourhoods.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 23


rental housing for a much longer period. The second option is to purchase a HDB flat, almost 30% of main breadwinners in part-time,
The 2016 PRH survey also found that about since ownership of private housing is far too casual, or informal work. In other words, many
40% of tenants had already been living costly to consider as the immediate alternative tenants may not qualify for grants.
in public rental housing 20 years before. to social renting. The cost of owning a HDB
Around a third of the tenants expected to flat depends on many factors, such as the Table 2 illustrates the costs of purchasing
move out of public rental housing within 5 price of new flats available at a particular a HDB flat. As a base case, a 30-year-old
years, with most of them planning to move time; the individual’s income and savings, couple who plan to buy a 2-room flat costing
into purchased HDB flats. The most common which determine housing loan eligibility $90,000, have $30,000 in CPF savings, and
reason for moving was wanting a larger flat. and amount; and the applicant’s age, which do not qualify for any housing grants, can
On the other hand, among tenants who did affects the maximum length of mortgage loan. expect to pay $279 per month by the HDB’s
not plan to purchase their own housing, 75% Critically it also depends on the amount of (2017h) estimation. The table also shows
of them cited affordability as the reason and housing grants that one qualifies for. These how the estimated cost of monthly mortgage
14% said that they did not want to take on are generous but governed by strict criteria. repayments will rise under other assumptions,
debt. While financial means are clearly a In 2017, the two main housing grants provide such as older age, less savings, a larger
primary consideration in housing decisions, up to $80,000 per household (HDB, 2017f), flat type, and all three variations combined.
there may again be differences within the while the selling prices of 2-room flats ranged Among tenant households, the median
tenant population. Elderly tenants appear from $73,000 to $259,000, and 3-room monthly household income is $950 (2016 PRH
more settled in public rental housing. They flats from $145,000 to $398,000 (HDB, survey). At this income level, even the base
reported higher satisfaction with their 2017g). However only persons who have not case scenario that incurs $279 per month
housing conditions and 77% considered previously purchased a flat directly from HDB may be challenging. Moreover, purchasing
social housing “ideal”. Families made up of or using housing grants, and who have been a 2-room flat – the same size as a rental flat
adults and children, however, were generally in continuous employment in the preceding – may not bring noticeable improvements
less satisfied with rental housing conditions 12 months are eligible. The 2016 PRH survey to the living environment. For households
and 69% considered a purchased HDB flat found that about 9% of tenants or their that would like more living space, the next
as the ideal housing arrangement. Housing spouse had owned a HDB flat in the last 20 bigger flat type costing $647 per month is
experience and choice may reflect an years, even though not all of them might have clearly out of reach at a monthly income of
individual’s life stage, aspirations, as well as purchased these flats directly from the HDB. $950. Mortgages also constitute a significant
economic resources. Unstable work was also a problem, with 43% financial risk to tenants who are in unstable
of households receiving no work income and employment.
Long stays in social housing and affordability
concerns can be appreciated by examining
Table 2: Estimated monthly cost of homeownership
the costs of exit from social housing. One
alternative to public rental housing is private Base case Monthly repayment
renting. In 2017, renting a 2-room flat on 30 years old, $30,000 savings, 2-room HDB flat costing $90,000, $279
the open market costs around $1,500 per HDB loan at 2.6% interest per annum
month, more than five times the highest rate
Variations
for social renting (HDB, 2017e). The next
bigger flat type, a 3-room flat, costs between (a) 50 years old $393
$1,500 and $2,200 to rent on the open
(b) $10,000 savings $356
market, depending on location. This wide
gap between public and open market rentals (c) 3-room flat costing $170,000 $647
may present a serious barrier to leaving social
(a), (b), and (c) $750
housing.
Based on: https://services2.hdb.gov.sg/webapp/BP13FINPLAN1/BP13FINSMain

24 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


5. Conclusion

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 25


References

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

Author: Ern-Ser TAN


1. Introduction of interlocking social networks, and thereby How then does the government, through
contribute to community development and the HDB, address the challenges of social
Public housing in Singapore is more than just individual well-being. Cheong (2017:105) mixing among the socially diverse public
about providing a roof over the head. It is noted that in the 1980s, “the ‘precinct housing population? What specific policies
about having decent, affordable homes with concept’11 was established to provide a more have it introduced? What are the rationales
ample domestic and public or social space, conducive setting for community interaction.” for these policies? How effective are they in
sanitary living conditions, convenient access Similarly, Wong and her colleagues strengthening social integration? This chapter
to sufficient amenities and transportation, (1997:443) observed that in “the concepts of will begin by describing the public housing
easy connections to locations outside of town, neighbourhood and precinct planning, the population to provide a context to the above
among other things (Teh, 1969:175). Beyond provision of common spaces such as void questions.
these features of physical comfort, public decks, playgrounds and segmented corridors,
housing is expected to serve the national have been introduced in order to encourage
interest, that of strengthening national identity social interaction among residents who share 2. The public housing
and social integration and bonding (Hill and common facilities.” population12
Lian, 1995:113), which would engender a more
stable and secure living environment and However, the process of promoting social Over the last fifty years or so, the population
harmonious community and in turn a more integration is not as straightforward as of Singapore has expanded from 2.07m in
resilient society. seemingly implied above. Like many other 1970 to 5.61m in 2017. More spectacularly,
cities in the world, Singapore is densely between 1990 and 2010, the population grew
Undoubtedly, both the physical and the populated with a large and heterogeneous by about a million or more each decade,
social aspects are related insofar as decent demographic profile. It is also an island attributed primarily to the government’s
housing as described above reduces the republic and global city with a land area policy to actively encourage the inflow of
probability of unhealthy competition for, slightly above 700 square km, with no foreign workers and professionals to meet
and generating conflict over, space and hinterland following its separation from the manpower requirements of a mature
amenities, while social integration creates Malaysia in 1965. This makes it both a city economy. Correspondingly, the population
social capital, mutual trust and support, and and a country, a fact which renders the density has more than doubled from 3,538
enhances sense of belonging and community social landscape more complex insofar as per square km in 1970 to 7,615 in 2014
and national identity. Moreover, the design the process of social mixing and integration, (Department of Statistics [hereafter, “DOS”],
and layout of apartment blocks and housing a national priority, would have to take into 2014: v).
precincts, neighbourhoods, and towns, which account the presence of a sizeable proportion
are the purview of the two statutory bodies, of ethnically diverse migrants, both long-term This population growth has necessitated and
the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and short-term residents, who are not part is reflected in the proliferation of high-rise
and the Housing and Development Board of the nation, while they also contribute to apartments, both private and public, across
(HDB), could facilitate social interaction by the widening income gap experienced in the the island. Most of these flats were built
bringing residents together in their routine, country (Pow, 2016:182). by the HDB, Singapore’s public housing
everyday life activities, creating opportunities authority. Indeed, official figures indicate
for the forging of social ties, the expansion that close to 82 per cent of Singapore

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 29


residents, comprising citizens and those residents, it is obvious that the HDB towns, will set the stage for discussing the policies
granted permanent residency, live in HDB- neighbourhoods, and precincts house a introduced to prevent segregation along, and
built flats, while most of the rest reside in rather heterogeneous population along encourage social integration across, race,
private condominium apartments or landed the dimensions of race14, class15, age and class, and age lines, and citizenship status.
properties (DOS, 2014:v). citizenship status. This leads us to the
question of what then are the implications
Moreover, notwithstanding the “public of heterogeneity for social mixing and 3. A multidimensional public
housing” label, which may convey a negative integration and community development in housing social landscape
image or stigma in some other countries Singapore, especially given that we are also
(Chua, 1997:122)13, an overwhelming 96 per dealing with an urban context where casual The HDB neighbourhood is within the limits
cent of those Singapore residents who are observations often convey the image of imposed by the Singapore demographic
HDB dwellers live in “sold”, as opposed to closed doors and lack of social interactions composition--such as having a large ethnic
“rental” properties. Some 77 per cent of the among neighbours, and in turn the apparent Chinese majority, comprising slightly more
residents in the “sold” units, with a lease- absence of community, despite people living than three-quarters of the population--clearly
hold of 99 years, occupy the larger flat in close proximity to one another? Another a multidimensional social landscape. Besides
type, ranging from four-room to executive pertinent question is this: Quite apart from the being multiracial and multi-class, it is also
apartments (HDB, 2014:15). These impressive factor of physical distance among residents, multi-religious and multi-generational. With
figures are the outcome respectively of the which is deliberately reduced by the design the stepping up of immigration in recent
government’s home ownership scheme of public housing, are there cultural and years, it has also become increasingly multi-
introduced in 1964, as well as a manifestation class-related differences which create social national17.
of its response to citizens’ aspirations for distance between residents, acting therefore
residential and social mobility, which has as a barrier to social integration across racial, The HDB towns, neighbourhoods,
contributed to a visually homogeneous class, and age boundaries, or between and precincts18 are obviously not all
16
middle-class society in housing terms (Chua Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans? multidimensional to the same degree. For
and Tan, 1995:4). instance, in a comparison of HDB towns in
The next section will consider the extent of 200819, the Central Area, which is classified as
However, beyond what is immediately the demographic diversity in public housing a mature town20, was found to have the lowest
observable, and as one gets closer to in Singapore, which could be understood median household income of S$2,979, while a
the ground and data on the profile of as a microcosm of Singapore society. This young town like Punggol in the northeast had

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

Table 3: HDB Residents by Flat Type


HDB Residents
Flat Type
1987 2008 2013

% cum.% % cum.% % cum.%

1-room 6.3 1.2 1.6

2-room 7.0 2.2 2.8

3-room 45.4 19.6 19.3

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

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 31


Table 4, focusing on occupation level, In regard to income, the indications for 2008
conveys a picture similar to that of educational were that 20 per cent of HDB households
attainment, given the high correlation had a monthly income of S$8,000 or higher,
between these two variables. It can be while 25 per cent earned below S$2,000.
seen that the proportion of employed HDB The overall picture reflects clearly that
residents among the ranks of professionals, there has been significant income mobility,
managers, executives, and technicians though it also points to one of every four
(PMETs), which may be classified as middle HDB households earning less than half of the
or upper middle class occupations, has median monthly household income, and that
increased steadily from 40.4 per cent in 1998 8.5 per cent—many of which were “elderly”
to 45.2 per cent in 2008 and 50.6 per cent in households21— did not have any earned
2013. The latter figure indicates that one of income.
every two employed HDB residents is middle
class; however, there is also a significant
proportion of 9.2 per cent working as cleaners
or labourers.

Table 4: Employed HDB Residents aged 15 or older by Occupation (%)

HDB Residents
Occupation
1998 2008 2013

% cum.% % cum.% % cum.%

Legislators, Senior Officials, & Managers 10.9 40.4 10.7 45.2 13.3 50.6

Professionals 8.5 11.9 14.5

Associate Professionals & Technicians 21.0 22.6 22.8

Clerical Workers 13.6 12.8 12.9

Service & Sales Workers 12.7 12.6 11.8

Production Workers 21.2 15.0 11.9

Cleaners & Labourers 8.1 10.7 9.2

Others 4.0 3.7 3.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: HDB, 2014a:32


Table 5 shows that there is some intersection elderly households living in one-room or two-
between age and class, using income and room flats were higher than that of non-elderly
house type as proxy indicators. It can be households: 14.6% and 2.9 % respectively. By
observed that in 2008, the proportion of the same token, 57.9% of elderly households

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).

32 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


Table 5: Flat Type by Elderly and Non-Elderly Households, 2008 (%)
were found in the below-S$2,000 income
bracket, compared with 16.6 per cent in the Flat Type Elderly Non-Elderly
case of non-elderly households. Significantly, % cum.% % cum.%
slightly more than a third of elderly
households had had no earned income. 1-room 7.0 14.6 0.8 2.9

2-room 7.6 2.1

3-room 40.3 21.3

4-room 30.2 39.3

5-room 12.3 14.9 27.5 36.6

Executive 2.6 9.1

Total 100.0 100.0


Source: HDB, 2010a:62

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

6,000-6,999 6.1 7.4 5.6

7,000-7,999 5.4 4.1 5.4

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 33


The final diversity to be presented here is that from Europe, North America, or Australia and PMET occupations, living in four-room or
of nationality. Currently, about two of every New Zealand. The majority of non-Singapore larger flat type, and/or above median monthly
five persons living in Singapore are foreigners, born residents originated from Malaysia household incomes— with small pockets of
including about half a million permanent and are deemed to be “culturally similar” to lower income households living in one- or
residents, but excluding those who have Singaporeans. These figures, reflecting the two-room rental flats (HDB 2014:xiv). One
become naturalised citizens (DOS, 2014:v). diverse “nationality” composition of residents, should also bear in mind that the middle
Unfortunately, the figures on the nationality resonate with that of casual observations of class, being a broad category, can be fairly
profile of HDB residents are unavailable; any public space with heavy human traffic, heterogeneous itself. More importantly, for the
hence, as a crude approximation, we shall such as hawker centres, shopping malls, purpose of this chapter, the question to ask
refer to the Census 2010 data, which pertain walkways, MRT or subway stations, bus is whether or not and the extent to which the
to the entire Singapore population. This data terminals, and HDB town centres. diversity is spatially well dispersed across the
source reveals a significant presence of public housing landscape, or does it lead to
residents hailing from East Asia (China, Hong From the above analysis, the image we form disparate enclaves segregated along the lines
Kong, and Macau), South Asia (India, Pakistan, of the HDB neighbourhood is one that it is of race, class, age, or citizenship status?
Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka), and Southeast largely middle class— broadly defined to
Asia, particularly Indonesia, and 0.7 per cent include residents with tertiary qualifications,

A new apartment neighborhood with carpark and playground.

34 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


4. Consequences of social later sections in this chapter.) that 23 per cent of Singaporeans agreed
diversity: tension or integration? that they “don’t have much in common with
Data from a (Tan, 2004b:36-37) 2001 survey Singaporeans of other races” (Tan and Koh,
Having described the multidimensional indicate that, among Singaporeans, 85 per 2010).
diversity of the HDB resident population, cent had “friends from lower income groups”,
a critical question to ask is which one or while 11 per cent said they did not. Slightly Similar to that between classes, the
a combination of these scenarios best less impressive were the figures on having relationship between ethnic categories is
characterised the HDB neighbourhood: “friends from higher income groups”. Seventy- asymmetrical. The majority Chinese are
prevalence of social tension and conflict seven per cent claimed to have friends less likely to form social ties with minority
involving opposing values and interests; who are of a higher class than themselves, Singaporeans than vice-versa. One plausible
apparent presence of social harmony compared with 18 per cent who did not. A explanation is that being proportionally much
produced by strong state intervention in significant proportion of Singaporeans, 47 per larger means that there is less necessity and
society; or the emergence of an integrated cent, and 60 per cent of those who identified opportunity for them to form cross-ethnic
community brought about by the forging of themselves as “lower class”, also indicated ties. But it is also possible that, even if the
social ties and the accumulation of social that “successful people in Singapore tend to ethnic proportions were more or less equal,
capital across the diverse social landscape? look down on the less successful ones”. it would not necessarily lead to minority
Singaporeans forging more cross-ethnic ties
At a superficial level, one could plausibly Clearly, the relationship between classes is with their Chinese counterparts, as there
argue that diversity can be a hindrance not symmetrical. While there is a high degree could still be an inclination towards intra-
to social integration, but, paradoxically, if of intra-class homophily, it is more likely for ethnic homophily—a preference to mix with
it is possible, policy-wise, to facilitate the those from higher classes to form social ties their own kind.
enhancement of social network diversity with those for the lower classes, than the
among individual residents that cut across other way around. The same survey (Tan and Koh, 2010)
the critical sociocultural boundaries, while also casts some light on the challenges
discouraging the formation of ethnic enclaves With regard to inter-ethnic relations, 21 per confronting citizen-noncitizen integration. It
or other forms of segregation, then we could cent of Singaporeans indicated that they shows that two thirds of Singaporeans felt that
still produce a socially integrated community, did not have “close friends of a different the “policy to attract more foreign talent23 will
as captured in the cliché “unity in diversity’. race”. It was also shown that older people weaken Singaporeans’ feeling of one nation,
are less likely to have “close friends of a one people”. The proportion with a negative
The need for government intervention different race”, compared with younger orientation towards foreign labour was
may often be necessary given that social people. In addition, Singaporeans with lower highest among those in the smaller flat type
heterogeneity can be reconfigured by educational attainment have fewer “close or with low income, declining from 72 per cent
residents themselves, through a self- friends of a different race” than those with among those living in one- to three-room HDB
selection process, to produce segregated, higher education. This finding is also true of flats to 49 per cent among those residing in
homogeneous groupings within distinct the majority Chinese. Compared with their private properties. F. Yahya (2016:256-261)
geographical areas. Regardless of whether counterparts among the ethnic minorities noted that the negative orientation may also
the end result is intended or unintended, its in Singapore, they are less likely to interact be found among those in mid-level, skilled
consequences are similarly unfavourable to across ethnic lines (Tan, 2004b: 38-39). The jobs or professions.
social integration. (We shall focus on the issue broad picture painted here is reinforced
of enclave formation and its prevention in by a more recent survey which indicates

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. `

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 35


However, Singaporeans are somewhat live in the larger flat types and with higher compared to 15 per cent in 2008, interacted
more accommodating towards migrants in educational attainment, likely to participate in across both ethnic and nationality lines in
their midst when they consider the latter’s community activities (HDB, 2014b:133). their neighbourhoods. In total, close to 90 per
importance to the economy. Specifically, cent of HDB residents reportedly interacted
two thirds of Singaporeans, as reflected in Notwithstanding some of the “negative” with neighbours across ethnic, nationality, or
the survey, agreed that the “Government is indicators highlighted above, one would argue both ethnic and nationality lines in 2013 (HDB,
right to increase the number of foreigners that, given what we know of Singapore over 2014b:19). The finding indicating a positive
working in Singapore if our economy needs the last fifty years, it would not be justifiable ethnic relations climate is further corroborated
it”. However, the proportion who disagreed to suggest that the country is characterised by the CNA-IPS24 Survey on Race Relations
with the statement was not unexpectedly by, or prone to, class, race, age, or citizen- 2016 which found 86 per cent of Chinese
highest among those living in the smaller flat noncitizen conflict. If anything, the positive respondents reporting that they have “made
type or with lower income, decreasing from figures generally outweigh the negative friends with Malays”, and 89 per cent of
45 per cent among the one- to three-roomers, ones. This is not to deny that individuals may, Malay respondents extending their hand of
to 24 per cent among those residing in private to different extents and in their everyday friendship to Chinese (Mathews, 2016).
properties. life, harbour prejudices and practise some
subtle form of discrimination against people Having described the demographic diversity
Within the HDB towns and estates, a similar of another class, race, age, or nationality, in public housing and observed that the
pattern could also be discerned. The as manifested in snide, even toxic, remarks state of social integration in Singapore is, on
proportion of HDB residents who perceived reflecting negative stereotypes in response balance, in a healthy state, the chapter will
that the migrants living among them were to specific events which have “gone viral” focus on the policies introduced to prevent
integrating well was 44.3 per cent, as on social media; or, occasionally, experience the formation of enclaves along racial, class,
compared with 25.9 per cent who thought unhappiness over nuisances committed by age or citizenship status, and promote
otherwise. Like the findings from the national neighbours (HDB, 2014:23). their desegregation. It will also look at the
survey reported above, HDB residents with historical antecedents of these policies. The
higher education, living in larger flat types, Indeed, the HDB Sample Household Survey key argument would be that while housing-
and younger in age were more likely to (SHS) 2013 (HDB, 2014b:15) indicates that related policies can reduce the physical
perceive the migrants in their midst in a an overwhelming majority of residents distance between social groupings, there is a
positive light (HDB, 2010b:66). engaged in less intense forms of neighbourly need for bonding programmes to encourage
interactions, such as exchange greetings the formation of social ties and mutual
The last dimension to be considered here is and casual conversations, while more than understanding across social boundaries, while
that of age, in particular the extent to which half went further to “exchange food/gifts on preventing and managing possible conflicts.
seniors are socially integrated. The HDB special occasions”, and a third, to “visit one Metaphorically speaking, it is about putting in
Sample Household Survey (SHS) 2013 found another”, or “keep watch over (each other’s) place a combination of hardware and software
that almost one of four seniors were living flat”. The same HDB survey also found that the which can facilitate social integration (Liu and
alone, some by choice, and three-quarters ethnic minorities were more likely to engage Tuminez, 2015: 98; Khoo, 2017:40).
of these seniors were economically inactive, in the more intense forms of neighbourly
living in the smaller flat types, and have interactions, and that length of residence and The next section will focus on the sources
primary or lower educational qualifications age of residents were positively related to of social tension across ethnic lines and that
(HDB, 2014b:94). However, most seniors have increase in mutual help between neighbours between citizens and non-citizen residents,
strong ties with their children, engage in (HDB, 2014b:21). More importantly, SHS 2013 before discussing the policy measures
neighbourly interactions, even across ethnic found that half of HDB residents interacted introduced to prevent racial segregation and
categories, and, more so among those who across ethnic lines, while 32 per cent, as enhance social integration.

24 This survey is a collaboration between Channel News Asia (CNA) and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).

36 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


5. Race, citizenship status and social integration in public housing

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

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 37


establishing institutional norms and practices (Straits Times, July 23, 2017). These riots The specific quotas are as follows:
supportive of multiracialism can further had their beginnings in the rising communal
reinforce an awareness of cultural sensitivity tensions generated by race-based politics 1. 22 per cent of flats in a neighbourhood
and tolerance, even acceptance across regarding Malay rights in Malaysia and for Malays, and 25 per cent of units in
racial lines, and that while everyday racism Singapore, which was then a component state each block;
may not be completely eradicated, there is of Malaysia between 1963 and 1965.
a significant majority who have accepted 2. 84 per cent of flats in a neighbourhood
multiracial norms and are prepared to Since then, there has not been any conflict of and 87 per cent in each block for
contribute to “self-policing” violations of the the scale of the above two cases. However, Chinese;
norms. the potential for tension and conflict has not
dissipated, as “prejudicial viewpoints”, which 3. 10 per cent in a neighbourhood and 13
Multiracial norms were reinforced by laws have their origin in historical circumstances, per cent in each block for Indians and
introduced in response to a tumultuous era persist in everyday racism, which can rear other minorities in each block. These
of racial conflicts, particularly that between its ugly head (M. Talib, 2012, cited in Lai and quotas were raised to 12 per cent and 15
the Chinese majority and the Malay minority. Mathews, 2016:34). per cent respectively in 2010.
These conflicts also have religious undertone
historically, which led to the enactment of laws Managing race relations via public housing The respective quotas exceed that of their
to preserve racial and religious harmony. policy: the Ethnic Integration Policy respective racial proportions in public
As noted earlier, given that the majority of housing. Nevertheless, it has been necessary
Historical roots Singapore residents live in public housing, it to increase the quotas by 10 percentage
A very prominent case is that of the Maria is one of the main avenues through which the points for rental housing applicants in order
Hertogh riots in 1950. It arose from a custody government shapes the tenor of race relations. to accommodate economically vulnerable
battle between the biological mother of a Specifically, while ensuring a racial mix in groups (Ministry of National Development
young Dutch girl named Maria and her Malay public housing has always been an essential [MND], 2013).
foster mother (Narayanan, 2004:44). Maria feature of public policy, the racial composition
was left in the care of the latter during the could, if left on its own, be undermined by the Other Quotas: managing Singaporeans-
early days of the Japanese Occupation of the fact that, beyond a certain occupancy period, migrants’ relations
then colonial Singapore. Her foster mother apartment owners are permitted to sell their In 2010, a Singapore Permanent Resident
raised her as a Muslim and subsequently gave units on the open market. An unintended (SPR) quota was also introduced. It
her in marriage to a Muslim man. consequence of this practice is that it could sets a quota of 5 per cent of flats in a
eventually result in the formation of racially neighbourhood and 8 per cent in a block for
In 1950, Maria’s biological mother returned homogeneous clusters or “ethnic enclaves”, non-Malaysian SPR households (Straits Times,
to contest the custody of her daughter and should home-buyers prefer to buy units next to July 23, 2017). Malaysian SPR households
sought an annulment of her Muslim marriage. households of the same race as themselves, as are not subjected to this quota, given their
She eventually won the custody battle in they are part of their own social networks. close cultural and historical similarities with
court. This verdict, together with related Singaporeans.
events seemingly pitching Muslims against Subsequently, in 1989, the government
Christians, led to an outbreak of violence and introduced the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). Likewise, in 2014, a non-citizen (NC) quota was
rioting, resulting in a total of 18 deaths and This policy sets the limits according to race established to set a limit on the proportion of
damages to properties. on the proportion of flats in a block and a non-citizens, non-Malaysians allowed to rent an
neighbourhood (Straits Times, July 23, 2017). entire apartment. The applicable figures are 8
Another prominent case is that of the two Its rationale is to nudge the minorities, in per cent at the neighbourhood level and 11 per
1964 racial riots ignited by clashes between particular, to interact across racial lines and cent at the block level.
Chinese and Malays during a procession form social networks which are more racially
celebrating the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday diverse (Khoo, 2017:13).

38 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


Here again, the objectives are to prevent the 6. Preventing the formation To prevent the emergence of low-income
emergence of non-Singaporean enclaves in of enclaves and ghettos: ghettos and middle-income enclaves,
public housing, as well as to facilitate social facilitating social mixing the government’s antidote, as succinctly
integration between Singaporeans and non- between social classes in public described by Chua (1997:138), is as follows:
Singaporeans. More importantly, the quota housing
could be understood as an aspect of the 1. Deliberate “interspersing of rental flats
government’s effort to allay citizens’ concerns Thus far, we have highlighted a key for the lowest-income groups among the
and unhappiness with an influx of migrants consideration in public housing policy: that various classes of purchased flats”.
perceived to be competing with them for of preventing the formation of enclaves, be
housing and amenities, in addition to jobs (F. they racial or migrant-based, through the use 2. “Each housing estate or new town is a
Yahya, 2016:247). of quotas. An ethnic enclave, as understood mixture of different-sized flats catering
in the context of public housing in Singapore, for different income groups.”
The perceived unfair competition also is the unintended or intended consequence
generates tensions between citizens--who of people of a racial group choosing to live in 3. Flats of “different sizes catering for
feel their citizenship privileges threatened- close spatial proximity with one another. different incomes can be designed into
-and migrants (Yeoh and Lam, 2016:653), the same block.”
as well as contributes to the emergence of A somewhat similar concept is that of “ghetto”.
negative stereotypes about the latter among Unlike an enclave, however, the people who HDB towns, neighbourhoods, and precincts
some vocal citizens, reflecting the presence live in ghettos are probably not there by are therefore designed to be spatially and
of anti-immigrant sentiments. Indeed, the two choice, but belonging to an oppressed or socially inclusive, facilitating, in this case, the
racist episodes highlighted above in which disadvantaged social category compelled by social mixing and interactions of the different
some non-citizens were seen as exhibiting circumstances to reside in slum conditions classes in Singapore25.
racist behaviour, apart from demonstrating or by laws to be segregated from the rest of
that racial integration remains a work-in- society. However, there is a core consideration in
progress, may have reinforced a negative estate and block design and town planning
image of non-citizens as not keeping in step In the Singapore context, the presence that class mixing should not be taken to
with Singapore’s multiracial norms. of inequalities in housing consumption, extremes. Liu and Tuminez (2015:102) argued
as apartment sizes are contingent on that it is “inadvisable to mix one- and three-
The next section will focus on the class a household’s ability to pay, may “lead room or two- and five-room flats because
dimension and the measures taken to potentially to the physical segregation of larger socioeconomic disparities could create
facilitate the mixing of the different social housing classes in an estate and possibly divides or diminish natural social interaction
classes in Singapore public housing. the ghetto effect” (Chua, 1997:138; Phang and cohesion.”26 In practice, only up to three
and Kim, 2011:134). On the flipside, there was consecutive flat types, comprising 2-room
also a concern that the building of apartment Flexi, 3-room, and 4-room or 3-room, 4-room,
blocks and estates catering for the middle and 5-room/ 3-Generation flat type are placed
or upper middle income and their desire in the same block. There has not been any
for housing mobility could unintentionally housing project where rental and sold flats are
develop into exclusive enclaves (Hill and Lian, co-located within a block until recently.
1995:124).

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).

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 39


Liu and Tuminez (2015:105) also highlighted latter, through easy access to amenities and More importantly, even as public housing
that to “further integrate socioeconomic healthcare services, and being able to stay aims at bringing people of different races,
groups, the government subsequently connected to their social networks and the citizenship or residency status, and classes
decided to sell land for private housing neighbourhood community in real terms, and together, it can play a role with respect to
within HDB new towns.” This resulted in the reinforced in cyberspace. the age dimension by helping seniors stay
emergence of private estates sited in the connected to their married, adult children
vicinity of public housing neighbourhoods, and their families as well as to their own
which while designed as gated communities 7. Keeping seniors in public social networks and community within a
with their own sports facilities, such as a housing communities familiar neighbourhood setting. From the
swimming pool and a tennis court, makes government’s perspective, it is undesirable
it likely for people from the different While race, citizenship status and class may to have seniors living in spatial and social
socioeconomic categories to cross each be understood as inherently containing isolation; therefore, “institutionalization (which
other’s paths when they access the common the seeds of conflict relations, arising from conveys the image of an old folks home
amenities and services that surround differences in value-orientations, economic located away from HDB communities) should
HDB estates, thereby somewhat reducing interests, or competition for space and be a last resort” (Yap and Gee, 2015:13). With
their potential for turning into exclusive amenities, the same cannot be said of a rapidly ageing population27 in Singapore,
class enclaves (Hill and Lian, 1995:124), that between age categories or between it continues to be a priority to ensure that
while enhancing the permeability of class generations within the family. For one thing, seniors do not end up at the margin of society
boundaries in spatial terms (Sim, Yu and Han, having raised their children and perhaps and community, but are able to “age-in-place”
2003). More recently, there are steps taken even grandchildren, there is a likelihood of and experience “successful ageing” in the
by the URA to nudge developers toward seniors possessing strong intergenerational public housing neighbourhood (Yuen and Soh,
building fenceless condominiums, which bonds. Such parent-child ties are expected 2016:6).
could “feature more connectivity, boundaries to produce intergenerational support morally
of vegetation, and be strategically located sanctioned by social values, the most Ageing-in-place in public housing
to encourage the sharing of courtyards and prominent being filial piety, which prescribes Ageing-in-place is a key principle adopted by
public amenities” (Toh, 2017). that adult children have an obligation to the Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI) set up
support their parents if they are in need (Tan, by the government in 2004.28 It aims to make
The next section will focus on the age 2015:58). Similarly, Quah (2016:272) observes Singapore “the best home for Singaporeans
dimension and the measures taken to that “filial piety and other family-oriented of all ages.” Achieving this goal would mean
facilitate the social integration of seniors in values form a protective shield for the frail that seniors could live independently—not to
public housing. The latter is not entirely a elderly by preserving their role in the family be misconstrued as living alone--move around
housing issue, which relates to the prevention and thus ensuring respect and caregiving easily, and have unhindered access from
of physical isolation, but also a social issue, by family members.” However, it is possible home to services.
involving the need for social support of that parent-adult child ties could be ruptured,
seniors from the family and community. Where resulting from and leading to family conflict Specifically, ageing-in-place, as relates
public housing comes into the picture is in and a weakening of family cohesion, which to housing, is about “growing old in the
facilitating the provision of intergenerational would benefit from family support services home, community and environment that
and community support: the former, through conveniently located within the public housing one is familiar with, with minimal change or
policies aimed at enabling seniors to live with community. disruption to one’s lives and activities” (CAI,
or near their married, adult children; and the 2016:16). More relevant to the topic of social

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.

40 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


integration, it is about seniors remaining The above three schemes, introduced more has a parallel in seniors’ housing as well.
relationally within the ambit of or staying than three decades ago, have since been This aims to prevent age-segregation, while
with or close to their family and maintaining replaced by the Married Child Priority Scheme facilitating social interaction and integration
community networks (Yuen and Soh, 2016:30). (MCPS) and the Multi-Generation Priority across the various age categories. Since
Significantly, public housing policies are pro- Scheme (MGPS). Under these schemes, a the 1990s, an urban renewal programme,
family in orientation and serve larger social certain percentage of flats are set aside for which includes adding new features to old
objectives. One of which is to enable married eligible applicants, thereby giving them a HDB blocks and units or even demolishing
children and their families to co-reside with or higher probability of securing a flat. entire blocks and building new ones, was
live near their parents. The intent is, however, established to not only upgrade older towns
not confined to co-residency alone, but to There are also other schemes, such as the and neighbourhoods, but also “revitalise
achieve the objective of encouraging a living Proximity Housing Grant, which encourage the demographic and economic profiles (in
arrangement which enables intergenerational families to purchase a resale flat to co-reside old towns) as younger residents move in
social support and caregiving. This means with or live near (defined as in the same to these towns” (Cheong, 2017:108). More
that seniors could also choose to live on their town or within 2 km) to their parents or their recently, social mixing between old and
own in a community and environment they married children. young is enhanced by the introduction of
are familiar with, but in close proximity to age-inclusive, intergenerational facilities, such
their married children, practising what is now Another type of schemes focuses on the size as playgrounds or co-located eldercare and
popularly known as “intimacy at a distance” and design of HDB flats. The 3Gen Flats first childcare centres in new HDB estates or those
(Yap and Gee, 2015:24). offered in 2013 were intended to enable a undergoing renewal. This measure could
multi-generational family to live under one contribute to the social and emotional health
Facilitating ageing-in-place: housing roof. They are designed for privacy and of seniors and strengthen intergenerational
schemes, grants, and designs29 comfort for both the parents and their married bonding (Tan, S. 2017), particularly if the
Various housing schemes aimed at child and family. facilities allow for the different generations
encouraging co-residence either within to do things together, and not just their being
the same apartment or nearby in the same However, not all schemes are meant to present in the same physical space, but each
town have been implemented since the encourage only co-residency, as it is just as doing different things.
late seventies. Such schemes could at the important to enable seniors to continue living
same time prevent the emergence of elderly in public housing communities, if co-residency
people’s enclaves or ghettos should seniors is not an option they prefer or is not available 8. What are the key take-aways
chose to remain behind or were left behind to them. Studio apartments, which were from this chapter?
in an older town upon their married children launched in 1998 and replaced by 2-room
moving out to set up separate households Flexi flats since November 2015, exemplify From the discussion in the preceding
elsewhere in a new town. the purpose-built public housing catering for sections, one observes that public housing
seniors to enable them to continue enjoying can be designed to create conditions
Essentially, the housing schemes gave priority community-based living. Seniors opting to whereby a diversity of people who differ
to applicants of HDB flats who include their buy a 2-room Flexi flat or, previously, a studio along the dimensions of race, class, age, and/
parents in the Joint Balloting Scheme, the apartment could also choose to live near their or citizenship status could meet and interact
Joint Selection Scheme, or the Multi-Tier married children, and benefit from a priority in the course of their everyday life activities,
Family Housing Scheme. Participation in one allocation scheme. and eventually forging social networks of
of these schemes means a shorter waiting friends, neighbours, and acquaintances
period to secure a flat. The policy to build housing estates with mixed among themselves.
flat types to facilitate cross-class interactions

29 The main source literature for the policies and measures cited in this section is Yuen and Soh (2016).

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 41


To illustrate, grandparents walking their facilitating social interaction and integration. (1997:138-139) observes, is beneficial “to the
grandchildren to the nearby kindergartens or lower-income groups because they may be
schools would likely find other grandparents What may be viewed as somewhat more served by the better educated who volunteer
partaking in the same routine activity and intrusive are the quotas established to as community leaders” and, more broadly,
discover that they have much in common to prevent the “over-representation” of ethnic prevent “class segregation and conflicts.”
strike a conversation. Elderly men with time minorities and non-Singaporean, non-
on their hand may spend their evenings at the Malaysian residents in public housing at Similarly, the approach of mixing and
local coffee shop drinking beer, discussing the block and neighbourhood level. The integrating different social classes at the block
international relations and local politics. In ethnic quota, for instance, can be deemed to and neighbourhood level is also applied to
the local, vibrant wet markets, homemakers discriminate against minorities; but, from the that of the housing arrangement of seniors
doing their morning grocery shopping government’s perspective and with the tacit and the younger age categories. In the latter
may intermingle with other homemakers, support of Singaporeans, the benefits of such case, the objective is to enable seniors to
young or old, to share the latest gossips or a policy meant to promote racial harmony stay spatially and socially connected to their
information on food prices. Those who use far outweigh its costs to the categories of married children and to the community and
the exercise equipment located near HDB people affected. The means by which to environment they are familiar with. This would
blocks or their preferred jogging routes in achieve racial harmony, through the use of not only prevent the emergence of seniors’
the neighbourhood may find themselves ethnic quotas, is to deter the formation of ghettos, but also facilitate the younger
encountering the same fellow users on ethnic enclaves, which could act as a barrier generation providing social and caregiving
a regular basis and eventually become to cross-ethnic mixing and social integration, support to their ageing parents.
acquainted. The precinct basketball court produce a somewhat plural30, as opposed
could be a site for friendly matches between to pluralistic, society, and undermine the However, public housing policy and design
Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans residing government’s efforts aimed at strengthening constitute only the “hardware” for facilitating
in the neighbourhoods, though it is also national identity. Similarly, the “permanent social mixing. They need to be complemented
possible that competition for the use of the resident” and the “non-citizen” quotas are by the “software” of social policies directed
same facility could be a source of tension. aimed at preventing the formation of non- at alleviating poverty, equalizing educational
Singaporean enclaves for the purpose of and economic opportunities, and promoting
Besides the various “touch points” noted promoting social integration between citizens mutual understanding, trust and confidence
above, there are others like lift landings, and non-citizens residing in Singapore, while among residents; as well as ground-up
void decks, playgrounds, town parks, and reinforcing the message that public housing initiatives aimed at encouraging residents
community centres. These “touch points” remains a privilege of citizenship. to participate in projects or activities, doing
provide vast opportunities for residents to things together, with social integration as a
meet, interact, and bond with one another In regard to the mixing of social classes, by-product.
in the multi-racial, multi-class, and multi- the policy of interspersing of rental flats
generational towns, neighbourhoods and for the lowest-income groups among the The process of facilitating social mixing and
precincts which constitute public housing in various classes of purchased flats, and producing social integration has seen positive
Singapore. mixing different-sized flats catering for results over the years, but it remains a work-
different income groups at both block and in-progress. If we use social network diversity
The “touch points”, which are embedded neighbourhood level is to prevent the as a measure of social integration, we
in the physical design and layout of HDB emergence of middle and upper middle class would be able to gauge the extent of social
neighbourhoods, may be understood as a housing enclaves as well as the ghettoization integration in Singapore along the dimensions
deliberate, but non-intrusive “hardware” for of low-income housing. This policy, as Chua dealt with in this chapter. A study on social

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”.

42 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


capital in Singapore conducted by my along house type, a proxy of class, and age opposed to homogeneous social networks,
colleagues and I31 found that social network is positive. These figures (see Table 7) reflect from which they could count on to receive and
diversity among public housing dwellers some measure of success in achieving to which they reciprocate support, assistance,
along the dimensions of racial and citizenship social integration in so far as public housing advice, or companionship.
status is moderately positive, while that residents are embedded in diverse, as

Table 7: Measures of Network Diversity among Public Housing Residents

Network diversity Mean Median Note: A score of 0 = no diversity,


and 1 = complete diversity. Racial
Racial (4 categories) .32 .33 categories: Chinese, Malay, Indian, and
Others. Citizenship status categories:
Citizenship status (2 categories) .36 .33 citizen and non-citizen. Housing type
categories: (1) HDB 1- to 3-room, (2) HDB
Housing type (4 categories) .53 .64 4-room, (3) HDB 5-room, HDB-executive,
(4) Condominium/ Private apartment,
landed property, shop house, others.
Age (6 categories) .58 .64
Age categories: (1) Below 30, (2) 30 to
39, (3) 40 to 49, (4) 50 to 59, (5) 60 to
69, and (6) 70 and above.

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 43


acceptance of diversity and mutual support In Singapore, various ministries and agencies, things together, be it participation in leisure
and collaboration; and strengthening national besides the HDB, are actively involved in activities or working on group projects
identity (Tan, 2004a). Without the “hardware” furthering the mission of social cohesion. to solve municipal problems” (People’s
of public housing policy and design working in The People’s Association (PA), for example, Association, 2014, cited in Tan, 2017:259).
tandem with the “software” of social policies which is the government agency responsible Clearly, to forge and strengthen social
and community support, merely putting for community building, has continued “to integration in regard to each of the different
people in close spatial proximity to one develop engagement platforms, as well as social dimensions dealt with in this chapter,
another could result in conflict, rather than encourage ground-up initiatives, to promote there needs also to be a strong partnership
reap the fruits of social mixing (Chaskin and social cohesion and ownership through between the Government, community
Joseph, 2017)32. creating opportunities for residents to do organisations, and the private sector.

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.

44 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


References

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).

48 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


intense interaction with their neighbours,
while fellow respondents in public housing
estates maintained a certain aloofness,
A year after self- By the year of
government, in independence in 1970,
By
preferring more privacy (Macintyre, 1975:88).
Children had less restriction in their play

1960, 1965, the figure was

34.6%
patterns compared to children staying in high
rise and low rise public housing environments

9.1% 23.2% (Teh, 1975: 9).


because of easy access to open space.
The majority of children living in the new
public housing estates did not play with their
of the population of the population had
relatives because they lived too far away.
resided in public public housing,
Mothers living in public housing estates also
housing.
tended to restrict their children’s play for fear
of disturbing the neighbours. This distinction
is more explicitly expressed in Chen and Tai’s
improvements, the provision of electricity and will see in Section II, this early role of the study (1978) three years later. Comparing
telephone booths to be built. Along with the community organization acting as a bridge kampong with HDB environments, they
fulfilment of various requests, the community between the government and the people, found, as Macintyre (1975) did, a weak
centre was built in late 1963 and a more specifically in the explanation of government cohesion among neighbours in HDB estates
formal People’s Consultative Committee was policies and their implementation continues to and the lack of a sense of responsibility and
created. This particular committee served as be an activity which continue to be debated. belonging to community. Kampong residents
a bridge between the government and the on the other hand, maintained greater
locals and provided inputs relating to various a) The shift from Rural to Urban contact with their neighbours and were more
improvements to the village (Tan, 1964: 98- Environments35 helpful (Chen and Tai, 1978: 412, 413, 415).
99). As an indication of these new structures The resettlement studies documented
and their facilitation of government-people three effects of residential experience and b) Relocation and Its Effects on Social
communication, Tan (1964: 100) noted that behaviour for the population which were Relationships
in the wake of race related violence, village resettled from tenement housing in the The Woodlands study conducted by Chang
leaders were able to dissuade a group of city center36, semi-rural informal housing (1974) indicated that for most families,
young Chinese men with gang affiliations settlements like Lye Soon Hin village and relocation tended to have the effect of
from attacking a nearby Malay community. areas acquired by the government. breaking up old neighbourly ties. More than
Singapore achieved internal self-government half of the respondents in public housing
from the British in 1959 and independence Resettlement studies pointed out a basic estates admitted that they had never
in 1965. Formed in 1963, the example difference in the neighbouring patterns of contacted former neighbours not living in
of the People’s Consultative Committee village residents compared to those staying the same estate. His findings also indicated
represented the emergent form of community in public housing estates. Macintyre’s 1975 that within the new HDB estates, inter-floor
organizations that is found in Singapore’s study showed that kampong or village based interaction among neighbours living within the
public housing estates today. And as we families generally had strong, frequent and same apartment blocks were extremely rare.

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”.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 49


On the whole, there were less close contacts relocates from different places and different Minister, Dr Goh was very clear in pointing
with neighbours in the present than in former ethnic groups in Singapore. These relocates to the political and ideological nature of
neighbourhoods. had to learn to live together while adjusting to community organizations during the early
a new high rise high density environment. history of Singapore as a young nation.
c) Inter-Ethnic Interaction The role of community organizations was
The public housing system created the clearly political in nature since the dominant
opportunity of ethnic residential integration, 2. Community Organizations political force at that time, the communists,
a change from the more ethnically and Political Mobilization had considerable support among the trade
homogeneous traditional settlement unions and students, and in the rural areas of
patterns. Resettlement studies indicated that Singapore and the community organization
neighbourly activities tended to be confined “I am prepared to bet that not more network was used as a counter against
mainly to tenants of the same ethnic group. than three person in a thousand this political force. Against the contests
Some 64 percent of the respondents did not of the Singapore public are aware with communism, the Minister of Culture, S.
interact at all with members of other ethnic of the reason for the People’s Rajaratnam was quoted as saying “When
groups (Tan, 1972: 91, 92). In a later study, Association and the community the Government introduced Community
Choo (1977) did a more detailed analysis of centres. I was involved in this and Centres, its main aim was to use them as
inter-ethnic neighbourly interaction by looking together with the Prime Minister training grounds for democracy. Democracy
into ethnocentric preferences with regard to and give you the real purpose does not mean only elected leaders running
various activities. She found that the Chinese of starting this organisation… In the country or relying on the government to
and Malays displayed a higher degree of 1960, the People’s Association do everything… Democracy means people
ethnocentricity, compared with the Indians; was established as a government also learning to do things for themselves;
that is - they preferred interaction within grass-root organisation to combat people willing to do service voluntarily for the
the same ethnic group. This ethnocentric the Communist United Front which community”38.
attitude was more marked in activities which was the dominant political force at
involved a greater share of involvement from that time…We started the People’s Once the organizational structure was in
the neighbours, like lending money or asking Association as a second line of place, Seah (1973: 108-110) pointed out
for assistance (Choo, 1977: 53, 54). Hassan’s defence in case the Party branches that it acted as a major mechanism for
(1977: 106) study revealed similar results: that went over to the Communists communication between the government
there were generally limited neighbourly when the open flight between the and the people, and as a form of political
contacts across ethnic lines, and that this was Communists and the democratic socialization in creating a political community
more pronounced in Chinese than in Malays socialist began, as we knew it must”. oriented towards the stated ideals of a
and Indians. Hassan (1977: 79) also noted that young nation. Writing 22 years later, Lai’s
while inter-ethnic contact was low, there were (1995: 105) conclusion was similar: “the use
generally favourable inter-ethnic attitudes. (Dr Goh Keng Swee, Deputy Prime Minister and of community organizations by the PAP for
Minister of Defence, Closing Address, 16 April
1978)37 its political consolidation and legitimacy
In the 1960s and 1970s, the community centre since the 1960s has been so effective that,
and residents’ committees in HDB estates by the 1980s, they become its para-political
then became an institutional mechanism for The mobilization of local communities by institutions, with their nation-building roles
residents to connect with each other over a community organizations for the advantage focusing on ‘community engineering’ and
range of social and leisure activities within of political parties has long been a subject of promoting ethnic interaction”. Thio (2009)
neighbourhoods which were comprised of debate in Singapore. Former Deputy Prime has also reiterated the political logic which is

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).

50 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


embedded in community development, while that as a statutory board, the PA is “linked Secondly, some attention should be paid to
also noting that some form of accountability is to government policy” and the grassroots the other side of the relationship, that is, to
achieved through the attorney general’s audit adviser has to believe in the overall thrust the locals rather than the political parties or
of Town Council’s finances. Thang, Lee and of the government’s approach. “People who the government. In East Asia, governments
Kee (2015: 44) observed political affiliations implement and operationalize these policies set up “outposts” at the level of the
that are aligned with community organizations cannot oppose them. You simply can’t have a neighbourhood and that these organizations
allow for strong community development situation where the adviser does not support have both the ability for co-optation but
programmes. the implementation of these policies”40. also representation of various grievances
(Read, 2012). In other words, this is a two-
While it is difficult to untangle the political Dr Puthucheary makes an interesting way relationship between the government
logic embedded in community development, point using an organizational reason. If the and the people. Governments and political
several points need consideration. The People’s Association is the link between the parties are not the only agencies capable of
first point to note is the main goal of using Government and the people, and if one task acting strategically, local communities are
community organizations as the link between is that of explaining Government’s policies also capable of seeing, judging and acting
the government and the people. The issue to the people, then the People’s Association for themselves. Moreover, the presence
of whether community leaders (grassroot on grounds of organizational effectiveness, of such grassroots level state directed
advisors) appointed by the People’s should appoint the members of the ruling community organizations do not prevent
Association (PA) should only come from the party because the ruling party is the one other neighbourhood groups from forming.
ruling party became an issue in 2011. who creates the policy and the means of Groups are most likely to be created through
implementing them. Having oppositional the loose networks that are already existing
The People’s Association Director of members to perform this function will weaken at the neighhourhood level and is capable
Corporate Communications said “besides the clarity and the effectiveness of the of independent mobilization if significant
connecting people to people, grassroots communication process. This organizational numbers of individuals come to associate with
advisors are required to help the Government logic of having only loyal members within a particular issue.
connect with the people and help promote the network of community organizations can
Government policies and programmes such also be applied from the perspective of the Thirdly, aside from local politics, we should
as anti-dengue and active ageing. Hence, opposition parties. As Associate Professor consider the organization and governance
the Government has to appoint grassroots Tan Ern Ser has suggested in the Yahoo News of collective projects at the local level. There
advisors who support its programmes and can article, opposition parties should also develop are good economic and organizational
play this role well. Opposition MPs (members their own grassroot networks on “practical reasons why city governments will want
of parliament) cannot be expected to do grounds”41. Organizational expediency to partner neighbourhoods in community
this and thus cannot be advisors to GROs will therefore require opposition parties to projects. Bowles and Gintis (2002) points
(grassroots organizations)”39. This position develop an alternative community-based out that the local residents are effective
was elaborated by Dr Janil Puthucheary. A networks to communicate its message to the partners in neighbourhood projects because
member of parliament from the ruling party people. the proximity and inevitable contact among
and a member of the People’s Association residents in daily life enhances the ability to
Board, Dr Puthucheary was reported as saying enforce local norms and reduce free rider

39 Today, “PA’s stance on grassroots advisors under spotlight”, 2 September 2011.


40 Yahoo News, “PA stands firm over election of grassroots leaders”, 2 September 2011. source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/opposition-question-pa-stance
on-grassroots-advisers.html accessed: 29 September 2017
41 Yahoo News, “PA stands firm over election of grassroots leaders”, 2 September 2011. source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/opposition-question-pa-stance-
on-grassroots-advisers.html accessed: 29 September 2017

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 51


problems. With proper government and legal housing estate. The hub of all community As Singapore experienced rapid economic
supports, community governance can be an activities, the CC offers an avenue for growth in the late 1970s and 1980s, the new
effective agency to solve a class of problems recreation and neighbourly camaraderie” community centres were larger in scale and
at the local level. Likewise, Evans (1996) (People’s Association, 2010: 47). While the offered progressively more activities.
go on to suggest productive ways in which community centres were already in existence
the state can cooperate with communities in the 1950s, its expansion occurred in the In 1978, the first Residents’ Committees (RCs)
through a complementarity of motives and 1960s. This expansion was in part to develop were piloted in two estates, Marine Parade
tasks as well as through an embedding of an effective network of community leaders and Tanjong Pagar ((People’s Association,
government-community relations. Embedding to help the government to deal with major 2010: 114) and this quickly grew in numbers
comes about with the establishment of tensions during that period, the political threat as new functions and activities became
cooperative relations through the operation of communism and the communal threat of associated with the RCs. The main difference
of state-funded projects. The embedding of race divisions. However, in order for such a between Community Centres and Residents’
government-community relations is especially network to be effective, local leaders must Committees is one of scale. While the CCs
important to Evans (1996) because the be able to develop a larger base within the served a much larger area (estimated at 15,000
sustainability of local projects require the housing estates, and this was where the households)42, RCs were formed to serve
active participation of residents. community centres was designed to play its residents in the immediate area of residents
critical role by being the social focal point of (estimated at 500 to 2,500 households). This
Fourthly, we should also make the distinction the neighbourhood through the provision of a smaller scale, is quite similar to the concept
between a political community oriented set of recreational activities. To the extent that of “home area”. Developed by Kearns and
towards the state, its ideals and programmes, mass support is necessary for government Parkinson (2001: 2014), the home area is 5
and the everyday problem of collective policies, then the set of community centres to 10 minutes’s walk from one’s home and is
living in high density and heterogeneous nationwide must deliver on a user base significant for its association to the relaxation
environments. The latter has to do with the predicated on a set of activities developed by and recreation of the self, and an area
tasks of getting along with our neighbours the centre. where neighbourly ties are most likely to be
in daily residential environment of the public developed, and where a sense of attachment
housing estates and is a critical task requiring The People’s Association envisaged that and belonging is formed. This is an area where
government as well as civic organization “activities would draw the people to the values (for example values which relate to a
supports in order to ensure harmonious living network of Community Centres presided over way of life) likely to be expressed and shared.
in an increasingly heterogeneous residential by the People’s Association. Each CC would This functional area corresponds with the
environment. run its own courses and the state would help everyday “footprint” of HDB residents in that
pay for the cost of teachers so that fees could the precinct represents the most likely journeys
be kept low. These recreational activities that residents take on foot and it is the area
3. The Collective Life of the would encourage bonding and create a sense where regular contact between neighbours
Neighbourhood of belonging” (People’s Association, 2010: 48). is more likely to be established. This smaller
scale allows for apartment block and floor
The People’s Association’s center piece for Community centres developed in tandem with (within apartment blocks) parties to be
the development of neighbourly relations the development of Singapore. In the 1960s, organized which would scale down and keep
is the community centre (CC, now known community centres were rather modest and the interaction more intimate and around a set
as community clubs). It notes that “the low cost to build, offering television viewing to of conversations arising from the residents’
community club has pride of place in every households who were too poor to afford one. shared experience and use of the home area.

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)

52 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


Chart 1: Frequency of Participation in Community Centres
An early assessment of the importance of
Residents’ Committees was made by then
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew when he said 25.00%

that “RCs are the most promising grassroots


21.80%
organisations we have created so far. Of all
the innovations, the RCs hold the promise 20.00%
of the greatest ferment and progress. If we
can get the right people to come forward, 16.40%

RCs will help to consolidate our new


15.00%
neighbourhoods and give social cohesiveness
to our new owner-occupied estates” (People’s
Association, 2010: 102). Both Community
10.00%
Centres and Residents’ Committees work on
activity/event type of mobilization. In 2016,
the number of participants attending activities
and courses relating to People’s Association’s 5.00% 3.90% 3.70%
network of CCs and RCs was 17.9 million43. 2.60% 2.50%
Source: Housing
and Development
If we shift the analysis from community Board (2010, 2014)
0.00% Public Housing in
organizations to the residents and ask them At least once a week At least once a month Occasionally Singapore: Well Being of
Communities, Families
about the frequency of visiting their CC and 2008 2013
and the Elderly, HDB.
RC, the picture changes. Chart 1 provides data
from the Housing and Development Board’s
2008 and 2013 sample household survey
Chart 2:Frequency of Participation in Residents’ Committees
and we note that only about 3 to 4% of the
residents surveyed attended their CC on a
weekly basis. More than 70% of the residents
25.00%
surveyed either never attend the CC or visit
it on a less than occasional basis. Chart 2
indicates that the attendance figures are even 20.20%
20.00%
lower for residents attending their Residents’ 17.90%
Committees as less than 2% of the residents
surveyed mentioned a weekly attendance at 15.00%
their RCs.

The idea of regularity as an indicator needs 10.00%


to be qualified. The survey asks respondents
for the frequency of visits to the CC and RC
within a twelve month period. This may omit 5.00%
many single events which the PA organizes 2.10% 2.00% Source: Housing
1.50% 1.30%
and Development
Board (2010, 2014)
0.00% Public Housing in
At least once a week At least once a month Occasionally Singapore: Well Being of
43 Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, Communities, Families
2008 2013
Budget Book of Corporate Key Performance and the Elderly, HDB.
Indicators.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 53


through its network of CCs and RCs, a (27.5% in 2013) may be considered to be a
point which the People’s Association Chief sign of intimacy among neighbours but both
Executive Director made when asked by the indicators have shown a reduction between
local newspaper to comment on the survey 2008 and 2013. In fact, many of the other
in 2000. He noted for example that courses, indicators have low mentions in 2008 and
excursions, block parties and smaller-scale have fallen further in 2013: help in buying
group outings are likely to be excluded from groceries, borrow/end household items, help
such surveys44 (Straits Times, 13 July 2000). look after children, keep house keys and
lending/borrowing money.
Thus, while the mobilization potential is
120.0
high given the People’s Association’s large
Chart 3:Types of Neighbourly Interaction (% reporting)
network of community centres and Residents’
committees especially within the public
98.6
housing estates, the low regular attendance
100.0 97.1 97.0
in CCs and RCs is actually symptomatic of
94.1
the nature of neighbourly relationships in
Singapore. This fairly low level of neighbourly
interaction can be deduced from the data
presented in Chart 3. In general, the busy 80.0

lives which Singaporeans have kept them


outside their housing estates, resulting in
casual neighbourly relations like greeting
each other or a quick conversation (over 60.0
53.3
90%) when their paths cross. This is what the
51.0 Source: Housing and
majority of respondents mentioned in the Development Board (2010,
44.6 2014) Public Housing in
HDB sample household survey. The second 42.9
Singapore: Well Being of
point to note from Chart 3 are the things 40.2
40.0 Communities, Families
36.2 and the Elderly, HDB.
neighbours tend to do for each other on a 34.7

reciprocal basis, like an exchange of food 27.5


on festive occasions (about 50%), help keep 22.8
watch over the neighbour’s flat (about 43%). 17.9
17.8
20.0
These two activities tend to be infrequent. 15.2
11.7
Social visits to each other’s homes (36.2% in 8.7 9.5
7.5
2013) and exchange suggestions and advice 4.2
2.5

0.0

44 One-off events organized by CCs and RCs


may also be omitted by respondents due
to memory lapses, especially if these are

attended by a respondent many months ago.

2008 2013

54 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


The idea of cultivating the collective life of retirees, our daily lives take us away from the of their apartment blocks but within the
the neighbourhood has its challenges in an neighbourhood. However, even minimum neighbourhood, the interaction between
urban environment where friendship and manifest forms of neighbouring such as the neighbours tend to be low.
kinship ties are more likely to be outside the regular exchange of greetings in our daily
neighbourhood. In thinking about the nature neighbourhood routines yield important social This very low incidence of interaction within
of neighbourly relations in the contemporary benefits in terms of at least an understanding the neighbourhood has created a new focus
city, an important observation is made by of our neighbours. Such minimal social forms for policy. Given the well-developed public
Henning and Lieberg (1996: 8,17) concerning of encounter in our everyday lives make for a housing infrastructure in Singapore and the
the weakness of ties among neighbours. sociable environment. And because we stay fact that 82% of residents in Singapore live
Terming neighbouring relations as weak ties, in any one neighbourhood for an appreciable in public housing estates, many country level
Henning and Lieberg are careful to point out period of time, these weak ties along with our policies are exercised within public housing
that neighbourly relations are more similar place attachment mean that we also develop estates. A Straits Times editorial (7 August
to Granovetter’s of absent ties, which are a positive latent neighbourliness and are 2007) highlighted that HDB is “an important
relations in our everyday lives that are casual prepared to lend support should the occasion guardian of Singapore’s well-being”. Several
and sustained by nodding or greeting in our demand it. years earlier, Singapore’s Prime Minister,
everyday lives as the figures in Chart 3 has Lee Kuan Yew noted that “creating HDB
shown. However, such relations should not neighbourhoods that bind residents together
be dismissed as unimportant. Significantly, 4. Newer Policy Initiatives in in some ways is a kind of nation building in
Henning and Liebergs’ (1996: 20, 22-23) Community Development microcosm” (Straits Times, 26 February 1992).
findings from Sweden suggest that such The void deck of HDB apartments, a term
superficial forms of weak ties are easy to a) The Role of Amenities and Social coined to describe the ground floor which is
maintain at the neighbourhood level, and Activities in the Everyday Life of the kept open for the through flow of pedestrian
in everyday life. These encounters allow Neighbourhood traffic between blocks has been used for the
for the conversation that flows within such development of community activities and
relationships to maintain a life of its own and, Charts 1 and 2 suggest that while community services.45 Table 8 shows how childcare,
in the process, create feelings of home and organizations like CCs and RCs may be good family and community services have been
security among neighbours. for mobilization attempts, they are not places sited at the HDB void deck spaces, thereby
which the majority of neighbours visit on providing easy access to residents who need
It is also important to note Laurier, Whyte and a regular basis. On their own, Chart 3 has such services. Besides void decks, HDB also
Buckners’ (2002) description of neighbouring indicated that residents in Singapore’s public plan and design other facilities (e.g. town
as an occasioned activity, primarily because housing estates tend to adopt a minimal plaza, shops, markets and playgrounds) with
being a good neighbour also means form of interaction such as greetings and consumption needs, play, and neighborly
respecting the privacy of others living closest casual conversations. Neighbours are most interactions in mind.
to you. And so neighbours should be helpful likely to encounter each each within the
when the occasion calls for it, otherwise apartment block area (common corridor, lift
to be neighbourly is to be considerate and area, and ground floor area). These are the
not to intrude. We appreciate that manifest very areas where neighbours tend to run
forms of neighbouring is likely to be minimal into each other in their everyday routines
for significant portion of residents because, and these are the places where greetings
with the exception of young families and and casual conversations occur. Outside

45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_deck

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 55


Table 8: The Provision of Childcare, Family and Community Services within HDB Blocks
deck), the coffee counter operates in the
HDB Blocks with Childcare Family Service Residents’ mornings and has a helper whose salary is
Void Decks Centers Centers Committees
paid for by the Community Development
1998 6258 244 149 460 Council. Residents donate refreshments and
various snacks and biscuits. We chose three
2016 8061 726 203 650
days in December to do our observations and
Source: HDB Annual Reports FY 1998/99 and FY2016/2017 Chart 4 summarizes the visitor statistics by
time. With Tuesday (15/12), the patrons appear
earlier, peaking at 8 to 8.30. Friday traffic is
With the formation of the Housing and are significant in mid-morning, around late a bit later, and Sunday having several peaks
Development Board’s community relations afternoon and evenings. The children are because the traffic is not dictated by the need
group (CRG) in 200946, the work of community often accompanied by their parents, many to go to work.
development has evolved into a clearer of whom stayed out of the mini hardcourts.
partnership between the HDB and the PA. The kids go back and forth in the hardcourt The research team conducted an analysis
One project the CRG has developed is a and the covered play area (behind the tree in of user traffic before and after the café was
pilot community participatory programme Plate 1) and some pull their minders into the built which involved replacing an existing
with some elements of the programme playground. Youths come alone or in groups, table and some chairs. The team noted that
involving the partnership with PA’s residents’ many using the seats as a convenient place to after the café was built and in operation, the
committees (see second example illustrated in rest and check their handphones. The adults number of residents seen at this ground floor
plate 2). The CRG pilot project set about trying who do not appear with children are often area increased a mean of 10 users for the
to increase neighbourliness and participation solitary and also use the mini hardcourt as a table and chairs to a significant 55 users for
by asking residents to come together to rest area and also to check their phones. the Palmwalk Café for the same time period
decide what additional facilities they want to (see Table 4). Clearly, the offer of beverage
see developed in their estates. Plate 1 shows Plate 2 shows a café and library suggested by and snacks in the morning brings residents
a new mini-hardcourt (to the left of the picture, Palmwalk residents’ during the engagement to the area. We note that there are regulars
a small court with covered lighting in blue, sessions. HDB subsequently partnered with such as Linda and her friends, also a group
with some seats which spell P L A Y) adding the Palmwalk residents’ committee to realize of elderly men who sit and chat and also play
to the other recreational activities, a covered this idea. Located at the ground floor (void board games like chess or checkers. We
play area for small children (immediately left
of the mini-hardcourt and behind the tree),
blue hard courts for badminton and sepak
takraw47 (middle of the picture) and another
covered basketball court (to the right of the
picture).

Our observations of the mini-hardcourt


indicate children appearing in the playground
in significant numbers compared to adults
and youths and as these observations
coincided with a public holiday, the numbers

Plate 1: Inserting new play space to complement existing facilities. Source: Author

46 Today, (2009) “HDB turns community builder” (3 November).


47 A popular game played with a rattan ball, and which is native to Southeast Asia.

56 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


noted single adults having a hot beverage and snack. The idea of refreshments and residents’ committee suggests that with a
before going off to work, and also people snacks and also having regular patrons also modest investment of a coffee area (see Plate
who finished their exercise class in the nearby mean that the average duration of usage 2), a social focal point can be created drawing
play area (see the covered basketball court doubled from 10.9 mins to 21.6 minutes. This in residents in the nearby area.
area in Plate 1) coming to the café for a drink intervention by the HDB and the Palmwalk

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

11-Dec 13-Dec 15-Dec

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 57


Plate 3 shows another suggestion from In this particular example, HDB partnered of the walkway. The team managed to have
the residents of Tampines Central, which is another government agency, the National residents living near the trellis to volunteer
the development of a plant trellis along a Parks Board (NParks) which came in as a to water the plants. Users of the walkway
linkway which is often used by the residents resource provider of plants and expertise for now have an added pleasant feature when
to get to the market, shops and the bus stop. the residents to green this particular portion they use the walkway.

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

58 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


with at least half of them (ST, 27 Nov 2008). of the spectrum on multiculturalism is best It is the willingness of INCs to allow new
In 2012, the PA initiated 12,300 programmes expressed by Mr. Goh, a grassroots leader of immigrants to “organize events and interest
involving 630,000 participants, 22% of whom the pioneer batch of INCs in 2007 remarked groups that tap on their passions and
were new immigrants (ST, 27 Jan 2013). on involving the new immigrant on activities: strengths” that has given rise to immigrant
attempts to introduce aspects of immigrant
The nature of the activities maintain a balance “Once contact is established, his cultures and practices into Singapore.
between integration and multiculturalism. At team will step up the engagement Perhaps one interesting example is the
the integration end of the spectrum is the by inviting new citizens to CC introduction of the Tamil harvest festival of
Singapore Citizenship Journey which enriches activities, asking them to get involved Pongal to the Singapore urban community
new citizens’ knowledge of Singapore’s
as grassroot leaders, and help to (PA, 2017: 64-67).
history, values and key institutions and
organize events and interest groups
policies, and also help them better understand
that tap on their passions and
Singapore’s way of life, and to expand their
strengths”.
social network (PA, 2017: 27). The other end (PA, 2017: 20)

Chart 5: Singapore’s Total Population by Residency Status

5,535.0 5,607.2 5,612.3


5,399.1 5,469.7
NUMBER (IN '000S)

5,312.4
5,076.7 5,183.6

4,027.9

1,554.4 1,599.0 1,632.3 1,673.7 1,646.5


3,047.1 1,305.0 1,394.4 1,494.2

754.5 532.0 533.1 531.2 527.7 527.7 524.6 526.6


541.0
287.5
311.3
112.1

3,230.7 3,257.2 3,285.1 3,313.5 3,343.0 3,375.0 3,408.9 3,439.2


2,985.9
2,623.7

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)

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 59


c) Managing Conflicts within the This initiative represents a good example Neighbourly conflicts may also persist
Neighbourhood of inter-agency cooperation within the because of common space sharing, the
government. The Community Mediation regularity of noise, litter and smells associated
Presiding Judge of State Courts See Kee Center is managed by the Ministry of Law. with proximity (see Plate 5) and also because
Oon, speaking at the opening of a seminar And because a major source of conflict of the higher costs associated with home
on resolving community disputes noted that occurs at the neighbourhood level, Some owners49 moving out of the neighbourhood.
with Singapore being a multiracial, multi-faith PA’s grassroots volunteers are trained to The CMC can only play its role if parties are
and multi-lingual community living in a “small be informal mediators, on a voluntary basis, willing to come forward for mediation. In
and densely populated island”, and everyone to be called upon as a first layer of dispute the overall interests of preventing conflicts
going about in a fast-paced and potentially resolution among neighbours. The CMC becoming long drawn and affecting the
stressful environment, “these factors have the provides training to grassroots leaders to conviviality of neighbourhoods, community
potential to stretch… and fray the social fabric improve their effectiveness in mediating dispute resolution tribunals (CDRT) came into
of our uniquely cosmopolitan society” (Straits neighbour conflicts. operation in October 2015, with appointed
Times, 23 September 2016). While these
factors create potential misunderstandings,
stress and potential conflicts in everyday Plate 5: CMC poster on How to be a Good Neighbour
life, it is arguably at the level of the
neighbourhood, where the factors of diversity
in residential profile, a high density living
environment, the sharing of common and
adjoining spaces, and the inevitable crossing
of paths in everyday routines, combine to
create conflicts.

An early organizational attempt at resolving


conflicts started with the official opening of
the first Community Mediation Center in 1998
(Straits Times, 6 November 1998). From its
start of hearing 81 cases in 1998 to a high
of 1641 cases in 2008, the CMC caseload
seem to have settled down in the region of
500 plus cases in recent years (Straits Times
6 November 1998; Channel NewsAsia 20
July 2009). And it is significant that disputes
within the neighbourhood forms a significant
proportion of overall disputes in the CMC
caseload. While mediation involves disputes
arising from different types of relationships,
56% of the disputes involved neighbours in
Source: CMC. Used with permission in 8 September 2017
201648. Neighbour disputes was 67% of the email from Deputy Director, Community Mediation Unit.
498 CMC cases in 2010 (Today, 8 August 2011).

48 Supplied via email from Deputy Director, Community Mediation Unit.


49 94.5% of HDB residential units are sold.

60 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


judges requiring mandated hearings between 5. Conclusion new immigrants, so to an increased emphasis
50
neighbours in dispute, with the power to on community engagement both in terms
enforce a course of action which results Singapore’s effort at community development of an integration function and to mediation
on conflict resolution such as getting the has had a long history from the 1960s where to prevent conflict escalation. These efforts
neighbour to stop doing a certain activity the concern was two-fold. The focus was on include HDB’s partnership with the People’s
which led to the dispute, the issue of an helping Singaporeans who were relocated Association in providing and maintaining
apology or the award damages to the to public housing from inner city tenement a harmonious living environment; through
aggrieved party (Singapore Government housing, urban villages and rural farming areas such as the provision of community
News, 1 October 2015). areas get reconnected and adjusting to daily facilities, residents’ participatory projects
living in high rise, high density environments. and dispute resolution. Another partnership
With the formation CDRTs in 2015, an A second focus was to develop a extensive is with the Ministry of Law’s community
elaborate system of conflict mediation network primarily within public housing mediation center and community dispute
has been developed. At the level of the estates where the majority of Singapore resolution tribunal working closely with the
neighbourhood, the community development society was residing with the purpose of PA’s grassroots to manage the disputes which
efforts of the People’s Association’s network using this network as a bridge between the arise from an increasingly more diverse
of informal mediators play an important role government and the people, especially in population living in high rise high density
of promoting good neighbourliness as well as the communication and the dissemination of public housing environments. At lastly, the
be the first level of intervention in mediation policy initiatives. creation of Integration and Naturalization
when neighbours fight. The next level is a Champions using People’s Association’s
referral to the CMC where trained mediators Recent initiatives at community development network of grassroot leaders, facilities and
try to reconcile the problem among willing has been influenced by Singapore’s event planning to help new immigrants adjust
parties. When this fails, a judge led CDRT population growth and accompanying to Singapore society.
steps to resolve the issue. diversity. As diversity increases because of

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).

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 61


References

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.

64 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


Programme (HIP) began in 2007, providing The Neighborhood Renewal Programme participation strategies to allow HDB planners
flat-level upgrades. The two core concerns (NPR) was introduced in 2007 and targeted to better understand residents’ needs and to
for HIP were improvements that would extend a larger-area comprising two or more fine-tune the ROH proposals so as to ensure
the lifespan of individual flats, and upgrades neighboring precincts. This program focused that the plans will benefit as many residents
that would enable older residents to age on block and precinct level improvements and as possible. This can be seen from the public
in place. Therefore, Singapore Citizen flat involved actively engaging the community engagement sessions being carried out in
owners in blocks choosing to undertake HIP through town-hall meetings, smaller-group early stages of planning under the recent
all gained “essential” improvements paid dialogue sessions, and public exhibitions series of ROH programme.
for by the government, while Singapore to understand and seek feedback on the
Citizen flat owners could opt for Optional specific improvements that residents thought The Selective En bloc Redevelopment
Improvement items by co-paying 5 to could benefit their neighborhoods. The NRP Scheme (SERS) is part of the Government’s
12.5% of the cost while the Government is for blocks built up to 1995 that hadn’t gone Estate Renewal Strategy to enhance the living
subsidized a majority (87.5% to 95%) of through the MUP or IUP or IUP Plus, with environment of older HDB estates. Introduced
the cost. Essential Improvements included all costs borne by the government. Given in August 1995, the scheme targets older
repair of spalling concrete/structural cracks, the emphasis on community engagement, blocks in areas with redevelopment
replacement of waste discharge pipe, the outcomes of the NRP are more varied potential that also include available land for
replacement of pipe sockets with clothes across Singapore. Example projects include replacement housing (Lau 1998). To date, 80
drying racks and electrical load upgrades. new multi-generational playgrounds, sign sites consisting of about 40,000 sold flats
Optional Improvements included upgrading of upgrades and walkways at Ang Mio Kio across Singapore have been announced for
bathrooms/toilets, replacement of main doors, (Council 2013), or outdoor stages, public SERS—a relatively small figure that reflects
grill gate and refuse chute hopper, ramps to spaces, and sheltered walkways at Braddell the selective nature of the programme. Blocks
negotiate level differences in the flat and/or Heights (Committee 2016). selected for the programme are acquired
at the main entrance, grab bars within the flat, under the Land Acquisition Act, and flat
and slip-resistant treatment to floor tiles of The most recently enacted programme, owners are given market compensation for
bathrooms/toilets. Another mobility-oriented Remaking Our Heartland (ROH), was their existing flats. SERS flat owners will be
improvement project began in 2001, with the announced in 2007. Besides upgrading given assured allocation of new replacement
introduction of the Lift Upgrading Programme of individual housing precincts carried flats with a fresh 99-year lease. The
(LUP). This project provided lift access to out on specific sites of a certain age, the replacement flats are sold at subsidized prices
every floor of HDB blocks, rather than to ROH programme focuses on renewing and that are frozen at the time of announcement.
every second or fourth floor, as was the case remaking the HDB heartlands on a town- This provides SERS flat owners with more
in earlier designs. The LUP also required a level to transform HDB towns into distinctive certainty, as the selling prices will not change
75% majority support before implementation, and endearing homes for Singaporeans due to future market movements. Once SERS
with Singapore Citizen flat owners paying up while meeting the ever-changing needs of a flat owners have selected their replacement
to SG$3,000 towards the costs. The Interim diverse community. Depending on the age of flats, surplus flats will be released for sale to
Upgrading Programme Plus (IUP Plus) was the towns/estates, the plans will be tailored the general public.
introduced in May 2002. It was a combination to suit the needs of the selected towns with
of the IUP and the LUP. With this combined the aim to realise (young estates), rejuvenate SERS contrasts with other post-1990 housing
programme, HDB flat owners did not have (middle-aged estates), and regenerate upgrading programmes because the
to wait for two separate programmes which (mature estates). These proposals included decision to redevelop these blocks rests
were carried out at different times. More flat opportunities to rejuvenate the existing town with the Government, rather than being
owners could benefit from then an earlier lift centre, provide more facilities for recreation voted by residents (Eng and Kong 1997). The
upgrading and enjoy the benefits of interim and leisure, inject new housing developments redevelopment of older housing blocks is
precinct upgrading as well. and improve existing connectivity. This large- contextually necessary, given Singapore’s
scale rejuvenation of HDB towns uses citizen spatial constraints and the associated need

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 65


to optimize and coordinate land use across towers that are somewhat larger than Dawson) that provide new forms of public
the country. HDB’s surveys of SERS residents standard HDB flats, and that give owners the housing for modern consumers. Yishun is
show strong satisfaction with the programme. prestige of living in private property while still a middle-aged town, and is an example of
Beyond the objectives of optimizing land use having access to the public amenities of HDB how the use of environmental features can
and rejuvenating old HDB estates, another estates (Eng and Kong 1997: 448). Whereas provide an enriched experience for senior
desired outcome of SERS is to retain existing the infiltration of public-private developments residents. The Yishun case is also illustrative
community ties built over the years even as into Singapore’s housing estates could be of the blending of residential and commercial
residents are relocated to their new homes. criticized as diluting the overall precepts upgrades, as these changes are often
SERS residents have expressed satisfaction of Singapore’s public housing system, Pow planned to occur in unison. The Bedok case
that the scheme enables them to remain in argues that the Singapore government has was selected to illustrate a mature estate that
their own neighborhoods throughout the introduced this style of housing in a cautious has undergone various upgrading through
SERS process, hence preserving the sense of manner, providing some capacity for private the NRP and MUP programs. Bedok is part
place and community that the residents value developers to meet the shifting aspirations of a larger East Coast area that has also
(HDB 2013). of Singapore’s upper-middle classes, yet in been selected under the 2nd phase of the
a manner that also legitimizes the role of the ROH programme and it illustrates how public
The executive condominiums in Singapore state in guiding housing options within the consultation process was adopted to ensure
represent a different form of housing that country (Pow, 2009). that plans were relevant to the residents. All
have emerged since 1990. Introduced in three case examples share characteristics
1995 during the period of high property with the many towns across Singapore that
prices, the Executive Condominium 2. Upgrading in Action have undergone the ROH, NRP and MUP
Housing Scheme (ECHS) provided a form programmes. However, these case studies
of affordable private housing to cater to the While Singapore’s housing system is also attempt to display that the various
aspirations of young professional/graduate predicated on its unique social and political improvement programmes and proposals are
first-timer households who could not afford system, aspects of the estate renewal tailored to the site context and needs of each
a private home. The executive condominium programmes could feasibly be implemented town/estate, rather than being implemented
programme is a public-private partnership, by other housing systems. The case studies without sensitivity to context.
where the government tenders land to provided here (Yishun, Queenstown, and
property developers who design, construct, Bedok—see Table 9 for population counts
and finance the properties (Phang 2001). by housing type for the Planning Areas that
Features of the executive condominium contain these towns) show different stages
developments include 24-hour security of the renewal process and indicate what
services, club houses, swimming pools, renewal policies could be adopted by other
and other markers of private prestige (Pow, housing systems. Yishun, and the Dawson
The Bedok case
2009, 219). In addition, as private housing, Estate in Queenstown were chosen because was selected to
executive condominiums are exempt from the they were all first-phase entrants in the illustrate a mature
ethnic quotas that characterize Singapore’s Remaking our Heartland (ROH) programme, estate that has
housing policies (Pow 2009). New EC units enacted in 2007. Queenstown is the oldest undergone various
are sold with initial eligibility and ownership satellite town in Singapore and is an example
upgrading through
restrictions similar to public housing, but of how the Dawson estate was transformed
at a higher income ceiling. The ownership with the introduction of new generation
the NRP and MUP
restrictions for ECs are relaxed in phases at housing developments. The completed programs
5- and 10-year intervals after the Temporary housing developments in Dawson estate
Occupation Permit for the project is attained. are ‘Build To Order’ (BTO) developments
The programme provides condominium (i.e. SkyVille @ Dawson and SkyTerrace @

66 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


Table 9: Bedok, Punggol & Yishun Population & Housing Type

HDB Dwellings

Condominiums and Landed


Total--Bedok 1- and 2- 5-Room and Others
Total 3-Room 4-Room Other Apartments Properties
Room Executive
HDB Flats Flats
Flats Flats

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

Total-- Condominiums and Landed


1- and 2- 5-Room and Others
Queenstown Total 3-Room 4-Room Other Apartments Properties
Room Executive
HDB Flats Flats
Flats Flats

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

Condominiums and Landed


Total--Yishun 1- and 2- 5-Room and Others
Total 3-Room 4-Room Other Apartments Properties
Room Executive
HDB Flats Flats
Flats Flats

2000 177,210 171,780 80 38,180 92,930 40,590 1,500 3,000 930

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 67


Case Study 1: Yishun

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.

68 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


1. 2.

3.

1. Figure 6: Yishun Pond (Photo by author)


2. Figure 7: Upgraded Playgrounds at Yishun 2 (Photo by author)
3. Figure 8: Chong Pang City (Photo by author)

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 69


Case Study 2: Bedok

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

70 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


and installing vertical gardens, as well as street furniture and were provided at various key implementation milestones via
lighting. The goal of these initiatives is to establish and identify exhibitions and events. This included an exhibition in 2012 to
the unique character that exists within each neighborhood (HDB update residents on the rejuvenation plans for the Bedok Town
2015). Centre and to mark the ground-breaking ceremony for the
new Bedok Interchange Hawker Centre, and another round
When the ROH plans for East Coast were unveiled in 2011, of public exhibition in 2015 dovetailed with the celebration of
an exhibition was held to invite feedback from the residents/ the completion of the Bedok Interchange hawker centre. Such
public via a survey to gather public sentiments on the proposals. engagement efforts have helped to sustain public’s involvement
Where necessary, the proposals were refined to incorporate and interest, and to ensure that plans developed earlier were still
public’s feedback. Subsequently, progressive public updates relevant to residents and stakeholders.

Figure 9: Bedok Heritage Corner (photo by author) Figure 10: Bedok Pedestrian Mall (photo by author)

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 71


Bedok has benefitted from various upgrading programmes over connections to the past. The Heritage Trail and the Heritage
the last thirty years. The work by the MND and agencies has Corner allow this history to become a part of the newer
spurned regeneration, or new life and growth, within the town. structures. The approach to allow community involvement as
The upgrading programmes have improved the quality of life part of the plans is a major influence on the success of the
of the residents, and given them incentives to stay, while also town.
attracting new families to move into the town with its modern
amenities. The old and new flow together to create a unique The regeneration of Bedok, a mature town, shows the benefits
experience within Bedok that honors the history and heritage, of a highly functioning public housing institution. Bedok
while still responding to existing needs and pressures. provides insight on how the housing system to continues
to sustain itself and address the needs of its population. It
The success of upgrading programmes in Bedok is largely due implements programmes and schemes that focus on the long-
to the government’s ability to accurately incorporate community term livelihood of the community and reflects the changing
input and define goals for the community. It was evident upon aspirations of the systems. Upgrading programmes provide
visiting Bedok that the town is well established and thriving. opportunities to attract younger generations to established
HDB upgrading programmes have successfully integrated older estates. The initiatives in Bedok, as well as other national
aspects of the town to newer additions and redevelopments. initiatives have allowed for the population in the town to remain
Calculated steps have been taken to address the needs of relatively constant, and incredibly diverse. Rather than fade with
its population in a variety of ways, including improvements to an ageing population, Bedok continues to be reborn to meet
the hardware to increase accessibility for all, and bringing in the needs of younger Singaporeans, while also making life
new commercial infrastructure and other facilities to continue more accessible and connected for older generations. Although
attracting younger households to the area, while providing Bedok is a mature town, it continues to reflect the current
for public spaces e.g. town plaza to facilitate the building priorities of the government, including neighborhood identity
of community spirit (i.e. software). Despite the many newer and dynamic social cohesion.
developments, the projects in Bedok continue to maintain

Case Study 3: Queenstown

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

72 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


Figure 11: Skyville @ Dawson

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.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 73


3. Learning from the Singapore of demand for current and prospective Remaking our Heartland initiative or the
housing model consumers of public housing, including the Neighborhood Renewal Programme were
types of units and community amenities that envisioned or planned for at the start of
While Singapore’s system is a consequence of are sought. This information can arise from the Goh administration’s push to reinvest in
context, the HDB’s recent focus on upgrading official research as well as informal points of Singapore’s housing system. Rather, there
the existing housing supply does contain contact between the housing authority and was a learning process and a capacity for
lessons that other systems can follow (See residents. In Singapore, the latter occurs institutional adaptation that shaped upgrading
Table 10, Exporting Neighborhood Upgrading). through the Town Council and Peoples’ policies over the past twenty-five years.
Confronted with an aging housing supply and Association structures, but similar community The capacity for introspection and reflective
changing demographic conditions, the post- organizations can be developed elsewhere. modification of less successful policy is
1990 renewal programmes shared a vision of the active consequence of organizational
enhancing the quality of the built environment. Finally, the progress of Singapore’s public structure, rather than an accidental event.
This included place-making strategies that housing model over the past fifty years Therefore, it is recommended that other
accentuated the local identity of housing can give a false sense of inevitability housing systems learn from the way
estates, and that reflected a generational around the upgrading programmes that are that the HDB has developed a culture of
shift toward more active lifestyles and the currently used across the country. It is not excellence that enables the organization to
desire of senior residents to age in place. the case that present programmes like the deliver consistent results to the country’s
Table 10 defines the three general attributes
of Singapore’s upgrading programmes
that can be used in other housing systems.
Table 10: Exporting Neighborhood Upgrading
First, the Singapore programmes relied on
different forms of community engagement. Exporting Neighborhood Upgrading
The upgrading programmes provided the
opportunity for resident feedback about Vision: Enhancing Quality of Life for Public Housing Residents
the improvements that residents wanted
included in their precincts. Keeping residents Engagement Scale Demand
informed should be a universal principle
in housing redevelopment, but needs to • Maintain communication • Maintain a vertical • Think holistically
be embedded throughout the process. with residents hierarchy that about amenities that
Second, the Singapore programmes benefit establishes nested consumers will desire
• Provide upgrading priorities at every
from economies of scale. Whereas HDB options within set • Monitor shifts in
structural level (i.e.
projects are generally tendered separately, parameters determined unit, block, precinct, household composition
the HDB stages upgrading activities to beforehand neighborhood) and changing consumer
preferences for public
maximize the work of contractors, and • Provide the option to • Organize estates housing
minimize the disruption to residents. opt-in or opt-out of and blocks by age
This approach succeeds because of the upgrading schemes and other categories • Limit getting too far
to better establish ahead of the market and
intentional way that Singapore’s housing • Work within existing work within reasonable
priorities for upgrades
estates are conceived and structured, with structures to activate and renovation planning time horizons
block-precinct-neighborhood scales used to and empower local
community members • Control expenses by
organize planning about what upgrades are (i.e. Town Councils and tendering upgrading
needed in any given towns/estates. Third, the People’s Associations) contracts in proximity
programmes succeed because of a focus on to minimize disruption
• Provide subsidies for and maximize
market intelligence. This entails consistent upgrades, but require economies of scale
research about the changing patterns some level of payment
from residents

74 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


citizens. While this ethos has developed Whereas the Singapore system is renowned These programmes are based on principles
over an extended period, there is little in for its efficiency and lengthy commitment of engagement, scale, and research, and
the organizational structure that could not to social housing, this does not limit the can be implemented by housing authorities
be emulated elsewhere. For instance, the transferability of certain principles into other that similarly seek to enhance the physical
HDB includes groups that conduct research, contexts. Singapore’s housing model has environment of their properties.
data monitoring, and experimentation. In the adapted as the needs and aspirations of its
context of housing upgrading programmes, citizens have changed, and as the country
such monitoring and evaluation enables the has matured. The current focus of the HDB
country’s public housing stock to remain and MND is now on creating highly attractive
viable for future generations. spaces for the next generation of residents.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 75


References

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

seen the percentage of the population living 80 87 86 86


83 82 82
81
in public housing grow from 2.8% and peaking 70

at 87% before tapering to 82% (see Chart 6). 60 67


47
One way of understanding the relationship 50

between public housing and society is to see 40 35 Sources: Figures


obtained from Public
type of policy is possible or can be added 30
23.2 Housing in Singapore
when the level of housing provision increases 20 1975 (pages 5 and
6.9 9.1
10 2.8 9) for 1950 to 1965.
progressively to up to 82% of the local Subsequent years from
0 HDB Annual Report
population. 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016 2016/17 (page 11).

The Table which follows notes the time


period, the percent of households living in
HDB apartments, and then examines the key
policy initiatives of the period.

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.

78 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


35% in 1970 The 1970s
47% in 1975 A commitment to public housing also required more land to be released and the passing of the 1966 land acquisitions
acta52 allowed the government more leeway in assembling the land for needed for public housing53.

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”

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 79


87% in 1990 1990s
86% in 1995 By the 1990s, the public housing stock which was built in the 1960s and 1970s will have been around 20 to 30 years old.
Singapore in the 1990s had already achieved successful economic growth and housing aspirations were different.
The Main Upgrading Programme which started in 1990 was a policy initiative introduced to upgrade older public
housing flats (e.g. toilets), blocks (e.g. lifts and letter boxes) and the precincts (e.g. covered walkways, drop-off porches,
landscaped areas, etc.) (see Chapter 5). The upgrading of apartments is tied to flexible loans to help older and poorer
residents pay for the upgrading (Straits Times, 14 September 1993).

86% in 2000 2000-2009


83% in 2005
At over 80% of Singapore households being in public housing, the housing needs question has been settled and the
attention is on quality. The Main Upgrading Programme was replaced by the Home Improvement Programme and the
Neighbourhood Renewal Programme in 2007 in response to calls for greater flexibility in the provision of improvements
and more consultation with residents.

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.

82% in 2010 2010 to 2016


82% in 2016
The density and increased heterogeneity of public housing estates have a potential for neighbourly disputes over
common spaces, noise, litter and smells. Community Dispute Resolution Tribunals were introduced in 2015 to handle
mandated mediation if the community grassroot leader and the community mediation center are unable to resolve
neighbourly disputes informally.

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).

The Singapore model of public housing


is unique among countries with public
housing systems in terms of the proportion
of residents residing in public housing and
in terms of its focus on home ownership of
public housing flats. Chart 1 shows the rapid
growth in Singapore’s public housing system.
In 1960, when the HDB took over from the SIT,
9.1% of Singaporeans lived in public housing.
Within thirty years, this figure has increased
to 87% in 1990. This accomplishment allows
us to answer three important questions about
housing and society.

80 HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE


1. How Can Public Housing The public housing system allows the 3. Can Public Housing Keep
Be Part of the Social Welfare government to create ethnic residential Pace with the Changing
Infrastructure? mixing at the level of allocation of new flats Aspirations of Society?
by ensuring different ethnic households live
This is one of the most basic issues for many together. The ethnic mixing allocation policy This is a question about how the public
societies to consider, that of helping the also backed up by the practice of establishing housing system can keep pace with
poorest segments of society in a concrete ethnic quotas in resale flats that prevent the changing needs and lifestyles of
and sustainable way. One of the problems ethnic enclaves from forming (see Chapter Singaporeans. The Singapore Improvement
of the urban poor has been that of ensuring 3). The strategy of ensuring apartments of Trust formed in 1927 managed urban
stable housing arrangements. The first different sizes to be co-located within the improvements and gradually assumed
generation of public housing flats in the 1960s same estate enables social mixing across housing construction and by 1960 when it
was focused on housing provision for the class lines. At the grassroots, community clubs handled the housing provision role to the
neediest of housing classes. These were built and resident committees work to promote Housing and Development Board, 9.1% of
at low cost and the rents were subsidized. neighbouring and social mixing (see Table 8, the households in Singapore lived in SIT
The rental subsidy has been maintained in Chapter 4). rental flats. The focus of urban and housing
subsequent decades (see Table 1, Chapter 2). policies was on managing the problem of a
The development of family service centers Singapore as a global city and city state is highly congested and unsanitary inner city
and senior activity centers within HDB blocks highly diverse and has grown in diversity residential environment and on providing low
bring services to the doorsteps of those who with new immigrants taking citizenship as cost affordable housing (see Chapter 1). As
need them most (see Table 8, Chapter 4). immigration is seen as a way of coping the scale of urban poverty declined through
with an aging population. A new grassroots decades of economic growth in the 1970s,
network is working at the local level to ensure 1980s and 1990s, the shift changed to the
2. Can Public Housing Create the integration of new migrants and at the home ownership scheme, neighbourhood
an Undivided, Inclusive and same time is open to allowing a multicultural and town planning of amenities and facilities.
Cohesive Society? approach by allowing new migrants to In more recent years, the neighbourhood
practise their culture. renewal and home improvement programmes
This question can only be answered when represent ongoing efforts to upgrade the
the public housing system has grown to a And as Singapore becomes an aging society, older housing estates and keep the public
level where it houses a significant proportion developing new ways of having the elderly housing system in line with the changing
of the local population. Thus, in 1975 when stay with or close to their married children aspirations of Singaporeans (see Chapter
47% of Singapore households living in public within the public housing system becomes 5). The shift to focus on home ownership
housing, policies which are enacted within a way of keeping the family and inter- has also meant an emphasis on improving
the public housing system has the ability generational ties intact. building and apartment designs, well
to impact a significant share of Singapore amenitied neighbourhoods and town centers
society, certainly the urban poor, working which combine educational, recreational,
class and low middle-class segments. shopping and sports facilities linked by good
public transport.

HOUSING PRACTICE SERIES - SINGAPORE 81


References

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

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME


P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
unhabitat-info@un.org
www.unhabitat.org

@UNHABITAT

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy