Profile of HDB Population

Published by Housing and Development Board HDB Hub 480 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh Singapore 310480

Research Team Goh Li Ping (Team Leader) William Lim Teong Wee Tan Hui Fang Wu Juan Juan Tan Tze Hui Lim E-Farn Fiona Lee Yiling Sangeetha D/O Panearselvan Amy Wong Jin Ying Esther Chua Jia Ping Phay Huai Yu Ian Lim Wei Wendy Li Xin Quek Xin Ping Cherie Lin Xinyi Max Chan Weng Kin Goh Pei Xuan Alysia Wee Wan Ting

Advisor: Dr Chong Fook Loong

Research Advisory Panel: Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser Associate Professor Pow Choon Piew Associate Professor Kang Soon Hock Associate Professor Nicholas Hon Hsueh Hsien Dr Ong Qiyan

We also wish to acknowledge with thanks: • Dr. Lai Ah Eng for her guidance in the initial phase of the survey • Yvonne Tan Ci En, Tan Hwee Koon, Nur Asykin Ramli, Paveena Seah Chia Shih and Michelle Fong Jing Ting for their contributions to the survey

Published Feb 2021 All information is correct at the time of printing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording without the written permission of the Housing and Development Board. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.

ISBN 978-981-14-9468-0

PUBLIC HOUSING IN SINGAPORE: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

HDB Sample Household Survey 2018

FOREWORD

HDB has strived to provide a holistic living environment for HDB residents as well as serve the many who use facilities in HDB towns. This is achieved by delivering good homes in the form of affordable public housing and well-planned towns; putting people at the centre of every plan and policy. A key to better homes is undoubtedly developing a keen understanding of the people for whom we are building. As HDB celebrates its 60th anniversary, it is timely to take stock of our efforts and to obtain our residents’ feedback so as to continue to do better.

An important barometer of our residents’ sentiments is the Sample Household Survey (SHS). First launched in 1968, SHS 2018 is the 11th in a series of large- scale surveys carried out every five years. SHS 2018 covered close to 8,000 HDB households across all towns/estates and flat types. The SHS has made trend analysis possible and has provided insights on residents’ views on HDB living. The findings serve as important inputs for policy reviews and improvements to the living environment.

While HDB has made significant transformation to public housing, many dynamic changes continue to take place. Aspirational desires for quality living will take new shape. There are shifts in emphasis towards community-centric and liveability issues. All these will have an impact on the physical and social landscape. SHS 2018 provided residents with a platform to share their HDB living experience from the design of their flats, ease of accessibility, to the strength of community ties. The survey also explored new evolving aspects like online shopping and unique places in their towns that hold special memories.

The SHS 2018 findings have shown an improvement in satisfaction with the HDB living environment from 2013. Besides affirming HDB policies, the findings also lent support that the physical living environment is important in the building of ties, contributing to residents’ overall well-being. Gaining insights from SHS 2018, there is a greater need to engage the community to strengthen social capital and resilience, especially among the more vulnerable households. In the planning of our towns, HDB also intends to place residents’ health and wellness at the forefront. The salient findings are published in the following two monographs: i) Public Housing in Singapore: Residents' Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences; and ii) Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities & Well-Being of the Elderly.

We deeply appreciate all residents who have generously given us their time and invaluable feedback. Their responses will enable HDB to better design quality flats, meaningful communal spaces and formulate new strategies to deepen residents’ sense of belonging to their towns.

Dr. Cheong Koon Hean Chief Executive Officer Housing & Development Board

Contents Page

FOREWORD i CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF CHARTS x KEY INDICATORS xiv GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS xxi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Objectives 4 1.3 Sampling Design 4 1.4 Outline of Monograph 5

PART 1 PROFILE OF HDB POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS 9 Chapter 2 Profile of HDB Population 17 2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident Population 17 2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population 33 2.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population 45 2.3.1 Demographic Characteristics 45 2.3.2 Economic Characteristics 55 2.4 Summary of Findings 59

Chapter 3 Profile of HDB Households 65 3.1 Demographic Characteristics of HDB Households 65 3.2 Household Composition 71 3.3 Summary of Findings 88

PART 1 CONCLUSION 91

iii

Contents Page

PART 2 HOUSING SATISFACTION AND PREFERENCES 95 Chapter 4 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment 103 4.1 Sense of Pride and Value for Money 103 4.2 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood 107 4.3 Satisfaction with HDB Physical Living Environment 112 4.4 Summary of Findings 116

Chapter 5 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities 123 5.1 Satisfaction with Estate Facilities 123 5.2 Usage of Estate Facilities 131 5.3 Online Purchase 140 5.4 Places in Estate where Residents Usually Spend their Time 143 5.5 Summary of Findings 145

Chapter 6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations 151 6.1 Past Residential Mobility 151 6.2 Intention to Move within Next Five Years 159 6.3 Housing Aspirations 169 6.4 Preferred Housing Type when Old 173 6.5 Summary of Findings 175

Chapter 7 Transport and Travel Patterns 181 7.1 Place of Work 181 7.2 Travel Modes to Work 187 7.3 Travel Time to Work 191 7.4 Departure Time to Work 193 7.5 Place of School 193 7.6 Travel Modes to School 195 7.7 Travel Time to School 197 7.8 Departure Time to School 198 7.9 Maximum Time Willing to Travel 199 7.10 Ownership of Motor Vehicles 203 7.11 Ownership of Mobility Devices 206 7.12 Summary of Findings 208

PART 2 CONCLUSION 213

List of Tables Page

Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population ...... 18 with Owner/Registered Tenant

Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Flat Type and Year ...... 19

Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year ...... 20

Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Age and Year ...... 21

Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age, Sex and Year ...... 22

Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age, Ethnic Group and Year ...... 23

Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age, Flat Type and Year ...... 25

Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age and Town/Estate ...... 26

Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year ...... 28

Table 2.10 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year ...... 28

Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Flat Type, ...... 30 Ethnic Group and Year

Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ...... 31 by Marital Status and Year

Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ...... 31 by Marital Status and Sex

Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ...... 32 by Religion

Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ...... 33 by Religion and Age

Table 2.16 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ...... 39 and Above by Education Level and Year

Table 2.17 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ...... 40 and Above by Education Level, Age and Year

Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ...... 40 and Above by Education Level, Sex and Year

Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ...... 41 and Above by Occupation and Year

Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ...... 43 and Above by Occupation, Age and Year

Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ...... 44 and Above by Occupation, Sex and Year

Table 2.22 Role and Relationship with Owner/Registered Tenant ...... 47 of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population

Table 2.23 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 48 by Age, Sex and Year

Table 2.24 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 50 by Town/Estate and Year

List of Tables Page

Table 2.25 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 51 by Tenure and Flat Type and Year

Table 2.26 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 52 by Ethnic Group and Year

Table 2.27 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 53 by Marital Status, Sex and Year

Table 2.28 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 54 by Ambulant Status and Year

Table 2.29 HDB Elderly Resident Population by Ambulant Status ...... 54 and Age

Table 2.30 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 55 by Labour Force Status and Year

Table 2.31 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ...... 57 by Labour Force Status, Sex and Year

Table 2.32 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population ...... 58 by Education Level and Year

Table 2.33 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population ...... 59 by Occupation and Year

Table 3.1 HDB Households by Flat Type, Tenure and Year ...... 66

Table 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure, Ethnic Group of ...... 68 Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.3 HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of ...... 68 Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.4 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type ...... 70

Table 3.5 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year ...... 72

Table 3.6 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Tenure ...... 72 and Year

Table 3.7 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type ...... 74 and Year

Table 3.8 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Ethnic Group ...... 75 of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.9 HDB Households by Number of Generations and Year ...... 76

Table 3.10 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Flat Type ...... 78 and Year

Table 3.11 HDB Households by Number of Generations, ...... 78 Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.12 Attributes of One-Person Households ...... 80

Table 3.13 HDB Households by Household Size, Flat Type and Year ...... 83

Table 3.14 HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of ...... 84 Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

List of Tables Page

Table 3.15 HDB Households by Household Size, Type of ...... 85 Family Nucleus and Year

Table 3.16 Mean and Median HDB Household Size ...... 87 by Town/Estate and Year

Table 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year ...... 108

Table 4.2 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood among HDB Households ...... 112 by Sense of Belonging to Town/Estate

Table 4.3 Aspects of HDB Physical Living Environment ...... 113

Table 4.4 Whether HDB Households Recycle Regularly ...... 116

Table 4.5 Recycling Methods of HDB Households who ...... 116 Recycled Regularly

Table 5.1 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year ...... 125

Table 5.2 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Flat Type ...... 127

Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities ...... 129 by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 5.4 Frequency of Usage of Estate Facilities ...... 131

Table 5.5 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week ...... 134 by Types of Estate Facilities and Flat Type

Table 5.6 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week ...... 136 by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 5.7 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week ...... 139 by Types of Estate Facilities and Year

Table 5.8 Proportion of HDB Households who Made Online Purchase ...... 140 through Websites or Mobile Applications over Past Twelve Months

Table 5.9 HDB Households who Made Online Purchase through ...... 141 Websites or Mobile Applications by Attributes

Table 5.10 Types of Products Bought Online and Whether Patronise ...... 142 HDB Shop Less Often Due to Online Shopping

Table 5.11 Places where HDB Households Usually Spend Their ...... 144 Time in Estate by Year

Table 6.1 First Housing Type Lived in since Marriage among ...... 152 Married/Ever-Married Households by Age

Table 6.2 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among Married/ . 154 Ever-Married Households by Resident Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households ...... 156 by Age at Point of Move

Table 6.4 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat among Married/ ...... 157 Ever-Married Households by Type of Move

vii

List of Tables Page

Table 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB ...... 161 Households by Flat Type

Table 6.6 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB ...... 161 Households by Age

Table 6.7 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB ...... 162 Households by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.8 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended ...... 164 to Move by Present Flat Type

Table 6.9 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended ...... 165 to Move by Age

Table 6.10 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended ...... 166 to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.11 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended ...... 168 to Move by Age

Table 6.12 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended ...... 168 to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.13 Housing Type Content with by Age ...... 172

Table 7.1 Proportion of Employed HDB Resident Population ...... 182

Table 7.2 Location of Work Place of Employed HDB Resident ...... 183 Population by Place of Residence (Region)

Table 7.3 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population ...... 184

Table 7.4 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population by ...... 186 Attributes

Table 7.5 Number of Transport Modes to Work among Employed ...... 188 HDB Resident Population

Table 7.6 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among Employed HDB ...... 189 Resident Population

Table 7.7 Transport Mode to Work of Employed HDB Resident...... 189 Population

Table 7.8 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to Work of Employed ...... 190 HDB Resident Population

Table 7.9 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Work of Employed ...... 191 HDB Resident Population

Table 7.10 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Residence of ...... 192 Employed HDB Resident Population

Table 7.11 Median Travel Time to Work of Employed HDB Resident ...... 192 Population by Type of Transport Mode to Work

Table 7.12 Proportion of HDB Resident Population in School ...... 193

Table 7.13 Place of School of HDB Resident Population in School ...... 194 by Education Level

viii

List of Tables Page

Table 7.14 Number of Transport Modes to School among HDB ...... 195 Resident Population in School

Table 7.15 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among HDB Resident ...... 195 Population in School

Table 7.16 Transport Mode to School of HDB Resident Population ...... 196 in School

Table 7.17 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to School of HDB ...... 197 Resident Population in School

Table 7.18 Travel Time to School of HDB Resident Population in ...... 198 School by Education Level

Table 7.19 Maximum Time Employed HDB Households were Willing ...... 200 to Travel to Work

Table 7.20 Actual Travel Time Compared with Maximum Time ...... 200 Employed HDB Households were Willing to Travel

Table 7.21 Actual Travel Time of Employed Households Compared ...... 202 with Maximum Time Willing to Travel by Attributes

Table 7.22 Car Ownership among HDB Households by ...... 204 Attributes

Table 7.23 Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five Years among ...... 205 HDB Households

Table 7.24 Reasons for Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five ...... 206 Years among HDB Households

Table 7.25 Number of Bicycles Owned among HDB Households ...... 207

Table 7.26 Ownership of Personal Mobility Aids in Households with...... 208 At Least One Non-Ambulant Member

List of Charts Page

Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year ...... 17

Chart 2.2 Labour Force Status of HDB Resident Population by Year ...... 34

Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident ...... 34 Population by Sex and Year

Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate of ...... 35 HDB Resident Population by Year

Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population ...... 38 Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Sex and Year

Chart 2.6 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year .. 46

Chart 3.1 HDB Households and Growth Rate by Year ...... 65

Chart 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure and Year ...... 66

Chart 3.3 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year ...... 69

Chart 3.4 Mean HDB Household Size by Year ...... 81

Chart 4.1 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year ...... 104

Chart 4.2 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year ...... 104

Chart 4.3 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Length of Residence ...... 105

Chart 4.4 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Tenure and Year ...... 106

Chart 4.5 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year ...... 106

Chart 4.6 Satisfaction with Flat by Year ...... 107

Chart 4.7 Satisfaction with Flat by Age ...... 109

Chart 4.8 Satisfaction with Flat by Length of Residence ...... 109

Chart 4.9 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year ...... 110

Chart 4.10 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Flat Type ...... 110

Chart 4.11 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Age ...... 111

Chart 4.12 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Length of Residence ...... 111

Chart 4.13 Satisfaction with Various Aspects of ...... 114 HDB Physical Living Environment

Chart 4.14 Proportion of HDB Households who Perceived Lifts ...... 115 to be Reliable by Year

Chart 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Estate Facilities by Year ...... 124

Chart 6.1 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among ...... 153 Married/Ever-Married Households

Chart 6.2 Average Length of Residence in Previous Housing Unit ...... 154 among Married/Ever-Married Households by Year

Chart 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households ...... 155 by Year

List of Charts Page

Chart 6.4 Extent of Geographical Move of Married/Ever-Married ...... 159 Households by Present Town/Estate

Chart 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Year ...... 160

Chart 6.6 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year ...... 163

Chart 6.7 Type of Potential Move by Year ...... 167

Chart 6.8 Housing Aspirations by Year...... 170

Chart 6.9 Housing Aspirations by Age ...... 170

Chart 6.10 Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year ...... 171

Chart 6.11 Housing Type Content with by Year ...... 172

Chart 6.12 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age ...... 173

Chart 6.13 Housing Preference for Old Age by Age ...... 174

Chart 7.1 Departure Time to Work ...... 193

Chart 7.2 Departure Time to School of HDB Resident Population ...... 199 in School

Chart 7.3 Motor Vehicle Ownership by Year ...... 203

Chart 7.4 Ownership of Mobility Devices ...... 207

Key Indicators

Key Indicators of HDB Population by Ethnic Group (2013 & 2018)

Total Chinese Malay Indian Others

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Demographic Characteristics

Resident Population (‘000) 3,058 3,039 2,248 2,206 476 493 272 272 62 68 (Excluding tenants) (%) 100.0 100.0 73.5 72.6 15.6 16.2 8.9 9.0 2.0 2.2

Sex (%) Male 48.8 48.9 49.1 48.9 48.0 49.7 49.2 49.2 42.2 41.1 Female 51.2 51.1 50.9 51.1 52.0 50.3 50.8 50.8 57.8 58.9

Mean Age (Years) 37.9 41.3 39.5 43.1 33.7 35.7 33.2 37.6 32.5 37.5 Median Age (Years) 39 42 40 44 31 33 34 38 34 39

Persons Aged Below 15 Years (%) 16.7 14.3 15.1 12.9 19.9 19.0 23.2 17.2 23.0 15.0 Persons Aged 15-64 Years (%) 72.3 69.2 72.3 68.0 73.1 71.7 70.9 71.7 72.8 76.8 Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%) 11.0 16.5 12.6 19.1 7.0 9.3 5.9 11.1 4.2 8.2

Flat Type (%) 1-Room 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.4 2.9 3.5 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.3 2-Room 2.8 3.6 1.9 2.3 6.3 8.5 3.7 5.0 2.1 2.2 3-Room 19.3 18.2 19.3 18.0 19.8 18.1 19.1 19.9 17.4 19.4 4-Room 41.1 42.1 41.2 42.4 41.6 42.1 39.6 40.6 39.9 39.0 5-Room 26.6 26.5 27.6 27.9 22.0 20.8 25.9 24.2 28.0 30.2 Executive 8.6 7.8 8.8 8.0 7.4 7.0 9.5 7.9 10.0 7.9

Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)

Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000) 2,543 2,603 1,907 1,920 380 400 209 225 48 58

Sex (%) Male 48.4 48.3 48.7 48.5 47.8 49.1 48.7 48.3 41.4 39.3 Female 51.6 51.7 51.3 51.5 52.2 50.9 51.3 51.7 58.6 60.7

Labour Force (‘000) 1,649 1,672 1,246 1,238 236 248 133 146 33 40

Employed 1,583 1,593 1,202 1,182 222 234 126 138 32 39 Unemployed 66 79 44 57 14 14 7 8 1 1

Labour Force Participation Rate (%) 64.9 64.3 65.5 64.6 62.4 62.1 64.0 64.9 69.5 68.9 (LFPR) Male LFPR 74.6 72.6 73.7 71.1 76.0 76.2 80.7 77.2 79.5 79.1 Female LFPR 55.8 56.6 57.8 58.4 50.0 48.5 48.0 53.5 62.5 62.3

xiv

Key Indicators of HDB Population by Flat Type (2013 & 2018)

Total 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Demographic Characteristics

Resident Population (‘000) 3,058 3,039 48 56 85 108 592 553 1,256 1,279 813 806 264 237 (Excluding tenants) (%) 100.0 100.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 3.6 19.3 18.2 41.1 42.1 26.6 26.5 8.6 7.8

Sex (%) Male 48.8 48.9 52.4 51.5 47.7 50.0 47.9 48.0 48.9 48.6 48.8 49.5 49.8 48.9 Female 51.2 51.1 47.6 48.5 52.3 50.0 52.1 52.0 51.1 51.4 51.2 50.5 50.2 51.1

Mean Age (Years) 37.9 41.3 49.9 53.0 40.5 43.1 42.7 47.0 37.2 39.8 35.3 39.1 35.2 39.8 Median Age (Years) 39 42 55 60 44 46 45 50 37 40 36 39 36 41

Persons Aged Below 15 Years (%) 16.7 14.3 9.6 8.4 18.5 16.6 12.5 9.8 16.4 15.2 19.9 16.5 19.0 13.4 Persons Aged 15–64 Years (%) 72.3 69.2 58.6 53.6 62.2 60.6 70.3 65.6 74.1 70.7 72.3 70.0 73.6 73.1 Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%) 11.0 16.5 31.8 38.0 19.3 22.8 17.2 24.6 9.5 14.1 7.8 13.5 7.4 13.5

Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)

Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000) 2,543 2,603 43 51 69 90 518 499 1,050 1,084 650 673 213 205

Sex (%) Male 48.4 48.3 53.6 51.5 46.9 49.5 47.5 47.2 48.6 48.1 48.6 49.1 49.0 48.6 Female 51.6 51.7 46.4 48.5 53.1 50.5 52.5 52.8 51.4 51.9 51.4 50.9 51.0 51.4

Labour Force (‘000) 1,649 1,672 23 25 41 49 332 309 697 722 423 437 133 129

Employed 1,583 1,593 21 22 37 44 318 292 669 692 411 419 128 123 Unemployed 66 79 2 3 4 5 14 17 28 30 12 18 5 6

Labour Force Participation Rate (%) 64.9 64.3 52.8 50.5 59.7 53.9 64.2 62.0 66.6 66.7 65.3 65.0 62.6 63.1 (LFPR) Male LFPR 74.6 72.6 63.0 57.4 68.3 65.0 74.0 71.0 76.5 75.1 75.3 72.8 70.9 69.7 Female LFPR 55.8 56.6 41.1 43.4 46.3 43.1 55.4 54.0 57.2 58.9 55.9 57.5 54.5 56.8

Key Indicators of HDB Households by Ethnic Group (2013 & 2018)

Total Chinese Malay Indian Others

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Demographic Characteristics

Total Number of Households 908,499 1,013,542 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409

Type of Family Nucleus (%)

Nuclear Family 76.3 75.6 76.6 74.9 72.5 75.7 79.7 82.6 80.8 70.9 Extended Nuclear Family 8.3 6.4 7.9 6.0 10.6 8.9 8.3 4.2 7.5 15.6 Multi-Nuclear Family 6.2 4.6 5.4 4.0 11.2 7.8 6.1 5.3 6.4 -* Non-Family Based Households 9.2 13.5 10.1 15.1 5.7 7.5 5.9 7.9 5.3 11.4

Household Size (%)

1 Person 8.4 12.6 9.3 14.3 5.3 6.8 5.0 6.9 4.8 9.1 2 Persons 20.4 25.7 22.1 27.0 12.0 21.6 18.4 22.0 16.1 18.5 3 Persons 23.6 23.0 24.7 24.0 18.4 18.3 21.8 21.8 25.2 21.4 4 Persons 26.7 23.6 26.9 22.6 20.4 22.2 33.4 33.8 30.7 27.2 5 Persons 13.5 10.0 12.1 8.7 21.7 16.4 13.6 9.8 13.6 19.8 6 or More Persons 7.4 5.0 4.9 3.4 22.2 14.6 7.8 5.6 9.6 4.0

Mean Household Size (Persons) 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.0 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 Median Household Size (Persons) 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3

Flat Type (%)

1-Room 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.5 5.1 5.9 3.5 3.3 2.5 1.3 2-Room 3.8 4.4 3.0 3.5 7.8 9.2 4.5 5.7 3.5 2.3 3-Room 23.8 22.9 24.2 23.0 22.5 22.3 22.6 23.4 19.9 20.7 4-Room 39.0 40.0 39.1 40.6 38.8 38.2 38.3 38.0 38.7 37.2 5-Room 23.6 23.3 24.2 24.0 19.4 18.7 23.2 22.7 28.0 30.7 Executive 7.1 6.4 7.2 6.5 6.4 5.6 7.9 6.9 7.4 7.8

* Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

xvi

Key Indicators of HDB Households by Flat Type (2013 & 2018)

Total 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Demographic Characteristics

Total Number of Households 908,499 1,013,542 24,573 30,369 34,204 44,351 216,163 232,351 354,526 405,163 214,074 236,324 64,959 64,984

Type of Family Nucleus (%) Nuclear Family 76.3 75.6 51.5 49.3 69.4 66.4 69.9 66.9 79.5 78.3 80.8 83.3 79.5 80.2 Extended Nuclear Family 8.3 6.4 3.8 2.1 3.2 4.1 6.0 4.2 9.5 7.7 9.9 6.6 7.8 9.1 Multi-Nuclear Family 6.2 4.6 1.9 -* 1.7 1.2 4.0 3.0 6.7 5.0 7.0 5.7 11.6 7.2 Non-Family Based Households 9.2 13.5 42.8 48.2 25.7 28.4 20.1 25.9 4.3 8.9 2.3 4.4 1.1 3.5

Household Size (%) 1 Person 8.4 12.6 29.2 36.5 23.7 26.9 19.1 24.8 3.9 8.7 2.3 4.0 1.1 3.4 2 Persons 20.4 25.7 51.1 49.5 32.5 31.7 27.8 32.0 18.3 23.5 13.8 21.2 10.6 17.6 3 Persons 23.6 23.0 13.4 8.5 23.6 19.5 23.6 21.7 25.4 24.7 23.7 24.2 17.9 22.2 4 Persons 26.7 23.6 3.7 2.9 11.3 12.6 18.8 13.8 29.2 27.3 32.9 30.5 36.0 28.2 5 Persons 13.5 10.0 2.1 2.1 4.5 5.3 6.9 4.7 14.9 10.9 18.0 13.4 21.8 17.9 6 or More Persons 7.4 5.0 0.5 -* 4.4 4.0 3.8 2.9 8.3 4.9 9.3 6.7 12.6 10.7

Mean Household Size (Persons) 3.4 3.1 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.6 3.3 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.8 Median Household Size (Persons) 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3

* Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

xvii

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

HDB Population

Resident population refers to Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents residing in HDB flats. They include owners/co-owners, HDB rental tenants and occupiers.

Elderly resident population refers to resident population aged 65 years old and above.

Future elderly resident population refers to resident population aged between 55 and 64 years old.

Highest Education Level Attained

Highest qualification attained refers to the highest grades or standard a person has passed or the highest level where a certificate, diploma, or degree is awarded. The Singapore Standard Educational Classification 2015 is used to classify persons by highest qualification attained. Persons aged 15 years and above who are not attending educational institutions as full-time students are classified into the following main categories:

(i) Below Secondary includes persons with no qualification (i.e., those who have never attended school, have primary education but without Primary School Leaving Examination certificate (PSLE), Certificate in Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) 1-3 or their equivalent), primary education (i.e., those who have PSLE, Certificate in BEST 4 or at least 3 Employability Skills Systems (ESS) Workplace Literacy and Numeracy (WLPN) Statements of Attainment at Level 1 or 2 or equivalent standard) or lower secondary education (i.e., those who have secondary education without a General Certificate of Education (GCE) Normal (‘N’)/Ordinary (‘O’) Level pass, Certificate in Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) 1-3, basic vocational certificates, at least 3 ESS WPLN Statements of Attainment at Level 3 or 4, or equivalent).

(ii) Secondary/Post-secondary includes persons with secondary education (i.e., those who have at least 1 GCE ‘N’/’O’ Level pass, National ITE Certificate

xxi

(Intermediate), ITE Skills Certificate (ISC), or at least 3 ESS WPLN Statements of Attainment at Level 5 and above); or post-secondary (non-tertiary) education (i.e., those who have at least 1 GCE Advanced (‘A’)/Higher 2 (‘H2’) Level pass, Nitec/Higher Nitec/Master Nitec, Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) Certificate/Higher Certificate/Advanced Certificate, International Baccalaureate/High school diploma, or other certificates/qualifications of equivalent standard).

(iii) Diploma and Professional Qualification includes persons who have polytechnic diplomas, advanced diplomas or post-diploma certificates; as well as persons who have qualifications awarded by professional bodies, or NIE diploma, ITE diploma and other diploma qualifications (e.g., SIM diploma, LASALLE diploma, NAFA diploma, WSQ diploma/specialist diploma).

(iv) Degree includes persons who have bachelor’s degree, or postgraduate diploma (including NIE postgraduate diploma), or master’s degree, or doctorate. It also includes persons with WSQ graduate certificate/graduate diploma.

Labour Force Status

Labour force refers to persons aged 15 years old and above who were either employed (i.e., working) or unemployed (i.e., actively looking for a job and available for work) at the point of survey.

Employed persons refer to persons aged 15 years old and above who, at the point of survey:

(i) worked for one hour or more either for pay or profit; or

(ii) have a job or business to return to but were temporarily absent because of illness, injury, breakdown of machinery at workplace, labour management dispute or other reasons.

Members of the Singapore Armed Forces including full-time National Servicemen were included in the persons employed, unless otherwise specified.

Unemployed persons refer to persons aged 15 years old and above who were not working but were actively looking for a job and available for work at the point of survey. They include persons who are not working but are taking steps to start their own business or taking up a new job after the survey period.

xxii

Outside the labour force refers to persons who are neither working nor unemployed at the point of survey. They also include persons before schooling- age, full-time students, homemakers, retirees, etc.

Labour force participation rate is defined as the percentage of the labour force to the population.

Tenure

Tenure of an HDB dwelling unit refers to the status of the property, which can either be sold or rental. The unit is with respect to the dwelling in which the household members live.

Rental refers to property units designated as subsidised HDB rental flats.

Sold refers to property units designated for sales. This includes households renting from HDB homeowners.

Flat Type

1-room flats include 1-room Studio Apartments.

2-room flats include 2-room Studio Apartments and 2-room Flexi flats.

Executive flats include maisonette and adjoining flats.

Households

A household is defined as an entire group of persons, who may or may not be related, living together in a housing unit. There may also be one-person households, where a person lives alone in a single housing unit. The household is equated with the housing unit and there is usually one household per housing unit. Foreign domestic workers or room tenants dwelling in the same housing unit as the owner/co-owner(s) or registered tenant do not constitute part of the household. This definition is often known as the household-dwelling unit concept.

xxiii

Type of Family Nucleus

Family-based households refer to nuclear, extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families.

Nuclear family refers to: (i) a married couple with or without children; or (ii) a family consisting of immediate related members, without the presence of a married couple, e.g., one parent only with their unmarried child(ren).

Extended nuclear family comprises a nuclear family with one or more relatives who, by themselves, do not form a nuclear family.

Multi-nuclear family refers to a family comprising two or more nuclear families.

Non-family based households refer to: (i) one-person households (i.e., a person living alone who could be single, widowed or divorced); or (ii) unrelated or distantly related persons staying together.

Number of Generations in Family-Based Household

One generation refers to households where family members are from the same generation, such as a married couple or siblings living together.

Two generations refers to households where family members are from two different generations, such as parents and children, or grandparents and grandchildren living together.

Three or more generations refers to households where family members are from three or more different generations, such as grandparents, parents and children all living together.

Note: Non-family based households are excluded.

xxiv

Resident Life Cycle Stage

For resident life cycle stage, the respondent is used as the reference point:

A family without children refers to a couple without children.

A family with young children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged 12 years old and below.

A family with teenaged children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged between 13 and 20 years old.

A family with unmarried grown-up children refers to a family in which the eldest unmarried child is aged 21 years old and above.

A family with married children refers to a family with at least one married child.

Non-family refers to a single person, a divorced/separated or widowed person without children.

Household Life Cycle Stage

For household life cycle stage, the oldest member living in the household is used as the reference point:

A family with young children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged 12 years old and below.

A family with teenaged children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged between 13 and 20 years old.

A family with unmarried grown-up children refers to a family in which the eldest unmarried child is aged 21 years old and above.

An elderly couple living alone refers to a married couple with at least one spouse aged 65 years old and above.

A non-family household refers to: (i) a one-person household (i.e., a person living alone who could be single, widowed or divorced/separated); or (ii) unrelated, siblings or distantly related persons living together.

xxv

Categories of Towns

Mature Towns/Estates refer to towns and estates that were developed before the 1980s. Most flats in these towns were built before the 1980s.

Middle-Aged Towns/Estate refer to towns and estate that were developed in the 1980s. Most flats in these towns were built in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Young Towns refer to towns that were developed in the 1990s, where development is ongoing.

Towns and Estates by Category

Mature Towns/Estates Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Young Towns

1. Queenstown 1. Bukit Batok 1. Punggol 2. Bukit Merah 2. Bukit Panjang 2. Sengkang 3. Toa Payoh 3. Choa Chu Kang 3. Sembawang 4. Ang Mo Kio 4. Jurong East 5. Bedok 5. Jurong West 6. Clementi 6. Bishan 7. Kallang/Whampoa 7. Hougang 8. Geylang 8. Serangoon Estates: 9. Tampines 1. Marine Parade 10. Pasir Ris 2. Central Area* 11. Woodlands 12. Yishun Estate: 1. Bukit Timah * Covering areas such as Tanjong Pagar Plaza, Cantonment Road, Jalan Kukoh, Chin Swee Road, York Hill, Upper Cross Street, Sago Lane, Selegie Road

xxvi

Introduction

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

HDB has conducted Sample Household Surveys (SHSs) of residents living in HDB flats since 1968, at intervals of five years. SHS 2018 is the eleventh survey in the series. It contains a comprehensive range of topics and is an in-depth survey of both physical and social aspects of public housing in Singapore. These large-scale surveys with their historical continuity have facilitated trend analysis over time, even as the research coverage of the SHS changes over time to reflect the evolving roles of HDB and its mission. These include assessing the impact of relocation of residents to public housing, adaptation to high-rise, high-density living, community formation, and the present emphasis on social diversity and community cohesion.

Since its formation in 2008, the HDB Research Advisory Panel (RAP) has been providing invaluable guidance to strengthen the Board’s research work. Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser has chaired the HDB RAP since 2015. Together with other panel members, comprising academics specialising in sociology, psychology, geography, economics and statistics, its main role is to provide advice on research projects and socioeconomic studies undertaken by HDB. The panel was actively involved in SHS 2018, lending their expertise to HDB in the research scope, as well as providing inputs on analysing the data collected, so as to enhance the utility of the findings to HDB and also to other government agencies.

The survey findings serve as important inputs for HDB’s policy reviews and help identify aspects of the HDB environment that could be improved. Starting from conceptualisation of the research scope to the analysis of survey findings, various

Groups in HDB and government agencies were also consulted so that the survey could cater more specifically to their respective operational needs.

1.2 Objectives

The two key objectives of the SHS are: a) To obtain demographic and socioeconomic profile of residents and identify changing needs and expectations. This information is useful in the assessment of HDB’s operations and policies; and b) To monitor residents’ level of satisfaction with various aspects of public housing and identify areas for improvement to the physical and social environment in HDB towns.

Since SHS 2003, the coverage of the survey has been expanded to include the collection of data and feedback on the needs of residents living in various towns. This information is useful in highlighting differences and trends across towns, which include demographic profiles, areas of concern, adequacy of facilities, housing aspirations, community bonding, and outlook on life.

1.3 Sampling Design

The target population comprised of households living in HDB sold and rental flats occupied by Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents as at December 2017. Each household occupying an HDB dwelling unit forms a sampling unit.

A total of 7,809 households were successfully interviewed, yielding a sampling error of ±6.0% at 95% confidence level for each stratum. Non-response and post- stratification adjustments were applied to the final sampling weights to ensure that the survey data would represent the population as accurately as possible.

A dual-modal data collection method was used, encompassing Internet survey (e- survey), as well as the conventional face-to-face interviews at residents’ homes. Fieldwork was carried out between the months of January and September 2018. A crucial requirement for collecting reliable primary data was to maintain high

quality fieldwork supervision. This was achieved by adhering to the procedures of HDB’s Survey Fieldwork Management Quality System that has been developed in accordance with the requirements of SS ISO 9001: 2015.

1.4 Outline of Monograph

This monograph will present two parts of the survey findings: a) Profile of HDB Population and Households; and b) Housing Satisfaction and Preferences.

The first part presents the profile of HDB population and households, specifically, the demographic and socioeconomic profile of HDB residents. The second part focuses on residents’ physical living environment, in terms of their housing satisfaction and preferences. It is important for HDB to keep tabs of how our residents adapt to and assess the quality of their physical living environment, which HDB has played a key role in creating and maintaining.

The other monograph, Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities and Well-Being of the Elderly, explores the extent of community bonding and family ties of HDB residents and thereby gauges the degree of social cohesiveness within HDB towns/estates. It also examines the well-being of elderly residents, especially in the face of an ageing population in Singapore.

Part 1 Profile of HDB Population and Households

Part 1

Profile of HDB Population and Households

Introduction

HDB population and households form the building blocks of the HDB living environment and experience. Changes in their profiles would have important implications for housing policies and development plans with respect to design and provision. Therefore, keeping tabs on these changes and having a detailed understanding of the residents and living arrangements would enable HDB to better cater to their diverse and changing needs, expectations and aspirations. The data also sets the context for in-depth insights on specific areas of interest such as community bonding and housing satisfaction, as well as specific groups like the elderly.

Objectives

The objectives of Part 1 are as follows: a) To update on trends of sociodemographic profiles, as well as the economic well-being of HDB population and households; b) To identify emerging demographic trends; and c) To provide profile data for cross analysis in other topics in the Sample Household Survey (SHS).

Framework

The profiles of HDB residents are examined and presented in aggregate forms at the population level in terms of two different units of analysis - individual and household - and covering four key aspects on population mix, household composition, economic well-being and sub-group analysis: a) At the population of individual resident’s level (Refer to Chapter 2), the demographic profile and economic characteristics of the HDB resident population are examined. The analysis on demographic profile covers population size and growth rate; role and relationship with owners/registered tenants; types of dwelling in terms of tenure and flat type; geographical distribution by town/estate; age structure; sex composition; ethnic composition; marital status as well as religious affiliation. The analysis on economic well-being of the resident population includes their labour force status and labour force participation rate; as well as the key economic characteristics of the employed population in terms of education level and occupation. b) At the population of households level (Refer to Chapter 3), the analysis on demographic profile includes property status, geographical distribution by town/estate, as well as flat type and ethnic group of owners/registered tenants/main tenants. On household composition, indicators such as types of family nucleus, family composition, number of generations and household size are tracked.

In addition to analysing the HDB population of individuals and households, further analyses on the elderly and future elderly population are included. Detailed statistics on these groups would provide a more comprehensive picture of the situation and a better understanding of the ageing population living in HDB flats.

Framework for Analysing the Profile of HDB Population and Households

2 Profile of HDB Population

*refers to owners/co-owners, HDB rental tenants and occupiers

Chapter 2

Profile of HDB Population

This chapter provides an update on the changing demographic profile and economic characteristics of the resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents, living in HDB sold and rental flats.

2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident Population

Size and growth rate of HDB resident population

The resident population (owners/co-owners, HDB rental tenants and occupiers) living in HDB flats had shrunk slightly, from 3.06 million persons in 2013 to 3.04 million persons in 2018, registering a negative annualised growth rate of 0.1% for the period 2013 to 2018 (Chart 2.1). The decline was mainly due to net outflow of HDB resident population into private housing.

Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year

4,000 6

3,058 3,039 5 2,845 2,923 3,000 4 Resident Population 3 (Persons) 2,000 2 1.0 0.9 Annualised

Number Number ('000) 0.5 1 1,000 Growth Rate -0.1 (%)

0 Annualised Growth Growth (%) Rate Annualised 0 -1 2003 2008 2013 2018

Role and relationship with owner/registered tenant

Overall, about one third (32.8%) of the HDB resident population were owners or registered tenants renting HDB rental flats (Table 2.1). Almost a quarter (23.1%) of them were co-owners who were mainly the spouse, while the remaining 44.1% were occupiers who were mostly the children/children-in-law.

Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population with Owner/Registered Tenant

Role & Relationship with Owner/Registered Tenant All

Owner/Registered Tenant 32.8 Owner 31.1 Registered Tenant (renting HDB rental flats) 1.7 Co-owner (of Sold Flats) 23.1 Spouse 20.3 Children/Children-in-law 1.4 Parents/Parents-in-law 0.7 Sibling/Sibling-in-law 0.7 Occupier 44.1 Children/Children-in-law 36.5 Parents/Parents-in-law 2.6 Spouse 2.0 Sibling/Sibling-in-law 1.1 Other relative (e.g., grandchild, niece/nephew) 1.7 Unrelated (including friend) 0.2

% 100.0 Total Persons 3,039,400

Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type

The majority of the HDB resident population (96.2%) lived in sold flats, with 42.1% residing in 4-room flats, followed by 26.5% in 5-room flats and another 18.2% in 3- room flats (Table 2.2). The proportion of residents living in HDB rental flats and smaller flat types (1- and 2-room flats) had increased slightly over the last decade. This is due to the increase in the supply of rental flats in recent years in response to the housing demand of lower income and vulnerable families. There was also an increase in the supply of smaller flat types, mainly to accommodate elderly households right-sizing to smaller flats and singles with the relaxation of housing

policy allowing singles aged 35 years old and above to purchase new 2-room Flexi flats in non-mature estates1.

Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Flat Type and Year

Tenure & Flat Type 2003 2008 2013 2018

Tenure Sold 97.1 97.0 96.3 96.2 Rental 2.9 3.0 3.7 3.8

Flat Type 1-Room 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 2-Room 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.6 3-Room 21.5 19.6 19.3 18.2 4-Room 41.3 41.0 41.1 42.1 5-Room 25.2 26.7 26.6 26.5 Executive 8.7 9.3 8.6 7.8

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664 3,039,400

Geographical distribution

Woodlands, Jurong West, Tampines and Sengkang were the four most populous towns, housing more than 200,000 persons in each town (Table 2.3). These four towns also contained the largest number of HDB flats, ranging from about 66,000 to 72,000 occupied dwelling units (Refer to Chapter 3, Chart 3.3).

In general, towns with substantial additions to housing stock, such as Punggol, Sengkang and Sembawang, registered the highest population growth. In contrast, towns/estates with little or no increase in housing stock experienced net outflow of HDB resident population, likely to other HDB towns where there were new developments such as Build-to-Order (BTO) projects or to private housing.

1 The Single Singapore Citizen (SSC) Scheme was first introduced in 1991 to allow single Singaporeans aged 35 years old and above to purchase HDB flats. Since then, the scheme has been further revised over the years. In July 2013, the scheme was relaxed to allow them to buy flats directly from HDB. In March 2015, the quota of 2-room BTO flats available for singles to purchase increased from 30% to 50%. The Enhanced CPF Housing Grant introduced in September 2019 also enabled first-timer, single flat buyers earning $4,500 or lower to be eligible for up to $40,000 in grants.

Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year

2003 2008 2013 2018 Town/Estate Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons % Young Sengkang 123,726 4.3 154,478 5.3 172,748 5.7 208,400 6.9 Towns Punggol 38,290 1.3 57,767 2.0 94,829 3.1 140,600 4.6 Sembawang 57,033 2.0 63,125 2.2 68,055 2.2 76,700 2.5 Middle-Aged Woodlands 210,723 7.4 225,274 7.7 229,827 7.5 227,600 7.5 Towns/Estate Jurong West 216,722 7.6 233,920 8.0 242,395 7.9 226,500 7.4 Tampines 228,722 8.0 227,042 7.8 237,281 7.8 222,300 7.3 Yishun 158,096 5.5 161,311 5.5 169,351 5.6 185,200 6.1 Choa Chu Kang 143,626 5.0 149,978 5.1 154,915 5.1 167,200 5.5 Hougang 172,388 6.1 168,601 5.8 165,247 5.4 163,700 5.4 Bukit Panjang 106,705 3.8 106,661 3.6 115,993 3.8 114,800 3.8 Pasir Ris 107,506 3.8 105,737 3.6 108,328 3.5 110,400 3.6 Bukit Batok 108,209 3.8 99,491 3.4 108,197 3.5 107,200 3.5 Jurong East 79,217 2.8 76,440 2.6 75,371 2.5 68,400 2.3 Serangoon 73,853 2.6 71,149 2.4 72,280 2.4 61,900 2.0 Bishan 66,311 2.3 64,060 2.2 62,456 2.0 55,600 1.8 Bukit Timah 8,794 0.3 8,402 0.3 7,830 0.3 7,600 0.3 Mature Bedok 188,909 6.6 183,302 6.3 187,313 6.1 174,900 5.8 Towns/Estates Bukit Merah 123,741 4.3 136,297 4.7 144,714 4.7 134,700 4.4 Ang Mo Kio 146,680 5.2 144,313 4.9 144,329 4.7 126,300 4.2 Toa Payoh 102,054 3.6 101,107 3.5 102,544 3.4 95,000 3.1 Kallang/Whampoa 94,059 3.3 97,211 3.3 103,767 3.4 93,800 3.1 Queenstown 75,427 2.7 78,826 2.7 80,633 2.6 76,000 2.5 Geylang 93,545 3.3 90,808 3.1 87,967 2.9 75,400 2.5 Clementi 71,047 2.5 68,508 2.3 65,397 2.1 70,200 2.3 Central Area 27,622 1.0 28,607 1.0 33,396 1.1 30,300 1.0 Marine Parade 21,681 0.8 20,809 0.7 22,501 0.7 18,700 0.6 Total 2,844,686 100.0 2,923,224 100.0 3,057,664 100.0 3,039,400 100.0

Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding 20

Age structure

As the “baby boomers”2 continued to age, coupled with increasing longevity and declining fertility rate, the median age of the HDB resident population rose rapidly, reaching 42 years old in 2018, up from 39 years old in 2013 (Table 2.4).

The proportion of elderly population had more than doubled, and future elderly had almost doubled over the last 15 years. Elderly persons accounted for 16.5% of the resident population, while future elderly persons constituted 15.8%. Together, about one-third of the resident population were older persons aged 55 years old and above in 2018. Compared to the proportions at the national level3, there were more older persons living in HDB flats than in private housing. Correspondingly, the share of residents aged below 15 years old continued to decline, from 21.6% in 2003 to 14.3% in 2018.

Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Age and Year

Age Group (Years) 2003 2008 2013 2018 Below 15 21.6 17.7 16.7 14.3 15 - 24 13.4 14.3 14.1 12.9 25 - 34 15.1 13.6 13.5 12.2 35 - 44 18.0 16.0 15.2 13.5 45 - 54 15.5 17.1 16.2 14.8 55 - 64 8.7 11.6 13.3 15.8 65 & Above 7.6 9.8 11.0 16.5 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,054,854 3,038,500 Age (Years) Mean 34.4 36.9 37.9 41.3 Median 34 37 39 42 * Excluding non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

2 The “baby boomers” are defined as individuals born between 1947 and 1964. 3 At the national level, elderly and future elderly persons constituted 13.7% and 14.4% of the resident population respectively, based on figures published by the Singapore Department of Statistics, Population Trends, 2018.

With longer life expectancy, the proportion of elderly persons among females was slightly higher at 17.6%, compared with males (15.5%), resulting in a higher median age for females at 43 years old, compared with males at 41 years old (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age, Sex and Year

Male Female All Age Group (Years) 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 Below 15 17.4 15.3 16.1 13.5 16.7 14.3 15 - 24 15.1 13.8 13.2 12.0 14.1 12.9 25 - 34 13.2 12.6 13.7 11.8 13.5 12.2 35 - 44 14.8 12.5 15.6 14.3 15.2 13.5 45 - 54 16.3 14.6 16.1 15.0 16.2 14.8 55 - 64 13.1 15.7 13.5 15.8 13.3 15.8 65 & Above 10.1 15.5 11.8 17.6 11.0 16.5 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 1,490,364 1,484,700 1,564,456 1,553,800 3,054,854 3,038,500 Age (Years) Mean 37.2 40.3 38.5 42.2 37.9 41.3 Median 38 41 39 43 39 42 * Excluding non-response cases

Further analysis by ethnic group showed that the resident Chinese population was older with a median age of 44 years old compared with other ethnic groups (Table 2.6). Of them, 19.1% were elderly persons while 16.7% were future elderly persons. On the other hand, the resident Malay population was the youngest with a median age of 33 years old. Of them, only 9.3% were elderly persons, while more than half (52.4%) were aged below 35 years old.

Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age, Ethnic Group and Year

Chinese Malay Indian Others All Age Group (Years) 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 Below 15 15.1 12.9 19.9 19.0 23.2 17.2 23.0 15.0 16.7 14.3 15 - 24 12.8 11.8 20.8 17.2 14.7 14.6 12.0 11.7 14.1 12.9 25 - 34 13.3 11.4 13.6 16.2 13.8 11.3 15.0 12.1 13.5 12.2 35 - 44 15.5 13.3 11.2 10.4 17.4 17.0 24.7 25.9 15.2 13.5 45 - 54 16.2 14.8 16.3 12.9 15.7 16.9 15.3 18.2 16.2 14.8 55 - 64 14.5 16.7 11.1 15.0 9.3 11.9 5.8 8.9 13.3 15.8 65 & Above 12.6 19.1 7.0 9.3 5.9 11.1 4.2 8.2 11.0 16.5 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 2,246,619 2,205,100 474,602 493,300 271,405 272,300 62,228 67,800 3,054,854 3,038,500

Age (Years) Mean 39.5 43.1 33.7 35.7 33.2 37.6 32.5 37.5 37.9 41.3 Median 40 44 31 33 34 38 34 39 39 42 * Excluding non-response cases

Among residents living in smaller flat types, some 38.0% of them in 1-room flats were elderly (Table 2.7). Elderly persons made up about 22.8% and 24.6% among those living in 2- and 3-room flats respectively. Together with 22.0% who were future elderly residents, six in ten of the residents living in 1-room flats were aged 55 years old and above, with a median age of 60 years old. Similarly, about four in ten of those living in 2- and 3-room flats were older persons aged 55 years old and above. The median age of the resident population living in 2- and 3-room flats, compared with other flat types, were older at 46 and 50 years old respectively.

Population movements would likely bring about changes in the age structure of a town. Towns with significant injection of new housing, such as Punggol, Sengkang and Sembawang, housed higher proportions of young families and hence, had higher proportions of resident population aged below 15 years old at 25.3%, 21.2% and 18.2% respectively (Table 2.8). In contrast, mature and middle-aged towns/estates generally housed more elderly and future elderly residents.

Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age, Flat Type and Year

Age Group 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All (Years) 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 Below 15 9.6 8.4 18.5 16.6 12.5 9.8 16.4 15.2 19.9 16.5 19.0 13.4 16.7 14.3 15 - 24 10.5 6.2 14.7 14.3 10.7 9.8 14.5 12.6 14.9 14.5 18.6 17.7 14.1 12.9 25 - 34 5.4 8.5 9.2 9.1 12.8 10.2 15.4 13.9 12.8 11.5 10.8 12.3 13.5 12.2 35 - 44 9.6 6.4 8.2 8.1 14.0 12.1 15.2 14.7 17.6 14.3 13.8 10.5 15.2 13.5 45 - 54 14.4 10.5 15.1 11.5 17.1 15.5 15.9 14.6 15.6 15.2 17.2 15.2 16.2 14.8 55 - 64 18.7 22.0 15.0 17.6 15.7 18.0 13.1 14.9 11.5 14.5 13.2 17.4 13.3 15.8 65 & Above 31.8 38.0 19.3 22.8 17.2 24.6 9.5 14.1 7.8 13.5 7.4 13.5 11.0 16.5 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 47,925 55,700 85,067 108,400 591,524 553,300 1,254,922 1,278,500 811,859 805,500 263,557 237,100 3,054,854 3,038,500

Age (Years) Mean 49.9 53.0 40.5 43.1 42.7 47.0 37.2 39.8 35.3 39.1 35.2 39.8 37.9 41.3 Median 55 60 44 46 45 50 37 40 36 39 36 41 39 42 * Excluding non-response cases

Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age and Town/Estate

Young Towns Middle-Age Towns/Estate Age Group Semba- Bukit Bukit Choa Jurong Jurong Pasir Seran- Wood- (Years) Punggol Sengkang Bishan Hougang Tampines wang Batok Panjang Chu Kang East West Ris goon lands

Below 15 25.3 21.2 18.2 9.8 12.1 13.4 13.1 12.1 9.2 16.8 12.9 9.3 15.9 16.2 15 - 24 7.0 11.9 14.6 13.3 13.5 13.5 19.0 13.5 12.4 11.8 19.8 13.3 12.7 18.7 25 - 34 20.8 14.6 14.4 10.0 11.3 14.4 12.1 11.0 13.3 9.7 12.7 9.9 14.3 10.5 35 - 44 22.6 15.9 15.6 12.9 11.5 10.3 12.1 13.4 12.5 15.0 11.4 13.0 12.7 14.1 45 - 54 9.7 16.1 14.7 14.2 16.3 16.4 16.6 16.9 14.1 16.2 16.7 15.3 11.9 17.3 55 - 64 8.7 10.2 15.4 19.9 18.1 17.2 15.9 16.6 16.6 15.8 17.1 18.2 18.4 12.7 65 & Above 5.9 10.1 7.1 19.9 17.2 14.8 11.2 16.5 21.9 14.7 9.4 21.0 14.1 10.5 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total

Persons* 140,400 208,400 76,500 55,500 107,100 114,800 167,200 163,700 68,400 226,500 110,400 61,900 222,300 227,600 Age (Years) Mean 32.2 35.7 36.1 44.7 42.6 41.0 38.7 42.2 44.6 40.4 38.5 45.2 39.9 37.3 Median 33 35 36 47 45 42 39 44 46 42 40 46 39 38 * Excluding non-response cases

Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age and Town/Estate (Continued)

Middle-Aged Mature Towns/Estates Towns/Estate Age Group All (Years) Bukit Ang Mo Bukit Kallang/ Queens- Toa Central Marine Yishun Bedok Clementi Geylang Timah Kio Merah Whampoa town Payoh Area Parade

Below 15 15.5 11.4 11.4 9.6 12.2 11.7 11.5 12.0 11.1 10.7 12.4 12.0 14.3 15 - 24 13.9 11.9 9.7 13.6 9.0 11.0 10.4 8.2 7.8 12.6 8.7 6.3 12.9 25 - 34 12.7 11.1 10.3 13.6 9.6 11.1 11.5 10.6 12.1 8.1 8.3 7.1 12.2 35 - 44 13.3 10.6 12.5 9.0 12.8 13.1 12.6 11.4 15.0 12.3 12.8 15.6 13.5 45 - 54 15.0 12.0 13.6 13.9 14.1 12.7 14.8 13.8 10.9 14.5 15.2 11.6 14.8 55 - 64 16.2 20.0 17.9 18.5 16.6 16.3 14.6 17.0 17.7 16.4 16.0 13.3 15.8 65 & Above 13.4 23.0 24.6 21.8 25.7 24.1 24.6 27.0 25.4 25.4 26.6 34.1 16.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 185,200 7,600 126,300 174,900 134,700 70,200 75,100 93,800 76,000 95,000 30,300 18,700 3,038,500 Age (Years) Mean 39.7 45.6 46.4 44.9 46.4 45.3 45.3 47.0 46.9 46.3 46.5 49.8 41.3 Median 41 49 49 47 49 47 47 49 48 48 49 52 42 * Excluding non-response cases

Sex composition

There were more female residents (51.1%) compared to male residents (48.9%) among the HDB resident population (Table 2.9).

Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year

Sex 2003 2008 2013 2018

Male 49.6 49.5 48.8 48.9 Female 50.4 50.5 51.2 51.1

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 2,844,424 2,921,543 3,057,056 3,039,400 * Excluding non-response cases

Ethnic composition

The ethnic composition of the resident population living in HDB flats had remained stable over the last few years. Chinese continued to form the majority of the resident population at 72.6%, followed by Malays at 16.2%, Indians at 9.0% and Others at 2.2% (Table 2.10). There has been a gradual decline in the proportion of the resident Chinese population over the years. Correspondingly, the proportion of the resident Indian and Others population had risen slightly over the same period.

Table 2.10 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year

Ethnic Group 2003 2008 2013 2018

Chinese 74.4 73.8 73.5 72.6 Malay 16.5 16.3 15.6 16.2 Indian 8.0 8.2 8.9 9.0 Others 1.1 1.6 2.0 2.2

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535 3,039,400 * Excluding non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Among the resident Chinese and Indian population, tenure distribution had remained relatively stable over the last five years (Tables 2.11). However, the proportion of Malay and Indian residents living in HDB rental flats had increased slightly, while the proportion living in sold flats decreased slightly. Among the resident Others population, the proportion living in HDB rental flats had decreased slightly, from 4.3% to 2.0% over the same period.

In terms of distribution by flat type, there was an increase in the proportion of residents living in 1- and 2-room flats across all ethnic groups over the last five years, except for Others ethnic group (Table 2.11). The increase was the highest among the resident Malay population at 2.8 percentage points, followed by the resident Indian population at 1.5 percentage points and resident Chinese population at 0.6 percentage point.

Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Flat Type, Ethnic Group and Year

Chinese Malay Indian Others All Tenure & Flat Type 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Tenure Sold 97.4 97.6 97.7 95.2 91.6 90.4 96.2 94.4 94.2 97.0 95.7 98.0 97.0 96.3 96.2 Rental 2.6 2.4 2.3 4.8 8.4 9.6 3.8 5.6 5.8 3.0 4.3 2.0 3.0 3.7 3.8

Flat Type 1-Room 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 2.9 3.5 1.6 2.2 2.4 1.4 2.6 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.8 2-Room 1.9 1.9 2.3 3.5 6.3 8.5 3.0 3.7 5.0 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.6 3-Room 19.7 19.3 18.0 17.8 19.8 18.1 21.0 19.1 19.9 21.7 17.4 19.4 19.6 19.3 18.2 4-Room 40.6 41.2 42.4 44.0 41.6 42.1 39.8 39.6 40.6 39.2 39.9 39.0 41.0 41.1 42.1

5-Room 27.4 27.6 27.9 24.8 22.0 20.8 24.4 25.9 24.2 27.0 28.0 30.2 26.7 26.6 26.5 Executive 9.4 8.8 8.0 8.6 7.4 7.0 10.3 9.5 7.9 9.0 10.0 7.9 9.3 8.6 7.8

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 2,158,254 2,248,298 2,206,000 477,527 475,427 493,300 240,193 271,582 272,300 47,250 62,228 67,800 2,923,224 3,057,535 3,039,400

* Excluding non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Marital status

The distribution of HDB resident population aged 15 years old and above by marital status had remained stable over the last decade (Table 2.12). In 2018, 57.4% of residents aged 15 years old and above were married and 32.2% were single. Widowed persons and those who were divorced or separated accounted for the remaining 5.8% and 4.6% respectively.

Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Marital Status and Year

Marital Status 2003 2008 2013 2018

Married 60.5 58.1 58.4 57.4 Widowed 4.8 5.4 5.3 5.8 Divorced/Separated 3.0 3.3 3.5 4.6 Single 31.6 33.2 32.8 32.2 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 2,228,799 2,403,134 2,543,159 2,602,300 * Excluding non-response cases

With longer life expectancy, a higher proportion of female residents were widowed (9.3%), compared with males (2.1%), as shown in Table 2.13. Proportionally, there were also more female residents who were divorced/separated (5.9%), compared with males (3.2%). Correspondingly, the proportion of female residents who were married or single was lower compared with male residents.

Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Marital Status and Sex

Marital Status Male Female All

Married 59.9 55.1 57.4 Widowed 2.1 9.3 5.8 Divorced/Separated 3.2 5.9 4.6 Single 34.8 29.7 32.2 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 1,258,000 1,344,300 2,602,300 * Excluding non-response cases

Religious affiliation

Among the HDB resident population aged 15 years old and above, 46.5% identified themselves as Buddhists/Taoists, 18.3% as Muslims, 14.4% as Christians and 5.0% as Hindus (Table 2.14). The proportion of residents without religious affiliation was 15.6% in 2018.

Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Religion

Religion All

Buddhism/Taoism 46.5 Islam 18.3 Christianity 14.4 Hinduism 5.0 Other Religions 0.2 No Religion 15.6 % 100.0 Total Persons* 2,595,700 * Excluding non-response cases

Higher proportions of younger residents aged below 55 years old (ranging between 17% and 19%) reported no religious affiliation compared to older residents aged 55 years old and above (about 12%) (Table 2.15). Reflecting the age structure of the population where Chinese residents were generally older and Malay residents generally younger, a larger proportion of the older residents were Buddhists/Taoists, while there were proportionally more Muslims among younger residents.

Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Religion and Age

Age Group (Years)

Religion 65 & All 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 Above

Buddhism/Taoism 38.0 38.7 43.7 45.2 51.8 57.1 46.5 Islam 25.6 25.4 15.5 16.9 18.3 11.0 18.3 Christianity 13.0 13.1 16.0 14.2 13.7 15.9 14.4 Hinduism 5.9 3.7 7.3 6.5 3.6 3.6 5.0 Other Religions 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 No Religion 17.2 18.8 17.2 17.0 12.4 12.2 15.6 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 392,400 368,600 405,900 448,700 478,100 502,000 2,595,700 * Excluding non-response cases

2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population

Labour force status

Slightly more than half of the resident population (55.1%) were in the labour force, a slight increase from 2013 (Chart 2.2). The proportion of resident population that was unemployed had remained low at 2.6%, though the proportion had risen slightly over the same period.

Among the 44.9% of the resident population that was not in the labour force, full- time students constituted the majority (18.3%), followed by retirees (11.5%) and homemakers (8.9%). Compared with 2013, the proportion of retirees in 2018 was higher, reflecting a rapidly ageing population, making them the second largest cohort among those who were not in the labour force. Correspondingly, the proportions of students and homemakers had declined.

Chart 2.2 Labour Force Status of HDB Resident Population by Year

HDB Resident Population* (excluding tenants) 3,035,500 persons (2018) 3,057,664 persons (2013)

In labour force Outside Labour Force 55.1% (2018) 44.9% (2018) 54.1% (2013) 45.9% (2013)

Employed Unemployed Students Retirees Homemakers Before Others** 52.5 % (2018) 2.6% (2018) 18.3% (2018) 11.5% (2018) 8.9% (2018) School-Age 1.9% (2018) 51.9% (2013) 2.2% (2013) 21.0% (2013) 7.7% (2013) 10.6% (2013) 4.3% (2018) 1.5% (2013) 5.1% (2013) ** Including persons who are disabled/long-term Employees Own Account Workers*** Others**** hospitalised, waiting for 48.1 % (2018) 4.2% (2018) 0.2% (2018) NS or exam results, in **** Including employers and prison/drug rehabilitative 49.5% (2013) 2.4% (2013) 0.0% (2013) unpaid family workers centre, etc

Full-Time*** Part-Time*** Holding Two or More Jobs 42.3 % (2018) 5.5% (2018) 0.3% (2018) 43.9% (2013) 5.6% (2013) 0.0% (2013)

* Excluding non-responses cases *** Single job holders

Labour force participation rate (LFPR)

Overall, 64.3% of the HDB resident population aged 15 years old and above were working or actively seeking employment in 2018, a slight decline from 64.9% in 2013 and reversing the upward trend from 2003 to 2013 (Chart 2.3). This was likely due to a rapidly ageing cohort of baby boomers.

Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year 100

75.8 75.4 80 74.6 72.6 Male 64.0 62.7 64.9 64.3 All 60

56.6 Female 53.1 55.8 40 50.0

Labour Force Participation Rate (%) 0 2003 2008 2013 2018

While males still played the traditional role of the main breadwinner in the family - evident from the higher LFPR among males, the share of females in the labour force continued to increase from 50.0% in 2003 to 56.6% in 2018; whereas the share of males declined gradually from 75.8% to 72.6% over the same period (Chart 2.3).

Chart 2.4 shows the age-sex specific LFPR of the resident population. Between ages 15 and 29 years old, the male and female LFPRs moved in tandem, increasing sharply for these age cohorts. The male LFPR peaked at ages 40 to 44 years old, with 98.5% of males in that cohort participating in the workforce, before declining after 49 years old. Beyond 60 years old, the male LFPR started to decline rapidly, hitting a low of 12.0% among those aged 75 years old and above. In contrast, the female LFPR peaked at ages 25 to 29 years old with 89.6% of them working, and thereafter, declining gradually to a low of 6.1% among those aged 75 years old and above.

Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Year

100

80 Male LFPR 60

Labour Labour Participation Force (%) Rate Female 20 LFPR

0 75 & 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 Above Male (2018) 11.8 57.1 91.5 97.7 98.0 98.5 98.0 94.1 90.8 76.1 52.1 32.4 12.0 Male (2013) 12.5 56.4 92.6 98.7 98.0 98.2 97.9 94.4 89.1 72.1 44.6 33.4 11.0 Male (2008) 8.4 62.0 91.8 97.9 97.8 99.0 97.9 96.2 87.0 71.9 46.1 23.5 7.3 Male (2003) 10.2 67.9 92.2 97.5 97.7 97.3 98.4 95.4 78.2 53.1 32.3 14.8 6.0 Female (2018) 6.4 51.8 89.6 86.1 81.8 80.0 80.6 66.1 63.0 48.0 35.9 18.3 6.1 Female (2013) 6.7 59.1 87.6 84.2 79.0 75.6 71.2 66.7 54.0 37.9 20.9 11.7 3.1 Female (2008) 5.1 55.9 87.1 80.1 74.9 68.9 69.2 61.7 49.3 37.9 12.2 9.6 1.9 Female (2003) 9.7 65.9 86.8 72.4 62.2 58.6 61.6 49.1 40.3 16.7 10.1 6.2 3.2

Looking at the trend over the last decade, it was evident that women and older residents were the two main driving forces behind the increase in LFPR. The female LFPR had been on the rise for those aged 30 years old and above, likely due to females getting married and/or giving birth at a later age; availability of more childcare facilities to support women with young children to remain in the workforce; or older women returning to the workforce after their children had grown up. While the male LFPR had remained high among those aged below 60 years old over the last ten years, more males aged 60 years old and above had either joined or remained in the workforce. More older workers were remaining in the workforce, likely facilitated by the introduction of the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA)4 in 2012 to allow eligible older workers to work longer should they want or need to do so. This proportion is likely to increase further with the gradual increase of the statutory retirement and re-employment ages up to 65 years old and 70 years old respectively by 20305.

Types of employment of employed resident population

There were about 1.59 million employed residents in 2018, accounting for 52.5% of the resident population, a slight increase from 2013 (Chart 2.2). Of them, a large majority were employees (48.1%), while the rest were mainly own-account workers (4.2%). The bulk of the employed residents were single job holders working full- time.

4 The Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA) was introduced by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in 2012. Under the RRA, the statutory retirement age is 62 years old. Thereafter, employers are required to re-employ eligible employees who turn 62 years old, up to the age of 65 years old (and up to the age of 67 years old, with effect from 1 July 2017). (Source: Understanding Re-employment; National Trades Union Congress, Jul 2016) 5 The retirement age, which is currently at 62 years old will go up to 63 years old in 2022 before being raised further to 65 years old by 2030. The re-employment age of 67 years old will go up to 68 years old in 2022 before being raised further to 70 years old by 2030. Ministry of Manpower. “Key Recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers.” (https://www.mom.gov.sg/-/media/mom/documents/press- releases/2019/0819-twg-ow-infographic.pdf)

Age distribution of employed resident population

Chart 2.5(a) shows the age distribution of employed resident population aged 15 years old and above. Overall, employed persons aged between 15 and 24 years old had continued to decline gradually over the years, from 9.1% in 2003 to 8.0% in 2013 and 7.3% in 2018. This could be the result of a declining fertility rate, leading to a reduction in the number of younger residents entering the workforce. In addition, improved education attainment among younger residents could also have resulted in delayed employment, further reducing the proportion of employed persons aged between 15 and 24 years old. As the resident population continued to age, the proportion of employed persons in the prime working ages between 25 and 54 years old has also continued to decline, from 80.4% to 72.0% and 64.8% over the same period, while the proportion of employed persons aged 55 years old and above increased sharply, from 10.5% in 2003 to 20.0% in 2013 and 27.9% in 2018. With more older residents and fewer younger residents participating in the workforce, the median age of the resident labour force correspondingly increased from 39 years old in 2003 to 44 years old in 2018.

Charts 2.5(b) and 2.5(c) show the age distribution of the male and female resident labour force. The proportion of employed females aged between 15 and 24 years old fell from 10.3% in 2003 to 8.3% in 2013 and 6.8% in 2018, slightly more than their male counterparts (from 8.3% in 2003 to 7.8% in 2013 and 7.7% in 2018), likely due to them delaying employment to pursue higher education. The male labour force aged 55 years old and above had more than doubled over the years, from 11.9% in 2003 to 22.7% in 2013 and 29.8% in 2018, while that of females had increased three folds from 8.5% to 16.8% and 25.8% over the same period, though this proportion remained slightly lower than their male counterparts. The median age of males and females in the labour force also continued to rise, reaching 45 years old and 43 years old in 2018 respectively.

Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Sex and Year (a) All Population Median Age in 2003 Median Age in 2018 = 39 years = 44 years 15

Population(%) 5

0 65 & 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Above 2003 1.2 7.9 12.0 14.6 14.6 15.0 14.3 9.9 5.9 2.6 2.0 2008 0.9 7.0 11.1 11.8 12.8 13.3 13.4 13.0 8.8 5.0 3.1 2013 1.1 6.9 10.6 12.0 11.9 12.7 13.1 11.7 9.5 6.2 4.3 2018 0.9 6.4 10.3 10.0 10.8 11.1 11.3 11.3 11.0 8.9 8.0

(b) Male Population Median Age in 2003 Median Age in 2018 = 41 years = 45 years 15

Population(%) 5

0 65 & 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Above 2003 1.2 7.1 9.9 13.1 14.9 16.1 15.0 10.8 6.2 3.2 2.5 2008 1.0 7.0 9.5 10.5 12.3 13.8 13.1 13.6 9.8 5.5 4.0 2013 1.5 6.3 9.3 11.1 11.4 12.2 12.9 12.5 10.1 7.3 5.3 2018 1.2 6.5 10.1 9.4 9.8 10.5 11.0 11.7 11.5 9.8 8.5

Population(%) 5

0 65 & 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Above 2003 1.1 9.2 14.9 16.7 14.3 13.5 13.2 8.6 5.5 1.7 1.3 2008 0.7 6.9 13.2 13.6 13.5 12.6 13.8 12.2 7.4 4.2 1.8 2013 0.7 7.6 12.2 13.0 12.6 13.2 13.3 10.7 8.8 4.9 3.1 2018 0.5 6.3 10.4 10.7 12.0 11.8 11.7 10.8 10.5 7.8 7.5

Education level of employed resident population

The education level of employed residents continued to improve. Slightly over a quarter (26.8%) of the employed residents were degree holders, up from 23.7% in 2013 and close to a two-fold increase from 14.2% in 2003 (Table 2.16). Those with tertiary education, including those with diploma and professional qualifications, constituted close to half of all employed residents (47.1%) in 2018, up from 42.7% in 2013 and a significant increase from 27.4% in 2003. Employed residents with below secondary qualifications comprised mainly elderly persons.

Table 2.16 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Education Level and Year

Highest Education Level Attained 2003 2008 2013 2018

Below Secondary 33.3 30.5 24.4 21.6 Secondary/Post-Secondary 39.3 37.4 32.9 31.3 Diploma & Professional Qualification 13.2 16.0 19.0 20.3 Degree 14.2 16.1 23.7 26.8

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 1,286,110 1,468,972 1,573,256 1,585,200 * Excluding non-response cases

Analysing the education profile across age groups revealed that the resident workforce was becoming better qualified as young residents who received higher education joined the workforce. At least six in ten employed residents in the prime- working ages of below 45 years old had completed tertiary education, compared with 38.4% among those aged 45 to 54 years old and less than two in ten among those aged 55 years old and above (Table 2.17).

Female employed residents were slightly better educated, with 28.5% of them possessing a university degree, compared with males at 25.4% (Table 2.18). As better-educated women were more likely to participate in the labour market, an improvement in the education profile of the female labour force would have a positive impact on the female LFPR.

Table 2.17 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Education Level, Age and Year

Age Group (Years) Highest Education Level All 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above Attained 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Below Secondary 5.4 3.9 4.3 3.9 13.6 8.1 34.5 23.1 50.3 42.0 73.5 64.3 24.4 21.6 Secondary/Post-Secondary 40.9 37.1 24.2 19.8 29.7 24.5 39.1 38.5 39.2 41.6 21.3 27.4 32.9 31.3

Diploma & Professional 38.0 43.9 27.5 26.1 21.8 25.8 12.9 18.0 6.7 8.9 3.4 4.6 19.0 20.3 Qualification

Degree 15.7 15.1 44.0 50.2 34.9 41.6 13.5 20.4 3.8 7.5 1.8 3.7 23.7 26.8 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 126,225 115,500 354,504 319,900 386,404 348,700 389,264 358,400 249,352 315,400 67,507 127,300 1,573,256 1,585,200

* Excluding non-response cases

Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Education Level, Sex and Year

Male Female All Highest Education Level Attained 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Below Secondary 35.6 32.5 25.9 22.5 29.9 27.8 22.5 20.5 33.3 30.5 24.4 21.6 Secondary/Post-Secondary 38.6 36.9 33.0 31.7 40.2 38.2 32.8 30.7 39.3 37.4 32.9 31.3 Diploma & Professional Qualification 12.6 15.4 19.3 20.4 14.1 16.7 18.5 20.3 13.2 16.0 19.0 20.3 Degree 13.2 15.2 21.8 25.4 15.8 17.3 26.2 28.5 14.2 16.1 23.7 26.8 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 766,754 848,127 877,627 863,100 519,355 620,846 695,629 722,100 1,286,110 1,468,972 1,573,256 1,585,200 * Excluding non-response cases

Occupation of employed resident population

With improvements in the education level of the resident workforce, a gradual shift in occupation towards higher-skilled jobs among employed residents was evident over the years. The share of professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) in the resident workforce rose from 43.4% in 2003 to 50.6% in 2013 and 51.9% in 2018 (Table 2.19).

Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Occupation and Year

Occupation* 2003 2008 2013 2018

Legislator, Senior Officials & Managers 11.4 10.7 13.3 12.2

Professionals PMETs 11.2 11.9 14.5 20.1 s Associate Professionals & Technicians 20.8 22.6 22.8 19.6 Clerical Workers 13.5 12.8 12.9 10.0 Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers 12.8 12.6 11.8 13.0

Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ 17.8 15.0 11.9 12.0 Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers

Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers 8.6 10.7 9.2 9.7 Others (e.g., NS, SAF personnel) 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons** 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428 1,565,600

* Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series. Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively. ** Excluding non-response cases

At the same time, the proportion of employed residents in production jobs, including plant or machine operators, had declined significantly, from 17.8% in 2003 to 11.9% in 2013 and had remained stable at 12.0% in 2018. Those performing clerical work had also decreased gradually, from 13.5% in 2003 to 12.9% in 2013 and 10.0% in 2018. The proportion of employed residents in service or sales related jobs had remained relatively stable at around 12% to 13% over the same period. There was a slight increase in the proportion of employed residents in cleaning or labour related works, from 8.6% in 2003 to 9.2% in 2013 and 9.7% in 2018. As the resident workforce progressed into higher skilled jobs, an increasing proportion of lower skilled, labour intensive jobs, if they had not become obsolete, were taken up by older workers or non-residents.

Older workers, who had limited opportunities to pursue higher education in their earlier years, attained lower educational qualifications. Consequently, they were more likely to engage in lower-skilled jobs. About four in ten (38.2%) of those aged 55 to 64 years old and more than half (54.3%) of those aged 65 years old and above were employed in lower-skilled jobs such as cleaners and labourers, production and plant or machine operators (Table 2.20). In sharp contrast, among the younger cohort aged 25 to 44 years old, the proportion of PMETs was larger than that of non-PMETs.

In 2018, about half of all employed male (53.0%) and female (50.7%) residents were PMETs (Table 2.21). With improved educational attainment among the female workforce, more females were holding PMET jobs, resulting in the narrowing gap between the proportions of males and females in this category. In 2018, 53.0% of employed male residents were PMETs, just 2.3 percentage points higher than employed female residents. The gap was wider, at 3.5 percentage points, in 2003. However, among those in non-PMET jobs, a higher proportion of males were in jobs such as production and plant or machine operators; whereas more females were found in jobs such as clerical work, service and sales.

Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Occupation, Age and Year

Age Group (Years) All Occupation* 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Legislator, Senior Officials 4.5 1.3 13.0 12.3 19.6 19.6 14.4 13.9 9.7 9.2 3.6 5.1 13.3 12.2 & Managers

Professionals 10.6 13.1 24.9 33.0 20.1 28.9 9.2 17.6 4.3 9.0 4.0 5.0 14.5 20.1

Associate Professionals & 20.7 19.8 31.8 26.6 24.1 21.9 21.5 20.3 15.8 14.4 7.3 6.4 22.8 19.6 Technicians

Clerical Workers 13.3 13.3 13.9 9.5 13.2 9.9 14.0 9.8 10.8 11.1 6.7 6.7 12.9 10.0

Service, Shop & Market 12.7 13.9 8.5 8.9 9.3 9.4 11.8 13.0 16.9 17.4 21.6 21.3 11.8 13.0 Sales Workers

Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/Plant & 2.4 2.4 4.6 4.4 8.2 6.4 17.2 16.0 22.9 22.5 17.7 16.9 11.9 12.0 Machine Operators & Assemblers

Cleaners, Labourers & 2.5 2.5 1.5 3.3 4.7 3.4 11.2 8.7 19.0 15.7 38.7 37.4 9.2 9.7 Related Workers

Others (e.g., NS, SAF 33.3 33.7 1.8 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.2 3.6 3.4 personnel)

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons** 124,338 113,600 341,517 314,000 378,909 341,000 383,798 356,500 246,201 313,300 67,005 127,200 1,542,428 1,565,600 * Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series. Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively. ** Excluding non-response cases

Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Occupation, Sex and Year

Male Female All Occupation* 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Legislator, Senior Officials & 13.6 12.5 15.1 13.6 8.2 8.1 11.1 10.7 11.4 10.7 13.3 12.2 Managers

Professionals 10.9 12.1 13.9 20.3 11.6 11.5 15.1 19.8 11.2 11.9 14.5 20.1

Associate Professionals & 20.3 21.4 22.8 19.1 21.5 24.4 22.9 20.2 20.8 22.6 22.8 19.6 Technicians

Clerical Workers 6.4 5.7 6.4 3.8 24.0 22.5 21.1 17.5 13.5 12.8 12.9 10.0

Service, Shop & Market Sales 11.9 11.6 10.1 10.4 14.3 14.0 13.9 16.1 12.8 12.6 11.8 13.0 Workers

Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/Plant & Machine 23.4 21.3 18.1 19.4 9.7 6.4 4.1 3.1 17.8 15.0 11.9 12.0 Operators & Assemblers

Cleaners, Labourers & Related 7.2 9.2 7.4 7.4 10.5 12.7 11.5 12.5 8.6 10.7 9.2 9.7 Workers

Others (e.g., NS, SAF personnel) 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons** 768,850 834,609 860,089 852,000 520,519 613,597 682,339 713,600 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428 1,565,600 * Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series. Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively. ** Excluding non-response cases

2.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population

Singapore has one of the fastest ageing populations in the world. As the population ages, the needs of the elderly population, ranging from financial security, housing and healthcare, to family care, community support and social services, will be accentuated and become more pressing.

This section analyses statistics pertaining to the demographic and socioeconomic aspects of the elderly and future elderly population living in HDB flats. Detailed statistics on the elderly and the future elderly population would provide planners and policymakers with information to plan for and prioritise facilities and programmes. More details on elderly and future elderly households as well as their social, housing and personal aspects are covered in Chapter 6 on Well-Being of the Elderly of the monograph Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities & Well-Being of the Elderly.

2.3.1 Demographic Characteristics

Population size and growth rate

The number of elderly (aged 65 years old and above) and future elderly residents (aged 55 to 64 years old) had been increasing steadily over the years, especially over the last five years as the large cohort of “baby boomers” aged. In 2018, there were about 502,700 elderly residents living in HDB flats, up from about 335,100 persons in 2013, an increase of about 167,600 persons (Chart 2.6). Elderly persons constituted 16.5% of the total resident population, up from 11.0% in 2013. The elderly population grew at an annualised rate of 8.4% for the period from 2013 to 2018, a significant increase from 3.3% for the preceding period from 2008 to 2013.

The number of future elderly residents in 2018 was about 479,600, accounting for 15.8% of the total resident population and an increase of about 72,300 persons over the last five years. This translates to an annualised growth rate of 3.3% over the five-year time period, slightly lower than the 3.7% registered in the preceding period.

Together, both the elderly and future elderly made up close to one million persons (or close to one-third) of the HDB resident population in 2018.

Chart 2.6 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year

3,500

Detailed Breakdown: 335 3,000 218 285 (11.0%) Young-Old (65-74 years old) 10.7% (9.8%) 503 (7.6%) (16.5%) Old-Old (75-84 years old) 4.7% 339 407 2,500 247 Oldest-Old (85 years old & above) 1.1% (8.7%) (11.6%) (13.3%) 480 (15.8%) 2,000 Elderly 1,500 (65 Years Old & Above) 2,380 2,299 2,312

Number Number ('000 persons) 2,056 Future Elderly 1,000 (83.7%) (78.6%) (75.7%) (67.7%) (55-64 Years Old) 500 Non-Elderly (Below 55 Years Old)

0 2003 2008 2013 2018

Role and relationship with owner/registered tenant

More than half of the elderly population (55.5%) was either an owner or a registered tenant, slightly lower than that of the future elderly population at 57.0% (Table 2.22). The future elderly population had a higher proportion of co-owners (35.3%) than the elderly population, which had a higher proportion of occupiers (17.7%).

Table 2.22 Role and Relationship with Owner/Registered Tenant of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population

Role & Relationship with Future Elderly Owner/Registered Tenant Elderly

Owner/Registered Tenant 55.5 57.0 Owner 51.7 54.2 Registered Tenant (renting HDB rental flats) 3.8 2.8 Co-owner (of Sold Flats) 26.8 35.3 Spouse 22.4 31.9 Parents/Parents-in-law 3.5 0.7 Sibling/Sibling-in-law 0.7 1.7 Children/Children-in-law 0.1 0.9 Other relative (e.g., uncle/aunt) 0.1 - Unrelated (including friend) - 0.1 Occupier 17.7 7.7 Parents/Parents-in-law 13.8 1.9 Spouse 2.2 2.3 Sibling/Sibling-in-law 1.0 1.3 Children/Children-in-law 0.2 1.4 Other relative (e.g., uncle/aunt, cousin) 0.2 0.4 Unrelated (including friend) 0.3 0.4

% 100.0 100.0 Total Persons 502,700 479,600

Age distribution and sex composition

The median age of the elderly population was 71 years, while the median age of the future elderly population, being younger, was 59 years old (Table 2.23).

In regard to age distribution, females formed a larger proportion of the elderly population at 54.6% (274,300 elderly female), compared with males at 45.4% (228,400 elderly male). Those aged 85 years old and above (the oldest-old) also formed a slightly larger proportion (8.4%) among females compared with males (5.0%). There was no significant difference in the age distribution between males and females among the future elderly population.

Table 2.23 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Age, Sex and Year (a) HDB Elderly Resident Population

Age Group 2013 2018 (Years) Male Female All Elderly Male Female All Elderly

65 - 69 40.2 36.3 38.1 37.7 37.5 37.6 70 - 74 29.9 26.8 28.1 28.4 25.6 26.9 75 - 79 18.9 14.8 16.6 18.2 18.2 18.2 80 - 84 6.9 12.1 9.8 10.7 10.3 10.5 85 & Above 4.1 10.0 7.4 5.0 8.4 6.8

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 150,758 184,333 335,091 228,400 274,300 502,700

Age (Years) Mean 72.1 73.7 73.0 72.7 73.4 73.1 Median 71 72 72 71 71 71 * Excluding non-response cases

(b) HDB Future Elderly Resident Population

2013 2018 Age Group All All (Years) Male Female Male Female Future Elderly Future Elderly

55 - 59 53.3 55.1 54.2 50.1 50.6 50.4 60 - 64 46.7 44.9 45.8 49.9 49.4 49.6

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 195,977 211,282 407,259 233,100 246,500 479,600

Age (Years) Mean 59.3 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.4 59.4 Median 59 59 59 59 59 59 * Excluding non-response cases

Geographical distribution

In terms of absolute number, mature towns such as Bedok, Bukit Merah and Ang Mo Kio, as well as middle-aged towns such as Jurong West and Tampines housed more elderly residents (Table 2.24). There were also a large number of future elderly residents residing in middle-aged towns such as Tampines and Jurong West.

Generally, all mature towns/estates recorded high proportions of elderly population, ranging from 21.8% in Bedok to 34.1% in Marine Parade. Among middle-aged towns/estate, Bukit Timah, Jurong East and Serangoon had high proportions of elderly residents, constituting 23.0%, 21.9% and 21.0% of their respective population.

The future elderly residents, however, accounted for around 13% to 20% of the population in all the mature and middle-aged towns/estates. Towns such as Choa Chu Kang, Sembawang, Tampines and Pasir Ris saw a higher increase, between 5 and 7 percentage points, in the proportion of future elderly residents over the last five years.

To cater to the rapidly ageing population, initiatives or programmes such as infrastructure upgrading, provisions of elder-friendly facilities and social and medical services would have to be put in place in HDB towns/estates.

Table 2.24 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year

Elderly Population Future Elderly Population Town/Estate 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018 Young Sengkang 6,398 (5.2%) 9,114 (5.9%) 8,802 (5.1%) 21,200 (10.1%) 8,599 (7.0%) 12,822 (8.3%) 17,156 (9.9%) 21,200 (10.2%) Towns Punggol 1,387 (3.6%) 2,715 (4.7%) 4,517 (4.8%) 8,400 (5.9%) 2,715 (5.7%) 4,159 (7.2%) 7,651 (8.0%) 12,200 (8.7%) Sembawang 2,262 (4.0%) 3,409 (5.4%) 2,842 (4.1%) 5,500 (7.1%) 2,588 (4.5%) 4,797 (7.6%) 6,156 (9.0%) 11,800 (15.4%) Middle-Aged Jurong West 11,885 (5.5%) 13,567 (5.8%) 13,670 (5.6%) 33,400 (14.7%) 14,095 (6.5%) 24,094 (10.3%) 27,526 (11.4%) 35,800 (15.8%) Towns/Estate Tampines 12,200 (5.3%) 17,936 (7.9%) 24,202 (10.2%) 31,000 (14.1%) 13,420 (5.9%) 25,202 (11.1%) 30,397 (12.8%) 41,000 (18.4%) Hougang 12,300 (7.1%) 16,186 (9.6%) 17,068 (10.3%) 27,000 (16.5%) 11,744 (6.8%) 23,604 (14.0%) 25,737 (15.6%) 27,200 (16.6%) Yishun 7,660 (4.8%) 9,840 (6.1%) 13,756 (8.0%) 24,800 (13.4%) 12,755 (8.1%) 18,067 (11.2%) 23,372 (13.9%) 30,000 (16.2%) Woodlands 10,395 (4.9%) 10,813 (4.8%) 18,468 (8.0%) 24,000 (10.5%) 11,196 (5.3%) 17,346 (7.7%) 22,494 (9.8%) 28,800 (12.7%) Choa Chu Kang 6,229 (4.3%) 7,199 (4.8%) 8,116 (5.2%) 18,500 (11.2%) 8,035 (5.6%) 12,148 (8.1%) 14,063 (9.1%) 26,600 (15.9%) Bukit Batok 5,578 (5.2%) 7,362 (7.4%) 10,232 (9.4%) 18,400 (17.2%) 6,228 (5.8%) 11,939 (12.0%) 15,156 (14.1%) 19,300 (18.1%) Bukit Panjang 6,823 (6.4%) 6,613 (6.2%) 11,008 (9.6%) 17,000 (14.8%) 6,504 (6.1%) 12,053 (11.3%) 15,028 (13.1%) 19,700 (17.2%) Jurong East 5,354 (6.8%) 7,720 (10.1%) 9,023 (12.0%) 14,900 (21.9%) 8,693 (11.0%) 10,702 (14.0%) 11,339 (15.1%) 11,400 (16.6%)

Serangoon 6,738 (9.1%) 7,826 (11.0%) 7,305 (10.1%) 13,000 (21.0%) 6,128 (8.3%) 9,890 (13.9%) 11,775 (16.3%) 11,300 (18.2%) Bishan 3,829 (5.8%) 5,381 (8.4%) 8,936 (14.3%) 11,000 (19.9%) 5,813 (8.8%) 6,726 (10.5%) 10,952 (17.6%) 11,000 (19.9%) Pasir Ris 4,510 (4.2%) 4,547 (4.3%) 7,502 (6.9%) 10,400 (9.4%) 5,658 (5.3%) 8,670 (8.2%) 12,655 (11.7%) 18,800 (17.1%) Bukit Timah 1,006 (11.4%) 1,168 (13.9%) 1,301 (16.6%) 1,700 (23.0%) 1,016 (11.6%) 1,059 (12.6%) 1,234 (15.8%) 1,500 (20.0%) Mature Bedok 16,234 (8.6%) 23,646 (12.9%) 21,499 (11.5%) 38,200 (21.8%) 18,793 (10.0%) 25,846 (14.1%) 31,487 (16.8%) 32,300 (18.5%) Towns/Estates Bukit Merah 20,261 (16.4%) 25,624 (18.8%) 25,134 (17.4%) 34,700 (25.7%) 21,025 (17.0%) 22,080 (16.2%) 25,190 (17.4%) 22,500 (16.6%) Ang Mo Kio 13,739 (9.4%) 21,935 (15.2%) 24,314 (16.8%) 31,000 (24.6%) 16,453 (11.2%) 19,338 (13.4%) 23,025 (16.0%) 22,600 (17.9%) Kallang/Whampoa 11,553 (12.3%) 17,401 (17.9%) 24,318 (23.5%) 25,300 (27.0%) 13,206 (14.0%) 13,609 (14.0%) 14,952 (14.4%) 15,900 (17.0%) Toa Payoh 13,865 (13.6%) 18,098 (17.9%) 18,633 (18.2%) 24,100 (25.4%) 11,989 (11.8%) 12,335 (12.2%) 15,219 (14.8%) 15,600 (16.4%) Queenstown 12,634 (16.7%) 14,189 (18.0%) 15,316 (19.0%) 19,300 (25.4%) 10,822 (14.4%) 9,853 (12.5%) 11,175 (13.8%) 13,400 (17.7%) Geylang 8,179 (8.7%) 12,713 (14.0%) 15,015 (17.1%) 18,500 (24.6%) 11,857 (12.7%) 12,077 (13.3%) 14,089 (16.1%) 11,000 (14.6%) Clementi 7,656 (10.8%) 10,413 (15.2%) 12,727 (19.6%) 17,000 (24.1%) 11,030 (15.5%) 12,674 (18.5%) 10,743 (16.5%) 11,400 (16.3%) Central Area 5,352 (19.4%) 5,178 (18.1%) 6,817 (20.4%) 8,000 (26.6%) 4,174 (15.1%) 5,264 (18.4%) 5,630 (16.9%) 4,800 (16.0%) Marine Parade 3,542 (16.3%) 4,869 (23.4%) 4,570 (20.3%) 6,400 (34.1%) 3,249 (15.0%) 3,142 (15.1%) 3,037 (13.5%) 2,500 (13.3%) Total 217,568 (7.6%) 285,462 (9.8%) 335,091 (11.0%) 502,700 (16.5%) 247,488 (8.7%) 339,496 (11.6%) 407,259 (13.3%) 479,600 (15.8%) Note: Figures in (brackets) denote concentrations of elderly or future elderly population within the town

Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type

Slightly more elderly (5.7%) and future elderly (4.1%) residents were living in HDB rental flats, compared with the overall resident population at 3.8% (Table 2.25). The proportions of elderly and future elderly population living in HDB rental flats have, however, been on the decline.

In terms of flat type, compared with the overall resident population, there were proportionally more elderly and future elderly residents living in 3-room or smaller flat types. The proportions of elderly and future elderly residents living in 4-room flats had remained quite stable over the last five years, while the proportion living in 5-room flats had increased over the years.

In addition, the proportion of future elderly residents living in 2-room flats had increased over the last five years, mainly due to HDB building more smaller flat types to enable older residents to right-size, should they choose to do so.

Table 2.25 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Tenure and Flat Type and Year

Tenure & Elderly Future Elderly All Flat Type 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Tenure Sold 91.1 92.7 94.3 95.1 95.5 95.9 97.0 96.3 96.2 Rental 8.9 7.3 5.7 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.0 3.7 3.8

Flat Type 1-Room 4.7 4.6 4.2 2.2 2.2 2.6 1.2 1.6 1.8 2-Room 5.2 4.9 4.9 3.2 3.1 4.0 2.2 2.8 3.6 3-Room 31.2 30.4 27.1 24.0 22.8 20.7 19.6 19.3 18.2 4-Room 33.9 35.6 35.9 40.9 40.5 39.8 41.0 41.1 42.1 5-Room 20.2 18.8 21.6 21.7 22.8 24.3 26.7 26.6 26.5 Executive 4.8 5.7 6.3 7.9 8.6 8.6 9.3 8.6 7.8

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons 285,374 335,091 502,700 339,041 407,259 479,600 2,923,224 3,057,664 3,039,400 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Ethnic composition

Compared with the overall population, there was an over-representation of Chinese among the elderly and future elderly population at 83.7% and 76.6% respectively (Table 2.26). These proportions had declined slightly over the last five years.

Malays comprised 9.2% of the elderly population in 2018, a slight decline compared with 2013, while the proportions of Indian and Others elderly population had increased slightly.

In contrast, the proportions of all minority ethnic groups among the future elderly population had increased slightly over the last five years.

Table 2.26 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year

Elderly Future Elderly All Ethnic Group 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Chinese 83.2 84.3 83.7 79.0 79.9 76.6 73.8 73.5 72.6 Malay 10.2 10.0 9.2 12.6 13.0 15.4 16.3 15.6 16.2 Indian 5.5 4.9 6.0 7.0 6.2 6.7 8.2 8.9 9.0 Others 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.2

Marital status

Overall, 64.2% of elderly residents were married, 23.4% were widowed, 7.1% were single, and the remaining 5.3% were divorced/separated (Table 2.27). Reflecting the longer life expectancy of females, the proportion of widowed persons among female elderly residents (35.6%) was much higher than that of males (8.7%). In contrast, the proportion of married persons among male elderly residents (81.3%) was much higher than that of females (49.9%).

Among future elderly residents, 82.0% of males and 69.8% of females, were married. However, the proportion of divorced/separated persons among females had increased slightly from 7.7% in 2013 to 10.5% in 2018.

In addition, the proportion of singles among both elderly and future elderly residents had been on the rise, indicating the need for more non-familial social support.

Table 2.27 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Marital Status, Sex and Year

All Male Female Marital Status Elderly/Future Elderly 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Elderly Married 79.8 80.9 81.3 42.6 44.2 49.9 59.2 60.7 64.2 Widowed 12.3 11.3 8.7 49.0 45.4 35.6 32.7 30.1 23.4

Divorced/ 2.8 3.2 3.9 5.1 4.9 6.6 4.1 4.1 5.3 Separated

Single 5.0 4.6 6.1 3.3 5.5 7.9 4.1 5.1 7.1

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons 126,845 150,758 228,400 158,529 184,333 274,300 285,374 335,091 502,700

Future Elderly Married 85.6 87.1 82.0 72.0 73.2 69.8 78.8 79.9 75.8 Widowed 1.9 1.6 2.3 11.8 8.9 7.7 6.9 5.4 5.1

Divorced/ 3.6 2.3 4.9 7.0 7.7 10.5 5.3 5.1 7.7 Separated

Single 8.9 9.0 10.8 9.1 10.2 12.0 9.0 9.6 11.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons 168,322 195,977 233,100 170,719 211,282 246,500 339,041 407,259 479,600 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Ambulant status

The state of health among elderly and future elderly residents was positive. The majority of elderly (87.3%) and future elderly residents (97.5%) were ambulant and physically independent, but a slight decline of these proportions over the last five years was also detected (Table 2.28).

Further analysis by age of elderly residents showed that ambulant status declined sharply only after 85 years old (Table 2.29).

Table 2.28 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Ambulant Status and Year

Elderly Future Elderly Ambulant Status* 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Ambulant & Physically Independent 87.4 90.2 87.3 98.1 98.4 97.5

Ambulant & Physically Independent 7.2 4.3 6.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 but Require Walking Aids

Require Some Physical Assistance 3.8 3.5 4.5 0.3 0.4 1.0 to Move Around

Not Bedridden but Require Total 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 Physical Assistance

Bedridden & Require Regular 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 Turning in Bed

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons** 285,374 333,645 502,400 339,041 406,991 479,100 * Classification adapted from the National Survey of Senior Citizens (NSSC) 2005 ** Excluding non-response cases

Table 2.29 HDB Elderly Resident Population by Ambulant Status and Age

Age Group (Years) All Ambulant Status* 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 & Above Elderly

Ambulant & Physically Independent 94.0 81.1 49.5 87.3

Ambulant & Physically Independent 3.1 9.4 20.3 6.1 but Require Walking Aids

Require Some Physical Assistance 1.9 6.4 20.9 4.5 to Move Around

Not Bedridden but Require Total 0.6 1.9 6.4 1.3 Physical Assistance

Bedridden & Require Regular 0.4 1.2 2.9 0.8 Turning in Bed

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons** 324,000 144,100 34,300 502,400 * Classification adapted from the National Survey of Senior Citizens (NSSC) 2005 ** Excluding non-response cases

2.3.2 Economic Characteristics

Labour force status

While the majority of elderly residents were outside the labour force (73.9%), there were indications that the proportion remaining in or entering the workforce had been increasing from 12.6% in 2003 to 26.1% in 2018 (Table 2.30). A similar trend was observed among future elderly residents. With the legislation of the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA) where employers are required to re- employ eligible employees who have reached the prevailing statutory retirement age, more elderly and future elderly residents would, if their health condition permits, likely remain in the workforce to enhance their financial security and sense of well-being.

Table 2.30 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Labour Force Status and Year

Elderly Future Elderly Labour Force Status 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Outside Labour Force 87.4 83.6 79.4 73.9 52.2 37.3 36.8 30.9 In Labour Force 12.6 16.4 20.6 26.1 47.8 62.7 63.2 69.1

Working Full-Time 5.9 8.6 11.1 13.6 27.9 43.1 43.8 46.9 (Single Job Holder)

Working Part-Time 3.2 5.6 8.1 8.9 7.9 11.6 12.4 10.3 (Single Job Holder)

Own Account Worker 2.3 1.7 1.1 2.9 8.2 5.0 5.0 8.4 (Single Job Holder)

Other Employed 0.3 0.2 - 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 Persons*

Unemployed 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.6 3.3 2.5 1.9 3.1

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons** 217,568 285,374 334,299 502,100 247,233 339,041 406,760 479,100 * Including employers and contributing family workers holding one job, full-time National Servicemen and those holding two or more jobs ** Excluding non-response cases

Analysis by sex showed that the proportions of both male and female elderly residents who were in the labour force had been on the rise, from 19.5% in 2003 to 32.9% in 2018 for males, and from 6.5% to 20.4% for females over the same period (Table 2.31). Similar trends were observed for future elderly residents. There was a significant increase in the proportions who were in the labour force

among both female elderly and future elderly residents by 8.6 and 8.9 percentage points respectively, over the last five years.

Table 2.31 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Labour Force Status, Sex and Year

All Male Female Labour Force Status Elderly/Future Elderly 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Elderly In Labour Force 19.5 27.5 31.3 32.9 6.5 7.4 11.8 20.4 12.6 16.4 20.6 26.1 Outside Labour Force 80.5 72.5 68.7 67.1 93.5 92.6 88.2 79.6 87.4 83.6 79.4 73.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 102,110 126,845 150,403 228,300 115,458 158,529 183,896 273,800 217,568 285,374 334,299 502,100

Future Elderly In Labour Force 67.8 81.2 81.1 83.5 30.0 44.4 46.7 55.6 47.8 62.7 63.2 69.1

Outside Labour Force 32.2 18.8 18.9 16.5 70.0 55.6 53.3 44.4 52.2 37.3 36.8 30.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 116,784 168,322 195,550 232,700 130,449 170,719 211,210 246,400 247,233 339,041 406,760 479,100 * Excluding non-response cases

Education level of employed resident population

The education level of the employed elderly population was low, with close to two- thirds (64.3%) having below secondary education, however, it has improved over the years (Table 2.32). The future elderly cohort had fared better, with close to six in ten (58.0%) having at least a secondary education in 2018, compared to about three in ten (31.4%) in 2003.

Table 2.32 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population by Education Level and Year

Highest Education Level Elderly Future Elderly Attained 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Below Secondary 86.1 79.0 73.5 64.3 68.6 56.0 50.3 42.0

Secondary/ 12.1 15.3 21.3 27.4 26.4 38.1 39.2 41.6 Post-Secondary

Diploma & Professional 0.6 2.8 3.4 4.6 3.4 3.5 6.7 8.9 Qualification

Degree 1.2 2.9 1.8 3.7 1.6 2.4 3.8 7.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons* 24,714 44,242 67,507 127,300 109,343 201,714 249,352 315,400 * Excluding non-response cases

Occupation of employed resident population

In general, education level correlates highly with occupation status. Corresponding to their lower educational attainment, more than half (54.3%) of all employed elderly residents held lower-skilled jobs such as cleaners, production workers, or plant and machine operators (Table 2.33).

Conversely, with higher education attainment, about one-third (32.6%) of future elderly residents worked as PMETs, compared with 16.5% among elderly residents. This proportion had also increased over the years, from 23.0% in 2003 to 29.9% in 2013 and 32.6% in 2018. Clearly, a shift towards higher-skilled jobs was evident among this cohort.

Table 2.33 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population by Occupation and Year

Elderly Future Elderly Occupation* 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers 10.8 5.9 3.6 5.1 9.8 8.1 9.7 9.2 Professionals 4.0 3.1 4.0 5.0 2.5 4.2 4.3 9.0 Associate Professionals & Technicians 3.4 6.2 7.3 6.4 10.7 12.7 15.8 14.4 Clerical Workers 5.8 5.0 6.7 6.7 8.3 11.2 10.8 11.1 Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers 22.7 17.6 21.7 21.3 17.8 14.8 16.9 17.4

Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ 19.4 20.1 17.7 16.9 25.8 26.1 22.9 22.5 Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers

Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers 33.9 42.1 38.7 37.4 24.9 22.6 19.0 15.7 Others (e.g., NS, SAF personnel) - - 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons** 25,379 44,194 67,005 127,200 109,360 200,104 246,201 313,300 * Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series. Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively. ** Excluding non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

2.4 Summary of Findings

As of January 2018, the HDB resident population (owners/co-owners, HDB rental tenants and occupiers) stood at 3.04 million persons, registering a negative annualised growth rate for the period from 2013 to 2018. The decline was mainly due to net outflow of HDB resident population into private housing.

The majority of the resident population lived in sold flats, predominantly in 4-room flats. The proportions of residents living in HDB rental flats or 1- and 2-room flats had increased slightly over the last five years. This was mainly due to the increase in the supply of HDB rental flats in recent years to help lower-income and vulnerable families. More smaller flat types were also built to cater to the needs of elderly residents who wished to right size to smaller flats, and to singles who wished to purchase new 2-room flats in non-mature estates.

Woodlands, Jurong West, Tampines and Sengkang were the four most populous towns. In general, towns with substantial additions to housing stock registered population growth. In contrast, towns/estates with little or no increase in housing stock experienced net outflow of HDB residents, likely to other HDB towns with new developments or to private housing.

Slightly more than half of the resident population was in the labour force. The majority of employed residents were single job employees holding full-time jobs, while only 2.6% were unemployed. The labour force participation rate among the resident population declined slightly to 64.3%, mainly due to baby boomers retiring from the labour force. A significant improvement in education levels and a gradual shift towards higher-skilled jobs among the employed resident population were also evident.

Reflecting the increasing longevity and declining fertility rates, the median age of the resident population inched up to 42 years as the population matures. Elderly and future elderly residents constituted 16.5% and 15.8% of the resident population respectively, with higher concentrations of these age cohorts in mature and middle-aged towns/estates. The majority of the elderly (87.3%) and future elderly population (97.5%) were ambulant and physically independent. While the majority of elderly residents were outside the labour force, the proportion who were

in the labour force continued to increase and had more than doubled from 12.6% in 2003 to 26.1% in 2018. With the introduction of the Retirement and Re- employment Act, more elderly residents would likely remain in the workforce to enhance their financial security and sense of well-being. In addition, with higher educational attainment, more elderly and future elderly residents would likely continue working.

3 Profile of HDB Households

Chapter 3

Profile of HDB Households

The structure and composition of households reflect the social and economic well- being of HDB residents. Cultural norms may influence expectations and aspirations of these households with respect to their desired living arrangements. All these have an impact on the composition of households. This chapter provides the analyses on the demographic and socioeconomic profile of HDB resident households. Trend analysis will be used, where available, to highlight the demographic changes that have taken place over time.

Demographic Characteristics of HDB Households

Size and growth rate of resident households

In 2018, there were 1,013,542 resident households living in HDB flats, registering an annualised growth rate of 2.2% from 908,499 in 2013 (Chart 3.1).

Chart 3.1 HDB Households and Growth Rate by Year 1,200 8 1,014 1,000 908 821 866 6 800 729 594 600 4 Resident Households ('000) 2.8 4.2 2.4 2.2 400 Annual Growth Rate

1.1 1.0 2 Number Number of Households

200 AnnualGrowth Rate (%)

0 0 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Type of dwelling by tenure, flat type and ethnic group of owner/registered tenant

Of the 1.014 million resident households living in HDB flats, the majority (95.0%) lived in sold flats (Chart 3.2). This proportion was slightly higher than that in 2013, but lower compared with 2008. The proportion of resident households in HDB rental flats decreased marginally from 5.4% in 2013 to 5.0% in 2018, due to a larger increase in the quantum of sold flats as compared to rental flats.

Chart 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure and Year

4.5 4.7 5.4 5.0 100

60 Rental 95.5 95.3 94.6 95.0

40 Sold Households(%) 20

0 2003 2008 2013 2018

Among sold flats, most households were living in 4-room flats (42.1%), followed by 5-room (24.5%) and 3-room (24.1%) flats as shown in Table 3.1. The proportion of households living in 1- and 2-room flats increased to 2.6% from 1.1% in 2013, mainly due to an increase in the provision of Studio Apartments and 2-room Flexi flats in the last five years. This had resulted in an increase of about 15,000 households living in such flat types.

Table 3.1 HDB Households by Flat Type, Tenure and Year

Sold Rental All

Flat Type 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

% N % N % N % N % N % N

1-Room 0.1 832 0.5 4,617 48.3 23,741 51.2 25,752 2.7 24,573 3.0 30,369 2-Room 1.0 8,830 2.1 20,057 51.6 25,374 48.3 24,294 3.8 34,204 4.4 44,351 3-Room 25.1 216,116 24.1 232,052 0.1 47 0.6 299 23.8 216,163 22.9 232,351 4-Room 41.3 354,526 42.1 405,163 - - - - 39.0 354,526 40.0 405,163 5-Room 24.9 214,074 24.5 236,324 - - - - 23.6 214,074 23.3 236,324 Executive 7.6 64,959 6.7 64,984 - - - - 7.1 64,959 6.4 64,984

Total 100.0 859,337 100.0 963,197 100.0 49,162 100.0 50,345 100.0 908,499 100.0 1,013,542 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

The number of households living in HDB rental flats was 50,345, an annualised increase of 0.5% (or 1,183 households) from 2013 (Table 3.1). Rental housing units comprised predominantly 1- and 2-room flats.

The majority of resident households lived in sold flats. Relatively more Malay (11.9%) and Indian (6.8%) households were living in HDB rental flats (Table 3.2). The proportion of Chinese, Indian, and Others households living in HDB rental flats had decreased over the last five years.

Although the majority of resident households lived in 3-, 4- and 5-room flats, there were relatively more Malay and Indian households living in 1-room (5.9% Malay; 3.3% Indian) and 2-room (9.2% Malay; 5.7% Indian) flats (Table 3.3).

Table 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Chinese Malay Indian Others All Tenure 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Sold 95.8 96.4 88.3 88.1 92.7 93.2 95.0 97.5 94.6 95.0 Rental 4.2 3.6 11.7 11.9 7.3 6.8 5.0 2.5 5.4 5.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542

Table 3.3 HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Chinese Malay Indian Others All Flat Type 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1-Room 2.3 2.5 5.1 5.9 3.5 3.3 2.5 1.3 2.7 3.0 2-Room 3.0 3.5 7.8 9.2 4.5 5.7 3.5 2.3 3.8 4.4 3-Room 24.2 23.0 22.5 22.3 22.6 23.4 19.9 20.7 23.8 22.9 4-Room 39.1 40.6 38.8 38.2 38.3 38.0 38.7 37.2 39.0 40.0 5-Room 24.2 24.0 19.4 18.7 23.2 22.7 28.0 30.7 23.6 23.3 Executive 7.2 6.5 6.4 5.6 7.9 6.9 7.4 7.8 7.1 6.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Geographical distribution

Jurong West, Tampines, and Woodlands had the highest number of households (Chart 3.3). Compared with 2013, Punggol, Sengkang, and Yishun had the largest increase in the number of households, as more new flats were built in these towns over the past five years.

Mature towns/estates tended to have a higher proportion of households living in smaller flat types (3-room or smaller), while young and middle-aged towns/estates had a higher proportion of those living in bigger flat types (4-room or larger) (Table 3.4).

Chart 3.3 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year

2013 2018

80 72.4

67.8

66.0 66.0

61.1 60.5

53.5

50.9

67.7

49.6

48.0 63.3

46.1

59.4

58.8

38.1

36.9 35.4

40 35.2 49.4

49.1

48.6

48.4

31.3

48.1

29.5

29.1

26.2

23.7

23.3 40.2

21.4

19.6

36.1 35.4

20 31.7

30.6

29.3

11.7

28.7 27.8

27.5

7.7

23.9

22.8

21.2

Number Number of Households('000)

19.6

2.5

18.4 2.4

12.4 0 7.8

Bedok

Yishun Bishan

Punggol

Geylang

Clementi PasirRis

Hougang

Tampines

Sengkang

ToaPayoh

Serangoon

Woodlands

Bukit Bukit Batok

Ang Ang MoKio

Bukit Timah

Bukit Merah

JurongEast

Sembawang

JurongWest CentralArea Queenstown

Bukit Panjang

MarineParade Choa Chu Kang

Kallang/Whampoa Young Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates Towns

Table 3.4 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type

Total HDB Town/Estate 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive % N

Punggol 3.0 4.3 9.7 46.4 34.1 2.4 100.0 46,105

Sengkang 1.5 3.0 5.6 46.7 36.4 6.8 100.0 65,957 Towns Young Sembawang 1.8 5.2 3.5 41.6 35.6 12.3 100.0 23,300

Bishan 2.5 0.5 11.9 47.6 29.1 8.5 100.0 19,595 Bukit Batok 1.7 1.1 29.6 43.3 16.5 7.7 100.0 35,427 Bukit Panjang 0.7 2.4 10.4 47.3 29.6 9.6 100.0 35,181

Bukit Timah 1.2 3.2 17.4 36.4 26.8 15.1 100.0 2,516

Choa Chu Kang 1.6 2.4 5.1 48.3 32.7 9.9 100.0 47,987 Estate Hougang 1.7 2.1 19.4 48.3 20.4 8.0 100.0 53,497

Jurong East 1.5 2.1 29.2 34.4 24.9 7.9 100.0 23,703 d Towns/ d

ge Jurong West 1.4 2.8 16.0 40.4 30.5 9.0 100.0 72,396

A - Pasir Ris 0.9 1.3 1.7 39.2 31.7 25.2 100.0 29,518

Middle Serangoon 1.2 1.7 21.0 47.6 17.5 11.0 100.0 21,390 Tampines 1.7 2.1 19.5 42.6 25.6 8.6 100.0 67,760 Woodlands 2.7 3.3 10.0 43.9 30.6 9.4 100.0 65,960 Yishun 2.6 2.3 25.1 48.8 16.7 4.5 100.0 61,133

Ang Mo Kio 2.7 7.2 48.5 28.7 11.9 1.0 100.0 49,648 Bedok 4.0 3.6 37.1 33.7 17.1 4.5 100.0 60,476

Bukit Merah 9.3 11.2 30.7 30.6 18.1 0.1 100.0 50,940 Central Area 16.9 10.3 35.8 29.2 7.5 0.3 100.0 11,689 Clementi 1.7 2.7 46.3 34.8 12.1 2.4 100.0 26,230 Geylang 3.5 10.5 38.0 32.8 12.3 2.9 100.0 29,129 Kallang/Whampoa 11.2 6.8 35.7 30.7 14.3 1.3 100.0 38,062

Mature Mature Towns/Estates Marine Parade - 16.7 38.7 23.1 21.6 - 100.0 7,717

Queenstown 2.0 10.5 29.7 12.6 1.1 100.0 31,338 44.1 Toa Payoh 3.5 9.7 40.8 27.4 16.3 2.3 100.0 36,888

All 3.0 4.4 22.9 40.0 23.3 6.4 100.0 1,013,542 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Household Composition

The household composition reflects the characteristics of the people living together and their relationship to one another. Households may be family-based, such as married couples with or without children, single-parents with children, siblings and extended family members (e.g., grandparents, relatives) living together. They may also be non-family based, such as one person living alone, or unrelated/distantly- related persons living together. Changes to household composition tend to be driven by lifestyle changes, such as an increased preference for personal space and/or independent living, as well as enhancements to housing policies, such as the introduction of 2-room Flexi and 3Gen flats to accommodate different household living arrangements, and policies allowing singles aged 35 years old and above to purchase 2-room Flexi flats in non-mature estates.

This section examines the characteristics of HDB households in terms of the types of family nucleus, number of generations in the households and household size.

Type of family nucleus

Family-based households remained the predominant household type, accounting for 86.6% of HDB households, though the proportion had declined over the years (Table 3.5). Nuclear families formed the majority of family-based households at 75.6%. However, all types of family-based households decreased over the last five years.

More than one in eight (13.5%) households were non-family based. Almost all of these were one-person households. This proportion had increased almost three- fold over the last two decades.

Table 3.5 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year

Type of Family Nucleus 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 94.5 91.3 90.9 90.8 86.6 Nuclear family 82.6 80.4 79.4 76.3 75.6 Extended nuclear family 7.5 7.7 7.4 8.3 6.4 Multi-nuclear family 4.4 3.2 4.1 6.2 4.6 Non-Family Based Household 5.5 8.7 9.2 9.2 13.5 One-person 4.6 7.1 8.0 8.4 12.6 Unrelated/Distantly related 0.9 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.9 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 728,815 821,126 866,026 908,499 1,013,542 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Type of family nucleus by tenure and flat type

About 65.2% of households living in HDB rental flats were family-based households, with nuclear families forming the majority (Table 3.6). This proportion was lower than that of family-based households in sold flats (87.7%). There were higher proportions of one-person households (26.8%) and households with unrelated or distantly related persons (8.0%) living in HDB rental flats compared with sold flats. Compared with 2013, the proportion of one-person households in both rental and sold flats had increased significantly.

Table 3.6 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Tenure and Year

Rental Sold All Type of Family Nucleus 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 68.4 65.2 92.1 87.7 90.8 86.6 Nuclear family 63.1 60.4 77.2 76.4 76.3 75.6 Extended nuclear family 3.7 4.1 8.5 6.5 8.3 6.4 Multi-nuclear family 1.6 0.7 6.4 4.8 6.2 4.6 Non-Family Based Household 31.6 34.8 7.9 12.4 9.2 13.5 One-person 23.7 26.8 7.5 11.9 8.4 12.6 Unrelated/Distantly related 7.9 8.0 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 49,162 50,345 859,337 963,197 908,499 1,013,542 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Family-based households were more predominant in bigger flat types, ranging from 91.0% in 4-room flats to 96.5% in Executive flats (Table 3.7). In relative terms, there were proportionally more non-family based households, especially one- person households, in 3-room and smaller flat types.

Overall, the proportion of non-family based households in all flat types had increased over the last five years. This was mainly due to an increase in the proportion of one-person households.

Type of family nucleus by ethnic group of owner/registered tenant

Family-based households remained the most prevalent household type across ethnic groups. While about nine in ten Malay and Indian households consisted of family-based households, the proportion of family-based Chinese and Others households was relatively lower at 84.9% and 88.6% respectively (Table 3.8).

Among family-based households, nuclear families were the predominant household type across all ethnic groups. The proportions of nuclear families among Malay and Indian households had increased over the past five years, while extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families had declined. Among Others households, the proportion of extended nuclear families increased significantly from 7.5% to 15.6%. All family-based household types decreased proportion-wise for Chinese households.

The proportion of one-person households increased for all ethnic groups over the past five years. The largest increases were observed among Chinese (from 9.3% to 14.3%) and Others (from 4.8% to 9.1%) households.

Table 3.7 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type and Year

1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Type of Family Nucleus 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 Family-Based Household 57.2 51.8 74.3 71.7 79.9 74.1 95.7 91.0 97.7 95.6 98.9 96.5 90.8 86.6 Nuclear family 51.5 49.3 69.4 66.4 69.9 66.9 79.5 78.3 80.8 83.3 79.5 80.2 76.3 75.6 Extended nuclear family 3.8 2.1 3.2 4.1 6.0 4.2 9.5 7.7 9.9 6.6 7.8 9.1 8.3 6.4 Multi-nuclear family 1.9 -* 1.7 1.2 4.0 3.0 6.7 5.0 7.0 5.7 11.6 7.2 6.2 4.6 Non-Family Based Household 42.8 48.2 25.7 28.4 20.1 25.9 4.3 8.9 2.3 4.4 1.1 3.5 9.2 13.5 One-person 29.2 36.5 23.8 26.9 19.2 24.8 3.9 8.7 2.3 4.0 1.1 3.4 8.4 12.6 Unrelated/Distantly related 13.6 11.7 1.9 1.5 0.9 1.1 0.4 -* - -* - -* 0.8 0.9 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 24,573 30,369 34,204 44,351 216,163 232,351 354,526 405,163 214,074 236,324 64,959 64,984 908,499 1,013,542 * Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Table 3.8 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Chinese Malay Indian Others All Type of Family Nucleus 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 Family-Based Household 89.9 84.9 94.3 92.4 94.1 92.1 94.7 88.6 90.8 86.6 Nuclear family 76.6 74.9 72.5 75.7 79.7 82.6 80.8 70.9 76.3 75.6 Extended nuclear family 7.9 6.0 10.6 8.9 8.3 4.2 7.5 15.6 8.3 6.4 Multi-nuclear family 5.4 4.0 11.2 7.8 6.1 5.3 6.4 -* 6.2 4.6 Non-Family Based Household 10.1 15.1 5.7 7.5 5.9 7.9 5.3 11.4 9.2 13.5 One-person 9.3 14.3 5.3 6.8 5.0 6.9 4.8 9.1 8.4 12.6 Unrelated/Distantly related 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.5 -* 0.8 0.9 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542 * Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Number of generations in family-based households

Family-based resident households (86.6%) comprised mainly two-generation families (61.5%), followed by one-generation families (18.0%) and families with three or more generations (7.1%) as shown in Table 3.9.

The proportion of households with two-generation families continued to decline, from 75.4% in 1998 to 61.5% in 2018 while the proportion of households with one generation increased from 10.9% to 18.0% over the same period. The proportion of households with three or more generations fell from 10.1% in 2013 to 7.1% in 2018, reversing the increasing trend observed from 2003. This is in line with the general decrease in all family-based household types as shown in earlier findings in Table 3.5.

Table 3.9 HDB Households by Number of Generations and Year

Number of Generations 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 94.5 91.3 90.9 90.8 86.6 One generation 10.9 13.5 15.1 13.9 18.0 Two generations 75.4 69.9 67.2 66.8 61.5 Three or more generations 8.2 7.9 8.6 10.1 7.1 Non-Family Based Household 5.5 8.7 9.2 9.2 13.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 728,815 821,126 866,026 908,499 1,013,542 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Number of generations in family-based households by flat type

There were proportionally more one-generation families in 3-room and smaller flat types. In contrast, higher proportions of households with two or more generations were living in 4-room and bigger flat types (Table 3.10).

Compared with 2013, the proportion of one-generation families in all flat types increased significantly, with the exception of one-generation families in 1-room flats which registered a slight decrease. There was also a decrease in two-generation families among households living in all flat types. Similar findings were observed for families with three or more generations, which decreased in proportion across all flat types, with the exception of 2-room flats where there was a slight increase. This also reflects the declining trend in family-based households seen in Table 3.7.

Number of generations in family-based households by ethnic group of owner/registered tenant

Two-generation families remained the predominant type of family-based household across the different ethnic groups. In particular, there were proportionally more two-generation families among Malay, Indian and Others households (Table 3.11).

Compared with 2013, Chinese, Malay, and Indian households showed a decrease in the proportion of two-generation and three-or-more-generation families as compared to one-generation families which increased in proportion. For Others households, the proportion of one-generation and three-or-more generation families decreased while that of two-generation families remained largely similar.

Table 3.10 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Flat Type and Year

1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Number of Generations 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 57.2 51.8 74.4 71.6 79.9 74.0 95.7 91.0 97.7 95.6 98.9 96.5 90.8 86.6 One generation 22.5 22.1 17.0 20.9 18.2 21.7 13.0 16.9 11.0 16.2 9.2 14.4 13.9 18.0 Two generations 30.9 28.7 54.5 47.3 55.3 47.7 71.3 66.5 74.8 70.8 74.2 70.3 66.8 61.5 Three or more generations 3.8 1.0 2.9 3.4 6.4 4.6 11.4 7.6 11.9 8.6 15.5 11.8 10.1 7.1 Non-Family Based Household 42.8 48.2 25.6 28.4 20.1 25.9 4.3 9.0 2.3 4.4 1.1 3.5 9.2 13.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 24,573 30,369 34,204 44,351 216,163 232,351 354,526 405,163 214,074 236,324 64,959 64,984 908,499 1,013,542 Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Table 3.11 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Chinese Malay Indian Others All Number of Generations 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 89.9 84.8 94.3 92.5 94.1 92.1 94.7 88.6 90.8 86.6 One Generation 15.2 19.2 7.2 14.4 12.4 14.4 14.3 11.6 13.9 18.0 Two Generations 65.5 59.4 71.5 65.6 71.4 70.9 71.4 71.3 66.8 61.5 Three or More Generations 9.2 6.2 15.6 12.5 10.3 6.8 9.0 5.7 10.1 7.1 Non-Family Based Household 10.1 15.2 5.7 7.5 5.9 7.9 5.3 11.4 9.2 13.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542

Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

One-person households

Non-family based households accounted for almost one in seven (13.5%) of all HDB households in 2018 (Table 3.5), which was more than double the proportion in 1998 (5.5%). This was mainly attributed to the rising proportion of one-person households, from just 4.6% in 1998 to 12.6% in 2018.

Among the one-person households, almost three-quarters were aged 55 years old and above in 2018 (Table 3.12). This represented a significant increase from more than half in 2008 and about two-thirds in 2013. This trend could be attributed to higher proportions of widowed and divorced/separated persons, preferences among seniors to live on their own for greater privacy and independence, and/or an ageing population. Chinese residents were over-represented in this category at 86.8%. Almost half of the one-person households were singles (45.3%), followed by widowed (30.8%) or divorced/separated (21.3%). Almost two-thirds of them were females (62.6%), an increase over the last decade. This was largely due to a rise in older, widowed residents in this group, who were more likely to be female, given longer female life expectancy.

Among one-person households, an increasing proportion lived in 3-room or bigger flats. The proportion living in 4-room flats increased significantly from 16.9% to 27.7% over the last decade. Conversely, the proportion living in 3-room flats decreased from 59.3% to 45.2% over this period. Less than six in ten (58.3%) were in the labour force, a decrease from 64.7% in the last decade.

Table 3.12 Attributes of One-Person Households

Attributes 2008 2013 2018

Age Group Below 35 0.8 0.8 2.5 (Years) 35 – 44 15.7 11.7 7.4 45 – 54 30.8 21.1 16.7 55 – 64 21.1 29.5 27.1 52.8 66.5 73.4 65 & Above 31.7 37.0 46.3

Ethnic Group Chinese 82.0 86.0 86.8 Malay 9.7 7.9 7.1 Indian 6.9 5.2 4.8 Others 1.4 0.9 1.4

Marital Status Single 49.4 54.2 45.3

Married 9.8 1.9 2.6

Widowed 23.3 25.1 30.8

Divorced/Separated 17.5 18.8 21.3

Sex Female 56.1 59.4 62.6 Male 43.9 40.6 37.4

Flat Type 1-Room 8.9 9.4 8.7 2-Room 9.4 10.6 9.3 3-Room 59.3 54.4 45.2 4-Room 16.9 18.2 27.7 5-Room 5.2 6.4 7.4 Executive 0.5 1.0 1.8

Labour Force In Labour Force 64.7 61.3 58.3 Status Outside Labour Force 35.3 38.7 41.7

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 69,130 76,119 127,731 * Excluding non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Household size

The average household size, excluding foreign domestic workers and tenants, continued to decline since 1968. In 2018, households had an average of 3.1 persons, a 1.8% annualised rate of decrease from 2013 (Chart 3.4). Overall, about 7.0% of HDB households had at least one foreign domestic worker. Including foreign domestic workers but excluding tenants, the overall average household size was 3.2 persons in 2018, similar to the national-level figures reported by DOS6 (3.2 persons).

About one-quarter of resident households (25.7%) had two persons living in the household (Table 3.13). This was followed by households with four persons (23.6%) and three persons (23.0%). The proportion of households with fewer than three persons had increased, while the proportion of households with three or more persons had decreased over the past five years. This decrease can be attributed to the decline in proportion of family-based households, as well as the decrease in households with two or more generations.

Chart 3.4 Mean HDB Household Size by Year 8 6.2 5.7

6 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.5 4 3.4 3.4 3.1

(Persons)

HouseholdSize 2 Mean Household Size (Persons)

Annual Rate of Decline

0 (%) 0.0 -0.5 -2 -1.5 -1.4 -1.2 -1.7 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -2.3

AnnualRate of Decline of (%) -4 1968 1973 1977 1981 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Note: Excluding foreign domestic workers and tenants

6 Department of Statistics. 2019. Population Trends. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade & Industry, Republic of Singapore. Retrieved July 6, 2020 (http://singstat.gov.sg/- /media/files/publications/population/population2019.pdf) 81

Household size by flat type and ethnic group of owner/registered tenant

Household size increased in tandem with size of flat, from an average of 1.9 persons in 1-room flats to 3.8 persons in Executive flats (Table 3.13). However, the average household size decreased for all flat types since 2013, with the biggest decline occurring for bigger flat types.

While the overall average household size was 3.1 persons, non-Chinese households tended to have larger families, with Malay households having the largest average household size of 3.7 persons (Table 3.14). In comparison, Chinese households had the smallest average household size at 3.0 persons. The average household size for all ethnic groups decreased compared to five years ago, with the biggest decrease occurring for Malay households.

Household size by type of family nucleus

Multi-nuclear families had the largest average household size of 5.6 persons, followed by extended nuclear families with an average of 4.4 persons (Table 3.15). Compared with 2013, the average household size across the different types of family nucleus had decreased. The proportion of nuclear families with a household size of three or more persons decreased compared to five years ago. The proportions of extended nuclear families with four and six or more persons were also lower over this same period. The proportion of multi-nuclear families with five or more persons declined as well. The proportion of non-family based households with only one person increased to 93.6% from 91.3% in 2013.

Table 3.13 HDB Households by Household Size, Flat Type and Year

Household Size 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All (Persons) 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1 Person 29.2 36.5 23.7 26.9 19.1 24.8 3.9 8.7 2.3 4.0 1.1 3.4 8.4 12.6 2 Persons 51.1 49.5 32.5 31.7 27.8 32.0 18.3 23.5 13.8 21.2 10.6 17.6 20.4 25.7 3 Persons 13.4 8.5 23.6 19.5 23.6 21.7 25.4 24.7 23.7 24.2 17.9 22.2 23.6 23.0 4 Persons 3.7 2.9 11.3 12.6 18.8 13.8 29.2 27.3 32.9 30.5 36.0 28.2 26.7 23.6 5 Persons 2.1 2.1 4.5 5.3 6.9 4.7 14.9 10.9 18.0 13.4 21.8 17.9 13.5 10.0 6 or More Persons 0.5 -* 4.4 4.0 3.8 2.9 8.3 4.9 9.3 6.7 12.6 10.7 7.4 5.0

Household Size (Persons) Mean 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.6 3.3 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.1 Median 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 *Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

Table 3.14 HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Household Size Chinese Malay Indian Others All (Persons) 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1 Person 9.3 14.3 5.3 6.8 5.0 6.9 4.8 9.1 8.4 12.6 2 Persons 22.1 27.0 12.0 21.6 18.4 22.0 16.1 18.5 20.4 25.7 3 Persons 24.7 24.0 18.4 18.3 21.8 21.8 25.2 21.4 23.6 23.0 4 Persons 26.9 22.6 20.4 22.2 33.4 33.8 30.7 27.2 26.7 23.6 5 Persons 12.1 8.7 21.7 16.4 13.6 9.8 13.6 19.8 13.5 10.0 6 or More Persons 4.9 3.4 22.2 14.6 7.8 5.6 9.6 4.0 7.4 5.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542

Household Size (Persons) Mean 3.3 3.0 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 Median 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3

Table 3.15 HDB Households by Household Size, Type of Family Nucleus and Year

Family-Based Household Non-Family Household Size Nuclear Extended Multi-Nuclear Based All (Persons) Family Nuclear Family Family Household

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1 Person ------91.3 93.6 8.4 12.6 2 Persons 25.7 32.9 - - - - 8.4 6.0 20.4 25.7 3 Persons 29.3 28.3 14.7 25.2 - - 0.3 -* 23.6 23.0 4 Persons 29.9 27.4 31.0 27.5 20.9 25.6 - -* 26.7 23.6 5 Persons 11.9 8.9 32.7 33.4 27.7 25.4 - - 13.5 10.0 6 or More Persons 3.2 2.5 21.6 13.9 51.4 49.0 - - 7.4 5.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 693,950 765,874 75,114 64,901 56,072 46,374 83,364 136,393 908,499 1,013,542

Household Size

(Persons)

Mean 3.4 3.2 4.7 4.4 5.8 5.6 1.1 1.1 3.4 3.1 Median 3 3 5 4 6 5 1 1 3 3 *Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

Household size by town/estate

Table 3.16 shows the distribution of household size in the different HDB towns/estates. Similar to previous years, households in mature towns/estates were smaller in household size, ranging from an average of 2.5 to 3.0 persons. The average household sizes for young towns ranged between 3.2 and 3.4 persons, whereas average household sizes in middle-aged towns/estate were generally larger, ranging from 2.9 to 3.8 persons. Compared with 2013, average household size for all towns/estates had decreased, with the exception of Clementi, where average household size had remained unchanged.

It can be seen that household size tended to vary with the different life cycle stages of a family, which accounted for the variations in household sizes across HDB towns/estates. For instance, young towns generally had smaller household sizes compared with middle-aged towns/estate as more residents in young towns were in their early stages of their family life cycle. Most of these residents in young towns could be newly married couples planning to have children or married couples with young dependent children. On the other hand, households in mature towns/estates comprised mainly older residents with grown-up children, some of whom were likely to have married and moved out to start their own family.

Table 3.16 Mean and Median HDB Household Size by Town/Estate and Year

Mean Median Mean Age Household Size Household Size of Town in HDB Town/Estate (Persons) (Persons) 2018 (Years)* 2013 2018 2013 2018

Young Punggol 3.5 3.2 3 3 7.4 Towns Sengkang 3.6 3.3 4 3 11.6 Sembawang 3.8 3.4 4 3 15.1

Middle-Aged Bishan 3.2 2.9 3 2 29.4 Towns/ Estate Bukit Batok 3.5 3.2 4 3 28.8 Bukit Panjang 3.9 3.4 4 3 21.9

Bukit Timah 3.3 3.1 3 3 31.8

Choa Chu Kang 3.9 3.5 4 3 20.5

Hougang 3.5 3.2 4 3 26.7

Jurong East 3.4 3.0 3 2 28.8

Jurong West 3.6 3.3 4 3 24.5

Pasir Ris 4.0 3.8 4 3 23.8

Serangoon 3.5 3.0 4 2 30.1

Tampines 3.9 3.4 4 3 27.4

Woodlands 4.0 3.6 4 3 23.4

Yishun 3.6 3.2 4 3 26.9

Mature Ang Mo Kio 3.0 2.7 3 2 36.4 Towns/ Estates Bedok 3.3 3.0 3 2 34.9 Bukit Merah 3.0 2.7 3 2 32.5 Central Area 2.8 2.7 2 2 36.7 Clementi 2.8 2.8 3 2 31.7 Geylang 3.1 2.7 3 2 36.8 Kallang/Whampoa 3.0 2.6 3 2 34.5 Marine Parade 2.9 2.5 3 2 42.7 Queenstown 2.8 2.5 3 2 31.9 Toa Payoh 2.9 2.7 3 2 37.0

All 3.4 3.1 3 3 26.7 * Based on mean age of blocks in town/estate of households that responded to SHS2018

Summary of Findings

There were 1,013,542 HDB households in 2018, growing at an annualised rate of 2.2% since 2013. The majority (95.0%) of households lived in sold flats, with 4- room flats being the predominant flat type, followed by 5-room and 3-room flats. There was an increase of approximately 15,000 households living in sold 1-room and 2-room flats, mainly facilitated by the provision of more Studio Apartments and 2-room Flexi flats. While the number of households living in HDB rental flats had increased slightly from 2013 to 2018, this was mainly due to an increase in the provision of 1-room rental flats between 2013 and 2018.

While Jurong West, Tampines, and Woodlands remained the towns with the largest number of households, Punggol, Sengkang, and Yishun saw the largest increase in the number of households, mainly due to the new flats that had been provided over the past five years.

While family-based households remained the predominant household type (86.6%), their proportion had continued to decline over the years. Conversely, there was an increase in non-family based households from 5.5% in 1998 to 13.5% in 2018. This was mainly due to the rise of one-person households, from 4.6% to 12.6% over the last two decades. Households were also increasingly flatter, with the proportion of households with one generation increasing from 10.9% to 18.0% from 1998 to 2018, and the proportion of two-generation family households decreasing from 75.4% to 61.5% over the same period.

The proportion of one-person households increased over the last decade. Elderly residents made up a higher proportion of one-person households. An increasing proportion of one-person households lived in larger flats.

Overall, the average size of HDB households decreased to 3.1 persons. This reflects the continuing demographic trends that have been earlier observed, such as an ageing population, the splintering of households as children get married and move out to start their own families, and the decline in number of children per family. Household size tended to vary with the different life cycle stages of a family, which accounted for the variations in household sizes across HDB towns/estates.

Part 1 - Conclusion Profile of HDB Population and Households

Part 1

Profile of HDB Population and Households

Conclusion

The socioeconomic profile of HDB communities has continued to evolve in line with overall demographic trends, as well as the prevailing housing preferences of residents. HDB resident households continued to increase over the last five years. This increase was largely due to increasing preferences for new household formation, particularly among younger families and singles, who were inclined towards having greater privacy and living space. The formation of these new households was also facilitated through HDB’s building programme in providing a steady supply of new flats. Conversely, there was a slight decrease in HDB resident population with a negative annualised growth rate of 0.1%. This was driven both by demographic factors such as a low fertility rate and an ageing population, as well as the aspirations of HDB residents to crossover to private housing.

The effect of HDB population ageing continued to be evident, with one in three residents aged 55 years old and above, compared with one in five just a decade ago. The median age of residents also rose sharply from 37 years in 2008 to 42 years in 2018. With increasing longevity due to continuous improvements in healthcare, coupled with declining birth rates, the population has been ageing more rapidly. It is therefore important to understand how the HDB living environment could be improved to enhance the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of residents as they live through their silver years. In particular, facilities could be planned or repurposed to meet the diverse, changing needs of households living within HDB towns as they transit between the various life cycle stages. Rejuvenation opportunities and strategies would be continually reviewed to help

address the changing needs of the various segments of the population, including facilitating the preference to age-in-place. Towards the long-term, the re-planning of existing housing estates would be useful in rebalancing the age distribution and mitigating the population ageing effects within HDB towns.

These demographic trends also had a net effect on household composition, as observed through the lower proportion of family-based households and higher proportion of non-family based households, primarily one-person households. The formation of new households among younger families also accelerated the increase in proportion of “empty nesters” among older residents. This has resulted in flatter households where two or fewer generations live within the same housing unit. The effects of these trends were observed in the decrease in average household size over the past decade, from 3.4 persons in 2008 to 3.1 persons in 2018. It is important therefore to continue monitoring how lifestyle patterns are changing and identify emergent trends, as these would have implications on the efficacy of our current policies and provisions in the face of constraints such as an increasing scarcity of land. While meeting the housing needs of residents remains HDB’s paramount consideration, it is also important to ensure that the high standards of liveability in the living environment continues to be maintained.

HDB communities have always been diverse, with an active mix of different ethnicities and nationalities living together in the heartlands. It is hence crucial to stay in tune with the aspirations and preferences of the various communities that live within HDB towns, as well as gauge the strength of community ties, in order to understand how a high degree of social cohesion and inclusivity can be maintained within HDB communities in the face of population and social changes.

Part 2

Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

Part 2

Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

Introduction

As a public housing provider, HDB has been instrumental in creating and developing the physical environment in which more than eight in ten of the resident population live and interact. The 23 towns and three estates are planned to be self-sufficient with a comprehensive range of estate facilities at the precinct, neighbourhood and town/estate level. Changing demographics and an ageing population could have implications for the physical provision in the towns/estates.

To enable HDB to continually and progressively enhance the design of public housing and neighbourhoods, and meet the needs and aspirations of residents, it is important to track their changing needs. The findings in this part of the monograph assess residents’ satisfaction with housing in terms of their physical living environment and facilities provided in HDB towns/estates and their pride and attachment to their homes. Residents’ housing preferences are assessed in terms of their residential mobility (both in the past and within the next five years) and housing aspirations. The assessment of the self-sufficiency of HDB towns/estates in terms of job and school provision within town, as well as transport connectivity to place of work and school was re-introduced in this SHS to provide a more complete assessment of the HDB living experience. These findings would serve as a useful reference for HDB to continually review its provisions in its role as the public housing provider.

Objectives

The objectives of Part 2 are as follows: a) To determine residents’ satisfaction with their physical living environment, sense of pride towards their flat and whether they find their flat to be value for money; b) To assess the HDB environment in terms of external (e.g., estate facilities, cleanliness of housing estate) and internal (e.g., flat design/layout) aspects of the living environment; c) To examine residents’ housing needs and preferences by looking at their past residential mobility, intention to move within the next five years and housing aspirations; d) To understand residents' preferred housing type in their old age; e) To determine the travel patterns of the working and schooling population within and outside the HDB towns/estates in relation to their place of work or school; and f) To assess car-lite readiness in HDB towns/estates by examining key drivers for and against car ownership

Framework

The HDB living experience is examined through drawing associations between housing satisfaction and housing preferences. Housing satisfaction is assessed in terms of residents’ satisfaction with their physical living environment which includes both their flat and neighbourhood and estate facilities, as well as whether they consider their flat to be value for money and feel a sense of pride towards their flat. Satisfaction with various aspects of the HDB living environment are also identified, as well as perception of lift reliability. Housing preferences are gauged from the patterns of residential mobility and residents’ housing aspirations. The indicators of residential mobility include residents’ length of residence, information on their previous move(s), as well as residents’ intentions to move within the next five years. Housing aspirations are inferred from the housing types that residents are content with as well as their perception of ageing in place.

This section has four chapters. Chapters 4 and 5 cover residents’ satisfaction with their internal (flat) and external living environment (neighbourhood and estate facilities), as well as their sentiments towards other aspects of the flat. Housing preferences in terms of mobility and aspirations are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 explores the travel patterns of the working and schooling population and the key drivers for or against car ownership.

Framework for Gauging Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

4 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

$ $

Chapter 4

Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

As Singapore’s public housing provider, it is crucial that HDB provides a quality physical living environment for its residents. This chapter looks at residents’ physical living experience in terms of satisfaction with flat, neighbourhood and various aspects of HDB’s physical living environment (i.e., external and internal living environment, accessibility and connectivity). This chapter will also discuss the softer aspects of the physical living experience, measured in terms of residents’ feeling of sense of pride in their flat and whether they thought of it as “value for money”.

4.1 Sense of Pride and Value for Money

This section will explore the factors that influence residents’ sense of pride in their flat, whether they perceive it as value for money, and in turn their housing satisfaction.

Majority proud of their flats, higher pride level among flat owners

Overall, 74.2% of households living in both sold and rental flats were proud of their flat. This was an increase of 3.8 percentage points over a five-year period (Chart 4.1). About 22.2% of households felt neutral towards their flat and 3.6% were not proud of their flat. The main reasons for being proud of flat were the good design/layout of flat, a sense of ownership and good/convenient location. Many households who felt neutral or not proud expressed that it was common to live in

103

an HDB flat or that housing was considered a necessity. Further analyses by tenure and flat type showed similar reasons for those who felt neutral or not proud.

The proportion of households who were proud of their flat was significantly higher among residents living in sold flats (74.9%) compared with rental flats (59.8%). Besides being proud of having a spacious flat and the ability to own a flat, many homeowners also cited the good/convenient location of their flat. In contrast, a lower proportion of rental tenants were proud of their flat, while a higher proportion felt neutral towards their flat. Those who were proud cited having a good living environment and those who felt neutral mentioned that it was common to live in HDB flats.

Chart 4.1 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year

6.9 3.4 100 10.2 3.8 4.1 3.6 21.7 22.2 80 25.2 25.5 30.6 33.3 60 Not Proud Neutral 40 71.0 74.9 70.4 74.2 59.2 59.8 Proud Households(%) 20

0 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Rental Sold All

A higher proportion of households living in 4-room and bigger flats were proud of their flats, in particular for their spaciousness. However, those living in 3-room and smaller flats were likely to cite having a sense of ownership.

Chart 4.2 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year

4.1 4.8 3.8 3.3 4.7 3.0 4.7 2.2 4.1 3.6 100 17.3 22.8 19.4 21.3 22.2 80 25.0 24.7 27.8 23.7 25.5

60 Not Proud Neutral 40 77.6 80.5 70.9 70.5 68.4 73.9 71.6 74.0 70.4 74.2 Proud Households(%) 20

0 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All & Smaller

104

Higher pride level with longer length of residence

Comparing pride level across the different length of residence reveals that pride level was highest (81.0%) among households who lived in their current flat for more than 30 years (Chart 4.3). Besides citing good design/layout, residents were also proud of their flat due to it being in a good/convenient location. Higher proportions of households who lived in their flat for ten years or less were neutral or not proud of their flat. These households expressed that it was common to own an HDB flat and that they considered it a necessity in any case.

Chart 4.3 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Length of Residence

4.9 4.3 2.6 4.3 2.9 2.9 1.5 100 3.6 17.5 22.9 19.9 20.7 20.9 22.2 80 25.3 26.5

60 Not Proud 40 81.0 Neutral 69.8 69.2 74.5 75.8 76.4 76.2 74.2 Proud Households(%) 20

0 Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 & All Above Length of Residence (Years)

Majority agreed flats were value for money

Overall, most households (84.9%) from both sold and rental flats agreed that their flat was value for money (Chart 4.4). Further analysis by tenure showed that a higher proportion of households who agreed that their flat was value for money resided in sold flats (85.0%). Their reasons for agreeing were that they had purchased their flats at an affordable price; there was appreciation in flat price; and the location of their flat was good/convenient. Conversely, those who disagreed felt that the purchase price was high or there was no appreciation in flat price. Households living in rental flats who disagreed that the flat was value for money felt that the rental was too high.

The overall price movements of HDB resale flats, as measured by the HDB Resale Price Index (RPI), could have some influence on residents’ assessment of their flat. The RPI had increased gradually from 2008 and peaked in mid-2013 before tapering down slightly to a stable plateau by the end of 2018. A higher proportion

105

of residents in SHS 2013 who agreed that their flat was value for money cited appreciation in flat value (47.1%) as one of the main reasons, as a majority of resale flat buyers purchased their flats before 2013. In SHS 2018, there were more resale flat buyers who purchased their flats between mid-2011 to 2016 when the RPI was high. This could have led to a lower proportion of residents who felt that their flat value had appreciated (23.0%).

Chart 4.4 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Tenure and Year

100 87.1 90.4 90.3 82.6 85.0 84.9 80

60 2013 40 2018

20 Households Agreed (%) 0 Rental Sold All

There was, however, a decrease in the proportion of households who agreed that their flats were value for money across all flat types. Households living in 3-room and smaller flats who agreed had the largest decrease in proportion by 7.5 percentage points over the past five years (Chart 4.5). High purchase price of flat was the main reason cited by households across all flat types who disagreed that their flat was value for money.

Chart 4.5 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year

100 91.7 91.5 90.3 84.2 86.0 87.5 83.8 86.5 85.1 84.9 80

60 2013 40 2018

20 Households Agreed (%) 0 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All & Smaller

106

4.2 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood

This section will focus on examining residents’ satisfaction with the physical aspects of public housing in terms of two broad aspects, namely, flat and neighbourhood. Residents’ satisfaction with their flats could be influenced by various factors. These include the physical aspects such as flat size, condition of flat and flat design/layout. Similarly, various factors in a neighbourhood could influence residents’ satisfaction with the neighbourhood. Location, cleanliness and neighbourly relations are some of the important factors influencing residents’ satisfaction with the neighbourhood.

High and sustained levels of satisfaction with flats

Overall, 93.2% of households were satisfied with their flat (Chart 4.6), which was a slight increase compared with 2013. The proportion of households who were satisfied remained high at above 90% across the years.

Chart 4.6 Satisfaction with Flat by Year

96.4 100 94.2 91.6 93.2

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 2003 2008 2013 2018

For households who were satisfied with their flat, the main reasons cited included spaciousness of flat, no major issues with the flat in general, or the design/layout of the flat. For households who were dissatisfied with their flat, the reasons given were mainly related to issues with the condition of their flats such as spalling concrete and ceiling leaks.

Over 90% of households across all flat types were satisfied with their flat (Table 4.1), which was an increase compared to that of 2013. A higher proportion of

107

households living in 5-room and bigger units were satisfied with their flat, citing spaciousness as the main reason. Satisfied households living in 1- and 2-room flats (90.8% and 90.1% respectively) cited that there were no major issues with their flat.

Table 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year

Households Satisfied (%) Flat Type 2008 2013 2018

1-Room 98.5 87.7 90.8 2-Room 95.3 89.8 90.1 3-Room 96.5 91.4 93.2 4-Room 96.5 91.2 92.8 5-Room 96.5 92.9 93.9 Executive 94.7 92.1 95.6

The satisfaction levels with flat were close to or above 90% across all households of various attributes such as tenure of flat and age of residents. The proportion of households living in sold flats who were satisfied (93.2%) was higher than those living in rental flats (91.4%). Sold flat owners who were satisfied with their flat cited spaciousness of the flat as their main reason. Both sold flat owners and rental flat tenants who were satisfied also cited having no major problems with their flat.

In Chart 4.7, analysis by age shows that more elderly households (aged 65 years old and above) were satisfied with their flat (96.9%) compared with the other age groups (ranging from 89.6% to 94.5%). While more residents aged below 45 years old were satisfied due to the design/layout of their flats, more elderly residents were satisfied as they found their flats comfortable.

108

Chart 4.7 Satisfaction with Flat by Age

94.5 96.9 100 89.6 91.0 90.2 93.2

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & All Above Age Group (Years)

Satisfaction with flat was also higher among households, which include a large proportion of elderly households, who had lived in their flat for more than 25 years (Chart 4.8). Besides citing having a spacious flat or no issues with flat condition as the main reason for satisfaction, those who had lived in their flat for more than 25 years also mentioned that their flat was comfortable.

Chart 4.8 Satisfaction with Flat by Length of Residence

98.7 94.0 95.0 97.4 100 91.0 89.5 92.3 93.2

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 & All Above Length of Residence (Years)

Majority satisfied with their neighbourhood

The majority of households (95.3%) were satisfied with their neighbourhood. This proportion had increased slightly by 3.3 percentage points from 2013 (Chart 4.9). Households who were satisfied attributed it to convenient location, having friendly neighbours or a peaceful/quiet environment. Households who were dissatisfied felt that their neighbours were noisy, inconsiderate or unfriendly or that the neighbourhood was dirty.

109

Chart 4.9 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year

100 93.3 95.1 92.0 95.3

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 2003 2008 2013 2018

The satisfaction level with neighbourhood was over 90% across various attributes such as tenure of flat, flat type, age of resident and length of residence. Satisfaction with neighbourhood was higher in sold flats (95.4%) compared with rental flats (92.8%). Most households from various flat types were highly satisfied with neighbourhood (Chart 4.10). Households living in 2-, 3- and 4-room flats were satisfied with the convenient location while 1-room, 5-room and bigger flats were satisfied due to their having a pleasant/peaceful/quiet environment.

Chart 4.10 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Flat Type

95.8 95.9 100 92.8 92.9 95.3 94.3 95.3

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All

Similar to satisfaction with flat, a higher proportion of elderly households (aged 65 years old and above) expressed satisfaction with neighbourhood (97.3%) compared with younger households (ranging from 93.2% to 95.5% as shown in Chart 4.11). Elderly households attributed their satisfaction to having friendly neighbours. Younger households aged below 35 years old were satisfied mainly with their pleasant/peaceful/quiet environment, while those aged between 35 to 64 years old attributed their satisfaction with neighbourhood to its convenient location.

110

Chart 4.11 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Age

95.5 97.3 95.3 100 93.2 94.6 94.1

HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & All Above Age Group (Years)

Satisfaction with neighbourhood was observed to increase with length of residence (Chart 4.12). Households with a longer length of residence tend to comprise a higher proportion of elderly households, with more of them attributing their satisfaction to having friendly neighbours or convenient location.

Chart 4.12 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Length of Residence

95.8 96.4 96.6 97.9 100 94.1 93.9 94.7 95.3

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 & All Above Length of Residence (Years)

Greater sense of belonging among residents who were satisfied with neighbourhood

Further analysis showed an association between residents’ sense of belonging and satisfaction with neighbourhood. Among households who felt a sense of belonging towards their towns/estates, a higher proportion was satisfied with their neighbourhood (99.3%) compared with those who were dissatisfied (94.4%), as shown in Table 4.2.

111

Table 4.2 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood among HDB Households by Sense of Belonging to Town/Estate

Sense of Belonging Satisfaction with Neighbourhood to Town/Estate Satisfied Dissatisfied

Yes 99.3 94.4 No 0.7 5.6

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 965,661 47,678

* Excluding non-response cases

4.3 Satisfaction with HDB Physical Living Environment

This is a new section included in 2018 which examines various aspects of the HDB physical living environment. The aspects are categorised into four main categories: accessibility and connectivity, external, internal and other aspects (Table 4.3). Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction level with each aspect and provide a main reason for their dissatisfaction.

112

Table 4.3 Aspects of HDB Physical Living Environment

Aspects

Accessibility & Connectivity 1. Location 2. Walkability to transport node 3. Walkability to commercial facilities 4. Accessibility to commercial facilities 5. Accessibility to transport nodes 6. Pathways 7. Adequacy of lighting in neighbourhood 8. Ease of cycling within HDB town 9. Safety from traffic for pedestrians

External 10. Spaciousness of housing estate 11. Crowdedness at precinct 12. Safety/Security within precinct 13. Block design 14. Maintenance of housing estate 15. Provision of car park 16. Cleanliness

Internal 17. Flat privacy 18. Natural lighting within flat 19. Flat size 20. Natural ventilation within flat 21. Flat design/layout 22. View from flat 23. Noise

Others 24. Variety of flat types offered 25. Upgrading programme 26. Purchase price of flat

Majority satisfied with various aspects of physical living environment except for noise and cleanliness

Overall, the majority of households were satisfied with most aspects of the HDB physical living environment (Chart 4.13). The aspects with the lowest satisfaction levels were cleanliness (77.4%) and noise (75.7%). The main reasons cited were irregular cleaning or poor cleanliness due to inconsiderate neighbours, and disturbances from neighbours or noise from the external environment (e.g., traffic/vehicles).

113

Chart 4.13 Satisfaction with Various Aspects of HDB Physical Living Environment

Location 98.5 Walkability to transport nodes 98.0 Walkability to commercial facilities 97.4 Accessibility to commercial facilities 96.7 Accessibility & Accessibility to transport nodes 96.6 Connectivity Pathways 92.0 Adequacy of lighting in neighbourhood 91.7 Ease of cycling within HDB town 90.9 Safety from traffic for pedestrians 89.6 Spaciousness of housing estate 97.6 Crowdedness at precinct 96.0 Safety/Security within precinct 95.3

External Block design 94.8 Maintenance of housing estate 92.4 Provision of car park 92.3 Cleanliness 77.4 Privacy of flat 95.9 Natural lighting within flat 95.2 Size of flat 93.7 Internal Natural ventilation within flat 93.6 Flat design/layout 93.3 View from flat 91.9 Noise 75.7 Variety of flat types offered 97.2 Others Upgrading programme 91.4 Purchase price of flat 81.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Households Satisfied (%)

Slight dip in proportion of households who perceived lifts to be reliable

Lift reliability is an important aspect of high-rise living. The survey showed that the perception of lift reliability had declined slightly from 85.6% in 2013 to 82.6% in 2018 (Chart 4.14). Frequent lift breakdowns were cited as the main reason. On- going initiatives such as the Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP)7, Lift Surveillance

7 Under the Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP) to enhance lift safety, lifts in HDB blocks that have been in operation for 18 years or less (as of 1 April 2017) and are not equipped with features such as unintended lift car movement protection (to guard against failure of lift components) and light curtain sensors (to enable better detection of objects between lift doors), would be eligible for the programme. About 20,000 existing lifts in HDB estates are eligible, and HDB co-funds the LEP substantially. The LEP is being carried out by respective Town Councils (TCs) over a period of 10 years, and the award of LEP works commenced in 1Q 2019.

114

System (LSS)8, as well as the Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP)9 would help to enhance the reliability and performance of lifts in HDB blocks.

Chart 4.14 Proportion of HDB Households who Perceived Lifts to be Reliable by Year

100 85.6 85.6 82.6 80

40 Households(%)

0 2003 2013 2018

Note: Lift reliability was not included in SHS 2008

More than four in ten households recycled regularly

SHS 2018 explored a new question to understand households’ recycling habits and accessed if they were doing so regularly. If households recycled occasionally or once a year (e.g., during spring cleaning), it would not be deemed as regular recycling. Currently, centralised chutes for recyclables are provided in new developments (e.g., Build-To-Order flats) and can be found on every floor of the block. These are chutes meant only for the disposal of recyclables. Central recycling bins (i.e., blue bins) are also provided on the ground floor of every block in all HDB developments.

About 45.1% of households were recycling regularly via at least one recycling method while 52.9% households did not recycle regularly. The remaining 2.0% of households occasionally gave/sold their items to rag and bone men or gave away

8 Lift Surveillance System (LSS) was first introduced under the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), where most TCs have opted to install the LSS. It is also provided for all new lifts in new BTOs which are installed from July 2016 onwards. Some TCs have also retrofitted LSS to some older lifts within their respective TCs. The LSS helps to deter vandalism to the lift and misuse of lift doors. It is now a regulatory requirement to provide LSS in lift cars, and building owners (including TCs for lifts in HDB estates) are required to provide footage recorded by the LSS to relevant authorities if necessary, to facilitate investigation into any lift-related incident. 9 Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP) was introduced in September 2014. It is implemented by the Town Councils (TCs) and when completed would have replaced about 800 old lifts with new ones that come with more energy-efficient motors, vision panels in lift doors, accessibility code-compliant features, and multi- beam door sensors for added energy efficiency, safety and security. HDB also co-funds the replacement of these lifts.

115

items to non-profit organisations, neighbours, family members and friends (Table 4.4). Most households who recycled regularly had disposed recyclables into the central recycling bins while a small proportion of households preferred to donate to charity instead (Table 4.5). The proportion of households who disposed recyclables regularly in designated centralised chutes was small, as such chutes are mostly found in new blocks in Punggol.

Table 4.4 Whether HDB Households Recycle Regularly

Whether Recycle Regularly All

Yes (at least one recycling method) 45.1 No 52.9

Others (e.g., give/sell to rag and bone men, give VWOs/religious 2.0 organisations/neighbours/schools/family members/friends)

% 100.0 Total N* 1,004,687 * Excluding non-response cases

Table 4.5 Recycling Methods of HDB Households who Recycled Regularly

Recycling Methods Households (%)*

Dispose regularly in central recycling bins (i.e., blue bins) 41.7 Donate regularly to charity 3.4 Dispose regularly in centralised chute for recyclables 1.0 * Excluding non-response cases

4.4 Summary of Findings

The proportion of households from both sold and rental flats who were proud of their flats was 74.2% in 2018 compared to 70.4% in 2013. The increase in sense of pride over the last five years was likely due to improvements in factors such as satisfaction with flat.

More than eight in ten homeowners (85.0%) agreed that their flat was value for money. The proportion of households who felt that their flats were value for money was higher among those who purchased their flats directly from HDB than those who bought resale flats. Homeowners’ perception on whether their flat was value for money depends to a great extent on the purchase price of their flat. Further

116

analysis of those households who bought resale flats by the year of purchase showed that their perception was sensitive to fluctuations in the RPI.

The satisfaction level with flat (93.2%) and neighbourhood (95.3%) had increased since the previous survey in 2013. The most common attributes associated with flat satisfaction were spaciousness of flat, no issues with condition of flat and good flat design/layout. Most households were satisfied with the various aspects of the HDB physical living environment, though satisfaction was lower for cleanliness (77.4%) and noise (75.7%). The proportion of households who perceived their lifts to be reliable had declined slightly from 85.6% in 2013 to 82.6% in 2018. Among the households (45.1%) who were recycling regularly via at least one recycling method, most disposed of their recyclables in the central recycling bins. The proportion of households utilising the centralised chute for recyclables was small as these chutes were only available in new developments.

117

5 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

Chapter 5

Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

HDB towns are planned to be self-sufficient, offering a wide range of facilities at the precinct, neighbourhood and town levels. As the population in housing estates evolves, the amenities provided must also respond to meet their changing needs. Findings on households’ satisfaction with, and usage levels of the various facilities in HDB towns/estates would enable HDB to better understand residents’ needs and preferences, anticipate changing preferences, and thereby cater for them.

This chapter assesses the adequacy of estate facilities provided in terms of residents’ satisfaction with and usage levels of estate facilities. With the advent of e-commerce, together with greater access to internet connectivity via mobile devices, more residents are moving towards online shopping. In light of this trend, understanding the prevalence of online shopping among HDB residents and the common categories of goods purchased online would be useful in determining the need to continue providing certain types of essential trade within HDB towns/estates.

5.1 Satisfaction with Estate Facilities

High satisfaction with estate facilities

Overall satisfaction with provision of estate facilities had increased over the years and reached a high of 98.6%, an increase of 4.2 percentage points from a decade ago (Chart 5.1).

123

Chart 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Estate Facilities by Year

98.6 94.4 96.1 100 93.4

HouseholdsSatisied (%)

0 2003 2008 2013 2018

Overall increase in satisfaction level of various estate facilities

Satisfaction with specific categories of estate facilities was also high, ranging from 89.4% for benches/seats/tables to 97.9% for overall retail shops (Table 5.1). Compared with five years ago, satisfaction levels with all facilities had increased. The facilities that had shown the greatest improvements over the past five years were related to transportation (from 80.4% in 2013 to 91.4% in 2018), healthcare (from 85.7% in 2013 to 93.9% in 2018) and precinct facilities (from 86.7% in 2013 to 94.2% in 2018).

Transportation, health/medical-related, and precinct facilities had garnered higher satisfaction due to major improvements made to these aspects by agencies since 2013. For transportation facilities, it was the shorter waiting time and more comfortable travel journey with Bus Service Enhancement Programme 10 , and expansion of the MRT network and improvement of rail lines. For health/medical facilities, it was the higher predictability of waiting time with the Enhanced Appointment System at polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme contributing to reduced load on public hospitals and polyclinics. More hospitals have also been built since 201311. For precinct facilities, more seats/benches have

10 Land Transport Authority: Completion of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). Retrieved on 12 June 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2017/12/2/completion-of-the-bus-service- enhancement-programme-bsep.html) 11 Upcoming and Completed Healthcare Facilities. Retrieved on 12 June 2020. (https://www.moh.gov.sg/upcoming-and-completed- healthcare-facilities)

124

been provided in the void decks and landscaped areas. HDB and LTA have also collaborated to provide a comprehensive network of linkways.

Table 5.1 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year

Households Satisfied (%) Types of Estate Facilities 2003 2008 2013 2018 Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shops 85.6 93.3 93.4 97.9 HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre N.A. 89.1 89.9 94.8 Shopping centre/mall N.A. 89.9 90.8 96.3

(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls 83.6 87.5 94.7 97.4 Wet/Dry market N.A. N.A. 85.4 89.8 Supermarket N.A. N.A. 94.1 96.3

(iii) Eating Facilities 85.5 89.0 92.4 96.2 Hawker centre N.A. N.A. 86.3 89.5 Eating house/Coffee shop N.A. N.A. 88.3 92.5 Food court N.A. N.A. 89.1 93.5

Other F& B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, N.A. N.A. N.A. 97.1 restaurant)

Elderly-Friendly Facilities* Bench/Seat/Table N.A. N.A. N.A. 89.4 Support hand bar in lift/along corridor N.A. N.A. N.A. 96.5 Ramp N.A. N.A. N.A. 95.6 Fitness station for elderly N.A. N.A. N.A. 95.1 Senior citizens’ corner N.A. N.A. N.A. 93.6

Playground N.A. N.A. N.A. 94.7 Parks & Greenery N.A. N.A. N.A. 95.9 Transportation Facilities 84.1 84.1 80.4 91.4 Sports Facilities 81.8 85.2 88.9 93.6 Recreational & Leisure Facilities 86.3 89.1 91.7 95.7 Precinct Facilities 88.7 86.7 94.2 88.5** Community Facilities 94.3 94.6 97.3 Education Facilities 96.0 96.5 95.0 97.7 Health/Medical Facilities 87.8 90.1 85.7 93.9 Financial Facilities 80.7 85.5 86.7 90.0

Overall Satisfaction 93.4 94.4 96.1 98.6 * Prior to SHS 2018, questions on satisfaction with elderly-friendly facilities were posed to residents aged 55 years old and above only. (Refer to Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities and Well-Being of Elderly, Chapter 6 Well-Being of Elderly, Section 6.4.3, Table 6.55) for more details ** Precinct and community facilities were grouped in the same category in SHS 2003.

125

Satisfaction with estate facilities remained high, especially among households in smaller flat types

Overall satisfaction level with estate facilities were high across all flat types (Table 5.2). At least 97.5% of households across all flat types were satisfied with the overall provision of estate facilities in their living environment.

It was observed that households living in 5-room and bigger flats tended to be less satisfied with the various types of estate facilities. Specifically, a slightly lower proportion of these households were satisfied with wet/dry markets, hawker centres, eating houses/coffee shops, benches/seats/tables, transportation and financial facilities. The main reasons cited for dissatisfaction with wet/dry markets were lack of variety (e.g., fewer stalls), the products for sale were expensive, or their location was too far. For eating facilities, the main reason cited for dissatisfaction with hawker centres was the absence of such facility nearby in their estates. Limited food selection at eating house/coffee shop was also commonly cited. For benches/seats/tables, households mentioned a lack of such facilities or that cleanliness was an issue at these facilities. For transportation and financial facilities, some reasons cited were limited or insufficient bus services and absence of nearby financial facilities such as ATM and banks.

126

Table 5.2 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Flat Type

Households Satisfied (%) Types of Estate Facilities 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All

Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shops 98.9 98.0 99.0 97.8 97.0 97.0 97.9

HDB shop/Neighbourhood 95.7 96.1 96.7 94.8 92.9 93.6 94.8 centre

Shopping centre/mall 97.8 95.8 96.7 95.9 96.6 95.9 96.3

(ii) Markets or Market- 98.2 96.7 97.6 97.8 96.8 96.1 97.4 Produce Shops/Stalls Wet/Dry market 93.1 90.3 93.1 89.9 86.9 86.5 89.8 Supermarket 96.9 96.3 96.8 96.4 96.0 95.2 96.3

(iii) Eating Facilities 97.1 96.6 97.7 96.0 95.4 95.2 96.2

Hawker centre 93.7 89.6 93.9 88.9 85.8 87.1 89.5 Eating house/Coffee shop 95.7 93.1 94.3 93.3 89.9 89.5 92.5 Food court 96.5 94.3 95.3 93.5 91.7 92.0 93.5

Other F&B outlets (e.g., fast 98.5 97.8 97.7 96.8 97.2 95.4 97.1 food, café, restaurant)

(iv) Elderly-Friendly Facilities Bench/Seat/Table 89.6 88.6 90.5 89.7 88.3 87.5 89.4

Support hand bar in lift/along 96.7 96.4 97.0 96.8 95.9 94.8 96.5 corridor

Ramp 96.7 97.0 95.5 96.1 94.9 93.8 95.6 Fitness station 94.4 96.4 94.8 95.3 94.9 94.3 95.1 Senior citizens’ corner 94.4 93.6 94.0 93.5 93.2 93.4 93.6

Playground 95.5 96.7 95.6 94.3 94.5 93.7 94.7 Parks & Greenery 98.4 96.0 96.1 96.6 94.7 94.8 95.9 Transportation Facilities 95.6 91.9 94.1 91.5 88.9 88.0 91.4 Sports Facilities 95.9 95.3 95.1 93.8 91.7 92.6 93.6 Recreational & Leisure 96.8 96.6 96.9 96.1 93.8 94.5 95.7 Facilities Precinct Facilities 96.5 94.5 95.4 93.6 94.7 90.9 94.2 Community Facilities 98.6 96.9 98.1 97.4 96.6 96.4 97.3 Education Facilities 98.2 97.0 98.7 97.4 96.9 98.1 97.7 Health/Medical Facilities 95.9 94.7 95.3 93.8 92.4 93.1 93.9

Financial Facilities 92.4 90.9 90.7 90.5 88.1 90.1 90.0

Overall Satisfaction 99.1 98.7 99.3 98.5 98.1 97.5 98.6

127

Families with young children less satisfied with hawker centres, wet/dry markets, financial facilities, eating houses/coffee shops, transportation and playgrounds

Overall satisfaction with estate facilities was high at above 96.6%, across all households with families at different life cycle stages (Table 5.3). Among them, a lower proportion of families with young children were satisfied with the various estate facilities, including hawker centres (85.7%), wet/dry markets (86.5%), financial facilities (87.4%), eating houses/coffee shops (87.9%), transportation (88.1%) and playgrounds (88.1%). For hawker centres, they commented on the absence of such facilities or that their locations were too far. Some also cited limited food selections. For wet/dry markets, the main concern was with the limited variety of goods for sale or range of stalls. Some also mentioned that the products for sale were expensive or that the market was not located near their home. For financial they cited a lack of financial facilities such as ATM and banks. With regard to eating houses/coffee shops, the main concern was with the lack of food variety. For transportation facilities, the main reasons cited were limited or insufficient bus services. Families with young children that were dissatisfied with playgrounds cited the size of playgrounds was too small.

128

Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Household Life Cycle Stage

Households Satisfied (%)

Types of Estate Facilities Family Family with Family with Family with Family with Elderly without Young Teenaged Unmarried Grown- Married Couple Others* All Children Children Children up Children Children Living Alone

Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shops 96.0 97.1 96.9 98.4 97.1 98.6 98.9 97.9 HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 91.3 92.6 93.2 94.9 95.8 97.1 97.3 94.8 Shopping centre/mall 96.0 95.3 94.6 97.6 95.0 96.2 96.9 96.3

(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls 97.1 96.3 96.6 97.3 97.0 98.6 98.5 97.4 Wet/Dry market 87.1 86.5 88.4 89.2 89.4 92.1 95.0 89.8 Supermarket 94.8 95.8 95.7 96.3 96.7 98.9 96.3 96.3

(iii) Eating Facilities 93.2 94.0 95.3 96.9 96.9 98.8 97.1 96.2 Hawker centre 86.8 85.7 87.2 89.0 89.5 94.7 93.4 89.5 Eating house/Coffee shop 87.2 87.9 91.2 93.8 93.3 96.3 94.9 92.5 Food court 90.7 91.7 92.0 93.8 93.9 96.7 94.9 93.5 Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, restaurant) 98.1 95.6 95.7 97.6 97.4 98.0 97.6 97.1

(Iv) Elderly-Friendly Facilities Bench/Seat/Table 88.9 89.7 87.9 89.4 88.3 90.6 90.5 89.4 Support hand bar in lift/along corridor 97.3 96.7 96.8 96.4 95.5 96.3 96.8 96.5 Ramp 96.4 96.1 96.3 94.7 95.6 96.6 95.6 95.6 Fitness station 94.4 97.1 94.2 94.5 94.1 96.8 95.1 95.1 Senior citizens’ corner 93.3 94.5 93.3 92.4 93.0 94.8 95.0 93.6

* Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

129

Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Household Life Cycle Stage (Continued)

Households Satisfied (%)

Family Family with Family with Family with Family with Elderly Types of Estate Facilities without Young Teenaged Unmarried Grown- Married Couple Others* All Children Children Children up Children Children Living Alone

Playground 95.3 88.1 94.4 96.5 93.2 98.2 96.7 94.7 Parks & Greenery 96.0 95.5 96.2 96.3 96.2 95.7 95.3 95.9 Transportation Facilities 86.0 88.1 90.2 91.8 91.8 94.2 94.9 91.4 Sports Facilities 90.2 91.0 92.6 94.7 92.6 95.0 96.1 93.6 Recreational & Leisure Facilities 95.8 92.5 94.3 96.6 94.6 98.6 96.9 95.7 Precinct Facilities 94.8 92.2 94.3 93.8 94.6 97.4 94.5 94.2 Community Facilities 97.9 97.0 96.2 97.5 96.4 98.6 97.8 97.3 Education Facilities 98.9 92.2 98.1 99.1 96.9 99.0 98.8 97.7 Health/Medical Facilities 94.7 91.9 93.2 94.5 93.2 95.2 94.5 93.9 Financial Facilities 88.0 87.4 91.5 90.4 89.0 91.9 91.1 90.0

Overall Satisfaction 97.6 96.6 98.6 98.9 99.1 98.9 99.5 98.6 * Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

130

5.2 Usage of Estate Facilities

The usage levels for various estate facilities were determined by asking households on the frequency of usage for each facility, either by themselves or by their family members. The full list of estate facilities covered is shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Frequency of Usage of Estate Facilities

Frequency of Usage Total

At Least Less Than Types of Estate Facilities Never Once a Once a % N* Use Week Week

Commercial Facilities Supermarket 81.4 17.2 1.4 100.0 1,012,226 Wet/Dry market 63.9 25.2 10.9 100.0 1,004,680 HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 50.7 41.6 7.7 100.0 1,007,055 Eating house/Coffee shop 59.9 33.0 7.1 100.0 1,011,319 Hawker centre 56.5 33.6 9.9 100.0 881,791 Food court 38.1 51.0 10.9 100.0 992,820

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, 23.1 58.3 18.6 100.0 1,005,981 restaurant)

Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/Jogging track 25.5 32.6 41.9 100.0 1,002,679 Neighbourhood park/Common green 17.8 41.7 40.5 100.0 981,595 Playground 15.2 17.5 67.3 100.0 1,005,474 Regional/Town park 10.2 41.6 48.2 100.0 947,697 Hard/Multi-purpose court 6.5 23.7 69.8 100.0 976,656 Community garden 6.3 23.2 70.5 100.0 824,114 Roof/Sky garden 3.4 17.5 79.1 100.0 474,867

Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway 84.2 13.8 2.0 100.0 1,004,084 Drop-off porch 30.3 49.5 20.2 100.0 982,952 Void deck/Community living room 27.7 39.7 32.6 100.0 979,940 Shelter 22.1 39.0 38.9 100.0 973,195 Precinct pavilion 7.9 36.2 55.9 100.0 904,644 Trellis 7.0 28.4 64.6 100.0 774,996 Regional/Community library 11.1 42.6 46.3 100.0 963,722 Community club 7.7 40.1 52.2 100.0 1,002,680

* Excluding non-response cases Note: Analysis was based on responses of households who were provided with the facility and were aware of the presence of such a facility in their estates/neighbourhoods or towns

131

Commercial facilities important and remained the most used

In general, all commercial facilities were well utilised by at least nine in ten households, except other F&B outlets like fast food, cafes and restaurants, which were patronised by at least eight in ten households (Table 5.4). The proportion of households who patronised the various commercial facilities at least once a week ranged from 23.1% for other F&B outlets (e.g., fast food, cafes, restaurants) to 81.4% for supermarkets.

The findings showed that at least once a week usage for supermarkets (81.4%) was higher than wet/dry markets (63.9%), probably because the former offered a wider range of products, better shopping experience and longer operating hours. While patronage levels for hawker centres and eating houses/coffee shops were similar to one another, they were lower for food courts and other F&B outlets, probably due to their higher food prices.

As commercial facilities catered to essential needs of households, patronage levels were significantly higher as compared with sports and recreational facilities, as well as precinct and community facilities.

Sports & recreational and precinct & community facilities well utilised

Among those who used sports and recreational facilities at least once a week, fitness stations/jogging tracks (25.5%) and neighbourhood parks/common greens (17.8%) had the highest usage levels. Conversely, usage levels for roof/sky gardens (3.4%), community gardens (6.3%) and hard/multi-purpose courts (6.5%) were lower. The facilities provided cater to different segments of the population. Given a typical precinct of about 800 dwelling units, a 5% usage level of at least once a week translates to at least 40 households. Therefore, even with lower usage levels, these facilities were still important to the segment of the residents who used them. Facilities such as roof/sky gardens are not only a place for recreation, but the greenery also provides visual relief and help lower the ambient temperature.

The covered linkway (84.2%) was the most frequently used facility compared with other precinct facilities. Covered linkways are widely available and useful in

132

providing shelter from the elements and convenient access, linking housing blocks to transport nodes, neighbourhood shops, other precincts/neighbourhoods, and town centres. Besides covered linkways, usage of drop-off porches and void decks/community living rooms were also relatively high, with about 30.3% and 27.7% of households using them at least once a week respectively.

Usage of commercial facilities lower for households in smaller flat types

Generally, commercial facilities were well used by all flat types, albeit lower usage among households living in smaller flat types (Table 5.5). In particular, households living in smaller flat types patronised the food courts and other F&B outlets less often, as price could be a barrier. These residents were more likely to use the hawker centres and the eating houses/coffee shops, where cooked food options tend to be more affordable

Among the sports and recreational facilities, fitness stations/jogging tracks were the most frequently used facility across all flat types. The findings also showed that at least once a week usage for playgrounds and neighbourhood parks/common greens were higher among those residing in bigger flat types. Further analysis showed that more family-based households were residing in bigger flat types and higher proportion of them were using these facilities as shown in Table 5.6.

On precinct and community facilities, covered linkways continued to be the most frequently used across all flat types, followed by shelters and void decks/community living rooms. It was also observed that households residing in bigger flat types tended to use the drop-off porches and regional/community libraries more frequently.

133

Table 5.5 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Flat Type

Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%) Types of Estate Facilities 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All

Commercial Facilities Supermarket 56.2 64.2 75.4 84.3 87.6 85.5 81.4 Wet/Dry market 49.9 55.7 67.5 64.5 63.1 62.0 63.9

HDB shop/ 40.3 44.5 51.8 53.2 47.9 50.5 50.7 Neighbourhood centre

Eating house/Coffee 52.4 49.6 61.0 61.5 58.9 60.5 59.9 shop

Hawker centre 52.5 52.7 65.4 54.0 54.2 50.5 56.5 Food court 19.4 26.1 28.7 41.4 44.6 42.5 38.1

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, 10.2 13.1 16.7 25.5 28.1 25.1 23.1 restaurant)

Sports & Recreational

Facilities

Fitness station/Jogging 17.2 16.2 21.2 25.9 30.2 31.2 25.5 track

Neighbourhood 8.4 9.5 14.0 18.8 21.5 20.8 17.8 park/Common green

Playground 6.4 9.8 10.7 17.3 18.4 13.7 15.2 Regional/Town park 2.8 5.9 7.0 10.8 13.4 12.4 10.2 Hard/Multi-purpose court 3.6 3.4 4.0 7.1 8.4 7.5 6.5 Community garden 5.3 5.6 5.1 6.7 7.5 4.2 6.3 Roof/Sky garden 4.4 3.8 2.1 3.9 4.2 0.4 3.4

Precinct & Community

Facilities

Covered linkway 74.7 78.4 85.4 83.6 86.3 84.6 84.2 Drop-off porch 16.8 17.5 19.4 30.3 40.4 47.2 30.3

Void deck/Community 30.1 28.3 28.4 27.2 26.8 29.3 27.7 living room

Shelter 24.7 25.5 21.6 22.1 22.0 21.2 22.1 Precinct pavilion 8.1 8.4 4.9 8.9 9.4 6.7 7.9 Trellis 7.6 7.1 5.3 7.8 8.0 3.7 7.0

Regional/Community 4.3 6.9 8.3 11.9 13.6 12.8 11.1 library

Community club 5.0 6.5 6.8 7.5 9.1 9.9 7.7

134

Usage levels of estate facilities differed across household life cycle stages

Families at various life cycle stages have differing needs, which can be seen from their usage levels of various estate facilities provided in the living environment (Table 5.6).

Commercial facilities were found to be well utilised by households across all different life cycle stages. However, the usage levels for some facilities were higher than others. Wet/Dry markets were most frequented by elderly couples living alone (76.1%), and least frequented by families without children (53.6%), other households (53.9%) and families with young children (56.5%). The findings also showed that a lower proportion of elderly couples living alone and non-family based households patronised HDB shops/neighbourhood centres, food courts and other F&B outlets.

In general, families with young children used sports and recreational facilities more frequently compared with other households. In particular, they were more likely to use playgrounds. In addition, fitness stations/jogging tracks were the most utilised facilities by households across all family life cycle stages.

Precinct and community facilities, such as covered linkways, were well-used by all households across the various family life cycle stages. In general, a higher proportion of families with young children used precinct and community facilities at least once a week compared with other households, especially drop-off porches. This could be due to school-going children using drop-off porches as a waiting area for school buses. In addition, a higher proportion of families with married children and elderly couples living alone spent time at void decks/community living rooms. Void deck/community living room spaces are potential bonding spaces for residents to meet and interact, especially for elderly residents who tend to meet within the block or near their homes.

135

Table 5.6 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life Cycle Stage

Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)

Types of Estate Facilities Family Family with Family with Family with Family with Elderly without Young Teenaged Unmarried Married Couple Living Others* All Children Children Children Grown-up Children Children Alone

Commercial Facilities Supermarket 82.0 89.8 83.5 83.5 83.9 77.7 68.5 81.4 Wet/Dry market 53.6 56.5 61.6 68.9 73.4 76.1 53.9 63.9 HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 54.3 58.5 54.6 50.1 53.2 48.0 40.8 50.7 Eating house/Coffee shop 64.4 63.2 59.4 61.7 56.0 57.6 56.2 59.9 Hawker centre 60.7 56.5 50.0 58.1 52.7 57.9 58.2 56.5 Food court 43.5 52.4 44.5 36.4 37.9 28.3 27.0 38.1

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, 27.9 41.2 31.5 20.7 23.3 7.7 11.5 23.1 restaurant)

Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/Jogging track 23.8 30.9 28.4 26.2 22.6 27.6 19.3 25.5 Neighbourhood park/Common green 18.5 24.8 19.0 16.9 18.5 16.1 12.6 17.8 Playground 4.7 54.7 14.3 5.5 21.5 7.7 3.1 15.2 Regional/Town park 11.1 14.7 10.6 9.2 9.7 10.4 7.7 10.2 Hard/Multi-purpose court 4.5 14.4 10.9 4.8 6.6 4.4 1.5 6.5 Community garden 5.1 10.8 5.5 5.9 5.1 7.5 4.3 6.3 Roof/Sky garden 3.0 6.7 3.6 2.3 2.1 5.4 1.7 3.4 * Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

136

Table 5.6 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life Cycle Stage (Continued)

Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)

Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway 80.8 86.2 85.4 84.5 85.8 83.0 82.1 84.2 Drop-off porch 35.0 51.2 35.2 28.0 33.4 17.9 15.4 30.3 Void deck/Community living room 29.1 24.2 24.4 27.9 33.5 33.3 25.0 27.7 Shelter 25.3 26.8 23.5 19.5 23.4 21.4 20.3 22.1 Precinct pavilion 8.3 12.1 8.2 7.3 8.8 6.6 4.9 7.9 Trellis 8.3 12.3 5.4 6.0 7.3 6.2 4.8 7.0 Regional/Community library 4.3 26.0 20.2 7.8 10.7 4.6 4.5 11.1 Community club 4.6 10.2 9.5 7.1 9.2 6.6 6.4 7.7 * Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

137

Usage levels reflected in changing lifestyle of residents

In general, usage levels for commercial facilities, except supermarkets, had decreased over the past five years (Table 5.7). The usage level for wet/dry markets had declined in the last five years, likely due to competition from supermarkets which sell similar products in a more conducive environment and operate longer hours compared with wet/dry markets. Similarly, there was a decrease in the patronage of eating establishments such as hawker centres, eating houses/coffee shops, food courts and HDB shops/neighbourhood centres. This could be a consequence of the increasing prevalence of online shopping and food delivery services.

Over the past five years, the usage of sports and recreational facilities had dropped slightly. Among the sports and recreational facilities, fitness stations/jogging tracks and parks continued to be the most well-utilised facilities.

Over the years, the usage level of covered linkways had continued to increase. Other precinct and community facilities that had also seen an increase in usage levels over the last five years included shelters and void decks/community living rooms. Conversely, the usage levels of other precinct facilities such as precinct pavilions had decreased over the past five years.

In addition to void deck spaces, precinct pavilions also provide a place for social functions and informal gatherings for HDB residents. It is also meant for residents to hold functions such as weddings and funerals. The drop in usage of precinct pavilions could be due to availability of alternative venues for such functions.

138

Table 5.7 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Year

Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%) Types of Estate Facilities 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Commercial Facilities Market/Supermarket* 89.2 89.6 85.7 87.1 89.2 88.3 Supermarket N.A. N.A. N.A. 72.6 80.0 81.4 Wet/Dry market N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 72.0 63.9 HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 77.1 78.4 63.6 59.3 63.5 50.7 Hawker centre 59.0 67.7 60.6 57.7 64.4 56.5

Eating house/Coffee shop/Food 47.6 61.9 57.3 62.8 66.3 64.5 court**

Eating house/Coffee shop N.A. N.A. N.A. 59.5 61.6 59.9 Food court N.A. N.A. N.A. 44.4 45.3 38.1 Fast food outlet N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 22.7 N.A.

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 23.1 restaurant)

Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/Jogging track N.A. 10.2 18.8 24.6 27.4 25.5 Playground N.A. 23.2 17.9 16.3 16.5 15.2 Park*** 16.8 23.3 16.1 20.7 22.4 20.3 Regional/Town park N.A. N.A. N.A. 11.3 16.9 10.2

Neighbourhood park/Common N.A. N.A. N.A. 18.3 19.8 17.8 green

Hard/Multi-purpose court N.A. 8.3 5.3 5.9 4.7 6.5 Community garden N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 6.3 Roof/Sky garden N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 8.4 3.4 Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway N.A. N.A. 69.1 77.3 82.3 84.2 Drop-off porch N.A. N.A. 20.5 35.7 36.2 30.3 Void deck/Community living room N.A. N.A. 20.3 32.3 25.6 27.7 Shelter N.A. N.A. 12.3 20.6 16.4 22.1 Precinct pavilion N.A. N.A. 23.7 42.6 16.6 7.9 Trellis N.A. N.A. N.A. 13.8 13.6 7.0 Regional/Community library N.A. N.A. 20.1 17.7 15.4 11.1 Community club N.A. N.A. 7.1 8.9 9.0 7.7

* Supermarket and wet/dry market were grouped as a category under Market/Supermarket in SHSs carried out before 2013. ** Eating house/Coffee shop and food court were grouped as a category under Eating house/Coffee shop/Food court in SHSs carried out before 2008 *** Regional/Town park and neighbourhood park/common green were grouped as a category under Park in SHSs carried out before 2008.

139

5.3 Online Purchase

In an annual survey on Infocomm usage in households and by individuals conducted by IMDA12, internet usage rates were found to have risen significantly from 2017. In 2019, about 89% of residents used the internet and almost all residents aged 7 to 49 years old were internet users. In addition, with the growth of e-commerce and the expansion of digital services such as RedMart, Zalora and Lazada, more households are turning to online purchases and transactions. In light of this trend, it is necessary to understand the prevalence of online shopping among HDB residents, the type of goods or services purchased online, and whether residents patronised HDB shops less frequently as a result. These findings would help to gauge the impact of online shopping on HDB shops.

Online purchases on the rise

About 38.1% of HDB residents made online purchases through websites or mobile applications in the past twelve months (Table 5.8). The DOS’ Household Expenditure Survey 2017/18 showed that there was a growing trend for online purchases, with about 60.0% of households (private property and HDB households included) reported making purchases online, up from 31.3% in 2012/2013.

Table 5.8 Proportion of HDB Households who Made Online Purchase through Websites or Mobile Applications over Past Twelve Months

Proportion who Made Online Purchase All

Yes 38.1 No 61.9

% 100.0 Total N 1,013,542

12 Infocomm Media Development Authority: Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage in Households and by Individuals for 2019. Retrieved on 12 June 2020. (https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/Imda/Files/Infocomm-Media- Landscape/Research-and-Statistics/Survey-Report/2019-HH-Public-Report_09032020.pdf)

140

Younger residents and those living in bigger flat types more likely to make online purchases

A higher proportion of online shoppers lived in 4-room or bigger flat types. The majority of them were younger (aged 45 years old and below) and likely to be from families with young children (Table 5.9).

Table 5.9 HDB Households who Made Online Purchase through Websites or Mobile Applications by Attributes

Whether Made Total Attributes Online Purchase Yes No % N*

Flat Type 1-Room 9.4 90.6 100.0 30,369

2-Room 18.9 81.1 100.0 44,351

3-Room 25.3 74.7 100.0 232,351

4-Room 41.3 58.7 100.0 405,163

5-Room 49.0 51.0 100.0 236,324

Executive 50.9 49.1 100.0 64,984

Age Group (Years) Below 35 84.2 15.8 100.0 68,440

35 – 44 73.4 26.6 100.0 189,296

45 – 54 49.3 50.7 100.0 235,708

55 – 64 23.1 76.9 100.0 260,815

65 & Above 5.2 94.8 100.0 259,283

Household Life Family without Children 48.0 52.0 100.0 67,587 Cycle Stage Family with Young Children 74.6 25.4 100.0 146,059

Family with Teenaged 54.0 46.0 100.0 115,202 Children

Family with Unmarried Grown- 29.7 70.3 100.0 315,449 Up Children

Family with Married Children 40.7 59.3 100.0 116,538

Elderly Couples Living Alone 4.0 96.0 100.0 82,868

Others** 22.5 77.5 100.0 169,839 * Excluding non-response cases ** Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

141

The most common products bought online were clothing/footwear (24.2%) as shown in Table 5.10. Of those who bought clothing/footwear via online platforms, close to half reported that they had shopped less at HDB shops while close to another half continued to shop at HDB shops. These findings indicated that certain retail trades would be affected by the emergence of e-commerce.

Table 5.10 Types of Products Bought Online and Whether Patronise HDB Shop Less Often Due to Online Shopping

Whether Patronise HDB Shops Less Often Due to Online Shopping (%) Households Types of Purchases who Shopped Online (%) Never Made Yes No Purchases from HDB Shops

Clothing/Footwear 24.2 10.9 10.4 2.9

Mobile Phone/Computer & 13.2 5.7 5.7 1.8 Electronic Products

General Household Goods 12.5 6.1 5.7 0.7 Household Appliances/Furniture 12.0 5.3 5.3 1.4 Cosmetics/Toiletries 11.7 5.7 5.1 0.9 Groceries/Market Produce 10.8 4.9 5.3 0.6 Cooked Food 10.7 4.6 5.8 0.3

Books & Stationery/CDs & 9.4 3.8 4.2 1.4 DVD/Toys

Sports Equipment/Sports Wear 8.9 3.9 3.7 1.3

Specialised Goods (e.g., jewellery, 4.4 1.7 1.9 0.8 watch, luggage)

142

5.4 Places in Estate where Residents Usually Spend Their Time

It is of interest to HDB to find out the common places within the estate where residents usually spend their time and the main activities carried out at these places. The purpose is to understand where residents would likely interact, mingle and bond in the community, which will aid in planning and design, and thereby the rejuvenation and provision of estate facilities in HDB towns.

Residents usually spent their time at commercial facilities

The general trend has not changed over the last five years (Table 5.11). Overall, close to seven in ten residents (68.4%) usually spent their time at commercial facilities such as shopping centres/complexes (36.1%) and eating houses/coffee shops (9.4%). While some residents patronised the shopping centres/complexes for dining as well as general and grocery shopping, others spent their time at the nearby coffee shops for the variety of food available. The coffee shops also served as a good social setting for residents, especially for the elderly, to mingle and bond with their friends and family members over meals. Another 16.5% of them spent their time mostly at recreational/leisure facilities such as parks/gardens (8.9%). Residents could enjoy the nature/greenery while exercising or walking/strolling.

143

Table 5.11 Places where HDB Households Usually Spend Their Time in Estate by Year

Facilities 2013 2018

Commercial Facilities 68.5 68.4 Shopping centre/complex 34.0 36.1 Eating house/Coffee shop 10.5 9.4 Supermarket 6.4 6.1 Market/Stall 5.5 5.5 Hawker centre 4.4 5.3 Shops at town centre 3.4 1.9

Downtown East Resort/Kampong Admiralty/Bedok - 1.4 Hub/Our Tampines Hub

HDB neighbourhood centre 0.8 1.0 Food court 1.4 0.8 Provision shop/Convenience store/Minimart/Kiosk 0.9 0.4 Others (e.g., fast food, café, restaurant) 1.2 0.5

Recreational/Leisure Facilities 16.1 16.5 Park/Garden 8.8 8.9 Playground 3.3 3.3 Library 1.9 1.6 Park connector/Walking path 0.8 1.1 Others (e.g., SAFRA club house, civil service club) 1.3 1.6

Precinct Facilities 5.8 5.9 Void deck/Community living room 4.0 3.8 Corridor 0.3 0.8 Resident/Senior citizen corner 0.4 0.5 Precinct pavilion 0.4 0.4 Others (e.g., shelter) 0.7 0.4

Sports Facilities 4.1 3.7 Fitness corner/station 1.6 1.3 Jogging track 0.9 1.0 Sports complex/stadium 0.6 0.7 Swimming pool/complex 0.5 0.4 Others (e.g., gym) 0.5 0.3 * Excluding non-response cases

144

Table 5.11 Places where HDB Households Usually Spend Their Time in Estate by Year (Continued)

Facilities 2013 2018

Community Facilities 3.8 4.4 Community centre 1.9 1.7 Religious institution 1.6 1.2 Senior activity centre/Day care centre - 0.5 Others (e.g., Residents’ Committee) 0.3 1.0

Others (e.g., family/relative’s/sibling’s home) 1.7 1.1

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 846,712 886,455 * Excluding non-response cases

5.5 Summary of Findings

HDB towns are planned to be self-sufficient, offering a wide range of facilities at the precinct, neighbourhood and town levels. Over the years, HDB has been providing various estate facilities--commercial, recreational, and social amenities- -in towns/estates to cater to residents’ changing needs. Such efforts have seen positive results, reflected in the latest SHS findings where the overall satisfaction with the provision of estate facilities had inched up higher to 98.6%, an increase of 2.5 percentage points from 96.1% in 2013.

With changing lifestyles among residents, competition among the various commercial operators and the prevalence of online services, usage levels for commercial facilities had generally decreased over the past five years. About four in ten (38.1%) of residents made online purchases in the past twelve months, and this would likely be a growing trend. The most common products bought online were clothing/footwear. Overall, about half who made online purchases shopped less at HDB shops. These findings suggested that retailers that have no online presence may be negatively impacted especially post COVID-19 pandemic.

Compared with commercial facilities, usage levels for sports and recreational as well as precinct and community facilities were generally lower as some of these facilities catered to the needs of specific groups of residents. Fitness station/jogging track, parks and linkways continued to be the most well-utilised

145

facilities. Linkways, which were extensively provided within precincts, were the most well-utilised among all precinct and community facilities.

Shopping centres/complexes, eating houses/coffee shops and parks/gardens were the top three places within the town/estate where residents spent most of their time. While some residents patronised shopping centres/complexes for dining as well as for general and grocery shopping, others spent their time at nearby coffee shops for the variety of food available. Coffee shops also served as a good social setting for residents, especially the elderly, to mingle and bond with their friends and family members over meals. Residents also liked to spend time at the nearby parks/gardens to enjoy nature/greenery while exercising or walking/strolling.

146

6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

Chapter 6

Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

Housing purchase, being a big-ticket item, is an important decision for many and a multiplicity of factors come into play when people purchase or sell their homes. The volume of residential movement by HDB households over the past five years had been considerable. These could have been due to a combination of factors, of which the more significant ones included recovery from an economic downturn, increased availability of flats and stronger housing support from government that have helped different segments of HDB residents to fulfil their housing needs and aspirations.

As HDB continues to strive towards fulfilling people’s aspirations for having a place to live in or even a home to call their own, it is important to examine how residential mobility and housing aspirations of residents have changed over the years. Specifically, tracing the patterns of residential movements provides HDB with a better understanding of the residents’ motivation to move, as well as their preferred towns and housing types. These would be useful information for HDB’s planning and policy reviews on housing provision.

6.1 Past Residential Mobility

This section tracks the residential movement of households from the time a couple commences married life and sets up a family nucleus. It presents the findings on the type of housing that couples used as their first marital home; the length of residence in their previous housing unit, if they had subsequently moved house; and the type of move they made from their previous housing unit to the current one.

151

Almost four in ten younger married couples lived in parents’ place upon marriage

Among the 1,013,542 resident households living in HDB flats, 87.4% or 885,818 were either married or had ever been married13. Overall, two in ten (20.8%) of the married/ever-married households lived in their parents’ home upon marriage, as shown in Table 6.1. Other common housing arrangements include living in HDB sold 4-room (20.1%) and 3-room flats (16.0%) that were either bought directly from HDB or from the resale market. The proportion who lived in their parents’ home upon marriage was higher among younger residents aged below 35 years old (37.2%).

Table 6.1 First Housing Type Lived in since Marriage among Married/Ever-Married Households by Age

Age Group (Years)

First Housing Type 65 & Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 All Above

Parents’/Relatives’ Place 37.2 23.2 21.4 20.8 12.7 20.8 HDB Rental 4.4 2.7 4.6 9.2 16.2 8.5 Open Market Rental 12.7 18.0 9.0 6.0 11.6 10.9 1- & 2-Room -** -** 0.6 1.3 1.1 0.8 3-Room 6.2 11.1 17.1 22.3 15.0 16.0 4-Room 24.3 26.9 26.9 20.8 8.1 20.1 5-Room 12.7 14.5 13.9 7.4 2.4 9.2 Executive 1.9 1.6 3.4 2.2 -** 1.8 Private Housing* -** 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.6 Attap House/Staff Quarter - -** 1.6 8.1 31.1 10.3 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N*** 55,879 161,224 189,815 219,017 228,973 854,908 * Refers to private condominiums, apartments, terrace houses, detached houses, etc. ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Excluding non-response cases

Residential mobility increased over past five years

Among the married/ever-married households, 20.0% indicated that they had not moved since marriage, that is, they had lived in their current flat since they got married (Chart 6.1). Among the remaining 80.0% who had moved at least once,

13 Refers to residents who were previously married, but separated, divorced or widowed at the time of survey.

152

43.6% had moved once, 28.2% had moved twice and 8.2% had moved three or more times. The proportion that had moved at least once increased from 72.6% in 2013 to 80.0% in 2018. The higher levels of residential mobility observed could be due to an increase in households purchasing Built-to-Order (BTO) flats between 2013 and 2018, when HDB ramped up the flat supply. It could also be due to the increase in the proportion of older residents and their propensity to right-size to smaller flats when their household size shrunk after their grown-up children had gotten married and moved out.

Chart 6.1 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among Married/Ever-Married Households

46.4 2008 44.0 43.6 2013 40 2018 27.4 28.2 24.3 20.0 20.7 21.1

Households (%) Households 20

8.6 7.5 8.2

0 None One Two Three or More

Families with children tended to make more residential moves than families without children

The number of residential moves made varied with one’s life cycle stage. In general, families with children made more residential moves compared with married couples without children or divorced/widowed residents without children (Table 6.2).

Among families with children, the proportion who had moved at least once was 63.4% for families with young children, 75.9% for families with teenaged children, 85.5% for families with unmarried grown-up children, and 92.4% for families with married children. In general, residential mobility is dependent on residents’ life cycle stage, which is in turn associated with household size, and thereby the amount of space, whether larger or smaller, deemed necessary. Table 6.4 shows that family life events, including increase or decrease in household size, were cited as the main reasons for residential movement.

153

Table 6.2 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among Married/Ever-Married Households by Resident Life Cycle Stage

Number of Residential Moves Total since Marriage Resident Life Cycle Stage Three None One Two or % N* More

Family without Children 48.1 37.3 12.5 2.1 100.0 61,012

Non-Elderly Couple (Below 55 Years) 55.1 34.9 8.9 1.1 100.0 41,908 without Children

Elderly/Future Elderly Couple without Children 32.6 42.7 20.5 4.2 100.0 19,104

Family with Children 17.9 44.0 29.5 8.6 100.0 802,722 Family with Young Children 36.6 48.1 10.9 4.4 100.0 169,363 Family with Teenaged Children 24.1 45.9 24.2 5.8 100.0 124,036 Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children 14.5 46.6 31.0 7.9 100.0 185,529 Family with Married Children 7.6 39.7 40.3 12.4 100.0 323,794

Non-Family 18.7 44.7 25.3 11.3 100.0 20,646 All 20.0 43.6 28.2 8.2 100.0 884,380 * Excluding non-response cases

Length of residence in previous housing remained largely unchanged over past five years

For households who moved at least once since their marriage (80.0%), the average length of residence in their previous housing unit remained largely unchanged since a decade ago (Chart 6.2). This trend suggests that there were no significant changes to residents’ desire to change residence over the years.

Chart 6.2 Average Length of Residence in Previous Housing Unit among Married/Ever-Married Households by Year

12 10.2 10.2 10.4

4 Length Length Residence of (Years) 0 2008 2013 2018

154

Majority upgraded from previous housing, mainly due to family life events

This section looks at the types of move14 residents made when they moved from their previous housing unit to the current flat.

Among households who indicated at least one change in residence since their marriage (80.0%), the majority had upgraded from their previous residence to the current flat (69.4%), as shown in Chart 6.3. Compared with 2013, the proportion of households who upgraded had increased slightly. While the proportion who downgraded remained relatively constant, the proportion that moved laterally had decreased. These changes in mobility pattern could be due to several factors. The continual support provided to rental households to enable homeownership, greater availability of new flats, and stabilised property prices over the past five years could have encouraged more upgrading moves. It was also observed that as the government continued to improve the provision of facilities, as well as connectivity and accessibility of public transport, fewer households had chosen to move laterally to the same flat type. Moving to locations with better/more facilities was one of the main reasons given by households who had made lateral moves over the past SHSs.

Chart 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households by Year 80 70.1 69.4 67.5

2008 40 2013

Households(%) 2018 16.9 16.6 20 14.4 14.0 15.5 15.6

0 Upgrade Lateral Move Downgrade

14 The terms “Upgrade”, “Lateral Move” and “Downgrade” are used to categorise the type of residential movement. Residents are considered to have upgraded when they moved from a smaller to a bigger flat type, or from a rental housing unit to a sold flat. Residents who made lateral moves are those who moved across similar flat types, with tenure remaining the same. Residents have downgraded when they moved from a bigger to a smaller flat type or from private housing to current flat or from sold housing unit to an HDB rental flat. As residents may move for various reasons, the terms should be regarded as neutral terms and should not be interpreted as positive when residents upgrade and negative when residents downgrade e.g., a resident could have downgraded due to a decrease in household size instead of financial difficulty.

155

A higher proportion of younger residents upgraded compared with older residents. Based on residents’ age at the point of move, more than seven in ten of those aged below 45 years old had upgraded, compared with less than half of those aged 55 years old and above who did so (Table 6.3). Younger residents had upgraded when they formed their own families or when their household size increased upon the arrival of children. They were also likely to have higher housing aspiration and financial ability to upgrade as many of them were gainfully employed in PMET jobs and had many working years ahead. Older residents, on the other hand, might have chosen to right-size and move into a smaller flat as their household size decreased after their children had gotten married and moved out. Some would also have monetised their flat to meet retirement needs.

Table 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households by Age at Point of Move

Age Group at Type of Move Total Point of Move (Years) Upgrade Lateral Move Downgrade % N*

Below 35 85.0 9.3 5.7 100.0 227,354 35 – 44 70.9 14.8 14.3 100.0 261,727 45 – 54 57.3 17.1 25.6 100.0 137,045 55 – 64 43.6 16.3 40.1 100.0 52,933 65 & Above 29.8 27.1 43.1 100.0 23,890

All 69.4 14.0 16.6 100.0 702,949 * Excluding non-response cases

Households move for various reasons. In this survey, households were asked to provide up to three reasons for moving to their present flat. Analysis was done to understand the reasons according to whether the household had upgraded, moved laterally or downgraded.

Among the responses, about 39.9% of the reasons given were related to family life events (Table 6.4), such as an increase in household size (14.9%), and starting one’s own family (14.9%). Reasons for moving relating to provision of facilities/location and flat design/living environment accounted for 23.0% and 19.1%, respectively. Another 12.0% of the responses were related to financial considerations, such as being able to afford the current flat (6.0%) and deriving capital gain through the sale of the previous flat (2.5%). A small proportion (3.9%) of the total responses mentioned that the move was due to the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) or resettlement.

156

For those who upgraded from their previous housing units, a higher proportion attributed their decision to move to family life events such as an increase in household size (21.4%) or to move out of their parents’/relatives’ home to start their own family (19.1%). Other common reasons cited by upgraders included a desire for flats with more attractive design/layout (9.5%), better provision of facilities (8.3%), and conducive environment (7.7%).

For those who made lateral moves, the main reasons for moving were related to availability of more facilities (14.2%), attractive flat design/layout (12.1%), and conducive living environment (11.5%). Other commonly cited reasons included moving closer to parents/children/relatives/friends (9.0%), housing affordability (8.3%), and better accessibility to place of work (7.1%).

For households who downgraded, most of the reasons were finance-related (31.1%), better location/provision of facilities (27.6%), and family life events (22.7%). Specifically, the most common reasons included preference for smaller flat (12.7%), wanting more facilities (10.1%), and housing affordability (9.6%).

Table 6.4 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat among Married/Ever-Married Households by Type of Move Type of Move

Reasons for Moving to Present Flat Lateral All Upgrade Downgrade Move

Family Life Events 49.7 11.1 22.7 39.9 Needed bigger flat as household size increased 21.4 - - 14.9 Moved out from parents’/relatives’ place/started 19.1 6.8 4.4 14.9 own family To own a flat/have own space for privacy 5.5 -* 0.6 4.0 To have more space for family activity/upgrade 3.2 - - 2.2

Preferred smaller flat as household size - - 12.7 2.2 decreased/preferred smaller flat Divorced/remarried 0.5 3.7 5.0 1.7

Location/Provision of Facilities 19.4 35.3 27.6 23.0 More facilities 8.3 14.2 10.1 9.4 To move closer to parents/children/relatives/ 4.4 9.0 8.4 5.7 Friends Accessibility to place of work 4.9 7.1 6.5 5.5 Near school/childcare 0.9 3.5 1.7 1.4 Good transportation network/centralised location 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.7

Attracted by future development/availability of 0.4 -* - 0.3 flats in new town

* Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

157

Table 6.4 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat among Married/Ever-Married Households by Type of Move (Continued) Type of Move

Reasons for Moving to Present Flat Lateral All Upgrade Downgrade Move

Flat Design/Living Environment 18.6 28.2 14.2 19.1 More attractive flat design/layout 9.5 12.1 5.8 9.2 Conducive/pleasant/cleaner/safer environment 7.7 11.5 6.6 8.0

To move to newer flat/newer estate/experience 0.8 2.4 -* 0.9 new location

To move out from previous neighbourhood (due -* 1.0 -* 0.4 to e.g., difficult neighbours, bad memories)

To move to a flat that is more suitable for old -* -* 0.8 0.3 age(e.g., without staircase, easier to maintain)

Familiar with the neighbourhood 0.2 0.8 -* 0.3

Financial 6.6 15.8 31.1 12.0 Able to afford the flat 4.7 8.3 9.6 6.0 Capital gain through sale of previous flat 0.8 3.4 8.7 2.5

To settle financial difficulty (e.g., medical bills, 0.2 3.3 7.6 1.9 debts, housing loan )

Financially sound to move to current flat (e.g., potential for capital appreciation, save rental 0.9 -* -* 0.7 cost, rent out private property)

To monetise previous flat for retirement - -* 3.7 0.7

Downgrade due to reduced income/unstable - - 1.2 0.2 income

Others 5.7 9.6 4.4 6.0

Previous flat was affected by housing programmes (e.g., SERS, resettlement, 3.9 6.5 2.1 3.9 demolishment)

Renting temporarily/Prefer renting instead of 0.8 2.3 1.3 1.1 buying

Had to move out from previous housing (e.g., due to conflicts with family members, evicted by 0.7 0.8 -* 0.7 housing provider, expiry of tenancy)/need a place and no other housing choice

Took over ownership/inherit flat from 0.3 - -* 0.3 families/followed family members’ decision

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total No. of Responses** 715,611 135,955 176,356 1,027,922 * Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped ** Excluding non-response cases

158

Among all households who had moved at least once, 34.0% were previously living in the same town/estate (Chart 6.4). It was observed that middle-aged (36.8%) and mature (39.3%) towns/estates had higher proportions of households who moved within the same towns/estates, compared with that of young towns (10.3%).

Chart 6.4 Extent of Geographical Move of Married/Ever-Married Households by Present Town/Estate Same town/estate Other town/estate 100

43.3

47.2

49.4

58.1

60.9

62.1

62.3

62.6

63.3

63.8

64.0

65.3

65.4

66.0

66.2

66.3

66.4

70.9

71.0

71.5 72.0

60 72.0

74.8

81.9

87.2

87.4 94.4

Households(%)

56.7 52.8

20 50.6

41.9

39.1

37.9

37.7

37.4

36.7

36.2

36.0

34.7

34.6

34.0

33.8

33.7

33.6

29.1

29.0

28.5

28.0 28.0

5.6

25.2

18.1 12.8

0 12.6

All

Bedok

Yishun Bishan

Punggol

Geylang

Clementi

PasirRis

Hougang

Tampines

Sengkang

ToaPayoh

Serangoon

Woodlands

BukitBatok

Ang Ang Kio Mo

BukitTimah

JurongEast BukitMerah

Sembawang

JurongWest Queenstown CentralArea

BukitPanjang

MarineParade

Choa Chu Choa Kang Kallang/Whampoa

Young Towns Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates (10.3%)* (36.8%)* (39.3%)*

* Overall proportion of households who moved within same town in the specific town category

6.2 Intention to Move within Next Five Years

Majority had no intention to move, slight increase in those who intended to move in the next five years

Compared to 2013, the proportion of households who had no intention to move and intended to remain in their current flat increased from 69.8% in 2013 to 76.8% in 2018 (Chart 6.5). This could be due to higher proportions of households being satisfied with their flat, neighbourhood and estate facilities compared with five years ago. A higher proportion of households were also proud of their flats.

159

Chart 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Year

80 76.8 68.6 69.8

2008 40 2013

Households(%) 2018 19.9 17.8 20 13.3 11.5 12.4 9.9

0 Yes Unsure No

The proportion of households who intended to move within the next five years had shown a gradual increase. About 13.3% of all households expressed that they intend to move within the next five years, out of which 12.4% indicated that they would be moving with their whole household while the remaining 0.9% would not be doing so. The increase could be facilitated by an ample supply of new and resale flats in the primary and secondary market, and more importantly, enhancement to the various housing policies. These include the CPF Housing Grant and Priority Schemes and the policy to raise the income ceiling that would render more Singaporeans eligible for new HDB flats and Executive Condominiums (ECs) in August 2015 15 . Compared with five years ago, the proportion who were unsure of moving decreased from 17.8% to 9.9%.

Households living in 1- and 2-room flats, younger households or families with young children had greater intention to move

Households living in smaller flat types were more inclined to move (Table 6.5). More than one in five households living in 1- and 2-room flats expressed their intention to move, compared to between 12.4% and 13.2% of households in the other flat types.

15 With effect from 24 Aug 2015, the income ceiling for buying new HDB flats increased from $10,000 to $12,000, while that for ECs increased from $12,000 to $14,000. After the survey period and on 11 Sep 2019, the income ceilings increased further to $14,000 for new HDB flats and $16,000 for ECs.

160

Table 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB Households by Flat Type

Intention to Move within Next Five Years Total Present Flat Type Yes Unsure No % N

1- & 2-Room 21.4 8.8 69.8 100.0 74,720 3-Room 12.4 8.9 78.7 100.0 232,351 4-Room 12.7 10.4 76.9 100.0 405,163 5-Room 12.4 10.0 77.6 100.0 236,324 Executive 13.2 12.8 74.0 100.0 64,984

All 13.3 9.9 76.8 100.0 1,013,542

The intention to move was more prevalent among younger residents aged below 45 years old, with 29.7% of those aged below 35 years old, and 23.8% of those aged between 35 and 44 years old intending to do so in the next five years (Table 6.6). A higher proportion of younger residents were also unsure of moving. In contrast, intention to move was lower among older residents. This could be attributed to older residents having a greater sense of attachment to their place of residence, and in turn a stronger desire to age-in-place.

Table 6.6 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB Households by Age

Intention to Move within Next Five Years Total Age Group (Years) Yes Unsure No % N

Below 35 29.7 20.2 50.1 100.0 68,440 35 – 44 23.8 14.8 61.4 100.0 189,296 45 – 54 14.7 10.4 74.9 100.0 235,708 55 – 64 8.6 7.3 84.1 100.0 260,815 65 & Above 4.6 6.1 89.3 100.0 259,283

All 13.3 9.9 76.8 100.0 1,013,542

Almost three in ten (29.9%) families with young children (eldest child aged 12 years old and below) expressed their intention to move in the next five years, compared with only 5.3% of those elderly couples living alone (Table 6.7). A higher proportion of families with young children also intended to move to a bigger flat.

161

Table 6.7 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB Households by Household Life Cycle Stage

Intention to Move within Next Total Household Life Cycle Stage Five Years Yes Unsure No % N

Family without Children 16.0 11.7 72.3 100.0 67,587 Family with Young Children 29.9 13.9 56.2 100.0 146,059 Family with Teenaged Children 16.1 12.3 71.6 100.0 115,202 Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children 7.9 8.4 83.7 100.0 315,449 Family with Married Children 13.6 9.2 77.2 100.0 116,538 Elderly Couple Living Alone 5.3 4.0 90.7 100.0 82,868 Others* 9.6 10.8 79.6 100.0 169,839

All 13.3 9.9 76.8 100.0 1,013,542

* Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

Higher preference for smaller flat types compared with five years ago

Overall, 28.5% of households who intended to move indicated their preference for 4-room flats (Chart 6.6). This was followed by 18.5% who preferred 5-room flats and 15.8% who preferred 3-room flats.

Among those intending to move, there was a higher preference for smaller flat types compared with five years ago, especially among the older residents. The proportion of households who preferred 1- or 2-room flats, including 2-room Flexi flats, had increased from 5.9% in 2013 to 10.7% in 2018. The 2-room Flexi scheme, introduced in August 2015, allows eligible citizens aged 55 years old and above to buy a flat on short lease, based on their age, needs and preferences. With the 2- room Flexi option, older residents would be able to buy a new home while monetising their existing property for retirement needs. In comparison, the proportion of households in 2018 opting to move to 5-room, Executive flats and private housing had decreased compared to 2013.

162

Chart 6.6 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year 40 2008 (N*=96,492)

2013 (N*=110,530) 30.8

30 28.5 2018 (N*=132,769)

26.9

22.1 20.5

20 18.5

16.1

16.0

15.8

14.4

13.3

11.8

10.7

10.0 8.7

10 8.7

6.5

5.9 5.9

4.7

4.2 HouseholdsIntending Move to (%)

0 1- /2-Room/ 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Flat Private Others** 2-Room Flexi Housing

* Excluding non-response cases ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live in family members’/friends’ place and buy next housing overseas

The desire to upgrade was prevalent among households living in smaller flat types (Table 6.8). Among those living in HDB rental and 1- and 2-room flats, while a higher proportion would like to move to 3-room flats (37.7%), about 21.0% would choose to move to sold 1- and 2-room flats. Among those living in 3-room flats, the predominant choice (41.5%) was a 4-room flat. Among households who were currently living in 4-room flats, 30.7% had expressed an intention to move to 5- room and bigger flats. A higher proportion of households in the bigger flat types also had intention to move to private housing. This suggests that households do consider the question of affordability when selecting their next housing type.

163

Table 6.8 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended to Move by Present Flat Type Present Flat Type

Preferred Housing Type HDB Rental 5-Room & All to Move to & 1- & 2- 3-Room 4-Room Bigger Room

HDB 1- & 2-Room 21.0 15.3 9.9 3.8 10.7 3-Room 37.7 16.8 8.8 15.3 15.8 4-Room 22.1 41.5 29.2 20.6 28.5 5-Room & Bigger 1.4 15.4 30.7 28.0 23.2 Private Housing* -*** -*** 11.9 22.1 11.8 Others** 16.8 6.8 9.5 10.2 10.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N**** 15,991 28,277 51,095 37,406 132,769 * Including Executive Condominium, private condominium/apartment and landed properties ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live in family members’/friends’ place or buy next housing overseas *** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped **** Excluding non-response cases

Housing choice varied with age and life cycle stage

Residents’ choice of housing and flat type differed by age. Generally, the intention to move to bigger flats or private housing decreased with age. Compared with residents aged 55 years old and above, more than six in ten of the households aged below 55 years old intended to move to 4-room or bigger flats or private properties (Table 6.9). Younger residents were likely to choose bigger flat types as they anticipated a growing household size and a need for more space to meet future family needs. Considering their longer expected employment period and higher income earning capacity, they would likely have the ability to afford bigger flats. On the contrary, older residents would find smaller flats more suitable in their retirement years. A higher proportion of older households aged 65 years old and above planned to either live in 3-room (32.0%) or smaller flats (35.4%) or rent a room/housing unit, live in family members’/friends’ place or move overseas (20.6%) in the next five years.

164

Table 6.9 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended to Move by Age

Age Group (Years) Preferred Housing Type 65 & All to Move to Below 35 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 Above

HDB 1- & 2-Room 2.0 2.9 6.3 27.8 35.4 10.7 3-Room 7.6 6.1 22.2 24.3 32.0 15.8 4-Room 32.8 29.5 35.5 20.9 11.7 28.5 5-Room & Bigger 31.7 35.9 16.6 12.3 - 23.2 Private Housing* 14.0 16.6 11.3 7.1 0.3 11.8 Others** 11.9 9.0 8.1 7.6 20.6 10.0 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N*** 19,692 44,767 34,565 21,905 11,840 132,769 * Including Executive Condominium, private condominium/apartment and landed properties ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live in family members’/friends’ place or buy next housing overseas *** Excluding non-response cases

Besides age, households’ preferred housing type for their intended move was also dependent on the households’ life cycle stages. Generally, 4-room flats were most preferred across the different life cycle stages, except for those families with young children, elderly couples living alone, and other households (Table 6.10). A higher proportion of families with young children preferred to move to 5-room and bigger flats (41.3%), suggesting their perceived need for a larger space for their growing children. Elderly couples living alone preferred 3-room flats (40.2%), probably due to their size and easier maintenance. For other households, preference for 1- and 2-room flats was higher, at 42.3%, as most of these households consisted of only one or two persons. A higher proportion of these households also planned to rent a room/housing unit, live in friends’/relatives’ place, or move overseas in the near future (17.3%).

165

Table 6.10 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage

Household Life Cycle Stage

Family with Family Family with Family with Family with Elderly Preferred Housing Type to Move to Unmarried All without Young Teenaged Married Couple Living Others*** Grown-Up Children Children Children Children Alone Children

HDB 1- & 2-Room -**** -**** -**** 12.6 7.7 23.1 42.3 10.7 3-Room 19.3 7.9 16.0 21.8 12.9 40.2 22.1 15.8 4-Room 23.7 29.5 39.0 32.6 29.4 24.2 11.1 28.5 5-Room & Bigger 20.2 41.3 20.2 14.2 20.4 - -**** 23.2 Private Housing* 17.8 15.3 12.6 6.4 14.5 -**** -**** 11.8 Others** -**** 5.2 9.1 12.4 15.1 -**** 17.3 10.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N***** 10,787 43,234 18,201 24,621 15,798 4,182 15,946 132,769 * Including Executive Condominium, private condominium/apartment and landed properties ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live in family members’/friends’ place or buy next housing overseas *** Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together **** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped ***** Excluding non-response cases

166

About half intended to upgrade

Among households who planned to move within the next five years, potential moves were classified into four broad categories 16 : downgrade, lateral move, upgrade to another HDB flat, and upgrade to private residential property. The categorisation was based on the present flat type that households were living in and their desired housing type to move to in the next five years.

Overall, about half (53.0%) intended to upgrade, either to a bigger HDB flat (40.2%) or a private property (12.8%), as shown in Chart 6.7. Compared with 2013, households who intended to upgrade had shrunk in proportion. Correspondingly, the proportion of households that intended to move laterally or downgrade to a smaller flat type had increased over the past five years.

Chart 6.7 Type of Potential Move by Year 60 2008 (N* = 96,492) 48.5 2013 (N* = 109,870) 40.2 37.9 2018 (N* = 132,815) 40

29.5 27.7 (%) 19.2 19.4 17.7 19.3 20

13.2 14.6 12.8 HouseholdsIntending Move to 0 Downgrade Lateral Move Upgrade (HDB) Upgrade (Private Properties) Type of Potential Move * Excluding non-response cases

Intention to upgrade was higher among younger residents or families with young or teenaged children

Among residents aged below 35 years old who intended to move, eight in ten intended to upgrade to either another HDB flat or a private property (Table 6.11). The proportion who intended to upgrade decreased with age. At least half of those

16 Potential moves are classified as “downgrade” if households intend to move from a bigger to a smaller flat type or from sold flat to a rental housing. Potential moves made by households who intend to move across similar flat types, with tenure remaining the same, are classified as “lateral move”. Potential moves from a smaller to bigger HDB flat or from a rental housing to a sold HDB flat are classified as “upgrade to another HDB flat”. Those potential moves from current HDB flat to a private housing are classified as “upgrade to private residential property”.

167

aged between 55 and 64 years old (56.1%) and seven in ten of those aged 65 years old and above (73.5%) intended to downgrade.

Table 6.11 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended to Move by Age

Type of Potential Move Total

Age Group (Years) Upgrade Downgrade Lateral Move % N* (HDB/Private)

Below 35 7.9 12.4 79.7 100.0 19,601 35 – 44 11.6 20.9 67.5 100.0 44,767 45 – 54 25.7 24.7 49.6 100.0 34,508 55 – 64 56.1 14.7 29.2 100.0 21,883 65 & Above 73.5 17.2 9.3 100.0 12,056

All 27.7 19.3 53.0 100.0 132,815 * Excluding non-response cases

The majority of families with young children (76.8%) and families with teenaged children (63.6%) expressed an intent to upgrade to either a bigger HDB flat, mainly due to their need for more space, or upgrade to a private property. In contrast, the majority of elderly couples living alone (70.3%) and other households (60.9%) planned to downgrade.

Table 6.12 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage Type of Potential Move Total

Household Life Cycle Stage Upgrade Downgrade Lateral Move % N*** (HDB/Private)

Family without Children 23.8 22.7 53.5 100.0 10,788 Family with Young Children 10.1 13.1 76.8 100.0 43,219 Family with Teenaged Children 17.5 18.9 63.6 100.0 18,200

Family with Unmarried Grown-Up 39.6 27.8 32.6 100.0 24,607 Children Family with Married Children 26.4 25.0 48.6 100.0 15,776 Elderly Couple Living Alone 70.3 -** -** 100.0 4,369 Others* 60.9 17.3 21.8 100.0 15,856

All 27.7 19.3 53.0 100.0 132,815

* Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Excluding non-response cases

168

6.3 Housing Aspirations

Households’ housing aspiration is dependent on several factors, among which economic situation could be one of the major determinants. For instance, housing aspiration was moderated amidst an economic downturn in 2008; it rose subsequently as the economy recovered, and stayed at the same higher level between 2013 and 2018, reflecting an overall stable property market in which residents remained cautious and prudent so as not to over-stretch themselves financially. In addition, policies such as lowering the cap on Mortgage Servicing Ratio (MSR) and reducing the maximum tenure of housing loans were effective in preventing overleveraging on housing purchases. Another determinant of housing aspiration is age, as evident in the fact that younger households were more likely to aspire for a larger flat, whereas older households would likely remain content with their present flat types.

Majority of households content with present flat type, higher among the older households

Households’ housing aspirations were moderated during the economic downturn as seen in 2008 when the proportion of households who aspired for better housing dropped to 28.6% (Chart 6.8). With improvements in the economy and the property market, the proportion of households who aspired for better housing had increased to 35.0% in 2013 and stabilised at 35.2% in 2018.

Regardless of economic situation over the years, it was observed that the majority of households were satisfied with where they were living. The proportion of households who were content with their current flat type remained relatively constant at 57.9%. With the gradual increase in proportions who aspired for better housing, the proportion who were content with smaller flat type had correspondingly shrunk from 15.1% in 2003 to 6.9% in 2018.

169

Chart 6.8 Housing Aspirations by Year 80

58.7 57.5 57.9 60 55.0

40 35.0 35.2 Aspire for Better Housing 29.9 28.6 Households (%) Households Content with Present Flat Type

20 15.1 12.8 Content with Smaller Flat Type 7.5 6.9

0 2003 2008 2013 2018

Housing aspirations differed by residents’ age. In 2018, 73.4% of those aged below 35 years old aspired for better housing, while this proportion dropped to only 14.2% among those aged 65 years old and above (Chart 6.9). In contrast, the proportion who were content with present flat increased with age, from 23.4% among those aged below 35 years old to 77.7% among those aged 65 years old and above.

Chart 6.9 Housing Aspirations by Age

3.2 3.4 7.1 9.2 8.1 6.9 100

23.4 80 35.1

53.5 57.9 60 67.7 Content with Smaller Flat Type 77.7 Content with Present Flat Type 40 73.4

61.5 Aspire for Better Housing Households (%) Households 20 39.4 35.2 23.1 14.2 0 Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & All Above Age Group (Years)

Rising housing aspiration among residents living in smaller flat types

In 2018, among households living in 3-room and bigger flats, at least half of them were content with their present flat. The housing aspiration of households living in 1- and 2-room flats had risen over the years, with a continuous increase in the proportion who aspired for better housing, from 37.3% in 2008 to 51.9% in 2018 (Chart 6.10). The proportion who were content with their present flat decreased

170

from 58.4% in 2008 to 47.9% in 2018. On the other hand, the proportion of households living in 5-room or Executive flats who were content with their present flat had increased compared to a decade ago. These larger flats with their bigger floor areas were able to serve residents throughout their life cycle stages as there was ample space for the family. The proportion who did not mind a smaller flat increased with flat type, from 4.2% among those living in 3-room flats to 18.8% among those living in Executive flats.

Chart 6.10 Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year

Aspire for Better Housing Content with Present Flat Type Content with Smaller Flat Type

4.3 2.3 -* 11.8 7.4 6.0 18.1 10.7 30.4 14.4 18.8 12.7 7.5 6.9 100 5.5 4.0 4.2 10.1

47.9

50.6

56.1

56.7

58.4

57.9 60.8

60 57.5

59.3

57.1

62.6

58.7

57.6

63.4

54.1 55.5

40 42.5 Households(%)

20 51.9

47.1

39.7

39.3

37.3

35.6

35.2

35.0

33.7

33.3

32.2

28.6

28.0

27.8

27.3

27.1

25.7 24.8 0 20020088 20132013 2018*2018 2001 8 20132 20183 2004 8 20135 20186 2007 8 20138 20189 201008 201311 201812 200138 201314 201815

1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room Executive 5-Room All

* Proportion of households who were living in 1- & 2-room flats and content with smaller flat type was dropped due to high coefficient of variation (CV)

Higher proportion content with 5-room flats and private properties compared with ten years ago

Over the past decade, the flat type with the highest proportion of households indicating they were content with remained the 4-room flats (Chart 6.11), though there was a slight decline from 34.0% in 2008 to 30.3% in 2018. Similarly, the proportion of households who were content with 3-room flats had also seen a decline from 21.4% in 2008 to 17.1% in 2018. Conversely, the proportion of households who were content with 5-room or bigger flats had increased during the same period, just as the proportion of households who were content with private properties had increased from 11.3% in 2008 to 15.9% in 2018. These findings point towards an upward trend in housing aspirations among HDB households.

171

Chart 6.11 Housing Type Content with by Year

40 2008 2013 2018 34.0 30.9 30.3 30 22.9 21.4 18.3 19.8 20.4 20 17.1 15.615.9

Households(%) 11.3 8.8 10 6.1 5.7 6.6 6.1 6.6 1.3 0.3 0.6 0 1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Private Others* Properties * Including retirement villages, kampong houses, shop houses and overseas properties

Younger residents, with more working years ahead and higher income earning potential, tended to have higher housing aspirations. While a higher proportion of residents aged below 45 years old were content with 5-room flats, more of those aged 45 years old and above were content with 4-room flats (Table 6.13). About three in ten younger residents aged below 45 years old also aspired to live in private housing, compared with those who were older.

Table 6.13 Housing Type Content with by Age

Age Group (Years)

Housing Type Content with 65 & All Below 35 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 Above

HDB 1- & 2-Room 1.3 1.5 3.0 8.8 12.9 6.6 3-Room 5.2 7.6 13.3 18.5 29.2 17.1 4-Room 24.8 23.9 31.6 34.6 31.0 30.3 5-Room 31.5 27.3 26.0 21.2 16.4 22.9 Executive 7.9 9.0 7.2 6.3 4.2 6.6 Private Executive Condominium 7.3 6.8 2.0 1.2 -** 2.6

Condominium/Apartment 12.6 28.8 15.4 30.2 8.5 18.4 4.3 9.9 1.9 5.8 7.3 Landed Properties 8.9 8.0 7.9 4.4 3.8 6.0 Others* -** -** -** 0.7 -** 0.6 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N*** 68,440 188,990 235,548 260,607 259,199 1,012,784 * Including retirement villages, shop houses, kampong houses and overseas properties ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Excluding non-response cases

172

6.4 Preferred Housing Type when Old

With the rapidly ageing population in HDB towns/estates, it is important to understand the housing needs and preferences of residents in old age. While the housing aspirations of younger households differed from the older households, their preferred housing type to live in when they grow old was found to be similar.

Higher proportion of households preferred to live in 3-room flat in their old age

About 92.3% of HDB households would like to live in HDB flats in their old age (Chart 6.12). Three in ten households (29.7%) would like to live in 3-room flats during old age. This was followed by 4-room flats (25.7%) and 1- and 2-room flats (19.6%). The proportion of households who preferred to live in 5-room and Executive flats in their old age was lower, at 13.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The preference for smaller flats reflects residents’ needs for less space as their household size would likely decrease towards the later part of their life cycle. The majority of households who preferred 3- and 4-room flats for their old age were also currently living in these flat types.

Chart 6.12 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age 40

29.7 30 25.7 19.6 20

13.9 Households(%) 10 3.4 3.6 4.1

0 1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Private Others* Housing

* Including retirement villages, overseas properties, old folks’ homes, temple/religious institutions etc.

Households tended to choose the most suitable flat size according to what was important to them in their old age. For households who preferred 1-, 2- and 3-room flats, the most commonly cited reason was ease of maintenance. Among those who preferred 5-room and Executive flats, their main reason was to have more space so that family members could live together or hold gatherings.

173

Besides easy maintenance and having sufficient space for the family, a sense of attachment/familiarity with the present living arrangement was another main reason for their preferred flat type to live in when old. Further analysis showed that households who gave this reason were already living in the flat type that they preferred for old age. For the small proportion of households who preferred to age in private housing, the reason they gave was that they would like to age in an environment which they felt was more comfortable, safer and equipped with more facilities.

Majority of older residents preferred to live in their current flat type for old age

Among those aged 65 years old and above, 81.5% indicated a preference to live in their current flat type for their old age (Chart 6.13). Similarly, for those aged between 55 and 64 years old, the majority of households preferred their current flat type for their old age. In contrast, for younger households aged below 45 years old, a higher proportion of them would prefer to right-size from their current bigger flat type to a smaller flat type in old age.

Chart 6.13 Housing Preference for Old Age by Age 6.2 2.8 100 13.1 11.8 22.5 80 35.3

46.9 60 66.3 37.1 81.5 57.9 27.0 Larger Compared to Present Housing

40 Same as Present Housing Households (%) Households Smaller Compared to Present Housing 20 37.7 40.4 40.0 27.5 30.3 15.7 0 Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & All Above

Age Group (Years)

174

6.5 Summary of Findings

Among the 1,013,542 HDB resident households, 87.4% of them were either married or had ever been married. About eight in ten married/ever-married households made at least one residential move after marriage. The proportion had increased from 72.6% in 2013, probably due to the increase in the stock of completed flats over the past five years and married couples moving to their new flats after moving out of their parents’ home or housing units they rented from the open market. The number of residential moves varied by one’s life cycle stage. Families with children were found to have made more residential moves compared with married couples without children or divorced/widowed residents without children. The average length of residence in their previous housing unit had remained largely unchanged, at 10.4 years in 2018, compared to 10.2 years in 2013. This trend suggests that there were no significant changes to residents’ desire to change residence over the years.

Among the households that indicated at least one change in residence since their marriage, 69.4% had upgraded, either from rental housing to sold flats, or from smaller to bigger flats. About 14.0% of households had made lateral moves, i.e., across similar flat types or from one rental unit to another; while the remaining 16.6% had downgraded to smaller flats or moved from sold to rental flats. Compared with 2013, the proportion of households who moved laterally had decreased from 16.9% to 14.0% in 2018. The proportion who upgraded had slightly increased, while those who downgraded remained relatively constant. Among those who upgraded from their previous housing, the reason for their move was an increase in household size or that they had moved out of their parents’/relatives’ home to start their own family. Those who had made lateral moves did so for more facilities, better flat design/layout or a more conducive living environment. Households that had downgraded did so for financial reasons, better location/provision of facilities, or family life events.

Compared with 2013, the proportion of households who intended to move within the next five years had increased slightly from 12.4% in 2013 to 13.3% in 2018. The inclination to move was higher among younger households, families with young children or households living in 1- and 2-room flats.

175

Among households that intended to move in the next five years, about 53.0% in 2018 intended to upgrade, compared with six in ten in 2013. In terms of preferred housing type to move to, while 4-room flats remained the most preferred flat type, there was a higher preference for smaller flat types, with an increase in the proportion who intended to move to 1- and 2-room flats from 5.9% in 2013 to 10.7% in 2018.

Close to six in ten of the households (57.9%) were content with their current flat. This was comparable to the proportion of 57.5% in 2013. Those who were content with better housing also remained stable at 35.2% in 2018 compared to 35.0% in 2013. About three in ten households (30.3%) were content with 4-room flats. However, compared with past years, lower proportions were content with 4-room flats. The aspiration for bigger flat types such as 5-room flats and private properties had risen.

Compared with the other housing types, it was observed that a higher proportion of households would like to live in 3-room (29.7%), 4-room (25.7%) and 1- and 2- room flats (19.6%) in their old age. Ease of maintenance was the main reason for those who preferred 3-room and smaller flats for old age, while a sense of attachment/familiarity with their present living arrangement was another key reason among those who preferred to age in 3-room and bigger flats.

At least six in ten residents aged 55 years old and above would like to live in their present flat type in old age. In contrast, the majority of households aged below 45 years old would not mind living in a different flat type in old age. Older residents preferred to age in the same flat type mainly because they were familiar with the living environment.

176

7 Transport and Travel Patterns

Chapter 7

Transport and Travel Patterns

Studying how people travel within and beyond HDB towns provides the data with which to gauge the extent to which HDB towns are self-sufficient in terms of job and school provision, as well as transport connectivity to work and school. Such a study could also garner a nuanced understanding of the needs of the various segments of the population. Moreover, with the move towards car-lite towns and the proliferation of alternative travel options, the study could examine the car-lite readiness of HDB towns through an exploration of the key drivers for and against car ownership, as well as an assessment of first-and-last-mile connections within the towns.

The analysis in this chapter could therefore be used to infer the travel patterns of the HDB working and schooling resident population and throw some light on possible gaps that need to be addressed to improve transport connectivity. The chapter will also attempt to derive some insights on the factors influencing car-lite readiness in HDB towns.

7.1 Place of Work

About 52.5% of the resident population or 1.59 million residents were employed (Table 7.1). The resident population refers to those aged 15 years old and above who were either working full-time, part-time or self-employed. This section will focus on the HDB working population and the location of their place of work.

181

Table 7.1 Proportion of Employed HDB Resident Population

Employment Status Resident Population (%) Persons

Employed 52.5 1,592,100 Not Employed 47.5 1,443,400

All* 100.0 3,035,500 * Excluding non-response cases Note: a) The category ‘Employed’ refers to the resident population aged 15 years old and above who were employees working full-time, part-time, holding two or more jobs as well as own account workers, employers and unpaid family workers. b) The category ‘Not Employed’ refers to the resident population who are not working such as students, retirees, homemakers as well as residents who are actively looking for work.

Higher proportion work in the Central, West and East regions

More than four in ten of the employed resident population were working in the Central region (43.5%), followed by the West (16.4%) and East region (13.4%) (Table 7.2). While most still travel to the Central region, specifically the Central Business District (CBD) for work, there was also a higher proportion of residents working in towns outside of the Central region, where existing regional centres were located such as Tampines, Woodlands and Jurong East.

Analysis by region showed that while a high proportion of the employed resident population were working in the Central region, the proportion who were living and working in the same region was higher compared with those who worked in a different region from their place of residence (Table 7.2). For the employed resident population residing in the East and West, the proportion working and living in the same region was higher compared with those residing in the other regions. This was likely an indication of the presence of more jobs in these areas. The upcoming hubs such as the Jurong Lake District (JLD), Jurong Innovation District (JID), Woodlands North Coast (WNC) and Punggol Digital District (PDD) may further alter the proportion of residents who work in the same region they live in, as they may not have to travel to the CBD.

182

Table 7.2 Location of Work Place of Employed HDB Resident Population by Place of Residence (Region)

Place of Residence (Region) Location of Work North- Place (Region) North East West Central All East

North 28.3 5.4 2.8 6.2 2.7 8.3 North-East 8.2 20.5 6.6 2.9 4.7 8.9 East 8.4 13.4 38.6 3.9 7.3 13.4 West 11.2 6.0 5.5 41.7 10.4 16.4 Central** 33.3 47.0 35.9 36.4 64.4 43.5 Offshore Islands*** 2.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3

No Fixed Place Of 8.4 6.7 9.4 7.5 9.2 8.2 Work

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 244,400 362,400 264,300 381,800 284,200 1,537,100

Note: Figures in table may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding * Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Includes Bishan, Bukit Merah, Geylang, Kallang/Whampoa, Queenstown, Toa Payoh, Bukit Timah, Marine Parade, Central Area, Tanglin, Novena, Downtown core, Marina South, Newton, Orchard, Outram, River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Marina East, Straits view, Museum *** Includes those who work in the Southern, Western, North-Eastern islands or on the open sea

More travel beyond the region they live in for work

The place of work of the employed resident population is explored in this section vis-à-vis their place of residence. About one in ten of the employed population either had no fixed place of work (8.2%) or worked offshore (1.3%). About four in ten (38.7%) were working beyond the region, 19.5% worked in a different town but in the same region, 18.3% worked in the central area and 14.0% worked in the same town that they live in (Table 7.3). Generally, residents made residential movements due to life events and life cycle changes (39.9%), such as an increase in household size, rather than for better accessibility to place of work (5.5%) (Refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Table 6.4 for more details). This may explain why residents generally tend not to live near their place of work.

183

Table 7.3 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Place of Work All

Same Town 14.0 Different Town, Same Region 19.5 Beyond Region 38.7 Central Area** 18.3 No Fixed Place 8.1 Offshore Islands*** 1.3

% 100.0 Total N* 1,537,100

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram, River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang *** Includes those who work in the Southern, Western, North-Eastern islands or on the open sea Note: a) The category ‘Same Town’ refers to when an employed resident’s place of work falls within the same town (URA & HDB Town boundaries) as their town of residence. This includes residents working from home b) The category ‘Different Town, Same Region’ refers to when an employed residents’ place of work falls outside of their town of residence (URA & HDB Town boundaries) but still within the same region c) The category ‘Beyond Region’ refers to when an employed residents’ place of work falls beyond the region where they live

Older residents, residents living in smaller flat types, or working in blue- collar jobs tended to work closer to home

Table 7.4 shows the breakdown of the place of work of the employed HDB resident population in relation to attributes. There was a difference in the profile of the employed resident population who worked closer to home compared with those who travelled further for work. A higher proportion of younger employed residents aged below 45 years old, residents living in 5-room and bigger flat types (19.1%) and residents working as PMETs (21.6%) or clerks (25.0%) worked in the central area, likely due to the concentration of such jobs in this area. However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, travel patterns to work may change in the future with more PMETs likely to be telecommuting.

Conversely, the employed resident population who worked closer to their homes, especially in the same town tended to be older (24.5% of those aged 65 years old and above), residing in smaller flat types (1- and 2- room flats at 16.0% and 17.1%, respectively), and working as cleaners and labourers (25.8%) and service, shop or sales workers (21.1%). The proportion of residents with below secondary education (20.2%) and who were working in the same town was also higher

184

compared with those with university degrees, who were likely to travel beyond the region (42.0%) or to the central area (25.7%) for work (Table 7.4). A higher proportion of those living in smaller flats had no fixed place of work compared with residents living in bigger flats.

185

Table 7.4 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population by Attributes

Place of Work Total

Different No Fixed Attributes Same Town, Beyond Central Place/ % N* Town Same Region Area** Offshore Region Islands

1-Room 16.0 16.3 27.3 21.1 19.3 100.0 21,200

2-Room 17.1 18.3 31.2 16.0 17.5 100.0 42,100

Flat Type 3-Room 15.3 21.3 33.6 18.5 11.4 100.0 282,500

4-Room 14.4 19.6 39.4 17.7 8.8 100.0 665,900

5-Room & 12.6 18.7 41.5 19.1 8.1 100.0 525,400 Bigger

Below 35 9.0 18.5 44.1 22.9 5.6 100.0 417,600

35 – 44 13.0 18.4 41.2 20.9 6.5 100.0 337,100 Age Group 45 – 54 15.3 20.6 37.3 15.3 11.4 100.0 349,600 (Years) 55 – 64 16.4 21.3 33.4 14.5 14.4 100.0 307,200

65 & Above 24.5 18.6 30.4 14.3 12.4 100.0 125,300

Below 20.2 22.2 29.0 13.6 14.9 100.0 333,800 Secondary

Secondary/Post- 15.1 19.2 37.9 15.3 12.6 100.0 480,600 Education Secondary Level Diploma & Professional 10.4 19.1 46.1 18.5 5.9 100.0 311,200 Qualification

Degree 10.6 18.0 42.0 25.7 3.7 100.0 406,700

PMETs**** 11.5 18.9 43.2 21.6 4.9 100.0 787,400

Clerical Workers 13.1 20.1 40.9 25.0 0.9 100.0 153,000

Service, Shop & Market Sales 21.1 19.7 31.1 20.5 7.7 100.0 199,700 Workers

Production Craftsmen & Related Occupation Workers/Plant & 9.7 19.1 30.3 4.2 36.7 100.0 182,600 *** Machine Operators & Assemblers

Cleaners, Labourers & 25.8 22.6 26.6 14.3 10.7 100.0 149,400 Related Workers

Others (e.g., NS, 9.9 23.2 53.6 1.8 11.4 100.0 50,000 SAF personnel)

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram, River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang *** Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series. Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively. **** PMETs include Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers, Professionals, and Associate Professionals & Technicians

186

7.2 Travel Modes to Work

Over the last decade, major improvements have been made to the transport infrastructure and various measures have been implemented such as the Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP)17. Rail reliability was enhanced with the expansion of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network and improvement of rail lines resulting in shorter waiting time and more comfortable journeys18. Disruptive technologies have also paved the way for more point-to-point travel options with the introduction of private-hire cars and ride/bicycle/car sharing services.

This section explores the travel modes of the HDB employed resident population to understand how they commute to work.

More than half used only one mode of transport to work

In their daily commute to work, the employed resident population have utilised various transport modes, including transfers between modes. Transfers between different transport modes would be registered as an additional mode, while transfers between similar modes would not be categorised as a different mode. For example, taking more than one bus service consecutively would be defined as constituting one mode of transport, while transferring from a bus to a MRT train, then to a bus again, constituted three modes of transport. Walking was also listed as a transport mode when the walk took ten minutes or longer.

More than half (56.8%) of the employed resident population required only one mode of transport in their commute to work (Table 7.5). About 5.9% of the employed resident population had no fixed transport mode or did not require one. Among those who did not require a transport mode to work were residents working as taxi/private-hire car drivers or working from home. About 14.1% of the

17 Goh, Cheryl. 2017. “5-Year, S$1.1b Bus Service Enhancement Programme complete” Channel News Asia December 09. 18 Ministry of Transport.2015. Fact Sheet – Public Transport Improvements and Future Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS). Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.mot.gov.sg/news- centre/news/Detail/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Public%20Transport%20Improvements%20and%20Future%20Pl ans/).

187

employed resident population, however, had utilised three or more modes in their daily commute to work.

Table 7.5 Number of Transport Modes to Work among Employed HDB Resident Population

Number of Transport Modes All

None**/Not Fixed 5.9 One 56.8 Two 23.3 Three 11.8 Four/Five 2.3

% 100.0 Total N* 1,537,000 * Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Those who did not require a transport mode to work were residents working as taxi/private hire car drivers or working from home.

Majority commuted to work by public transport

Close to six in ten (58.6%) of the employed HDB resident population commuted to work solely via public transport modes (Table 7.6), while about 18.3% travelled via car-based transport modes. This included private cars as well as private-hire rides/taxis and getting a ride from others. The findings showed the important role played by the public transport network, especially bus services, in residents’ daily commute to work. From LTA’s Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS), it was found that proximity to a train station resulted in people being more likely to use public transport, and correspondingly the likelihood of car-ownership among households living near MRT stations was observed to be lower19.

19 The HITS was conducted by LTA between May 2012 and May 2013. The study found that about 71.0% of those who lived within 400m of a station would take public transport as their primary commuting option, compared with 67.0% for those staying about 800m from an MRT station and 55.0% for those staying more than 2km away. 67.0% of all peak-period journeys were undertaken on public transport. Land Transport Authority.2013. Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS). Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2013/10/2/household-interview-travel-survey-2012- public-transport-mode-share-rises-to-63.html ).

188

Table 7.6 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among Employed HDB Resident Population

Type of Transport Mode All

Public Modes Only 58.6 Car Based Travel Only (e.g., private car, private hire etc.) 18.3 Other Private Modes Only (e.g., motor, lorry) 9.2 Others (e.g., walk, private and public combinations etc.) 14.0

% 100.0 Total N* 1,537,000

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases

Table 7.7 shows the breakdown of the transport modes utilised by employed resident population in their daily commute to work. About 18.0% of residents travelled to work via public bus, while another 16.5% travelled via private car. These two options therefore rank high on the list of transport modes utilised by residents in their daily commute to work (Table 7.7). Another 12.2% of residents travelled to work using a combination of public bus, followed by a MRT train. About 8.3% of residents travelled to work via the MRT system only, which means that these residents were likely to be residing less than a ten-minute walk from a train station. Only a small proportion (1.6%) travelled to work solely via personal mobility devices/bicycles.

Table 7.7 Transport Mode to Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Transport Mode to Work (Combinations) All

Public Bus Only 18.0 Private Car Only 16.5 Public Bus Followed by MRT 12.2 MRT Only 8.3 Walk** Followed by MRT 5.9 Private Chartered Bus/Van Only 4.0 Walk** Followed by Public Bus 3.8 MRT Followed by Public Bus 2.7 Bicycle/PMDs Only 1.6 Others (e.g., no fixed transport, walk followed by public bus then MRT) 27.0

% 100.0 Total N* 1,537,000

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks that are ten minutes or longer

189

Majority relied on ‘Walk-Cycle-Ride’ modes for first-mile transport to work

As part of the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040, Walk-Cycle-Ride (WCR) modes of transport are encouraged as these are considered more efficient and sustainable. WCR includes active mobility modes like walking, cycling and using personal mobility devices such as electric scooters; mass public transport such as buses and trains; and shared transport such as taxis, private hire cars and car- sharing20. The LTA aims to see WCR modes account for nine in ten of all peak period journeys by 2040. Noting the broader objective of improving first-and-last- mile connections for people, the WCR mode share of the HDB employed resident population was assessed by analysing residents’ first-and-last-mile transport modes. Overall, about seven in ten of the HDB employed resident population utilised a WCR mode as their first-and-last-mile transport mode, where about 32.8% utilised the public bus mode and another 13.1% used the MRT/LRT as their first-mile transport mode (Table 7.8). However, about 25.4% of the employed resident population still relied on private cars for their first-mile transport mode.

Table 7.8 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Transport Mode First-Mile Last-Mile

Public Bus 32.8 24.6 MRT/LRT 13.1 24.0

Walk** -*** 68.7% -*** 67.8% Active Mobility (PMDs, Bicycles) 1.8 1.6 Taxi/Private Hire/Car Sharing -*** -*** Private Vehicle 25.4 26.3 No Fixed Mode/No Travel Required -*** -***

% 100.0 Total N* 1,537,000 * Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks 10 minutes or longer *** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

20 Land Transport Authority. 2020. Land Transport Master Plan 2040 Public Consultation: Digital Report. Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/our_work/land_transport_master_plan_2040.html )

190

7.3 Travel Time to Work

Shorter travel time for residents working closer to home or residing in the East and Central regions

The median travel time to work was longer where the employed resident population worked further from home (Table 7.9). While those who worked in the same town they live in had a median travel time of 14.3 minutes, those who worked further from home, beyond the region (44.4 minutes) or in the central area (42.9 minutes) were found to have a longer median travel time to work (Table 7.9). The longest median travel time was observed among those who worked at offshore islands (52.7 minutes).

Table 7.9 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Place of Work Median Travel Time* (Minutes)

Same Town 14.3 Different Town, Same Region 28.2 Beyond Region 44.4 Central Area** 42.9 No Fixed Place 29.7 Offshore Islands*** 52.7

All 39.6 * Median travel time excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram, River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang *** Includes those who work in the Southern, Western, North-Eastern islands or on the open sea

The overall median travelling time to work was 39.6 minutes for the employed resident population (Table 7.10). Generally, those living nearer to the Central Business District (CBD) tended to have a shorter travelling time to work than those living further away, especially residents living in the West (40.2 minutes), North (42.4 minutes) and North-East (41.4 minutes) regions. With more jobs made available outside of the CBD, such as the development of Singapore’s second CBD at Jurong Lake District, travel time to work across the regions will likely be shortened in the future.

191

Table 7.10 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Residence of Employed HDB Resident Population

Place of Residence (by Region) Median Travel Time* (Minutes)

North Region 42.4 North-East Region 41.4 East Region 38.2 West Region 40.2 Central Region 28.2

All 39.6 * Excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases

Longer travel time to work for residents who relied solely on public transport

The employed resident population who relied solely on public transport modes to commute to work had a much longer travel time (44.3 minutes), compared to those who used the other modes shown in Table 7.11.

Table 7.11 Median Travel Time to Work of Employed HDB Resident Population by Type

of Transport Mode to Work

Type of Transport Mode to Work Median Travel Time* (Minutes)

Public Modes Only 44.3 Car Based Travel Only (e.g., private car, private hire) 27.7 Other Private Modes Only (e.g., motor, lorry) 27.6 Others (e.g., walk, private and public combinations) 14.2

All 39.6 * Median travel time excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases

192

7.4 Departure Time to Work

About three in ten of the employed resident population (29.0% or 442,300 employed persons) departed for work between 7.00am and 7.59am, while another 21.7% (331,200 persons) left home for work between 8.00am and 8.59am. About 17.2% left for work slightly earlier, between 6.00am and 6.59am (Chart 7.1).

Chart 7.1 Departure Time to Work

No Fixed Timing 11.1

11:00 - 23:59 5.7

10:00 - 10:59 3.2

09:00 - 09:59 6.3

08:00 - 08:59 21.7

07:00 - 07:59 29.0

06:00 - 06:59 17.2

00:00 - 05:59 5.8 N = 1,525,602 0 20 40 60 80 100

Employed HDB Resident Population* (%)

* Excludes persons working abroad and non-response cases

7.5 Place of School

About 18.3% of the HDB resident population or 555,800 persons were schooling either on a full-time or part-time basis, and not in employment (Table 7.12). Those studying overseas were excluded from the analysis.

Table 7.12 Proportion of HDB Resident Population in School

Schooling Status Resident Population (%) N

Schooling 18.3 555,800 Non-Schooling 81.7 2,479,700

*All 100.0 3,035,500 * Excluding non-response cases

193

Most pre-primary and primary school students attended schools in the same town they live in and more than half walked to school

Overall, almost half (46.0%) of the schooling population were attending school in the same town they resided in, while 18.0% had to travel to school located in another town, but within the same region. About 31.5% were travelling beyond the region to attend school (Table 7.13).

Generally, the proportion of the schooling population attending schools in the same town was higher among pre-primary (77.1%) and primary school students (81.1%) (Table 7.13). The higher proportions were the result of ensuring primary schools are sited in close proximity to residential areas to cater to the needs of children in the town, thereby reducing their travelling time to school. More than half of primary school students could even walk to their schools located near where they live in the town.

Table 7.13 Place of School of HDB Resident Population in School by Education Level

Place of School Total Different Education Level*** Same Town Beyond Central % N* Town Same Region Area** Region Pre-Primary 77.1 10.3 8.3 4.2 100.0 37,600 Primary 81.1 9.3 7.9 1.7 100.0 184,900 Secondary 42.0 31.1 24.3 2.7 100.0 147,400 Post-Secondary 8.6 24.1 60.5 6.8 100.0 32,800

Diploma & Professional 6.2 16.9 69.4 7.4 100.0 72,200 Qualification

University 1.2 14.7 72.3 11.8 100.0 63,600

All 46.0 18.0 31.5 4.4 100.0 542,000 Note: Figures in table may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding * Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram, River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang *** Figures for students in Special Schools were excluded due to high coefficient of variation (CV). Note: a) The category ‘Same Town’ refers to when the schooling population’s place of school falls within the same town (URA & HDB Town boundaries) as their town of residence b) The category ‘Different Town, Same Region’ refers to when the schooling population’s’ place of school falls outside of their town of residence (URA & HDB Town boundaries) but still within the same region. c) The category ‘Beyond Region’ refers to when the schooling population’s place of school falls beyond the region where they live

194

7.6 Travel Modes to School

Majority of students used only one mode of transport to school

In their daily commute to school, the schooling population would likely have utilised various transport modes. Almost seven in ten (68.8%) of the schooling population used just one mode of transport (Table 7.14). About 18.3% utilised two modes, while another 12.7% utilised three or more modes in their daily commute to school.

Table 7.14 Number of Transport Modes to School among HDB Resident Population in School

Number of Transport Modes All

One 68.8 Two 18.3 Three/Four 12.7 None***/Not Fixed -**

% 100.0 Total N* 533,500 * Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Those who did not require a transport mode to school were students schooling at home.

Majority of the schooling population commute to school by public transport

Slightly more than half (54.9%) of the schooling population used only public transport modes in their daily commute to school, while about 11.9% used car- based transport modes (Table 7.15). This included private car as well as private- hire rides/taxis and hitching a ride from others.

Table 7.15 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among HDB Resident Population in School

Type of Transport Mode All

Public Modes Only 54.9 Car Based Travel Only (e.g., private car, private hire) 11.9 Other Private Modes Only (e.g., motor, lorry) 5.5 Others (e.g., walk, private and public combinations) 27.8

% 100.0 Total N* 533,500 Note: Figures in table may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding * Excluding non-response cases and persons studying overseas

195

Walking (26.0%) and public bus (20.8%) were the most common modes of transport utilised by the schooling population to commute to school (Table 7.16). It was noted earlier that generally where schools were located nearer to place of residence, the proportion who walked to school was much higher. Private car (11.8%) also emerged as one of the more common modes. It involved parents sending their children to school.

Table 7.16 Transport Mode to School of HDB Resident Population in School

Modes of Transport All (%)*

Walk** Only 26.0 Public Bus Only 20.8 Private Car Only 11.8 Public Bus Followed by MRT 8.2 Walk Followed by Public bus** 5.4 MRT Only 5.0 Private Chartered Bus/Van Only 4.8 Walk** Followed by MRT 3.8 MRT Followed by Public Bus 3.1 Public Bus Followed by MRT Followed by Public Bus 2.5 Motorcycle Only 0.4 Bicycle/PMDs Only 1.1

Others (e.g., no fixed transport, walk to bus then MRT and 7.1 other combinations)

* Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks that are ten minutes or longer

Majority relied on ‘Walk-Cycle-Ride’ modes as first-mile transport to school

In section 7.2, Walk-Cycle-Ride (WCR) share was discussed in relation to the broader objective of improving first-and-last-mile connections for residents. The WCR mode share of the HDB schooling population was also assessed by analysing students’ first-and-last-mile transport modes. Overall, about eight in ten of the schooling population had a WCR mode as their first-and-last-mile transport mode. In regard to their first-mile mode, about 39.1% of students started off their commute by walking to school, followed by 31.9% who utilised public bus, and about 17.4% relied on private cars (Table 7.17).

196

Table 7.17 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to School of HDB Resident Population in School

Transport Mode First Mile Last Mile

Walk** 39.1 35.3 Public Bus 31.9 29.7 82.5% 83.3% MRT/LRT 10.4 16.4

Active Mobility (PMDs, Bicycles)/Taxi/Private Hire/Car 1.1 1.9 Sharing

Private Vehicle 17.4 16.5 No Fixed Mode/No Travel Required -*** -***

% 100.0 Total N* 533,500 * Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks that are ten minutes or longer *** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

7.7 Travel Time to School

Travel time to school shorter for primary and pre-primary school students

Overall, the median travel time to school was 23.3 minutes for the schooling population (Table 7.18). Close to seven in ten (66.8%) took 30 minutes or less to travel to school. More specifically, about four in ten took 15 minutes or less, while another 26.8% took 16 to 30 minutes.

By education level, the proportion of the schooling population who took up to 15 minutes to travel to school was highest among those in primary (74.5%) and pre- primary (70.9%). The median travel time was also shortest for pre-primary students (9.8 minutes) and primary school students (25.9 minutes) as their schools were mainly located within the town they lived in with childcare centres and kindergartens located in closer proximity, within HDB precincts. This reflects the conscious efforts to locate pre-school and primary schools close to where students live.

Conversely, the proportion of the schooling population who took more than 45 minutes to travel to school was much higher among university students (68.2%). The median travel time was significantly longer for students in polytechnics and universities at 54.2 minutes and 50.1 minutes respectively. With the opening of more universities in Singapore and with new campuses such as the Singapore

197

Institute of Technology (SIT) being located in the North-East region, where there are also more Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, travel time to universities is expected to decrease over time for some students.

Table 7.18 Travel Time to School of HDB Resident Population in School by Education level

Education Level*** Duration of Diploma & Travel Time to Post- Pre-Primary Primary Secondary Professional University All* School (Minutes) Secondary Qualification

Up to 15 70.9 74.5 29.5 5.9 4.2 -** 40.0 16 - 30 21.6 21.2 39.9 30.4 27.4 11.4 26.8 31 - 45 -** 2.5 16.8 31.5 25.1 19.6 13.2 46 - 60 -** 1.5 9.5 27.4 27.7 38.0 13.0

More than 60/No -** -** 4.3 4.9 15.7 30.2 7.0 Fixed Time

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Persons 37,500 184,200 146,000 32,400 72,300 56,400 532,200

Median Travel Time 9.8 25.9 39.5 42.9 54.2 50.1 23.3 (Minutes)****

Note: Figures in table may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding * Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Figures for students in Special Schools were excluded due to high coefficient of variation (CV) **** Excluding those with no fixed travel time to school

7.8 Departure Time to School

Most of the schooling population (43.9% or 233,400 students) departed for school between 7.00am and 7.59am, while another 32.6% (173,300 students) left home for school earlier, before 7.00am (Chart 7.2). About 8.2% had no fixed time of departure, mainly due to the flexible curriculum in tertiary educational institutions. The peak departure time for school was similar to the departure time for work at between 7.00am and 7.59am. A higher proportion of the schooling population (32.6%) also left for school before 7.00am compared with the employed resident population (23.0%).

198

Chart 7.2 Departure Time to School of HDB Resident Population in School

No Fixed time 8.2

10:00 - 23:59 2.2

09:00 - 09:59 3.3

08:00 - 08:59 9.8

07:00 - 07:59 43.9

Before 07:00 32.6 N = 531,690 0 20 40 60 80 100 Resident Population in School* (%)

* Excluding non-response cases and persons studying overseas

7.9 Maximum Time Willing to Travel

Most residents were willing to travel between 46 to 60 minutes for work

The various aspects pertaining to the transport patterns of HDB households will be explored from this section onwards. Besides observing how travel times varied by place of work and type of transport modes utilised, it is important to understand residents’ threshold for travel time so as to determine the gap between actual travel time and the duration of travel time that residents consider acceptable.

The analysis for this section is based on the 65.8% of households who were employed. Overall, the maximum median time employed residents were willing to travel for work was 43.1 minutes. About 31.1% were willing to travel for 16 to 30 minutes for work, while another 19.2% were willing to travel for 31 to 45 minutes. About a third of employed residents (32.8%) were willing to travel for 46 to 60 minutes, while another 11.8% were willing to travel for more than an hour for work (Table 7.19).

199

Table 7.19 Maximum Time Employed HDB Households were Willing to Travel to Work

Maximum Time Willing to Travel (Minutes) All

Up to 15 5.1 16 - 30 31.1 31 - 45 19.2 46 - 60 32.8 More than 60 11.8

% 100.0 Total N* 655,501 * Excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases

Most residents were satisfied with their current travelling time to work

When actual travel time was compared with the maximum time residents were willing to travel for work, it was observed that more than eight in ten (84.1%) residents had a travel time that either met their expectations or was shorter. However, about 15.9% travelled longer than they were willing to (Table 7.20).

Table 7.20 Actual Travel Time Compared with Maximum Time Employed HDB Households were Willing to Travel

Actual Versus Maximum Time Willing to Travel All

Travel Time Longer than time Wiling to Travel 15.9 Travel Time Meets Expectation 40.2 Travel Time Shorter than Time Wiling to Travel 43.9

% 100.0 Total N* 594,114 * Median travel time excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases

Residents residing in the North and West regions, or those in PMET jobs travelled longer than they were willing to for work

About 18.0% of employed residents working as PMETs and 17.4% working in clerical jobs were travelling longer than they were willing to; higher compared with those in other professions (Table 7.21). This was likely due to provision of jobs relevant to these professions in the central area.

200

Among employed residents who were travelling longer than they were willing to, a higher proportion were residing in the North (20.4%), West (18.7%) and North-East (17.6%) regions compared with those residing elsewhere (Table 7.21). Their journeys also tended to involve more than one transport mode and took about 46 minutes or longer, compared with those who only required one mode to commute to work. Additionally, those who travelled beyond the region for work (19.7%) and those who relied solely on public transport modes (18.7%) were found to be travelling longer than they were willing to.

201

Table 7.21 Actual Travel Time of Employed Households Compared with Maximum Time Willing to Travel by Attributes

Actual Versus Maximum Time Total Willing to Travel Attributes Travel Time Travel Time Travel Time Meets % N* Longer Shorter Expectation

Public Modes Only 18.7 44.5 36.8 100.0 348,081 Type of Transport Car Based Travel Only 13.1 38.2 48.8 100.0 123,643 Mode to Other Private Modes Only 9.3 32.1 58.6 100.0 57,350 Work Others (e.g., walk) 12.3 27.8 60.0 100.0 64,447

Central 9.0 47.6 43.4 100.0 116,308 East 12.8 44.7 42.5 100.0 89,254 Region of Northeast 17.6 41.1 41.2 100.0 152,355 Residence North 20.4 32.8 46.9 100.0 95,929 West 18.7 35.3 46.0 100.0 140,267 Same Town 5.7 27.0 67.3 100.0 89,052

Different Town, Same 11.1 40.3 48.6 100.0 130,307 Region Place of Beyond Region 19.7 42.7 37.6 100.0 251,676 Work Central Area 20.7 45.1 34.2 100.0 104,868

No Fixed Place/Offshore 19.3 43.3 37.4 100.0 14,477 islands

One 12.3 37.3 50.4 100.0 361,906 Number of Transport Two 21.5 41.5 37.0 100.0 137,312 Modes Three & Above 21.6 49.5 29.0 100.0 93,434 Up to 15 -** 24.0 74.6 100.0 81,959 Travel 16 - 30 3.8 40.3 55.9 100.0 193,179 Duration to Work 31 - 45 18.5 34.4 47.0 100.0 129,151 (Minutes) 46 - 60 27.3 56.4 16.4 100.0 129,281 More than 60 44.7 39.3 16.0 100.0 60,543 PMETs**** 18.0 40.2 41.8 100.0 320,009 Clerical Workers 17.4 44.8 37.8 100.0 62,115

Service, Shop & Market 14.6 38.0 47.4 100.0 75,682 Sales Workers

Occupation Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/Plant & *** 11.6 39.8 48.6 100.0 59,124 Machine Operators & Assemblers

Cleaners, Labourers & 10.2 39.3 50.5 100.0 69,848 Related Workers Others (e.g., NS, SAF -** 36.4 52.6 100.0 4,794 personnel)

* Excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series. Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively. **** PMETs include Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers, Professionals, and Associate Professionals & Technicians

202

7.10 Ownership of Motor Vehicles

Decline in car ownership among HDB households

Overall, there was a decline in the proportion of households owning cars21 from 32.8% in 2013 to 23.4% in 201822 (Chart 7.3). While this could be a result of the LTA’s move to cut vehicle growth rate to zero in 2017, it also points to a possible shift among residents who may have opted to use public transport, given the improvement in the transport networks over the last five years. The proportion of households owning motorcycles however, saw an increase from 4.7% in 2013 to 6.8% in 2013. Ownership of light-goods vehicles continued to decline in 2018 with only 1.1% of households owning them.

Chart 7.3 Motor Vehicle Ownership by Year 40 31.8 32.8 30 2003 24.5 23.4 2008 20 2013 Households(%) 9.4 10 6.3 6.8 4.7 2.9 2018 2.4 1.4 1.1 0 Car Motorcycle Light-goods Vehicle

Car ownership higher among households living in bigger flat types or those with specific family needs

Car ownership was likely related to the financial ability of the household. It was found to be higher among households living in bigger flat types such as 5-room (39.8%) or Executive flats (53.7%) compared with households in the other flat types (Table 7.22). Car owners were also generally younger with 35.4% of households aged 35 to 44 years old and 30.0% aged below 35 years old. Car

21 In LTA’s Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS), conducted from 2016 to 2017, car ownership was noted to have declined among all households from 46.0% in 2012 to 39.0% in 2016, Land Transport Authority 2013, Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS). Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2013/10/2/household-interview-travel-survey-2012- public-transport-mode-share-rises-to-63.html ). 22 Car ownership among HDB dwellers was 26.0% with motorcycle ownership at 8.5%. Department of Statistics Singapore. 2020., Report on Household Expenditure Survey 2017/18. Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/household-expenditure/latest-data)

203

ownership was also higher among households with a university degree with 42.1% owning cars compared with the other households. Apart from financial ability, car ownership may also be related to specific family needs, as seen in a higher proportion of households with young and teenaged children owning cars.

Table 7.22

Car Ownership among HDB Households by Attributes

Car Ownership Total Attributes Own Do Not Own % N* 1- & 2-Room 1.3 98.7 100.0 74,720 3-Room 7.6 92.4 100.0 232,351 Flat Type 4-Room 22.1 77.9 100.0 405,104

5-Room 39.8 60.2 100.0 236,324 Executive 53.7 46.3 100.0 64,984 Below 35 30.0 70.0 100.0 57,740 35 - 44 35.4 64.6 100.0 172,758 Age Group** 45 - 54 29.1 70.9 100.0 229,681 (Years) 55 - 64 22.4 77.6 100.0 274,161 65 & Above 10.8 89.2 100.0 279,144 Below Secondary 10.7 89.3 100.0 370,437

Education Secondary/Post-Secondary 22.4 77.6 100.0 312,497 Level** Diploma & Professional Qualification 34.2 65.8 100.0 141,480 Degree 42.1 57.9 100.0 185,448 Family without Children 27.8 72.2 100.0 67,587 Family with Young Children 37.6 62.4 100.0 146,059 Family with Teenaged Children 30.8 69.2 100.0 115,202 Household Family with Unmarried Grown-up Life Cycle 23.7 76.3 100.0 315,390 Children Stage Family with Married Children 29.5 70.5 100.0 116,538 Elderly Couple living Alone 9.6 90.4 100.0 82,868 Others*** 6.2 93.8 100.0 169,839 * Excluding non-response cases ** Refers to profile of owner/registered tenant *** Includes non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

Majority did not intend to own a car in the next five years

The majority of residents (77.0%) did not own a car and had no intention to own one in the next five years (Table 7.23). About 2.3% of residents expressed an intention to give up their cars over the next five years, with most indicating that they would opt for public transport or would walk as an alternative transport mode.

204

However, about 20.7% of residents expressed their intention to own a new car or to continue owning a car in the next five years.

Table 7.23 Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five Years among HDB Households

Whether Intend to Own a Car All Intend to Own a Car/Continue to Own in Next Five Years 20.7 Currently a Non-owner and do not Intend to Own a Car in Next Five Years 77.0 Currently Own, but do not Intend to Continue to Own in Next Five Years 2.3 % 100.0 Total N 1,013,542

Convenience a key consideration for intention to own cars; High cost and good public transport discourage car ownership

Among those who intended to own a new car or to continue owning their car over the next five years, convenience was cited as a main reason. Specifically, for about 11.8% of residents, car ownership would provide the convenience to move around with ease, particularly if households had larger families or if they needed to send their children to school (Table 7.24). About 5.0% cited the convenience a car could provide in terms of shorter travelling time. Conversely, a good public transport system, one that is cheap/sufficient/efficient/convenient (20.0%), and the high costs of owning and maintaining a car (19.6%) were cited as main reasons for their not intending to own or continue to own a car in the next five years. About 14.2% of residents were also not able to afford the high costs of owning a car. While high costs continue to be a deterrence to owning cars, having an efficient public transport network was a pull factor towards less reliance on private cars.

205

Table 7.24 Reasons for Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five Years among HDB Households

Reasons All

Intend to Own/Continue Owning 20.7

Convenient to move around due to family needs (e.g., taxi cannot 11.8 accommodate big family/provide children a ride to school)

Convenient (e.g., shorter travelling time) 5.0 Nature of work (e.g., frequent travelling/requires transportation/work timing) 2.6 Unreliable public transport 0.2 Others (e.g., have relatives in Malaysia, location of flat not convenient) 1.1

Do not Intend to Own/Continue Owning 79.3 Public transport is cheap/sufficient/efficient/convenient 20.0 High cost of owning/maintaining car 19.6 Unable to afford 14.2 Unable to drive (e.g., no license, have not driven in a while, fear of driving) 8.4 Old age/Mobility issues 7.4 Alternative travel modes (e.g., company van, motorcycle) 5.8 Others (e.g., do not require a car, hassle of owning a car) 3.9

% 100.0 Total N* 1,010,295 * Excluding non-response cases

7.11 Ownership of Mobility Devices

About a third of households owned bicycles; ownership of PMDs & PABs comparatively lower

As part of ensuring better first-and-last-mile connections, active mobility transport modes were encouraged as an alternative means of getting around. Active mobility includes the usage of conventional bicycles, Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs), Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Personal Mobility Aids23 (PMAs). In SHS 2018, in addition to seeking information on ownership of motor vehicles, data on the ownership of active mobility devices was also gathered.

Overall, ownership of PABs and PMDs among HDB households was low with only 1.6% of households owning at least one PAB and 3.6% of households owning at least one PMD (Chart 7.4). Ownership of bicycles however was higher with 31.5%

23 Personal Mobility Aids refer to motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters designed for the elderly and handicapped.

206

of households owning at least one bicycle, about 17.4% of households owning one bicycle, and another 14.1% owning two or more bicycles (Table 7.25).

Chart 7.4 Ownership of Mobility Devices

100 80 68.5 60 96.4 98.4 Do not Own 40 Own

Households(%) 20 31.5 3.6 1.6 0 Conventional Bicycle Personal Mobility Power-Assisted Bicycle Device (PMD) (PAB)

Table 7.25 Number of Bicycles Owned among HDB Households

Ownership of Bicycles All

Own 31.5 One 17.4 Two or more 14.1 Do Not Own 68.5

% 100.0 Total N 1,013,542

High ownership of PMAs among households with at least one non-ambulant member

In 2018, about 38,000 households or 7.6% of all households had at least one non- ambulant member in the household. Of these households, ownership of PMAs was high with almost 80.1% owning a PMA (Table 7.26). The proportion of households who owned a PMA was higher among elderly households aged 65 years old and above (86.9%). With an ageing population, the proportion of households with non-ambulant members is likely to increase, which may lead to an increase in the ownership of PMAs. A closer examination may be required to understand how and where households utilising such PMAs store their devices as well as their first-and-last mile experience.

207

Table 7.26 Ownership of Personal Mobility Aids in Households with At Least One Non-Ambulant Member

Ownership of Personal Mobility Aids All

Yes 80.1 No 19.9

% 100.0 Total N* 38,608 * Excluding non-response cases

7.12 Summary of Findings

Almost 40.0% of the employed HDB resident population were travelling beyond the region they lived in for work. About 14.0% were working in the same town as their place of residence; 20.0% were working in a different town but within the same region, and about 18.3% commuted to the Central Area for work. Higher proportions of younger residents, residents in PMET jobs, and residents residing in bigger flat types were travelling farther for work. The availability and distribution of type of jobs in specific areas in Singapore may have prompted such traveling patterns. Conversely, those who worked in the same town tended to be older workers aged 55 years old and above, living in smaller flat types and residents working in blue-collar jobs such as cleaners and sales workers.

The shortest median travel time of 14.3 minutes was registered for residents working in the same town compared with those travelling 44.4 minutes to their place of work beyond the region. Most residents were satisfied with their current travelling time where their actual travel time met their expectations (40.2%) or was shorter (43.9%) than what they were willing to accept. However, about 15.9% were travelling longer to work than they were willing to. They tended to be residents in PMET jobs, younger residents aged 25 to 44 years old, residents who mainly utilised public transport or made mode transfers or who were travelling from the North and West regions.

Overall, close to half (46.0%) of the HDB schooling population attended schools in the same town as their homes. Most pre-primary (77.1%) and primary school (81.1%) students attended schools in the town they lived in, and most walked to school or took the bus.

208

As car-lite towns are promoted, public transport adequacy and high costs of owning a car are key factors leading to less reliance on cars. While car ownership decreased from 32.8% in 2013 to 23.4% in 2018, the proportion of residents utilising private vehicles for travel to work or school remained higher compared with other modes. For households who could afford to own a car, the convenience of travelling by car is still a pull factor despite the high costs involved.

209

Part 2 - Conclusion Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

Part 2

Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

Conclusion

HDB towns are planned to be self-sufficient, offering a wide-range of facilities at the precinct, neighbourhood and town levels. Part 2 of SHS 2018 shows the continuous efforts put in by HDB and other agencies to improve the physical living environment of HDB residents over the years.

Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

Over the years, survey findings showed that residents remained highly satisfied with most aspects of the HDB physical living environment. This was evident in the high satisfaction levels achieved in residents’ assessment of their flat, neighbourhood and various aspects of the HDB physical living environment. In addition, residents were also proud of their flat and felt that their flat was value for money.

The aspects that required further improvement were noise reduction (i.e., to mitigate noise generation) and cleanliness. In high-rise living, lift reliability is critical to enhancing residents’ living experience and also catering to Singapore’s ageing population. The proportion of residents who felt that lifts were reliable remained high.

Satisfaction and Usage Levels of Estate Facilities

Over the years, HDB has been providing various estate facilities, commercial, recreational, and social amenities in towns/estates to cater to residents’ changing

213

needs. Such efforts have seen positive results, as reflected in the increase in the overall satisfaction with the provision of estate facilities. This reflects the efforts of various agencies in catering to residents’ needs. Besides serving the needs of residents, estate facilities also played a social role in promoting social interactions and forging community bonds among residents, more so among older residents.

In terms of facilities usage, commercial facilities remained the most frequently used, with most facilities being used at least once a week by more than half of the HDB households. Usage levels of commercial facilities varied across household life cycles and may also continue to shift as lifestyles change alongside the rise of more convenient alternatives and online options. With the prevalence of online services, the trend of online shopping is likely to increase especially post COVID- 19 pandemic.

As needs and lifestyles of residents evolve, satisfaction and usage of facilities need to be monitored by gathering feedback from residents. Embracing digitalisation initiatives and digital tools can bring about greater opportunities for HDB shops to better capture the online shopping market.

Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

Similar to 2013, at least half of the households were content with their current flats. The proportion of households who intended to move within the next five years increased slightly compared to 2013. The inclination to move was higher among households living in 1- and 2-room flats, and younger households or families with young children. Older residents would prefer to live in their present flat type mainly because they were familiar with the living environment.

While 4-room flats and new flats remained the most preferred housing type to move to, there was also a notable increase in preference for 1- and 2-room flats in 2018 compared to 2013.

Families with children were more likely to make residential moves than those without children, and were just as likely to make more moves as their children grow up, likely due to life cycle changes (e.g., moving into a larger flat as household size increases, right-sizing after children move out). This would be useful information

214

for HDB’s planning and policy reviews on housing provision to meet the varied needs of families.

Transport and Travel Patterns

Most employed residents were satisfied with their current travelling time to work as their actual travel time met their expectations or was shorter than they were willing to accept.

As car-lite towns are promoted, public transport adequacy and high costs of owning a car are key factors contributing to less reliance on cars. Although car ownership had decreased over the past five years and despite the high costs, the proportion of residents utilising private vehicles for travel to work and school was still higher compared with other modes for reasons of convenience. Alternative travel options such as bicycles may not be suitable for daily travel to work, even as first-mile transport modes. This could be due to the existing road infrastructure and the tropical climate that may not encourage people to consider these as viable alternatives.

Close to half of the HDB schooling population attended schools in the same town as their homes, with more primary and pre-primary school students in this category. Due to the close proximity to home, most of these students could walk to school or use the bus. Provision of facilities and schools, is a crucial consideration in ensuring that towns are planned and built to be self-sufficient.

As a public housing provider, HDB will continue to enhance the public housing’s built environment to meet residents’ needs comprehensively. This will be done through continuous monitoring of residents’ sentiments to better understand the changing needs and lifestyle patterns of residents across the different demographic segments.

215

218