SHS-2018-Monograph-2---23-Apr

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 978-981-14-9469-7

PUBLIC HOUSING IN SINGAPORE: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities & Well-Being of the Elderly

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 i

Contents Page

FOREWORD i CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF CHARTS xi KEY INDICATORS xv 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

SOCIAL WELL-BEING OF HDB COMMUNITIES 9

CHAPTER 2 OUTLOOK ON LIFE 15 2.1 Satisfaction with Life 15 2.2 Overall Level of Happiness 23 2.3 Personal Resilience 25 2.4 Summary of Findings 27

CHAPTER 3 FAMILY TIES 33 3.1 Physical Living Arrangement 35 3.2 Social Living Arrangement 40 3.3 Depth of Interaction 41 3.4 Forms and Extent of Family Support 46 3.5 Relationship between Proximity, Frequency of Visits, 54 and Family Support 3.6 Attitudes towards Family 56 3.7 Summary of Findings 58

iii

Contents Page

CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL CAPITAL 65 4.1 Concept of Social Capital 65 4.2 Level of Social Capital among HDB Residents 68 4.3 Social Capital Scores by Attributes 72 4.4 Summary of Findings 76

CHAPTER 5 COMMUNITY BONDING 81 5.1 Neighbourly Relations 81 5.2 Rootedness 97 5.3 Community Engagement 106 5.4 Summary of Findings 113

CONCLUSION: SOCIAL WELL-BEING OF HDB COMMUNITIES 117

WELL-BEING OF THE ELDERLY 121

CHAPTER 6 WELL-BEING OF THE ELDERLY 125 6.1 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households 127 6.1.1 Demographic Characteristics 127 6.2 Personal Aspects 132 6.2.1 Outlook on Life 133 6.2.2 Health Status 137 6.3 Social Aspects 139 6.3.1 Family Ties 139 6.3.2 Community Bonding 153 6.4 Housing Aspects 166 6.4.1 Housing Mobility and Aspirations 167 6.4.2 Physical Living Experience 172 6.4.3 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities 177 6.4.4 Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Who Require 183 Assistance with Daily Living Activities 6.5 Summary of Findings 186 6.6 Conclusion 189

List of Tables Page

Table 2.1 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life by Year ...... 16

Table 2.2 Overall Life Satisfaction among HDB Households ...... 17 by Attributes

Table 2.3 Satisfaction with Family Relations among HDB ...... 19 Households by Attributes

Table 2.4 Satisfaction with Neighbourly Relations among ...... 21 HDB Households by Attributes

Table 2.5 Satisfaction with Housing Situation among HDB Households ...... 22 by Attributes

Table 2.6 Overall Happiness with Life among HDB Households ...... 24 by Attributes

Table 2.7 Mean Resilience Scores among HDB Households ...... 26 By Personal and Social Resources

Table 2.8 Mean Resilience Scores among HDB Households ...... 27 by Attributes

Table 3.1 Attributes of Younger Married ...... 34 Residents and Older Residents with Married Children

Table 3.2 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ...... 36 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis Their Parents

Table 3.3 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ...... 38 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis Their Parents by Resident Life Cycle Stage

Table 3.4 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ...... 39 of Older Residents with Married Children vis-à-vis Their Married Children

Table 3.5 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...... 40 of Younger Married Residents by Year

Table 3.6 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...... 41 of Older Residents with Married Children by Year

Table 3.7 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ...... 42 and Their Parents by Year

Table 3.8 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...... 42 and Their Married Children by Year

Table 3.9 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ...... 43 and Their Parents by Attributes

Table 3.10 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...... 44 and Their Married Children by Attributes

Table 3.11 Childcare Arrangements of Younger Married Residents ...... 46 with Children Aged 12 Years Old and Below by Year

Table 3.12 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents ...... 47 to Parents by Year

List of Tables Page

Table 3.13 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents ...... 47 to Parents by Attributes

Table 3.14 Amount Contributed to Parents from Younger Married ...... 48 Residents by Attributes

Table 3.15 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...... 49 with Married Children by Year

Table 3.16 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...... 49 with Married Children by Attributes

Table 3.17 Amount of Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...... 50 with Married Children by Attributes

Table 3.18 Whether Younger Married Residents are Able to Rely on ...... 51 Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Table 3.19 Whether Younger Married Residents are Able to Rely on ...... 51 At Least One Family Member for Support

Table 3.20 Whether Older Residents with Married Children are Able ...... 53 to Rely on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Table 3.21 Whether Older Residents with Married Children are Able ...... 53 to Rely on At Least One Family Member for Support

Table 3.22 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ...... 54 and Their Parents by Proximity

Table 3.23 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and ...... 55 Married Children by Proximity

Table 3.24 Norms of Trust and Reciprocity with Family Members ...... 57

Table 3.25 Statements on Family Values ...... 58

Table 4.1 Social Capital Scores among HDB Households by Year ...... 69

Table 4.2 Norms of Trust in Informal and Generalised Networks ...... 69 among HDB Households by Year

Table 4.3 Norms of Reciprocity in Informal and Generalised Networks ...... 70 among HDB Households by Year

Table 4.4 Size of Informal and Generalised Networks among HDB ...... 71 Households by Year

Table 4.5 Confidence in Institutions among HDB Households by Year ...... 72

Table 4.6 Level of Social Capital among HDB Households by ...... 73 Marital Status

Table 4.7 Size of Networks among HDB Households by Marital Status ...... 73

Table 4.8 Level of Social Capital among HDB Households by ...... 74 Highest Education Level Attained

Table 4.9 Size of Networks among HDB Households by Highest ...... 74 Education Level Attained

List of Tables Page

Table 4.10 Level of Social Capital among HDB Households by Flat Type ...... 75

Table 4.11 Size of Networks among HDB Households by Flat Type ...... 75

Table 5.1 Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among HDB ...... 83 Households Table 5.2 Neighbourly Interaction by Ethnic Group ...... 84

Table 5.3 Neighbourly Interaction by Age of Block ...... 85

Table 5.4 Types of Help Received/Provided among HDB Households ...... 86 who Received/Rendered Help

Table 5.5 Received Help from/Provided help to Neighbours among ...... 87 HDB Households by Attributes

Table 5.6 Tolerance Level for Types of Nuisance Faced by Year ...... 89

Table 5.7 Households who Faced Nuisances by Attributes ...... 90

Table 5.8 Whether Resolved Nuisances among Households who ...... 91 Faced Nuisances by Types of Neighbourly Interaction

Table 5.9 Type of Efforts to Resolve Nuisances among Households ...... 92 who Faced Nuisances

Table 5.10 Places where Neighbours Meet for Interaction by Year ...... 93

Table 5.11 Type of Special/Fond Memories Within Town of Residence ...... 96 among HDB Households

Table 5.12 Places where Fond Memories were Formed among ...... 97 Households who had Fond Memories

Table 5.13 Sense of Belonging among HDB Households by ...... 99 Length of Residence

Table 5.14 Intensity of Sense of Belonging among HDB Households ...... 100 by Age

Table 5.15 Types of Iconic/Unique Places Within Town among HDB ...... 101 Households who were Able to Identify Iconic/Unique Place/Building

Table 5.16 Iconic Places Named by Town/Estate ...... 102

Table 5.17 Sense of Community Score among HDB Households ...... 103 by Year

Table 5.18 Sense of Community Score among HDB Households ...... 104 by Attributes

Table 5.19 Sense of Pride to Community among HDB Households ...... 105 by Attributes

Table 5.20 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities ...... 108 by Year

Table 5.21 Community Participation Over Past 12 Months ...... 109 among HDB Households by Attributes

vii

List of Tables Page

Table 5.22 Types of Hobby-Related Activities Participated in on ...... 110 Regular Basis

Table 5.23 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community among ...... 112 HDB Households by Attributes

Table 5.24 Types of Help/Services Rendered ...... 112

Table 5.25 Contribution of Services among HDB Households and ...... 113 Reasons for Not Contributing/Unwillingness to Contribute

Table 6.1 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Flat Type ...... 129 and Year

Table 6.2 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Type of ...... 130 Family Nucleus and Year

Table 6.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Labour ...... 131 Force Status and Year

Table 6.4 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by ...... 132 Education Level and Year

Table 6.5 Overall Life Satisfaction of Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 135 Households by Year

Table 6.6 Mean Personal Resilience Scores among Elderly and ...... 137 Future Elderly Households by Personal and Social Resources

Table 6.7 Whether Fully Ambulant by Age ...... 138

Table 6.8 Most Common Long-Term Illnesses among Elderly and ...... 138 Future Elderly

Table 6.9 Whether Follow-Up Regularly with Healthcare Providers ...... 139 for Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.10 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of ...... 140 Elderly vis-à-vis Their Married Children by Year

Table 6.11 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of ...... 141 Future Elderly vis-à-vis Their Married Children by Year

Table 6.12 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of ...... 142 Elderly by Year

Table 6.13 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of ...... 143 Future Elderly by Year

Table 6.14 Frequency of Visits between Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 144 with Their Married Children by Year

Table 6.15 Keeping in Touch with Family Members among Elderly and ...... 146 Future Elderly by Labour Force Status

Table 6.16 Whether Elderly and Future Elderly Able to Rely on ...... 147 at Least One Family Member for Support

viii

List of Tables Page

Table 6.17 Whether Elderly Households are Able to Rely on Family ...... 148 Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Table 6.18 Whether Future Elderly Households are Able to Rely on ...... 148 Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Table 6.19 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly and ...... 151 Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Table 6.20 Amount of Financial Support Received by Elderly and ...... 151 Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Table 6.21 Norms of Trust with Family Members and Relatives for ...... 152 Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.22 Norms of Reciprocity with Family Members and Relatives ...... 152 for Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.23 Composition of Informal Network Size of Family Members ...... 152 and Relatives for Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.24 View of Elderly and Future Elderly on Family Values ...... 153

Table 6.25 Types of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly and ...... 154 Future Elderly by Year

Table 6.26 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among ...... 155 Elderly

Table 6.27 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among ...... 156 Future Elderly

Table 6.28 Places where Neighbours Meet for Interaction among ...... 157 Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.29 Sense of Community Score among Elderly and ...... 158 Future Elderly

Table 6.30 Community Participation of Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 159 Over Past 12 Months by Year

Table 6.31 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities ...... 159 among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Table 6.32 Types of Community Participation among Elderly and ...... 160 Future Elderly Over Past 12 Months by Year

Table 6.33 Participation in Community Activities among Elderly and ...... 160 Future Elderly by Attributes

Table 6.34 Participation in Hobby-Related Activities among Elderly ...... 161 and Future Elderly

Table 6.35 Participation in Community and Hobby-Related Activities ...... 161 for Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.36 Types of Help/Services Rendered by Elderly and ...... 162 Future Elderly

List of Tables Page

Table 6.37 Reasons for Not Contributing Services among Elderly ...... 163 and Future Elderly

Table 6.38 Actual Contribution among Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 164 by Attributes

Table 6.39 Norms of Trust with Informal Community Networks of ...... 165 Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.40 Norms of Reciprocity with Informal Community Networks of ...... 165 Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.41 Composition of Informal Community Network Size for ...... 165 Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 6.42 Sense of Belonging among Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 166 by Year

Table 6.43 Housing Type Content With among Elderly and Future ...... 170 Elderly by Year

Table 6.44 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age among Elderly and ...... 171 Future Elderly by Year

Table 6.45 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities among ...... 178 Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Table 6.46 Satisfaction with Elderly-Friendly Estate Facilities among ...... 179 Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Table 6.47 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Elderly by Year ...... 181

Table 6.48 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Future Elderly ...... 182 by Year

Table 6.49 Willingness of Elderly and Future Elderly to Live in ...... 184 Assisted Living Facilities

Table 6.50 Elderly and Future Elderly who had Utilised Eldercare ...... 186 Services in Past 12 Months

List of Charts Page

Chart 2.1 Happiness with Life by Year ...... 23

Chart 3.1 Types of Activities Carried Out between Younger Married ...... 44 Residents and Their Parents

Chart 3.2 Types of Activities Carried Out between Older Residents ...... 45 and Their Married Children

Chart 3.3 Whether Younger Married Residents are Able to Rely on ...... 55 Parents for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

Chart 3.4 Whether Older Residents’ with Married Children are Able ...... 56 to Rely on Married Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

Chart 3.5 Satisfaction with Family Relations by Year ...... 56

Chart 5.1 Types of Neighbourly Interactions by Year ...... 82

Chart 5.2 Whether Received/Provided Help in Times of Emergency ...... 85

Chart 5.3 Nuisances Faced from Neighbours by Year ...... 88

Chart 5.4 Ways of Resolving Nuisances among Households who ...... 91 Faced Nuisances by Year

Chart 5.5 Place of Interaction by Age of Block ...... 94

Chart 5.6 Frequency of Interaction by Age of Block ...... 94

Chart 5.7 Intensity of Sense of Belonging among HDB Households ...... 98 by Length of Residence

Chart 5.8 Sense of Belonging by Year ...... 98

Chart 5.9 Sense of Belonging to Place or People by Length of ...... 99 Residence

Chart 5.10 Sense of Pride to Community by Year ...... 104

Chart 5.11 Sentiments towards Singapore by Year ...... 105

Chart 5.12 Community Participation Over Past 12 Months by Year ...... 106

Chart 5.13 Types and Frequency of Community Activities Participated ...... 107 Over Past 12 Months

Chart 5.14 Community Participation (Including Hobby-Related ...... 110 Activities) Over Past 12 Months

Chart 5.15 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Year ...... 111

Chart 6.1 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year ...... 128

Chart 6.2 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life among Elderly Households ...... 133 by Year

Chart 6.3 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life among Future Elderly ...... 134 Households by Year

List of Charts Page

Chart 6.4 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life among Elderly and ...... 134 Future Elderly Households

Chart 6.5 Overall Level of Happiness among Elderly and Future ...... 135 Elderly Households by Year

Chart 6.6 Number of Long-Term Illnesses of Elderly and Future Elderly ..... 138

Chart 6.7 Types of Activities Carried Out between Elderly and Their ...... 144 Married Children

Chart 6.8 Types of Activities Carried Out between Future Elderly and ...... 145 Their Married Children

Chart 6.9 Keeping in Touch with Family Members among Elderly and ...... 146 Future Elderly

Chart 6.10 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly and ...... 150 Future Elderly by Year

Chart 6.11 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community ...... 162 among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 6.12 Sense of Belonging to Place and People among Elderly ...... 166 and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 6.13 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among Elderly ...... 168 and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 6.14 Where Elderly and Future Elderly Intended to Live ...... 169 for Old Age

Chart 6.15 Housing Aspirations among Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 170 by Year

Chart 6.16 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood among Elderly ...... 172 and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 6.17 Satisfaction with Aspects of External Living Environment ...... 173 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Chart 6.18 Satisfaction with Aspects of Internal Living Environment ...... 174 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Chart 6.19 Proportion of Elderly and Future Elderly Households who ...... 175 Perceived Lifts to be Reliable

Chart 6.20 Value for Money of HDB Flat among Elderly and ...... 176 Future Elderly in Sold Flats by Year

Chart 6.21 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat among Elderly and ...... 177 Future Elderly by Year

Chart 6.22 Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons ...... 183 Requiring Assistance with Daily Living among Elderly and Future Elderly

Chart 6.23 Awareness of Eldercare Services among Elderly and ...... 185 Future Elderly

xii

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

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

xvi

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

xvii

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

xviii

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

HDB Population

Resident population refers to Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents residing in HDB flats, excluding tenants renting rooms or whole flat from HDB homeowners.

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

xxi

Certificate (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

xxii

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.

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 Types

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 interval 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 as follows: 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 the 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) Social Well-Being of HDB Communities; and b) Well-Being of the Elderly.

The first part explores the extent of social well-being among HDB communities at the personal, family and community levels. With building community-centric towns as one of HDB’s key priorities, it is important to monitor the social health of HDB communities. The second part examines the well-being of elderly residents, which is an important demographic of interest, given the ageing population in Singapore.

In the other monograph, Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences, the findings are presented in two parts. The first part analyses 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. Monitoring residents’ assessment of their physical living environment would provide valuable feedback for enhancing the design of neighbourhoods and flats, and thereby contribute to the continuous improvement of the HDB living environment.

Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

Introduction

One of HDB’s priorities is to build community-centric towns, where people are at the forefront when towns/estates are planned, designed, built and rejuvenated, creating a unique HDB living experience. This experience is shared by many Singaporeans as the majority live in HDB flats. This monograph focuses on the well-being of HDB residents on three levels – personal, family and the community. It also reports trends on individual and community development indicators to assess whether HDB residents are resilient and inclusive with regard to the community in which they live.

Objectives

The objectives are as follows: a) To examine residents’ current and future outlook on life; b) To examine the current state of family ties; and c) To provide insights on community health and development by monitoring changes in the indicators affecting social capital and community bonding.

Framework

The framework establishes the various dimensions of the social well-being of residents living in the HDB community. This includes examining residents’ outlook on life, relationships with family members, community ties with neighbours, as well as social capital level within both formal and informal networks.

Framework for Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

PERSONAL WELL-BEING

Outlook on Life

COMMUNITY FAMILY WELL-BEING WELL-BEING Community Ties Family Ties Social Capital

The personal well-being of residents is gauged in terms of their subjective self- evaluation across major aspects of life, as well as adaptability towards future life challenges. Chapter 2 examines both the residents’ current and future personal well-being. The former seeks to ascertain their current level of life satisfaction and happiness, while the latter looks at personal resilience in the face of challenges.

Families are key social units in the community. As the main housing provider for many families, HDB’s suite of mutual care and support policies helps families who wish to live near each other to be able to do so. Chapter 3 examines the well- being of families by understanding their living arrangements, frequency of visits, level of support between family members and their attitudes towards the family.

Chapters 4 and 5 provide insights on the well-being of the HDB community-at-large. In particular, Chapter 4 gives an overall perspective on the state of social health of HDB residents by assessing their levels of social capital, in terms of trust and reciprocity within informal networks, confidence in institutions and network size. Chapter 5 then examines the level of community health and development through observing HDB residents’ neighbourly relationships and engagement in community activities.

2 Outlook

on Life

Chapter 2

Outlook on Life

With about eight in ten of Singapore residents residing in HDB flats, the HDB living experience plays an important role in shaping the everyday lives of most Singapore residents. One key area of focus is the subjective well-being of HDB residents, specifically their social well-being. Social well-being is regarded as a person’s self- evaluation of how well one’s circumstances and functioning are within the society (Keyes, 1998)1. In this monograph, it is examined at the personal, family and community level. Starting with personal well-being, this chapter examines the individuals’ current and future outlook on life by looking at current life satisfaction and happiness level, as well as perceived ability in coping with future challenges.

2.1 Satisfaction with Life

Majority of households expressed overall life satisfaction and satisfaction with various aspects of life

96.7% of residents were satisfied with life in general, and more than 90% of households had indicated that they were satisfied with eight major domains of life (Table 2.1). Improvements were also seen in six domains that were tracked across the years, with the largest increase in the area of work, from 83.2% in 2013 to 91.6% in 2018.

1 Keyes, Corey, L.M. 1998. “Social Well-Being”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2): 121-140. Retrieved May 5, 2020, (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a1e/7b05ac6ea40e77dfa0642a7b34e4e64c8434.pdf)

Table 2.1 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life by Year

Households Satisfied (%) Aspects of Life* 2008 2013 2018

Religion 86.0 97.2 99.9 Personal Relations 86.2 94.4 99.2 Family Relations 96.9 96.6 98.2 Housing Situation 90.7 94.0 98.1 Neighbourly Relations** - - 96.9 Financial Situation** - - 92.2 Work Situation 78.7 83.2 91.6 Health Situation 86.6 89.5 91.1

Overall Satisfaction 90.8 91.1 96.7 * Excluding non-response cases ** New aspects included in 2018

Despite the high proportion of households who expressed satisfaction, among the eight major life domains examined, it was found that lower proportions of households were satisfied with health, work and finance. In terms of health situation, the presence of long-term illnesses and poor health in general were cited as the main reasons for dissatisfaction. For work, residents mainly cited difficulty in finding employment and low/irregular salary as reasons for dissatisfaction. A lack of savings or insufficient savings as well as difficulty in meeting day-to-day expenses were the main reasons for dissatisfaction with financial situation.

Overall life satisfaction was higher among the youngest and oldest residents, those with higher education levels, or living in bigger flat types

Residents’ overall life satisfaction was further analysed in terms of attributes such as age, education level and flat type, where education and flat type were included as proxies for income. Each attribute was analysed by the proportion of satisfied residents and levels of satisfaction.

More than 90% of residents across all age groups were satisfied with life in general. Higher proportions of satisfied residents were observed among the youngest and oldest segments of the population. Average satisfaction scores were similar across all age groups (Table 2.2).

The proportion of satisfied residents was more than 90% across all education levels. Residents with secondary and above education levels reported higher average satisfaction scores than those with below secondary education levels.

In terms of flat type, households living in bigger flat types were observed to have higher proportions of satisfied residents than those residing in smaller flat types. Higher average satisfaction scores were also observed among those living in bigger rather than smaller flat types.

Table 2.2 Overall Life Satisfaction among HDB Households by Attributes

Satisfaction with Life*

Attributes Mean Score Satisfied (%) (1 to 4)

Age Group (Years) Below 35 98.0 3.06 35 – 44 95.0 3.03 45 – 54 96.6 3.02 55 – 64 96.7 3.03 65 & Above 97.7 3.05

Education Level Below Secondary 96.8 3.01 Secondary/Post-Secondary 96.6 3.04 Diploma & Professional 97.7 3.06 Qualification Degree 95.8 3.06

Flat Type 1-Room 90.8 2.94 2-Room 93.7 2.98 3-Room 95.7 3.02 4-Room 97.6 3.04 5-Room 96.9 3.05 Executive 98.7 3.08 * Excluding non-response cases

Satisfaction with family relations was higher among younger residents, those with higher education levels, living in bigger flat types, or among family-based households

Residents’ satisfaction with family relations was further analysed in terms of age, education level and flat type. In addition, the proportion and extent of satisfaction with family relations between family-based and non-family based households were explored (More details on family relations can be found in Chapter 3: Family Ties).

The proportion of residents who were satisfied with family relations was high (over 90%) across all age groups and education levels. Higher proportions of satisfied residents were observed among the younger segments of the population. Average satisfaction scores for family relations were also higher among the younger than older households (Table 2.3). In terms of education level, a higher proportion of satisfied residents was also observed among those with secondary/post- secondary and diploma/professional qualifications. Residents with higher education levels also reported higher average satisfaction scores for family relations than those with below secondary education levels.

In terms of flat type, households living in bigger flat types were observed to have higher proportions of residents who were satisfied with family relations than those residing in smaller flat types. Higher average satisfaction scores for family relations were also observed among those living in bigger rather than smaller flat types.

When analysed in terms of types of family nucleus, the proportion of residents satisfied with family relations was more than 90% across all family nuclei, except for unrelated/distinctly related households. Higher proportions of satisfied residents were observed among nuclear, extended nuclear and multi-nuclear households (i.e., family-based households) when compared with one-person and unrelated/distinctly related households (i.e., non-family based households). Average satisfaction scores for family relations were also higher among family- based households than non-family based households.

Table 2.3 Satisfaction with Family Relations among HDB Households by Attributes

Satisfaction with Family Relations*

Attributes Mean Score Satisfied (%) (1 to 4)

Age Group (Years) Below 35 98.8 3.27 35 – 44 98.9 3.23 45 – 54 98.6 3.18 55 – 64 98.0 3.12 65 & Above 97.5 3.10

Education Level Below Secondary 97.4 3.08 Secondary/Post-Secondary 98.7 3.17 Diploma & Professional 99.7 3.21 Qualification Degree 97.8 3.24

Flat Type 1-Room 88.1 2.96 2-Room 94.8 3.09 3-Room 98.2 3.11 4-Room 98.4 3.17 5-Room 99.7 3.21 Executive 99.2 3.21

Family Nucleus Nuclear Family 98.9 3.18 Extended Nuclear Family 98.4 3.18 Multi-Nuclear Family 99.8 3.15 One-Person 94.4 3.05 Unrelated/Distantly Related 88.0 2.98 * Excluding non-response cases

Satisfaction with neighbourly relations was higher among households living in bigger flat types or with no intention to move in the next five years; No differences observed across age groups and education levels

Residents’ satisfaction with neighbourly relations were analysed in terms of age, education level and flat type as well as intention to move. Both the proportion of satisfied residents and levels of satisfaction were examined (More details on neighbourly relations can be found in Chapter 5: Community Bonding).

The proportion of residents who reported satisfaction with neighbourly relations was similar across all age groups. Over 90% of residents within each age group reported satisfaction with neighbourly relations. Average satisfaction scores for neighbourly relations were also similar across the age groups (Table 2.4).

Similar findings were also observed across education levels. The proportion of residents satisfied with neighbourly relations was observed to be similar across the different education levels. All education levels had over 90% of residents reporting satisfaction with neighbourly relations. Average satisfaction scores for neighbourly relations were also similar across the different education levels.

In terms of flat type, households living in bigger flat types were observed to have higher proportions of residents satisfied with neighbourly relations than those residing in smaller flat types. Higher average satisfaction scores for neighbourly relations were also observed among those living in bigger than in smaller flat types.

When analysed by intention to move within the next five years, households who do not intend to move had a higher proportion of residents satisfied with neighbourly relations, compared with households who were unsure or keen on moving within the next five years. Average satisfaction scores for neighbourly relations were also higher among households that do not intend to move or were unsure of moving compared with households who had indicated an intention to move.

Table 2.4 Satisfaction with Neighbourly Relations among HDB Households by Attributes

Satisfaction with Neighbourly Relations*

Attributes Mean Score Satisfied (%) (1 to 4)

Age Group (Years) Below 35 95.6 3.00 35 – 44 97.2 3.03 45 – 54 96.1 3.00 55 – 64 96.8 3.01 65 & Above 97.7 3.01

Education Level Below Secondary 97.2 3.01 Secondary/Post-Secondary 96.7 3.00 Diploma & Professional 96.7 3.01 Qualification Degree 96.6 3.02

Flat Type 1-Room 93.1 2.95 2-Room 94.6 2.97 3-Room 96.0 2.99 4-Room 97.1 3.01 5-Room 97.9 3.03 Executive 98.3 3.02

Intention to Move Yes 94.3 2.97 Unsure 94.0 2.99 No 97.7 3.02 * Excluding non-response cases

Satisfaction with housing situation was higher among older residents, those with lower education levels or living in bigger flat types

Satisfaction with housing situation was further analysed across age and socioeconomic attributes. Readers interested in the detailed findings pertaining to HDB’s physical living environment and residents’ feedback on estate facilities may refer to the monograph titled Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences.

The proportion of residents who reported satisfaction with housing situation was above 90% across all age groups. Higher proportion of satisfied residents was observed among older residents aged 55 years old and above. Average satisfaction scores for housing situation were also higher among older residents compared with those aged below 35 years old (Table 2.5).

The proportion of residents who reported satisfaction with housing situation was more than 90% across all education levels. Lower proportion of satisfied residents was observed among those with diploma/professional qualification and degree holders. Average satisfaction scores for housing situation were similar across those with secondary and above education levels, but lower among residents with below secondary education levels.

In terms of flat type, households living in bigger flat types were observed to have higher proportions of residents satisfied with housing situation than those residing in smaller flat types. Higher average satisfaction scores for housing situation were also observed among those living in bigger than in smaller flat types.

Table 2.5 Satisfaction with Housing Situation among HDB Households by Attributes

Satisfaction with Housing Situation*

Attributes Mean Score Satisfied (%) (1 to 4)

Age Group (Years) Below 35 96.7 3.01 35 – 44 96.2 3.05 45 – 54 98.1 3.05 55 – 64 98.4 3.04 65 & Above 99.6 3.06

Education Level Below Secondary 98.6 3.03 Secondary/Post-Secondary 98.7 3.06 Diploma & Professional 97.7 3.06 Qualification Degree 96.4 3.04

Flat Type 1-Room 92.8 2.96 2-Room 93.7 2.97 3-Room 97.4 3.02 4-Room 98.9 3.05 5-Room 98.7 3.07 Executive 99.2 3.10 * Excluding non-response cases

2.2 Overall Level of Happiness

Majority of households expressed happiness with life

Besides satisfaction, residents’ positive emotional affect towards life in general was also measured. Most residents (93.7%) reported feeling happy with life and this was consistent with the positive trend observed in 2008 and 2013 (Chart 2.1). There was also a positive correlation observed between happiness level and overall life satisfaction level.

Chart 2.1 Happiness with Life by Year

100 91.5 93.3 93.7

40 Households (%) Households 20 0 2008 2013 2018

Happiness level was higher among the youngest and oldest residents, those with higher education levels or living in bigger flat types

Both the proportion of happy residents and extent of happiness were further analysed across the different age groups, education levels and flat types. Residents’ level of happiness was measured on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all happy to 4 = very happy), with higher scores indicating higher levels of happiness with life.

The proportion of residents who reported being happy with life was above 90% across all age groups. Higher proportions of happy residents were observed among the youngest and oldest segments of the population. Similar proportions of happy residents were observed among those aged between 35 and 64 years old. In terms of extent of happiness, higher average levels of happiness were also observed among residents aged below 35 years old and those 65 years old and

above. Similar levels of happiness were observed among those aged between 35 and 64 years old (Table 2.6).

The proportion of happy residents was also similar across the different education levels. Across all education levels, more than 90% of residents indicated happiness with life. Residents with secondary or above education level reported higher average levels of happiness than those with below secondary education levels.

In terms of flat type, households living in bigger flat types had higher proportions of happy residents than those residing in smaller flat types. Higher average happiness levels were also observed among those living in 3-room or bigger flat types.

Table 2.6 Overall Happiness with Life among HDB Households by Attributes

Happiness with Life* Attributes Mean Score Happy (%) (1 to 4) Age Group (Years) Below 35 96.6 3.07 35 – 44 91.5 3.04 45 – 54 93.4 3.03 55 – 64 93.6 3.02 65 & Above 94.9 3.07

Education Level Below Secondary 93.9 3.01 Secondary/Post-Secondary 94.0 3.06 Diploma & Professional 93.7 3.06 Qualification Degree 92.9 3.05

Flat Type 1-Room 86.7 2.93 2-Room 87.9 2.96 3-Room 93.0 3.02 4-Room 94.7 3.05 5-Room 94.0 3.07 Executive 96.3 3.09 * Excluding non-response cases

2.3 Personal Resilience

This section focuses on personal resilience, which is another indicator of future personal well-being. The concept of personal resilience is defined as an individual’s capacity to adapt and recover from stressful events or life challenges (Lyons, Fletcher, Bariola, 2016)2.

Majority of households reported above average personal resilience scores

High self-reported personal resilience levels were observed among residents. Resilience scores were derived by summing residents’ ratings on four statements (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) adapted from the Fletcher-Lyons Collective Resilience Scale (Lyons, Fletcher, Bariola, 2016). Higher scores indicate greater levels of self-reported personal resilience (minimum 4 – maximum 20)3. Results indicated that most residents (73.8%) scored above the overall average of 15.4, with only 26.2% displaying lower than average resilience levels.

Further analysis on identifying at-risk factors for personal resilience was conducted. The survey findings revealed poorer levels of personal resilience among those with lower personal and/or social resources. Individuals dissatisfied with their financial situation, weaker in their sense of community, and/or reported lower extent of mutual help among family members, were more likely to display lower than average resilience scores (Table 2.7).

2 Lyons, A., Fletcher, G., & Bariola, E. 2016. “Assessing the well-being benefits of belonging to resilient groups and communities: Development and testing of the Fletcher-Lyons Collective Resilience Scale (FLCRS)”. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 65 3 The four statements are: 1. I am able to handle challenges when they arise. 2. I am able to obtain what I need to do well in life. 3. I am able to recover from difficult challenges. 4. I am able to adapt to changes.

Table 2.7 Mean Resilience Scores among HDB Households by Personal and Social Resources

Mean Resilience Score Aspects* (4 to 20)

Financial Situation Satisfied 15.4 Dissatisfied 14.3

Sense of Community Higher 15.5 Lower 15.1 Reciprocity Among Family Higher Extent 15.5 Members** Lower Extent 15.0

Overall*** 15.4

* Excluding non-response cases ** The mean score for mutual help with family members among HDB residents was 8.9. Those who scored above the mean was classified as having a higher extent of mutual help with family members, and those who scored below the mean was classified as having a lower extent of mutual help with family members. Reciprocity is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 refers to “Not at all” and 10 refers to “Always”. *** Overall mean resilience score across HDB households.

Younger residents, those with higher education level or living in bigger flat types indicated higher average personal resilience scores

The level of personal resilience was further analysed across the different age groups, education levels, and flat types. Higher personal resilience levels were observed among the younger age groups. Personal resilience scores were highest among residents aged below 45 years old, and lowest among residents aged 65 years old and above (Table 2.8).

Higher personal resilience levels were observed among those with higher education levels. Personal resilience scores were the highest among residents with tertiary qualification, followed by those with secondary/post-secondary education level, and lastly, residents with below secondary education levels.

In terms of flat type, households living in bigger flat types reported higher levels of personal resilience than those residing in smaller flat types, possibly due to the availability of more resources to cope with difficulties. Personal resilience scores were the highest among residents living in 5-room and bigger flats, and lowest among those residing in 1- and 2-room flats.

Table 2.8 Mean Resilience Scores among HDB Households by Attributes

Mean Resilience Scores* Attributes (4 to 20)

Age Group (Years) Below 35 15.8 35 – 44 15.8 45 – 54 15.5 55 – 64 15.2 65 & Above 15.0

Education Level Below Secondary 15.0 Secondary/Post-Secondary 15.4 Diploma & Professional 15.6 Qualification Degree 15.9

Flat Type 1-Room 14.8 2-Room 15.0 3-Room 15.1 4-Room 15.4 5-Room 15.6 Executive 15.6 * Excluding non-response cases

2.4 Summary of Findings

Residents’ current outlook on life was positive as shown by the high levels of life satisfaction and happiness reported. Majority of residents (73.8%) also indicated above average personal resilience scores.

When examined in terms of age group, a high proportion of satisfied and happy residents were observed across all age groups. Higher proportions of the elderly aged 65 years old and above and younger residents aged below 35 years old indicated satisfaction and happiness with life, as well as high levels of happiness.

Similar proportions of satisfied and happy residents were observed across all education levels. Residents with secondary or above education levels reported higher degree of life satisfaction and happiness than those with below secondary education qualifications. Higher levels of personal resilience were also observed among those with secondary or above education levels than those with below secondary education levels.

When examined across flat types, residents residing in bigger flat types had higher proportions of satisfied and happy residents and higher life satisfaction and happiness scores. Residents living in bigger flat types also indicated higher levels of personal resilience than those residing in smaller flat types.

Family Ties

Chapter 3

Family Ties

The family is a key social institution in society. Among its many important roles, the family provides care and support for its members. The well-being of the family and its ability to support one another also reflect to some extent the well-being of the wider community. In line with the priorities of social policy to nurture strong families and community spirit, HDB’s housing policies are formulated with families and communities in mind.

Over the years, HDB’s suite of mutual care and support policies has enabled many families to live with or near one another. The objectives of this chapter are to examine the current state of family ties through understanding the living arrangements of families, frequency of interaction between family members, level of support available within the family and attitudes towards the family. It also examines the relationship between proximity of homes of parents and children, and family ties. The analyses focus on two different sets of family ties: younger married residents’ family ties with their parents and parents’ ties with their married children.

The details on the two groups of residents covered are as shown: a) Younger married residents with parents. This group comprises married residents aged 54 years old and below who have parents living in Singapore. There are presently about 224,808 of such households, and they provide a basis to examine family ties from the perspective of younger married residents with their parents. This group comprises 22.2% of all HDB households. b) Older residents with married children. This group comprises residents aged 55 years old and above who have married children. There are

presently about 296,814 of such households, making up 29.3% of all HDB households. The analysis examines family ties from the viewpoint of these older residents with their married children.

The profiles of these two groups of residents are shown in Table 3.1. Younger married residents with parents living in Singapore formed 22.2% of all HDB households and their average age was 42.0 years old. The majority lived in bigger flat types, with 45.6% in 4-room and 39.3% in 5-room flats. Older residents with married children comprised 29.3% of all HDB households with an average age of 68.5 years old. Close to four in ten (38.0%) of them lived in 4-room flats.

Table 3.1 Attributes of Younger Married Residents and Older Residents with Married Children

Older Residents Younger Attributes with Married Married Residents Children

Proportion of All Households (%) 22.2 29.3 Number of Households (Persons) 224,808 296,814

Age (Years) Mean 42.0 68.5

Median 42 67

Age Group (Years) Below 35 18.4 -

35 – 44 40.8 -

45 – 54 40.8 -

55 – 64 - 35.1

65 – 74 - 40.7

75 & Above - 24.1

Flat Type (%) 1- & 2-Room 3.8 8.4

3-Room 11.3 26.4

4-Room 45.6 38.0

5-Room & Bigger 39.3 27.2

Household Size (Persons) Mean 4.0 2.6

Median 4 2

The majority of younger married residents were aged between 35 and 54 years old, while six in ten of older residents with married children were aged 65 years and above (Table 3.1).

3.1 Physical Living Arrangement

Physical living arrangement refers to the geographical proximity between parents’ and children’s residence. Housing decisions are often multi-faceted and choosing to live in close proximity to family members may constitute a part of this choice. The present and preferred living arrangements of residents vis-à-vis their parents or married children are examined.

More younger married residents living within close proximity to parents; majority satisfied with where they lived in relation to their parents

Eight in ten younger married residents (81.0%) were satisfied with where they lived in relation to that of their parents, with their preferred living arrangement being the same as their present living arrangement, as shown in the summation of percentages in the diagonal unshaded cells of the matrix (Table 3.2). More than three in ten (36.8%) were living with (12.5%) or within close proximity to their parents (24.3%), comparable with that in 2013 (36.7%). However, there was a slight shift towards living within close proximity rather than with their parents. Among those who were living with their parents, the main reason cited was to facilitate mutual care giving. The HDB’s policies4 continue to support families who wish to live near each other for mutual care and support.

4 The Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS), Senior Priority Scheme (SPS) and Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS) are policies which help married children and parents live with or close to each other for mutual care and support. 3Gen flats, introduced in September 2013, are designed to meet the needs of multi- generation families. The Proximity Housing Grant (PHG), introduced in August 2015, helps more families to buy a resale flat to live with or close to each other for mutual care and support. Enhancements to the PHG made in 2018 include a higher grant provided for extended families living together; a new PHG for singles living near parents; and simplified proximity conditions for more housing choices. As of December 2019, HDB disbursed $550 million under PHG. About 30,100 households have applied for the PHG, making up 31% of the 96,800 resale applications registered in that time. Of the 30,100 households, 80% were families and the rest were singles.

Table 3.2 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Younger Married Residents vis-à- vis Their Parents

Present Living Arrangement (%) SHS 2018 In the Same Within Close In a Nearby Elsewhere in (SHS 2013) Total Flat Proximity* Estate Singapore

11.7 0.6 1.0 1.8 15.1 In the Same Flat (14.2) (0.8) (0.7) (1.8) (17.5)

Within Close -** 23.6 4.4 7.9 36.4 Proximity* (-**) (20.2) (2.9) (8.5) (32.4)

- 15.1 2.3 17.6 In a Nearby Estate -** - (18.1) (2.8) (21.3) (-**) 1.0 (1.6) -** Elsewhere in -** -** 30.6 30.9 (-**) Singapore (-**) (-**) (28.4) (28.7)

12.5 24.3 20.6 42.6 100.0 Total PreferredLiving Arrangement (%) (15.7) (21.0) (21.8) (41.5) (100.0)

* Within close proximity refers to living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Among those whose preferred living arrangements that was different from their present one, 18.0% (a summation of the percentages in the top right triangle, shown with a darker shade of blue) wished to live closer to their parents than they were. The main reasons cited for their preference were that it would facilitate care giving and would be easier for them to visit each other. For the 18.0% who wished to live closer than they were, a higher proportion (52.3%) comprised families with young children, compared with 45.2% of all younger married residents. Only 1.0% (a summation of the percentages in the bottom left triangle, shown with a lighter shade of blue) preferred to live farther than their present living arrangement.

Families with younger children lived closer to parents

Higher proportions of younger married residents with young children (41.2%) lived within close proximity to their parents compared with families with teenaged children (35.4%), families with unmarried grown-up children (25.9%) and families without children (35.5%) (Table 3.3).

The same trend was observed in regard to their preferred living arrangement. Specifically, a higher proportion of younger married residents with young children (58.3%) preferred to live in closer proximity to their parents, as compared with families without children (48.4%), families with teenaged children (47.9%) or

families with unmarried grown-up children (38.3%). It is likely that families with young children preferred to live closer to their parents due to their need for help with childcare. For families with unmarried grown-up children, the preference to live closer to their parents or, in a small proportion of cases, with their parents, may relate to their desire to be in close proximity should their parents require eldercare assistance.

Table 3.3 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis Their Parents by Resident Life Cycle Stage

Family with Family Family with Family with Family with Married All Younger Unmarried Grown-Up Physical Living without Children Young Children Teenaged Children Children Married Residents Arrangement Children Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred In the Same Flat 15.7 14.4 14.2 16.3 11.6 13.4 4.6 14.0 -** 18.1 12.5 15.1 35.5 48.4 41.2 58.3 35.4 47.9 25.9 38.3 35.8 52.0 36.8 51.5 Within Close Proximity* 19.8 34.0 27.0 42.0 23.8 34.5 21.3 24.3 22.7 33.9 24.3 36.4 In a Nearby Estate 25.9 23.2 17.0 13.1 23.1 21.7 26.3 23.2 10.0 -** 20.6 17.6 Elsewhere in Singapore 38.7 28.4 41.9 28.7 41.4 30.4 47.8 38.5 54.2 41.4 42.6 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 N* 30,761 30,761 101,502 101,502 53,429 53,429 29,850 29,850 9,266 9,266 224,808 224,808 * Within close proximity refers to living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

More older residents living within close proximity to married children and majority satisfied with where they lived in relation to their married children

More than eight in ten older residents with married children (86.3%) were satisfied with their living arrangements, where their present living arrangement was also their preferred living arrangement, an increase compared to 80.0% in 2013 (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Older Residents with Married Children vis-à-vis Their Married Children

Present Living Arrangement (%)

SHS 2018 Within In a Elsewhere In the (SHS 2013) Close Nearby in Overseas Total Same Flat Proximity* Estate Singapore 0.6 In the Same 11.0 0.6 0.6 -** 13.0 (1.6) 10.8 Flat (14.0) (0.5) (0.6) (-**) (17.3)

Within Close 1.7 22.3 1.8 5.3 (14.7) -** 31.1 Proximity* (3.0) (20.7) (1.8) (6.0) (-**) (31.8)

In a Nearby 0.8 - 18.2 1.2 -** 20.3 Estate (1.0) (0.2) (14.1) (2.8) (-**) (18.2)

Elsewhere in -** 32.5 -** 33.2 - Singapore (1.1) 2.8 (28.8) (-**) (30.3)

(5.3) 2.3 2.3 Overseas - - - -

(2.4) (2.4) PreferredLiving Arrangement (%) 13.8 22.9 20.6 39.7 3.1 100.0 Total

(19.1) (21.4) (16.5) (39.2) (3.8) (100.0)

* Within close proximity refers to living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

The proportion of older residents who lived with or within close proximity to their married children had decreased from 40.5% in 2013 to 36.7% in 2018. This resulted primarily from the decrease in the proportion of older residents living with their married children, from 19.1% in 2013 to 13.8% in 2018. The proportion of older residents with married children who were living within close proximity to their married children increased slightly from 21.4% in 2013 to 22.9% in 2018. In the 2013 survey, further analysis showed that married children living with parents could be a temporary arrangement as close to half of them (8.2%) were waiting for their new flat to be completed or renovated. In 2018, four in ten of the 13.8% (i.e. 5.9%) of older residents had married children living with them while waiting for their new housing to be ready. The other main reason for living together was to facilitate care-giving and mutual support.

3.2 Social Living Arrangement

Majority currently living with spouse and/or unmarried children

Social living arrangement refers to people with whom the residents live with in the same flat. The most common form of social living arrangement among HDB residents includes living with spouse and/or unmarried children.

The findings showed that residents’ present living arrangement mirrored their preferred living arrangement, indicating that their desired social living arrangements had largely been met. More than eight in ten (83.5%) younger married residents with parents were living with their spouse and/or unmarried children (Table 3.5). This trend persists across the years.

Table 3.5 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Younger Married Residents by Year

2008 2013 2018 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or 81.5 78.2 81.7 81.6 83.5 84.1 Unmarried Children

Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children and 14.6 17.6 16.2 16.1 14.9 14.7 Parents and/or Parents-in-law

Live with Married Children 0.8 1.0 1.9 2.2 1.6 1.3

Live Alone 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 - - Other Living Arrangements (e.g. with 3.0 3.0 - - - - companion/friends/relatives) % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 304,965 304,455 272,619 272,369 224,808 224,808

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

Two-thirds (66.3%) of older residents with married children were living with their spouse and/or unmarried children (Table 3.6). This proportion showed minimal variation across the years. There was a slight increase in the proportion of older residents living alone. Similarly, the proportion of older residents who indicated a preference to live alone had inched upwards. The findings suggest a preference for independent living among this group of older residents. Among the 13.2% who preferred to be living alone, a higher proportion of them were also living in smaller flat types (1- and 2-room or 3-room flats) as compared with all older residents with married children.

Table 3.6 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Older Residents with Married Children by Year

2008 2013 2018 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or 68.1 65.7 65.8 67.5 66.3 67.5 Unmarried Children

Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children and 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 Parents and/or Parents-in-law

Live with Married Children 13.8 16.9 18.5 17.6 14.5 13.7

Live Alone 10.3 9.7 11.1 10.7 13.0 13.2

Other Living Arrangements (e.g. with companion/ 6.4 6.0 2.6 2.2 5.1 4.6 friends/relatives)

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 172,040 171,790 207, 620 207,620 296,814 296,814 * Excluding non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

3.3 Depth of Interaction

Interaction with family members is a vital part of building and sustaining long-term relationships. Maintaining such ties is not only important for personal well-being, but also essential for familial support, especially in times of need.

This section examines the frequency and depth of interactions between family members who were not living together in the same flat. Residents who lived in the same flat as their family members were more likely to interact with one another. Hence, they were excluded from the analyses in this section. Such interactions include visiting patterns, type of activities carried out and frequency of keeping in touch with family members. These findings provide insights on residents’ interaction and bonding with family members, as well as the strength of family ties.

High frequency of visits between parents and married children indicating strong intergenerational relationships

Visiting patterns refer to the frequency of visits between children and their parents who are not living together. By looking at how frequently they visit one another, the strength of intergenerational relationships could be inferred. While technology

has also enabled other ways of keeping in touch with family members, living within close proximity still renders it more convenient to do so. The relationship between living close by and frequency of visits will be further examined in Section 3.5.

Comparing with previous years, it was observed that intergenerational ties between younger married residents and their parents had remained strong, with 89.9% visiting daily, at least once a week or at least once a month in 2018 (Table 3.7).

Table 3.7 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and Their Parents by Year

Frequency of Visits 2008 2013 2018

Daily 18.2 19.5 19.7

At Least Once a Week 48.6 90.7 50.3 90.3 50.9 89.9 At Least Once a Month 23.9 20.5 19.3 Less Than Once a Month 9.0 9.2 9.1 Never 0.3 0.5 0.9 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 251,372 231,742 195,677 * Excluding those who lived with their parents and non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

Lower proportions of older residents had daily interactions with their married children, from 24.3% in 2013 to 17.7% in 2018 (Table 3.8). However, the proportion who had interactions with their married children at least once a week remained fairly constant across the years. It was also observed that those who were in the labour force visited less frequently (Table 3.10).

Table 3.8 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and Their Married Children by Year

Frequency of Visits 2008 2013 2018

Daily 23.1 24.3 17.7 At Least Once a Week 49.6 90.8 49.0 88.6 50.8 86.9 At Least Once a Month 18.1 15.3 18.4 Less Than Once a Month 7.9 9.5 12.1 Never 1.3 1.9 0.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 140,166 181,916 255,950

* Excluding those who lived with their married children and non-response cases

Analysing frequency of visits by different attributes revealed that younger married residents living in 4-room and bigger flats and their parents visited one another more frequently (Table 3.9). Households living in 1- and 2-room flats where a higher proportion were in rental flats had less frequent visits with family members whom they did not live with compared to households living in sold flats. Residents at their earlier life cycle stages (those without children or those with young children) had more frequent visits with their parents as they were likely to have meals at their parents’ home or to pick up their children from their parents’ home after work. Car owners were also more likely to visit more frequently compared to non-car owners.

Table 3.9 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and Their Parents by Attributes

Visited Less Visited At Least Total Attributes Than Once a Once a Month Month or Never % N* Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 73.5 26.5 100.0 7,654

3-Room 87.1 12.9 100.0 21,790

4-Room 92.6 7.4 100.0 88,299

5-Room & Bigger 89.3 10.7 100.0 77,934

Resident Family without Children 95.1 4.9 100.0 25,940 Life Cycle Family with Young Stage 92.9 7.1 100.0 86,743 Children

Family with Teenaged 88.8 11.2 100.0 46,615 Children

Family with Unmarried 82.6 17.4 100.0 28,331 Grown-up Children

Family with Married 73.9 26.1 100.0 8,048 Children

Car Yes 92.4 7.6 100.0 84,947 Ownership No 88.0 12.0 100.0 110,730

* Excluding those living with parents and non-response cases

A higher proportion of older residents living in bigger flat types had more frequent interactions with their married children (Table 3.10). Those who were in the labour force, probably with less time on their hands, had less frequent visits than those who were outside the labour force.

Table 3.10 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and Their Married Children by Attributes

Visited Visited Total Attributes At Least Less Than Once Once a Month a Month or Never % N*

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 72.0 28.0 100.0 24,343 3-Room 84.9 15.1 100.0 68,747 4-Room 89.0 11.0 100.0 95,229 5-Room & Bigger 91.4 8.6 100.0 67,631 Labour In Labour Force 84.8 15.2 100.0 96,973 Force Status Outside Labour Force 88.2 11.8 100.0 158,918 * Excluding non-response cases

The activities most frequently carried out by younger married residents with their parents when visiting each other were having meals together, taking care of each other, exchanging suggestions and advice about personal problems, and going for outings together (Chart 3.1). Helping with daily chores such as buying groceries or doing housework occurred less frequently, suggesting that the interactions largely centred on leisure activities rather than household chores. Similar observations could be made of the interactions between older residents with married children (Chart 3.2).

Chart 3.1 Types of Activities Carried Out between Younger Married Residents and Their Parents

Share meals 9.7 51.4 23.4 14.3 1.3

Take care of each other in general 12.9 39.0 18.5 15.3 14.3 Exchange suggestions/advice 11.4 38.4 17.4 18.6 14.3 about personal problems

Go on outings 2.2 30.1 26.9 31.4 9.4 Help in taking care 12.7 13.1 5.7 7.2 61.3 of young children

Help in marketing 4.0 15.4 9.3 14.0 57.4

Help in household chores 5.6 15.8 7.9 12.6 58.1

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%) Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Never

Chart 3.2 Types of Activities Carried Out between Older Residents and Their Married Children

Share Meals 10.4 50.5 20.3 17.1 1.7

Take care of each other in general 11.0 37.8 16.2 19.5 15.6

Exchange suggestions/advice 9.4 36.9 17.3 25.5 11.0 about personal problems

Go on outings 1.2 30.0 23.6 36.4 8.8 Help in taking care 10.3 18.8 5.6 8.4 56.9 of young children

Help in household chores 2.8 16.7 6.6 14.1 59.8

Help in marketing 1.6 17.7 7.3 16.0 57.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Never

Mothers remained as main childcare provider for younger children, more also relying on childcare centres/babysitters for childcare

Among younger married residents with children aged 12 years old and below, the proportion with mothers as the main childcare provider remained high at 40.7% (Table 3.11). Grandparents remained as the next source of help, followed by childcare centres/babysitters and domestic helpers. Grandparents could also have their own work commitments or other interests, which means they would likely be seen as secondary caregivers rather than primary caregivers to their grandchildren. The proportion of children cared for mainly by childcare centres/babysitters continued to grow steadily, reflecting an increasing demand for professional childcare services. This trend could have been facilitated by the increase in the availability of childcare centres in recent years, relieving grandparents from having to play the role of main childcare provider over the years, from 29.6% in 2008 to 23.8% in 2018.

Table 3.11 Childcare Arrangements of Younger Married Residents with Children Aged 12 Years Old and Below by Year

Main Childcare Provider 2008 2013 2018

Mother* 40.1 42.7 40.7

Father* 1.4 2.1 2.5

Grandparents* 29.6 27.7 23.8

Childcare Centre/Babysitter 11.0 12.4 18.3

Domestic Helpers 13.9 11.6 12.5

Others (e.g., relatives, children themselves) 4.0 3.5 2.2

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N** 166,117 148,484 127,763

* The relationship is with reference to children aged 12 years old and below ** Excluding non-response cases

3.4 Forms and Extent of Family Support

The family performs many functions. Caring and supporting one another are among some of the integral roles played by the family. This section examines the different types of support rendered to and received from family members. These include financial, physical, and emotional support.

Majority of younger married residents provided regular financial support to parents

In many Asian cultures, including Singapore, children who have started working typically give their parents a monthly allowance as a way of looking after their parents’ needs. This act of giving money to one’s parents is seen as a sign of filial piety. This segment examines the regular forms of financial support provided by younger married residents to their parents.

The proportion of younger married residents that provided regular financial support to their parents increased from 70.2% in 2008 to 81.0% in 2018 (Table 3.12). The average nominal amount they contributed to their parents increased from $336 in 2008 to $450 in 2018. Among the one-fifth (19.1%) who were not providing regular financial support to their parents, 53.9% reported that their siblings were doing so.

Table 3.12 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents to Parents by Year

Financial Support to Parents 2008 2013 2018

Provided Financial Support to Parents (%) 70.2 74.9 81.0 Amount Contributed to Parents per Month ($) Mean 336 400 450 Median 300 300 350

Younger married residents who provided regular financial support were more likely to be those who were in the labour force and living in 3-room or bigger flat types. Higher proportions of younger married residents without children, as well as younger married residents with young children were also providing regular financial support to their parents (Table 3.13). Those who had fewer children were more likely to be supporting their parents financially.

Table 3.13 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents to Parents by Attributes

Supported Did Not Support Total Attributes Parents Parents Financially Financially % N*

Labour Force In Labour Force 82.7 17.3 100.0 185,388 Status Outside Labour Force 68.3 31.7 100.0 25,053 Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 52.4 47.6 100.0 8,051 3-Room 80.0 20.0 100.0 24,481

4-Room 81.0 19.0 100.0 95,245

5-Room & Bigger 84.0 16.0 100.0 82,664

Resident Life Family Without Children 88.9 11.1 100.0 29,379 Cycle Stage Family with Young 83.7 16.3 100.0 94,383 Children

Family with Teenage 78.0 22.0 100.0 49,912 Children

Family with Unmarried 77.6 22.4 100.0 28,216 Grown-up Children

Family with Married 51.5 48.5 100.0 8,550 Children

No. of 0 88.9 11.1 100.0 29,379 Children 1 83.0 17.0 100.0 49,152

2 80.3 19.7 100.0 86,074

3 79.0 21.0 100.0 31,243

4 or More 66.3 33.7 100.0 14,592

* Excluding non-response cases

The amount of regular financial support given to parents varied. Those who gave more to their parents were likely to be those in the labour force, or families with no children or with young children (Table 3.14).

Table 3.14 Amount Contributed to Parents from Younger Married Residents by Attributes

Amount Contributed Attributes to Parents per Month ($) Mean Median

Labour Force In Labour Force 470 360 Status Outside Labour Force 310 170

Resident Life Family Without Children 480 360 Cycle Stage Family with Young Children 490 380

Family with Teenaged Children 450 350

Family with Unmarried Grown-up Children 310 200

Family with Married Children 220 150

* Excluding non-response cases

Some three in four older residents with married children received regular financial support from their children

From the perspective of older residents with married children, some three in four (73.8%) received regular cash transfers from their children as a form of financial support (Table 3.15). While this proportion had decreased slightly compared with 2013, another 11.4% of them were supported by their children in kind (e.g. payment of medical fees, groceries). The average nominal amount received by each parent from all their children had increased from $552 in 2013 to $580 per month in 2018. Among the 14.8% who did not receive regular financial support, 64.2% of them were in the labour force.

Table 3.15 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Year Regular Financial Support Received from Children 2008 2013 2018

Received Regular Financial Support from Children (%) 79.4 77.7 73.8

Received Support in Kind** (e.g. paying for their - - 11.4 expenses) (%)

Did not Receive Regular Financial Support (%) 20.6 22.3 14.8

Amount Received per Month ($) Mean 445 552 580 Median 300 400 460 * Excluding non-response cases ** SHS2008 and SHS2013 did not cover financial support in kind

Older residents with married children who received regular financial support from their children were more likely to be females, older, those outside the labour force, living in 3- or 4-room flats or had more children (Table 3.16). Likewise, those who received a higher amount of financial support were more likely to be females, older, those outside the labour force, living in 3- or 4-room flats or had more children (Table 3.17).

Table 3.16 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Attributes

Received Received Did not Receive Total Attributes Financial Support in Any Financial Support Kind Support % N*

Sex Male 67.4 12.8 19.8 100.0 139,400

Female 79.9 10.1 10.0 100.0 146,041

Age 55 – 64 67.2 15.1 17.6 100.0 100,706 Group (Years) 65 – 74 75.2 9.8 15.0 100.0 117,115 75 & Above 81.0 8.8 10.0 100.0 67,620

Labour In Labour Force 62.0 13.7 24.3 100.0 111,567 Force Outside Labour Status 81.3 10.0 8.7 100.0 173,874 Force

Flat 1- & 2-Room 64.3 8.9 26.7 100.0 24,560 Type 3-Room 77.4 9.3 13.3 100.0 75,319

4-Room 76.0 12.7 11.3 100.0 108,541

5-Room & Bigger 70.1 12.7 17.3 100.0 77,021

No. of 1 59.3 14.9 25.7 100.0 24,341 Children 2 69.7 13.2 17.1 100.0 113,052

3 77.1 11.4 11.5 100.0 88,623

4 or More 82.4 6.8 10.8 100.0 59,424 *Excluding non-response cases

Table 3.17 Amount of Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Attributes

Amount Received per Month ($) Attributes Mean Median

Sex Male 560 400

Female 600 470

Labour In Labour Force 480 360 Force Status Outside Labour Force 630 480 Age Group 55 – 64 510 380 (Years) 65 – 74 620 470

75 & Above 610 450

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 390 270

3-Room 490 370

4-Room 610 470

5-Room & Bigger 690 490

No. of 1 470 360 Children 2 560 460

3 610 460

4 or More 600 440

Majority of younger married residents able to rely on siblings or parents for emotional support, less so for physical and financial support (in times of need)

This section examines whether residents are able to rely on various family members for physical, emotional and financial support when needed5.

More than eight in ten younger married residents were able to rely on their parents (85.9%) and siblings (86.5%) for emotional support (Table 3.18). When needed, younger married residents could rely on siblings (51.3%), unmarried children (49.3%) and parents (49.1%) for physical support. For financial support in times of need, younger married residents could rely on their siblings (70.7%) or parents (56.9%).

5 Physical support refers to helping with buying groceries, transportation, accompany to see doctor, housework/home maintenance, help in taking care of health (e.g., medicine management, aid in moving around).

Emotional support refers to being able to discuss important matters with someone/having help in making important decisions, having someone to confide in when feeling down.

Financial support refers to financial help in times of need.

Family support was available to younger married residents, with close to eight in ten having at least one family member whom they could rely on for support when needed (Table 3.19).

Table 3.18 Whether Younger Married Residents are Able to Rely on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Whether Younger Married Residents Able to Rely on Family Members for Support (%)* Types of Support Unmarried Parents Siblings Children

Physical Support 49.1 51.3 49.3

Help with housework 45.8 46.9 48.7

Help with marketing/transport/ 48.5 50.7 44.0 accompany for doctors’ visits

Emotional Support 85.9 86.5 45.6

Discuss important matters/make 85.1 85.9 45.0 important decisions

Confide in when feeling down 83.8 85.0 44.4 Financial Support (In Times of Need) 56.9 70.7 13.0 * Excluding non-response cases

Table 3.19 Whether Younger Married Residents Able to Rely on at Least One Family Member for Support

Able to Rely on at Least One Total Types of Support Family Member* for Support Yes No % N**

Physical 79.5 20.5 100.0 221,154 Emotional 94.8 5.2 100.0 222,649 Financial (In Times of Need) 78.5 21.5 100.0 221,248

* Whether able to rely on either parents/siblings/unmarried children ** Excluding non-response cases

For financial support in times of need, those who were unable to rely on their parents cited that their parents were not working or had insufficient finances to help them. Those who were unable to rely on their siblings cited that their siblings had their own families to support and had insufficient finances to help them. Those who were unable to rely on their unmarried children for financial support reported that it was mainly because their unmarried children were too young/dependent.

Those who were unable to get physical support from their parents and siblings cited that their parents themselves were too old or not in good health, while their

siblings were not living with them or were busy and did not have the time. Those who were not able to rely on their unmarried children for physical support cited that they were too young/dependent.

For emotional support, those who were unable to rely on their parents cited their parents’ advanced age/poor health as main reasons. For those who were not able to rely on their siblings emotionally, the main reason given was that they were not close to them. Those who were not able to rely on their unmarried children for emotional support cited that their children were too young/dependent.

Majority of older residents able to rely on their children for support

The majority of older residents with married children were able to rely on both their married and unmarried children for all three forms of support, reflecting the presence of strong ties between them (Table 3.20). For physical support, they relied mainly on their children, with 85.2% being able to rely on their unmarried children and 70.3% on their married children when needed. Similarly, for financial support in times of need, older residents were able to rely on their married children (88.0%), unmarried children (82.7%) and to some extent, their siblings (51.7%). For emotional support, besides their children, siblings also played an important role with 74.6% of older residents being able to rely on them.

Table 3.20 Whether Older Residents with Married Children are Able to Rely on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Whether Older Residents with Married Children Able to Rely on Family Members for Support (%)* Types of Support Unmarried Married Grand- Parents Siblings Children Children children

Physical Support 16.8 32.5 85.2 70.3 14.5

Help with housework 15.2 30.6 82.7 64.3 13.5 Help with marketing/transport/ accompany for doctors’ 16.2 32.3 84.9 70.0 13.8 visits Emotional Support 58.0 74.6 93.0 95.2 16.8 Discuss important matters/make important 56.0 72.5 93.0 94.6 15.4 decisions Confide in when feeling down 56.6 73.6 92.0 93.6 16.7

Financial Support (In Times of 25.6 51.7 82.7 88.0 9.7 Need)

* Excluding non-response cases

Among older residents with married children, more than 80% had at least one family member whom they could rely on for support when needed (Table 3.21).

Table 3.21 Whether Older Residents with Married Children are Able to Rely on at Least One Family Member for Support

Able to Rely on at Least One Total Types of Support Family Member* for Support Yes No % N**

Physical 81.2 18.8 100.0 290,899 Emotional 97.9 2.1 100.0 295,658 Financial (In Times of Need) 92.6 7.4 100.0 294,529

* Whether able to rely on either parents/siblings/married children/unmarried children/grandchildren ** Excluding non-response cases

A higher proportion of older residents were not able to rely on parents and grandchildren for all forms of support. This was mainly due to their parents not working, being too old or not in good health and grandchildren being too young to be able to render support when required. They could not rely on siblings for physical and financial support as well, mainly because their siblings were living far away from them to be able to render physical help or not in good health themselves; or they were not close to their siblings and thus could not rely on them for emotional support. Those who could not rely on their siblings for financial support cited that they had their own families to support or had insufficient finances to be able to help.

3.5 Relationship between Proximity, Frequency of Visits, and Family Support

HDB’s policies to encourage mutual care and support grant eligible new flat buyers priority in their application to live with or near their parents/children. For eligible resale flat buyers, they can apply for the Proximity Housing Grant if they choose to live with or near their parents/children. Geographical proximity between parents and married children provides convenience and access to support more readily. This section examines whether proximity affects frequency of visits between parents and children and the availability of physical, emotional and financial support in times of need.

Closer proximity encouraged frequent visits between parents and married children

Living in closer proximity facilitated frequent visits between parents and married children. The nearer the younger married residents lived in relation to their parents, the higher the proportion visiting one another at least once a week, especially on a daily basis (Table 3.22). In nearby estates or beyond, frequency of visits declined as a higher proportion of them tended to visit at least once a week or at least once a month, rather than on a daily basis.

Table 3.22 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and Their Parents by Proximity

Within Close Elsewhere in Frequency of Visits In Nearby Estate Proximity* Singapore

Daily 32.3 17.2 13.8 81.2 73.8 63.0 At Least Once a Week 48.9 56.6 49.2 At Least Once a Month 12.9 20.2 22.6

Less Than Once a Month 4.9 6.0 13.1

Never 1.1 - 1.3

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N** 54,327 46,138 95,212 * Within close proximity refers to living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate ** Excluding those who lived with their parents and non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

A similar pattern was observed for older residents with married children (Table 3.23). These findings indicate that proximity was an important factor encouraging

more frequent visits between parents and married children and promoting interactions between them.

Table 3.23 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and Married Children by Proximity

Within Close Elsewhere in Frequency of Visits In Nearby Estate Proximity* Singapore

Daily 27.8 18.1 12.3 80.7 73.1 62.4 At Least Once a Week 52.9 55.0 50.1

At Least Once a Month 12.8 18.9 20.8

Less Than Once a Month 6.3 7.3 16.0

Never -** -** 0.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N*** 67,743 60,946 117,461 * Within close proximity refers to living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate. ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped ***Excluding those who lived with married children and non-response cases

Closer proximity facilitated support between parents and married children

Living in closer proximity was also useful and convenient in terms of the availability of support from family members. It was observed that a higher proportion of younger married residents living nearer to their parents could rely on them for physical and emotional support (Chart 3.3). Proximity played a less important role for financial support.

Chart 3.3 Whether Younger Married Residents are Able to Rely on Parents for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity 76.9 In the Same Flat 92.2 51.3

Within Close 54.6 86.0 Proximity 62.8 Physical Support 48.3 Emotional Support In a Nearby Estate 81.4 54.3 Financial Support

Elsewhere in 38.0 86.2 Singapore 56.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

Similarly, for older residents and their married children, a higher proportion of those who lived nearer to their married children could rely on them for support, especially

for physical support (Chart 3.4). Compared with the younger married residents, older residents with married children seemed to be more reliant on their married children for all forms of support due to their age or health conditions and a higher proportion reported that they were able to do so.

Chart 3.4 Whether Older Residents with Married Children are Able to Rely on Married Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

88.9 In the Same Flat 96.6 91.2

Within Close 80.1 98.0 Proximity 92.4 Physical Support 68.8 Emotional Support In a Nearby Estate 94.7 89.3 Financial Support

Elsewhere in 62.8 93.7 Singapore 85.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

3.6 Attitudes towards Family

High levels of satisfaction with family relations

One’s satisfaction with family relations also sheds light on the quality of family ties. Satisfaction with family relations remained high for both groups of residents, with almost all reporting high satisfaction (Chart 3.5).

Chart 3.5 Satisfaction with Family Relations by Year

96.8 97.8 99.4 97.0 98.5 100 92.4 80 60 2008 2013 40 2018

20 Households(%) 0 Younger Married Residents Older Residents with Married Children

High trust and reciprocity among family members

The extent of trust and reciprocity among family members was high, reflecting the presence of strong family ties and mutual support (Table 3.24).

Table 3.24 Norms of Trust and Reciprocity with Family Members

Younger Married Older Residents with With Family Members Residents Married Children

2008 2018 2008 2018

Trust (Mean score: 0 – 10) 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.0

Reciprocity 9.3 9.2 8.9 8.9 (Mean score: 0 – 10)

Strong commitment to family

Using measures adapted from the World Values Survey6, it was found that both groups of residents possessed strong level of commitment to family (Table 3.25). There was strong agreement that families were important, with more than 90% agreeing to all three statements on family values. Almost all residents regarded family as being important in their lives.

6 Statements adapted from World Values Survey. Bertrand and Schoar (2006), Alesina and Giuliano (2010) and several others since, measure the strength of family ties by looking at three variables from the World Values Survey capturing beliefs on the importance of the family in an individual’s life, the duties and responsibilities of parents and children and the love and respect for one’s own parents.

Table 3.25 Statements on Family Values

Older Residents Younger Married Statements with Married Residents Children

“I regard family as being Strongly Agree 41.7 23.3 important in my life” 98.2 99.5 Agree 56.5 76.2

Disagree/Strongly Disagree 1.7 0.5

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 224,808 296,814

“I believe it is the duty of Strongly Agree 32.7 21.0 parents to do their best for 91.7 97.9 their children, even at the Agree 59.0 76.9 expense of their own well- being” Disagree/Strongly Disagree 8.3 2.1 % 100.0 100.0 Total N* 224,808 296,814

“I believe it is the duty of Strongly Agree 26.1 17.4 children to take care of their 90.8 94.3 parents, even at the expense Agree 64.7 76.9 of their own well-being” Disagree/Strongly Disagree 9.2 5.7

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 224,808 296,481 * Excluding non-response cases Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

3.7 Summary of Findings

Family ties between parents and children remained strong. Eight in ten younger married residents (81.0%) were satisfied with where they lived in relation to that of their parents, with their preferred living arrangement being the same as their present living arrangement. This proportion remained high and was similar to that in 2013. More than eight in ten older residents with married children (86.3%) were satisfied with their living arrangement, which was also their preferred living arrangement, an increase compared to 80.0% in 2013.

Intergenerational visits between parents and married children remained high and revealed healthy patterns of interaction. Close to nine in ten younger married residents (89.9%) and older residents with married children (86.9%) saw interactions with their parents and married children respectively, at least once a month. Older residents with married children saw a lower proportion of daily visits between them and their married children but the proportion who visited each other

at least once a week was similar to that in 2013. Younger married residents without children or those who had young children were more likely to visit their parents or vice versa more frequently. Proximity played an important role in facilitating interaction between family members, affirming the relevance and importance of housing policies that enable and support families to live with or near one another.

Proximity also played a role in facilitating the provision of support. Younger married residents were more able to rely on their parents for physical and emotional support if they lived in the same flat or nearby compared with those who lived farther away. Similarly, a higher proportion of older residents who lived with or near their married children reported that they were able to rely on them for physical, emotional and financial support in times of need.

With regard to family support, younger married residents were able to look to their family members more readily for emotional support but less so for physical or financial support. For financial support in times of need, younger married residents were able to rely on their siblings. Older residents with married children were able to rely on their children for various forms of support. Nine in ten were able to rely on their children for emotional support; eight in ten for financial support in times of need and seven in ten for physical support. Seven in ten older residents with married children could also rely on their siblings for emotional support.

Eight in ten younger married residents provided regular financial support to their parents, contributing an average nominal amount of $450 per month.

More than seven in ten (73.8%) older residents with married children received regular financial support from their children on a monthly basis, and another 11.4% had their children helping out with their expenses, reflecting the prevalence of the practice of filial piety in Singapore society. The average amount received from all their children has been increasing since 2008. It was $580 per month in 2018.

Both younger married residents and older residents with married children regarded their families as important to them. Almost all residents expressed a high level of commitment to their families, with more than 90% agreeing that they would do their best for their children/parents even at their own expense. Strong family ties could also be inferred from the high level of trust and reciprocity present among family members.

4 Social Capital

Chapter 4

Social Capital

This chapter explores the social health of HDB residents by examining their levels of social capital. Social capital can be measured using the following indicators: norms of trust, reciprocity, confidence in institutions and the size of residents’ social networks groups. It provides a yardstick to quantify the social well-being of residents, enabling us to gain a broad understanding of the social health of HDB communities. This chapter aims to understand the strength and extent of social relations among residents, or the attributes which relate to one of HDB’s missions: to build active and cohesive communities within HDB towns.

4.1 Concept of Social Capital

Social capital is a multi-dimensional concept which has relevance for assessing the general social health in Singapore. Based on Robert Putnam’s (1995) paper “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”, social capital could be understood along the following dimensions in the context of Singapore’s public housing:

a. Social networks among residents based on the norms of trust and reciprocity that are oriented towards the pursuit of common goals; and b. Goodwill or confidence residents had towards key governmental institutions. The level of confidence or goodwill hinges, for instance, on whether the performance of formal agencies could meet the expectations of citizens in regard to enhancing their quality of life.

Social capital could be understood at two levels. At the individual level, it refers to resources that individuals could access via their social ties to, for instance, secure a job or achieve upward social mobility. At the collective level, social capital refers to resources embedded in co-operative and mutually supportive relations in communities which could be mobilised in the pursuit of public good.

Types of Social Capital

There are three types of social capital:

a. Bonding Capital: Resources that come from close informal ties, often involving people from socially homogenous groups, such as family, relatives and friends. They often have similar characteristics, such as attitudes and the kind of information and economic resources they possess.

b. Bridging Capital: Resources derived from generalised relationships between heterogenous groups, such as neighbours, colleagues and acquaintances, which enable network members to access a more diverse range of people with characteristics which differ from those in their own close circles.

c. Linking Capital: Resources that could be drawn from institutional relationships, such as formal institutions and government agencies. Linking capital is thus viewed as a form of vertical or hierarchical relations.

Measurement of Social Capital

The four components used to gauge the level of social capital among the residents are as follows:

a. Trust: The level of generalised interpersonal trust residents place in their social networks comprising family, relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues, and acquaintances. Trust is rated on a scale of 0 to 10,

where 0 refers to “Not at all” and 10 refers to “Completely”. For the 2018 survey, additional social networks involving “colleagues” and “acquaintances” were included to facilitate the analysis of bridging capital available in residents’ lives. b. Reciprocity: The extent to which residents and the people in their network groups are willing to help each other in times of need. Reciprocity is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 refers to “Not at all” and 10 refers to “Always”. c. Confidence in Institutions: Residents’ level of confidence in formal institutions, such as the Police, Legal System and Government. It serves as a measure of linking capital. Confidence is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 refers to “No confidence” and 10 refers to “Full confidence”. d. Network Size: A gauge of the total number of people in a resident’s six main social network groups – family members, relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbours and acquaintances. Counting the number of social ties in each type of social network group broadly measured the extensiveness of residents’ social network groups. For the 2018 survey, network size was defined as the number of people whom residents interact with at least once a year, a proxy to ascertain that residents could reach out to them if help was needed. A clearer distinction was also made between “friends” and “neighbours”, such that neighbours who were regarded as friends would be counted as neighbours. In addition, “colleagues” and “acquaintances” network groups, two of the sources of bridging capital, were included in the 2018 survey.

4.2 Level of Social Capital among HDB Residents

Higher levels of overall trust, reciprocity and confidence in institutions

Overall, residents had higher social capital scores in 2018 compared with 2008 (Table 4.1). Their levels of trust, reciprocity and confidence in institutions7 were higher than those in 2008.

Residents’ average level of trust was 6.9, compared to 6.4 in 2008. This score reflects the extent of trust that residents place on their networks of family, relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues and acquaintances. It could also be considered a fairly high score.

Reciprocity, or the willingness among residents to help one another in their social networks, was also evident in HDB towns/estates. The average score registered was 6.8, a slight increase compared to the average score of 6.6 in 2008.

The confidence that residents had in the key formal institutions was evident. The level of institutional confidence by all HDB residents averaged 8.0, higher than the levels of trust and reciprocity within their own social networks.

The average size of residents’ social networks (which only included family, relatives, friends and neighbours) was 44 persons in 2018. This figure is much lower than the average size of 61 persons in 2008. This apparent decline in network size was most likely due to the various changes in the criteria and survey coverage adopted in 2018 noted earlier in this chapter.

7 Due to a refinement in definition for 2018, only three key governmental institutions were included in the calculation of overall confidence in institutions. The score for 2008 was also re-calculated to include the same institutions, for comparison purposes.

Table 4.1 Social Capital Scores among HDB Households by Year

Mean Score Components of Social Capital 2008 2018

7.3* a. Trust (Scale: 0-10) 6.4 6.9**

7.2* b. Reciprocity (Scale: 0-10) 6.6 6.8**

c. Confidence in Institutions (Scale: 0-10) 7.4 8.0

44* d. Total Network Size (Persons) 61 55**

* Calculated from the same 4 social network groups measured in 2008 (Family, Relatives, Friends and Neighbours), for comparison purposes. ** Calculated from all 6 social network groups measured in 2018 (Family, Relatives, Friends, Neighbours, Colleagues and Acquaintances).

Slight increase in trust levels among social networks

Table 4.2 shows that trust levels among bonding social networks were higher than those among bridging networks. Trust levels pertaining to family members (9.1) and relatives (7.4) were the highest, followed by friends (6.8). Colleagues scored slightly higher (6.3) as compared with neighbours (6.0). Unsurprisingly, the lowest trust levels were observed in regard to acquaintances (4.4). Trust levels between family members, relatives, friends and neighbours registered a slight increase, when compared with a decade ago.

Table 4.2 Norms of Trust in Informal and Generalised Networks among HDB Households by Year

Trust (Mean Score: 0 – 10) Networks 2008 2018

a. Family members 9.0 9.1 b. Relatives 7.2 7.4 c. Friends (who are not neighbours) 6.3 6.8 Friends (who are neighbours) 6.1 d. Colleagues - 6.3 e. Neighbours 4.9 6.0 f. Acquaintances - 4.4

7.3* Overall Score 6.4 6.9**

Reciprocity scores remained high, with slight increase among friends and neighbours

Table 4.3 shows that similar to trust scores, family members and relatives recorded the highest average reciprocity scores of 9.0 and 7.2 respectively, followed by friends (6.7), colleagues (6.2), neighbours (5.9) and acquaintances (4.2). It can be seen that over the last decade, the reciprocity scores had remained the same in regard to family members and relatives, while there was a slight increase pertaining to friends and neighbours.

Table 4.3 Norms of Reciprocity in Informal and Generalised Networks among HDB Households by Year

Reciprocity (Mean Score: 0 – 10) Networks 2008 2018

a. Family members 9.0 9.0 b. Relatives 7.2 7.2 c. Friends (who are not neighbours) 6.3 6.7 Friends (who are neighbours) 6.1 d. Colleagues - 6.2 e. Neighbours 4.9 5.9 f. Acquaintances - 4.2

7.2* Overall Score 6.6 6.8**

Slight decrease in average number of neighbours in residents’ social networks

Residents had an average of 55 persons in their social network (44 persons if colleagues and acquaintances were excluded) whom they usually interacted with at least once a year (Table 4.4). Compared with 2008, there appeared to be a dip in total network size from 61 persons, particularly not just in number of friends, but also in the number of neighbours. This could be due to the changes in criteria adopted in the 2018 survey, which was noted earlier in this chapter.

Table 4.4 Size of Informal and Generalised Networks among HDB Households by Year

Mean Network Size Networks (Persons) 2008 2018

a. Family members 7 10 b. Relatives 17 16 c. Friends (who are not neighbours) 24 14 Friends (who are neighbours) 6 d. Colleagues - 11 e. Neighbours 10 7 f. Acquaintances - 5

44* Overall Score 61 55**

Slight increase in confidence in key formal institutions

Formal institutions not only provide an organised structure protecting rights and entitlements, they also play a role in making decisions which have an impact on people individually or collectively. These expectations constitute the relationship that an individual has with formal institutions. They also form potential resources from which individuals or groups can draw on, to meet their objectives or overcome problems8.

This section seeks to understand residents’ perception of key institutions, using “Confidence in Institutions” as an indicator. Three key institutions “The Police Force”, “The Legal System” and “The Government” were chosen, as their actions have direct implications on social justice and equality, in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities and privileges within a society.

Overall, it was found that residents’ confidence in institutions was generally high, with an average score of 8.0 (Table 4.5). The police scored the highest in residents’ confidence (8.0), followed by the legal system and the government with

8 Bhandari, H., & Yasunobu, K. 2009. “What is Social Capital? A Comprehensive Review of the Concept.” Asian Journal of Social Science, 37(3), 480-510.

7.9 each. When compared with 2008, a slight increase in confidence was also observed across the three key formal institutions.

Table 4.5 Confidence in Institutions among HDB Households by Year

Confidence (Mean Score: 0 – 10) Institutions/Organisations 2008 2018

a. Police Force 7.6 8.0 b. Legal System 7.5 7.9 c. Government 7.1 7.9

Overall Score* 7.4 8.0

* Overall scores are calculated based on the three key formal institutions - Police Force, Legal System, Government

4.3 Social Capital Scores by Attributes

This section focuses on how social capital scores relate to the attributes such as marital status, education level and flat type.

Married residents had higher levels of trust, reciprocity, network size in their social networks and confidence in institution

Marriage brought about higher trust and reciprocity scores in residents’ social networks (Table 4.6). The total network size increased to an average of 59 persons with marriage. This could be attributed to a combined network of families, relatives and friends, which could encompass the husband’s, wife’s and even the children’s (Table 4.7). Single, divorced or separated residents scored lower on all the social capital indicators and had a smaller total network size. Widowed residents had the smallest total network size, on average. These would indicate potentially less social support for them in times of need.

Table 4.6 Level of Social Capital among HDB Households by Marital Status

Components of Social Capital Divorced/ Single Married Widowed All (Mean Score) Separated

a. Trust (Scale: 0-10) 6.7 7.0 6.9 6.6 6.9 b. Reciprocity (Scale: 0-10) 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.8

c. Confidence in Institutions 7.8 8.0 8.0 7.7 8.0 (Scale: 0-10)

d. Total Network Size (Persons) 45 59 44 48 55

Table 4.7 Size of Networks among HDB Households by Marital Status

Mean Network Size (Persons) Single Married Widowed Divorced/Separated All

a. Family Members 6 11 10 8 10 b. Relatives 12 18 13 13 16 c. Friends 12 15 11 13 14 d. Colleagues 11 12 6 10 11 e. Neighbours 6 7 7 6 7 f. Acquaintances 5 5 4 5 5

Overall Number* 45 59 44 48 55

* Excluding non-response cases

Residents with a higher education level had higher trust and reciprocity levels

Table 4.8 shows that social capital scores varied directly with the education level attained by residents. Levels of trust and reciprocity as well as size of networks were found to be highest among residents with a diploma or higher education. The scores for trust, reciprocity and total network size decreased for residents with a secondary or post-secondary education and dropped further for residents with below secondary level. It was observed that residents’ average mean score for confidence in formal institutions ranges from 7.7 to 8.1 across the different education level.

Table 4.8 Level of Social Capital among HDB Households by Highest Education Level Attained

Secondary/ Diploma & Components of Social Capital Below Post- Professional Degree All (Mean Score) Secondary Secondary Qualification

a. Trust (Scale: 0-10) 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.3 6.9 b. Reciprocity (Scale: 0-10) 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.1 6.8

c. Confidence in Institutions 8.0 7.9 7.7 8.1 8.0 (Scale: 0-10)

d. Total Network Size (Persons) 47 56 61 64 55

Table 4.9 shows that residents with lower level of education had fewer friends and colleagues in their social network. The number of neighbours was similar (7 persons) among residents across the different education levels.

It was observed that residents with below secondary education level had fewer colleagues (6 persons) in their social network. More than half of the residents with below secondary education level were found to be doing semi-skilled manual work such as cleaners, labourers or service workers. The explanation may lie in the nature of their job and workplace relations.

Table 4.9 Size of Networks among HDB Households by Highest Education Level Attained

Secondary/ Diploma & Mean Network Size Below Post- Professional Degree All (Persons) Secondary Secondary Qualification

a. Family Members 10 10 10 9 10 b. Relatives 15 17 17 18 16 c. Friends 11 14 16 18 14 d. Colleagues 6 11 15 17 11 e. Neighbours 7 7 7 7 7 f. Acquaintances 4 5 5 6 5

Overall Number* 47 56 61 64 55

* Excluding non-response cases

Residents in larger flat types had higher trust, reciprocity and network size

Analysis by flat type revealed that residents living in larger flat types had higher trust, reciprocity and network size than those living in smaller flat types. Table 4.10

shows that residents from 4-room, 5-room and Executive flats had a higher level of trust, greater extent of reciprocity and also a larger network size compared with residents living in 1-room, 2-room and 3-room flats. However, residents in all flat types had similar levels of confidence in formal institutions.

Table 4.10 Level of Social Capital among HDB Households by Flat Type

Components of Social Capital 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- Executive All (Mean Score) Room Room Room Room Room

a. Trust (Scale: 0-10) 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.2 6.9 b. Reciprocity (Scale: 0-10) 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.9 6.9 7.1 6.8

c. Confidence in Institutions 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.0 (Scale: 0-10)

d. Total Network Size 32 39 48 58 61 64 55 (Persons)

In 2018, two new categories of people – colleagues and acquaintances – who may form part of residents’ social networks were included in the survey. Table 4.11 shows that residents living in bigger flat types had larger network size, comprising mainly of relatives, friends and colleagues. The number of neighbours in the social networks of residents living in bigger flat types was comparable to those living in the smaller flat types.

Table 4.11 Size of Networks among HDB Households by Flat Type

Mean Network Size 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All (Persons)

a. Family Members 6 7 9 10 11 11 10 b. Relatives 8 11 13 17 19 20 16 c. Friends 9 10 12 14 16 17 14 d. Colleagues 5 6 10 12 13 15 11 e. Neighbours 6 6 7 7 8 8 7 f. Acquaintances 3 3 4 5 5 5 5

Overall Number* 32 39 48 58 61 64 55 * Excluding non-response cases

4.4 Summary of Findings

Over the last decade, social capital among HDB residents had increased. Residents’ levels of trust (9.1) and reciprocity (9.0) in regard to family members remained the highest among their informal networks, affirming the strong family ties among HDB residents. The survey findings also showed an increase in residents’ trust and reciprocity in regard to neighbours and friends. Trust and reciprocity levels pertaining to colleagues was found to be slightly higher than those of neighbours in general, while scores for acquaintances were found to be the lowest among all social network groups.

Residents’ total network size seemed to have decreased, but this could be an artefact of the changes to the criteria adopted in the 2018 survey for deciding, for instance, who could be counted as part of a social network.

Confidence in key formal institutions was found to have increased over the last decade. Overall confidence in key formal institutions remained high with an average score of 8.0 out of 10.

Social capital scores varied by residents’ socioeconomic and sociodemographic attributes. Residents living in larger flat types, with higher education levels were found to have higher levels of trust, reciprocity and larger total network size. Single, divorced or separated residents scored lower on all social capital indicators and had a smaller total network size. Widowed residents had the smallest total network size, on average. This may mean that they would have fewer people whom they could turn to for caregiving and social support.

5 Community Bonding

Chapter 5

Community Bonding

Residents living in HDB towns and estates can be viewed as local communities living in planned residential areas with shared amenities. Communities are people sharing common interests or facilities, and in the process of interacting with one another and doing things together, developed a sense of shared identity and belonging and the building of community bonds. The latter is understood as a multi- dimensional concept linking people to other people and to the place where they live.

This chapter derives insights on trends in community development by monitoring changes in the indicators of community bonding. These include neighbourly relationships, sense of attachment and community participation. For the first time in SHS, questions were asked about whether residents have fond memories of the town they live in and whether they can identify iconic places or buildings in the town. These questions were included to find out the importance of the built living environment in facilitating the building of ties and in contributing to residents’ overall well-being.

5.1 Neighbourly Relations

Maintaining good neighbourly relations is important, whether it is for creating a harmonious living environment or for getting urgent help. Compared to family members and friends who may be living elsewhere in Singapore, neighbours living in close proximity may be in a better position to render immediate help in an emergency situation.

Almost all residents engaged in exchanging greetings and casual conversation, more engaged in online communication with neighbours

Ten types of neighbourly contacts were used to assess the intensity of interactions among HDB residents. These ranged from the less intense interactions, such as exchanging greetings to the more intense interactions, such as providing or receiving financial help. Residents who engaged in more intense forms of interaction, such as looking after neighbours’ children and providing financial help to one another, were assumed to have forged deeper and closer relationships.

Almost all residents interacted with their neighbours in at least one of the ten ways (Chart 5.1), although the findings showed that neighbourly interactions in general declined slightly compared with five years ago. In 2018, the SHS included rendering help to resolve issues or providing solutions relating to home repair as a form of neighbourly interaction, an aspect deemed common in HDB living. In particular, the proportion of residents who communicated with neighbours via group chats had increased twofold over the past five years, revealing the importance of online communication with various social groups, including neighbours, especially among the younger residents.

Chart 5.1 Types of Neighbourly Interactions by Year

Exchange greetings 97.0 98.6

Casual conversation 94.4 97.0 Exchange food/gifts on special occasions/ 52.9 Visit one another 57.8

Keep watch over flat 37.8 44.6 Help resolve issues/ 23.3 Provide solutions relating to home repair

Exchange suggestions/advice 22.1 27.5

Help in buying groceries 13.5 15.2

Help to look after children 7.2 8.7 2018

2013 Communicate via group chats 11.8 4.8 2.2 Provide/receive financial help 2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

Less intense forms of neighbourly interaction, such as exchanging greetings and engaging in casual conversations, occurred more frequently compared with the more intense forms of interaction (Table 5.1). This is comparable with the Gracious Survey 20199 that was conducted by the Singapore Kindness Movement where more were found to engage in less intense relationships due to greater concerns over privacy. Nonetheless, such exchanges are equally important as they create connections between diverse networks, thereby enhancing cohesiveness among various types of people, especially in light of increased preference to maintain a certain level of privacy among neighbours. In addition, having less intensive interactions increased familiarity among neighbours living in nearby blocks, which enabled residents to feel safe in the neighbourhood and be more tolerant of nuisances caused by neighbours. Less intense forms of neighbourly interaction are also first steps to the formation of more intense forms of interaction, hence their importance should not be understated.

Table 5.1 Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among HDB Households

At Least At Least Types of Neighbourly Occasion None Total Daily Once a Once a Interaction -ally at All Week Month % N* Exchange Greetings 45.3 35.7 2.6 13.4 3.0 100.0 1,013,511 Casual Conversation 27.7 38.1 5.9 22.7 5.6 100.0 1,013,511

Visit One Another/Exchange Food/Gifts on Special 0.4 2.8 3.1 46.6 47.1 100.0 1,013,511 Occasions

Exchange 0.3 0.7 0.9 20.2 77.9 100.0 1,013,511 Suggestions/Advice

Keep Watch Over Flat 1.8 1.0 1.0 34.0 62.2 100.0 1,013,511

Help to Resolve Issues/Provide Solutions 0.2 0.3 0.6 22.2 76.7 100.0 1,013,511 Relating to Home Repair

Help in Buying Groceries 0.1 0.6 0.5 12.3 86.5 100.0 1,013,468 Help to Look After Children 0.1 0.3 0.2 6.5 92.8 100.0 1,013,511

Communicate via Group 0.9 1.2 1.1 8.6 88.2 100.0 1,013,511 Chats

Provide/Receive Financial - - 0.1 2.1 97.8 100.0 1,013,511 Help

* Excluding non-response cases

9 The Gracious Survey 2018 was commissioned by the Singapore Kindness Movement, which tracks experiences and perceptions of kindness and graciousness. The study polled a demographically representative sample of 3,120 respondents via face-to-face interviews over two waves; from August to September 2017 and from January to February 2018. 83

Types of neighbourly interaction differed across ethnic groups

While all ethnic groups mostly engaged in exchanging greetings and having casual conversations, higher proportions of Malays and Indians engaged in more intense forms of interaction. Proportionally more Malays and Indians tended to engage in social activities with their neighbours, such as visiting one another and exchanging food or gifts on special occasions (Table 5.2), probably due to lifestyle and cultural norms. Higher proportions of them interacted with neighbours in more intense ways, such as helping to keep watch over each other’s flat or buy groceries.

Table 5.2 Neighbourly Interaction by Ethnic Group

Households (%)* Types of Neighbourly Interaction Chinese Malay Indian Others

Exchange Greetings 96.6 99.1 97.5 95.3 Casual Conversation 93.9 97.2 94.7 94.5

Visit One Another/Exchange Food/Gifts on Special 48.3 67.8 68.9 59.9 Occasions

Exchange Suggestions/Advice 21.4 21.2 30.7 19.1 Keep Watch Over Flat 35.5 44.4 47.8 40.6

Help to Resolve Issues/Provide Solutions Relating to 22.5 23.3 30.5 23.7 Home Repair

Help in Buying Groceries 12.8 15.0 18.7 9.6 Help to Look After Children 6.4 6.7 14.4 9.3 Communicate via Group Chats 11.0 11.7 18.3 16.5 Provide/Receive Financial Help 1.9 3.3 3.8 1.5 * Excluding non-response cases

New block design continues to facilitate neighbourly interactions

Over the years, the design of HDB blocks have evolved from blocks with long common corridors to the hybrid design in the 90s; and to the recent block typologies with features such as the mid-level sky decks and sky terraces. Further analysis by age of block revealed that a high proportion of residents in the recent blocks with newer design typologies engaged in neighbourly activities, comparable with the older blocks with long common corridors (Table 5.3). The finding indicates that newer block designs continue to facilitate neighbourly interactions.

Table 5.3 Neighbourly Interaction by Age of Block

Households (%)*

Age of Block (Years) Types of Neighbourly Interaction 21 & 0 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 20 Above

Exchange Greetings 94.7 89.3 95.8 94.4 Casual Conversation 91.1 85.5 89.8 91.4

Visit One Another/Exchange Food/Gifts on 51.7 37.0 48.0 47.2 Special Occasions

Exchange Suggestions/Advice 23.1 13.8 15.1 18.5 Keep Watch Over Flat 31.0 25.5 33.9 32.5

Help to Resolve Issues/Provide Solutions 21.9 23.1 24.7 20.5 Relating to Home Repair

Help in Buying Groceries 12.1 14.8 12.9 9.9 Help to Look After Children 8.2 6.1 10.0 7.5 Communicate via Group Chats 23.4 14.3 13.0 9.2 Provide/Receive Financial Help 3.2 2.6 2.4 1.7 * Excluding non-response cases Note: The analysis is controlled based on length of residence 5 years and below.

Majority had not experienced emergency or crisis that required help from neighbours

In times of emergency, neighbours may be a critical source of help given their close proximity as compared with family members or friends who may be living farther away. While 12.3% of the residents had reached out to their neighbours for help, the rest had not done so, with the majority (69.9%) informing that emergencies did not arise (Chart 5.2).

Chart 5.2 Whether Received/Provided Help in Times of Emergency

80 69.9

17.8

20 12.3 Households(%)

0 Did not experience Received & provided Have not received nor emergency or crisis help provided help

Among the 12.3% of the households who had received or rendered help, about a quarter rendered help in terms of seeking immediate medical assistance, such as calling for an ambulance or sending the neighbour to hospital. Another 22.4% of them provided general help, such as helping an elderly person after a fall or helping elderly neighbours write letters to their family members (Table 5.4). Two in ten had helped neighbours overcome emergencies such as putting out fires, and dealing with power trips or burst water pipes at home.

Table 5.4 Types of Help Received/Provided among HDB Households who Received/ Rendered Help

Types of Help All

Helped to seek immediate medical assistance (e.g., call for 24.5 ambulance, send neighbour to hospital)

Provided general help (e.g., helped to write letters, helped an old lady 22.4 up after a fall, helped to chase loan shark away)

Overcame emergencies at home (e.g., put out fire, forgot to turn off 17.7 gas cooker, washing machine pipe burst, power trip, stopped break-in)

Helped with household matters (e.g., provide storage space for neighbours during renovation, technical issues/water supply issues 16.0 during upgrading, borrow/lend household items, take care of old neighbours/child of neighbours, watch over flat when overseas) Helped to inform authorities in times of emergency 6.2

Received help during difficult times (e.g., neighbours helped to buy meals after surgery, received help on funeral preparations/after 5.0 robbery)

Helped to inform one another in times of emergency 3.5 Provided emotional help (e.g., family issues, gave advice on sick child) 2.0

Overcame occasional inconveniences in the block (e.g., blackouts, lift 1.3 breakdowns)

Provided/received financial help 1.0 Mediated fights/quarrels with neighbours 0.4

% 100.0 Total N* 120,117

* Excluding non-response cases

Likelihood of providing help to neighbours decreased with age

The ability and willingness to provide or seek help from their neighbours in times of emergency varied across flat types and age groups. The proportion of residents who provided/received help to/from neighbours in times of need were comparable across flat types. Higher proportion of residents living in bigger flat types did not encounter any emergency that required them to provide/receive help from their

neighbours (Table 5.5). Findings also show that the likelihood of providing help to neighbours decreased with age of residents.

Table 5.5 Received Help from/Provided Help to Neighbours among HDB Households by Attributes

Whether Received/Provided Help Total Provided/ Did Not Did Not Attributes Received Received Encounter Receive/ % N* Help Only Help Emergency Provide Help 1- & 2-Room 3.8 12.1 62.7 21.4 100.0 70,425

3-Room 3.6 7.3 70.7 18.5 100.0 225,040 Flat Type 4-Room 3.8 13.2 71.2 11.8 100.0 394,601 5-Room & 3.7 9.6 69.2 17.5 100.0 292,506 Bigger

Below 35 2.4 10.9 69.2 17.5 100.0 64,916

35 – 44 5.4 9.3 71.0 14.3 100.0 182,624 Age Group 45 – 54 3.6 10.1 68.8 17.5 100.0 228,423 (Years) 55 – 64 3.3 8.9 69.8 18.0 100.0 254,868

65 & Above 3.4 7.1 67.6 21.9 100.0 251,742 * Excluding non-response cases

Fewer faced intolerable nuisances from neighbours

It can be a challenge to accommodate people of various cultural backgrounds and lifestyles in a high-rise, high-density environment. Often, due to diverse backgrounds, differences in attitudes and behaviours would arise, which might be viewed as nuisances for some. Such incidents could also lead to potential conflicts and disputes, which may affect neighbourly relationships, hence weakening community bonding. Achieving a cohesive living environment requires civic- mindedness and tolerance among residents.

The proportion of residents who claimed that they had faced varying degrees of nuisances from neighbours - ranging from minimal/tolerable to intolerable - had dropped over the past ten years, especially in the last five years (Chart 5.3). Minimal or tolerable nuisances would include behaviours that did not affect residents’ daily living. Conversely, intolerable nuisances would include behaviours that adversely impacted residents’ daily lives or when they were bothered by such behaviours. Overall, seven in ten of the households did not face any nuisance in their living environment. This proportion had improved compared with five years

ago. Another 18.4% of them found the nuisances to be minimal/tolerable. In particular, it was observed that there was a sharp decrease in the proportion of residents facing intolerable nuisances, declining from 32.1% in 2013 to 11.6%% in 2018.

Chart 5.3 Nuisances Faced from Neighbours by Year

100 11.6 26.6 32.1 30.0% 80 18.4 50.4% 48.1%

60 23.8 16.0

40 70.0 Intolerable nuisances

Households(%) 49.6 51.9 20 Minimal/Tolerable nuisances Did not face nuisances 0 2008 2013 2018

The main types of nuisances faced were noise from neighbours, littering and smoking at common areas (Table 5.6). Although noise nuisances from neighbours had increased over the last five years, it was noted that the proportion who found them intolerable did not increase substantially. However, there was a marked increase in smoking-related nuisances in public or common areas indicated in the survey responses, probably due more to a greater awareness of campaigns to reduce smoking in public places, e.g., through written advisories, awareness of smoking risks, rather than a rise in such incidents.

Table 5.6 Tolerance Level for Types of Nuisances Faced by Year

2013 2018

All who Encountered All who Encountered Types of Nuisances Faced Tolerance Level Tolerance Level Nuisances Nuisances

Minimal/Tolerable Intolerable % N* Minimal/Tolerable Intolerable % N*

Noise from Neighbours 9.3 7.7 17.0 153,449 14.4 9.9 24.3 125,035 Littering 10.6 10.2 20.8 188,245 9.6 7.6 17.2 88,281 Smoking in Common Areas 1.6 - 1.6 14,734 5.4 5.0 10.4 53,357

Water Dripping from Wet Laundry/Air-Conditioner 5.6 6.1 11.7 105,620 3.7 3.3 7.0 35,755 Compressor

Irresponsible Pet Owner 2.0 4.5 6.5 58,473 2.9 2.9 5.8 29,748 Urine in Public Places 2.2 6.7 8.9 80,863 2.1 3.6 5.7 29,075

Placing Belongings Along 3.0 2.9 5.9 53,797 2.4 2.1 4.5 23,255 Corridor

Killer Litter 1.1 4.1 5.2 47,209 1.5 2.3 3.8 19,612

Noise from Other Sources (e.g., aircon condenser, loading - - - - 1.7 1.2 2.9 15,180 and unloading sounds)

Theft/Crime/Fights 1.9 3.3 5.2 47,200 1.0 1.8 2.8 14,591 Spitting 1.6 2.8 4.4 40,170 1.1 1.5 2.6 13,191

Rude/Unfriendly/Irritable - - - - 1.3 1.2 2.5 12,894 Behaviours of Neighbours

Vandalism 0.7 2.1 2.8 25,545 0.6 0.8 1.4 7,400 Illegal Parking 0.8 1.5 2.3 21,063 0.8 0.6 1.4 7,293

* Excluding non-response cases

Longer length of residence increased tolerance to nuisances

Greater occurrences of intolerable nuisances were found among residents living in rental flats, probably due to the transient nature of rental tenants. On the other hand, residents with longer length of residence tended to show greater tolerance towards nuisances.

Table 5.7 Households who Faced Nuisances by Attributes

Households who Faced Total Nuisances Attributes Minimal/ Intolerable % N* Tolerable

Tenure Sold 61.9 38.1 100.0 281,661 Rental 55.2 44.8 100.0 21,813

Length of Residence Below 6 60.4 39.6 100.0 76,405 (Years) 6 – 10 57.3 42.7 100.0 47,565 11 – 15 61.5 38.5 100.0 42,025 16 – 20 67.4 32.6 100.0 60,856 21 & Above 67.3 32.7 100.0 76,622 * Excluding non-response cases

Neighbourly interactions promoted better understanding and increased opportunities to resolve nuisances

Of the 30.0% of residents who faced nuisances in their neighbourhood, it was observed that a higher proportion of residents had taken the initiative to resolve the nuisances (Chart 5.4). These included reporting the incident to the authorities or resolving the issue on their own, i.e., by approaching the neighbour directly. Further analysis revealed that residents who had engaged in more intense forms of interactions tended to be more proactive in resolving these issues (Table 5.8).

Chart 5.4 Ways of Resolving Nuisances among Households who Faced Nuisances by Year

80 61.3 61.5 56.9 60 43.1 2008 38.7 38.5 40 2013 2018

Households(%) 20

0 Did not take initiative Took initiative

Table 5.8 Whether Resolved Nuisances among Households who Faced Nuisances by Types of Neighbourly Interaction

Whether Resolve Total Types of Neighbourly Interaction Nuisances Yes No % N*

Exchange Greetings 43.2 56.8 100.0 295,149 Casual Conversation 43.5 56.5 100.0 285,284

Visit one Another/Exchange Food/Gifts on 44.1 55.9 100.0 160,677 Special Occasions

Exchange Suggestions/Advice 46.9 53.1 100.0 79,939 Keep Watch Over Flat 47.3 52.7 100.0 118,093

Help to Resolve Issues/Provide Solutions 50.7 49.3 100.0 77,740 Relating to Home Repair

Help in Buying Groceries 49.4 50.6 100.0 39,790 Help to Look After Children 52.2 47.8 100.0 22,140 Communicate via Group Chats 50.8 49.2 100.0 39,367 Provide/Receive Financial Help 49.8 50.2 100.0 7,890 * Excluding non-response cases

Residents with higher educational attainment were also more likely to take the initiative to resolve neighbourly issues on their own (45.5% for those with at least secondary education vs. 38.0% for those without formal education/primary education).

Reporting the nuisances to the authorities or the police seemed to be the most common response to such incidents (38.5% and 14.6% respectively), followed by approaching the neighbour directly (Table 5.9). With better understanding of neighbours and advice/information on how to resolve disputes themselves

(targeted across education levels), there is a higher likelihood that residents would try to resolve nuisances themselves.

Table 5.9 Type of Efforts to Resolve Nuisances among Households who Faced Nuisances

Type of Efforts All

Report to relevant government agencies (e.g., Town Council/HDB) 38.5 Approach neighbour directly 36.5 Report to police 14.6

Rectify the situation personally e.g., help to pick up litter, wash the 6.1 corridor to get rid of other pets’ urine smell

Approach Member of Parliament for help 2.6

Others (e.g., place a note to inform neighbour of the nuisances 1.7 created, ask CC/RC to help mediate)

% 100.0 Total N* 130,776

* Excluding non-response cases

While neighbourly ties had been healthy and friendly, there was a group of 17.1% who faced nuisances and had not taken action to resolve it themselves. Fear of creating more conflicts by confronting their neighbours directly were cited as one of the reasons for not doing so. As far as possible, they would try to be tolerant and refrained from taking any action. A small proportion of residents felt that it was a waste of time and a hassle to resolve the problem and would prefer to leave it to other affected neighbours.

Residents tended to meet neighbours within block

Conscious efforts to provide facilities and places have been made by HDB to encourage residents to meet and interact with one another, thereby fostering neighbourliness. Such places or focal points are strategically located to provide opportunities for residents to meet, either incidentally or pre-arranged, for community bonding to take place.

Neighbourly interactions tended to take place at public spaces or places within the block, followed by facilities within the precinct or neighbourhood. Within the block, residents tended to meet and interact with their neighbours at corridors/areas outside flats, lift lobbies and void decks, which increased over the past ten years.

Beyond the block but within their precinct/neighbourhood, residents would meet and interact with their neighbours at markets or eating places. At town level, residents tended to meet at transport nodes such as MRT stations or bus interchanges (Table 5.10).

Table 5.10 Places Where Neighbours Meet for Interaction by Year

Places Where Neighbours Meet 2008 2013 2018

Within the Block Corridor/Area outside flat 27.2 30.9 39.1

Lift lobby/Lift 21.5 68.8 25.8 75.6 25.0 83.8 Void deck 20.1 18.9 19.1 Others (e.g., Community Living Room, N.A. N.A. 0.6 drop-off porch, inside flat)

Within the Neighbourhood or Precinct Market 5.2 4.4 3.1 Coffee shop/Eating house/Food centre 4.8 4.0 3.1 Pathways/Linkways to blocks 5.4 3.6 1.7 Hawker centre 2.6 2.0 1.6 Playground 1.5 1.5 1.2 Carpark 1.8 1.5 0.6 Fitness corners - - 0.3 Provision shop/Minimart - - 0.3 Others (e.g., Senior Citizen Corner, - - 0.6 community garden)

Within the Town Bus stop/interchange/MRT station 4.2 1.8 1.6 Shopping/Entertainment area 1.0 1.3 0.8 Park/Garden 1.0 1.1 0.5 Community Club/Centre - - 0.4

Others (e.g., religious institution, library) 3.7 3.2 0.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total No. of 2,217,636 2,301,626 2,516,053 Responses*

* Each respondent was asked to provide up to 3 responses

New block design continues to facilitate interactions and building of ties

Over the years, the design of HDB blocks has evolved from blocks with long common corridors to the hybrid design in the nineties and to the recent block typologies incorporating features such as mid-level sky decks and sky terraces. Further analysis by age of blocks showed that the places where residents interact were similar across blocks of different ages (Chart 5.5), and frequency of interaction remained similar as well (Chart 5.6), affirming that newer block designs continue to facilitate neighbourly interactions.

Chart 5.5 Place of interaction by Age of Block

100 3.1 2.2 3.0 2.4 2.9 3.7 2.9 8.2 12.4 8.7 8.1 11.9 10.0 0.4 0.9 1.1 17.2 0.8 2.1 0.9 80 20.3 18.5 18.3 1.1 15.2 17.8 18.5 14.7 60 26.6 26.9 27.9 32.5 25.0 18.7 26.7 Within Block

40 Responses(%)

42.3 43.2 41.5 44.6 41.1 20 40.1 35.6

0 0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 & above Overall Age of Block (Years) Corridor Lift/Lift Lobby Void Deck Others Within Block Precinct/Neighbourhood Town

* Each respondent was asked to provide up to 3 responses Note: The analysis was controlled based on length of residence 5 years and below.

Chart 5.6 Frequency of Interaction by Age of Block

100 22.2 24.4 31.0 26.9 19.1 27.0 80

40 80.9 77.8 75.6 69.0 73.1 73.0

Households(%) 20

0 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41 & Above Age of Block (Years) Daily/Weekly Monthly/Occasionally Note: The analysis was controlled based on length of residence 5 years and below.

Adequate places for neighbourly interactions to occur

Even with building taller blocks and adopting new block typologies without long corridors, HDB has been providing alternative meeting places for residents in the form of precinct pavilions and community living rooms. Just as in 2013, almost all residents (97.1%) in 2018 agreed that there were sufficient places for neighbours to meet and interact.

Fond memories of town of residence were often formed with family members

HDB precincts, neighbourhoods and towns are comprehensively designed to include spaces and places for interactions and activities to occur, which can bring about fond or special memories for the residents and among people living in the community. Often, such fond memories will be etched in residents’ minds.

About one in four residents (23.2%) were found to have fond memories of places within their town (Table 5.11). Some of the special or fond memories that residents had were of spending time with family members, friends and colleagues, or of growing up or playing at places in their estates when they were younger. Other memories included reminiscing past precious moments, such as attending celebrations like wedding ceremonies or birthday parties.

Among residents who tended to form fond memories with their family members at places within their town of residence, the commonly cited memories were mostly associated with parks or gardens, as well as HDB blocks or precinct facilities e.g. void deck, playground, shelter, seats and benches etc. within the town.

Table 5.11 Types of Special/Fond Memories Within Town of Residence among HDB Households

Types of Special/Fond Memories All Do not have fond memories of places 76.8 Have fond memories of places Spend time with family 7.7 Spend time with friends/colleagues 2.5 Grew up here/played here since young 2.1 Celebrations & festivities (e.g., wedding, birthday, award 1.9 ceremonies, lantern festival, Thaipusam, Army parade) Reminisce the past 1.8 Sports-related activities 1.7 Spend time with neighbours/acquaintances 0.8 Good food 0.8 Good shopping experience 0.8 Take a stroll/relax/people watch 0.8 Spend time alone 0.6 Participate in community activities 0.5 Others (e.g., nature-related, work-related, politicians-related) 1.2 % 100.0 Total N* 1,011,956 * Excluding non-response cases

Fond memories tended to occur near home within the block or at precinct facilities

One-third of the residents who had fond memories of their town would relate to the HDB blocks or precinct facilities near their residence (30.8%), as well as the parks/gardens within their town (22.2%). These were places where residents would spend more time. Other places included markets (7.0%), shopping malls (5.9%) and demolished buildings or spaces (5.6%). These may seem to be very common or functional places and facilities, without much historical or architectural significance, but they hold special meanings to the residents, endearing them to the place, giving them a sense of attachment.

Table 5.12 Places Where Fond Memories were Formed among Households who had Fond Memories Places Where Special/Fond Memories were Formed All

HDB Block/Precinct facilities 30.8 Park/Garden 22.2 Market 7.0 Shopping Mall 5.9 Demolished buildings/places 5.6 Community Centre/Residents’ Committee 4.5 Eating places/Eateries 4.4 Town centre/Town hub 3.0 Community facilities (e.g., library, theatre) 2.6 Places of worship 2.6 Schools 2.2

Others (e.g., sports facilities, waterbodies, roads, special sites, beaches, neighbourhoods, offices, statues, military camps, 9.2 transport nodes, integrated hubs, private residences)

% 100.0 Total N* 233,817 * Excluding non-response cases

5.2 Rootedness

Rootedness arises from familiarity achieved through continuous residence10. It instils a sense of belonging and pride, rooting residents to the town and making them reluctant to move elsewhere. Rootedness also nudges residents to contribute to the community, which may then further enhance the community’s well-being.

Sense of belonging increased over the years and with length of residence

The sense of belonging to a town/estate is related to one’s familiarity with the people and may produce a sense of having a stake in its living environment. Sense of belonging often developed with increasing length of residence (Chart 5.7). The chart shows that on a scale of 0 to 4 (‘0’ means did not have a sense of belonging, and ‘4’ means having a very strong sense of belonging), the intensity increased

10 Giuliani, Maria Vittoria (2016), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues, New York: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 137 – 169.

from about 3.0 for those living in their towns/estates for less than ten years to a score of 3.4 for those with length of residence of more than 30 years.

Chart 5.7 Intensity of Sense of Belonging among HDB Households by Length of Residence

4 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.9 3

(Mean (Mean Score 4) to 0 of Intensity Intensity Sense of of Belonging 0 Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 30 31 & Above Length of Residence (Years)

The proportion of residents who had developed a sense of belonging to their town/estate continued to rise, reaching a high of 99.0% (Chart 5.8). The majority of residents (73.9%) developed a sense of belonging to both people and place (Table 5.13), and this proportion likewise increased with length of residence.

Chart 5.8 Sense of Belonging by Year

98.6 98.8 99.0 100 90.0 79.1 82.3 80

20 Households(%)

0 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Table 5.13 Sense of Belonging among HDB Households by Length of Residence Length of Residence (Years)

Sense of Belonging 31 & Below 6 6 – 10 11 – 15 16 – 20 21 – 30 All Above

To Place 28.0 24.1 20.4 17.8 18.8 14.9 21.3 To People 5.1 5.5 4.8 4.3 4.8 4.5 4.8 To Place & People 66.9 70.4 74.8 77.9 76.4 80.6 73.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 241,814 152,202 129,111 192,776 116,965 136,936 1,005,995 * Excluding non-response cases

In general, sense of belonging to people, involving relationship with neighbours, would require more time to develop and strengthen (Chart 5.9), as residents gradually became more acquainted with their neighbours and others in the neighbourhood in the course of their everyday life. However, sense of place could be high even at the onset, as residents would likely have exercised their choice of locality when purchasing their flat. A key implication here is that length of residence is clearly an important factor in community building, and therefore an important consideration in any town revitalisation or upgrading exercise.

Chart 5.9 Sense of Belonging to Place or People by Length of Residence

95.7 100 94.9 94.5 95.2 95.3 95.2 82.2 82.0 75.9 79.6 78.7 80 72.0

40 Households(%) 20

0 Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 20 & Above All Length of Residence (Years)

People Place

The proportions of residents who agreed that they had a sense of belonging towards their town/estate were very high across the different age groups (Table 5.14). Further analysis showed that intensity of belonging increased with age of residents. Being older, they tended to have longer length of residence within the town/estate, and thereby higher average score.

Table 5.14 Intensity of Sense of Belonging among HDB Households by Age

Mean Score Proportion who Had Attributes (Scale: 0 - 4) Sense of Belonging (%)

Age Group (Years) Below 35 2.8 97.5 35 – 44 3.0 98.8 45 – 54 3.1 98.5 55 – 64 3.2 99.3 65 & Above 3.3 99.8

Residents regard shopping malls as iconic structures they identify with in the town

Interest in sense of place has grown rapidly in recent years, with the concept broadly describing the emotional bonds between an individual and a geographical locale; or how strongly a person connects to a place11. An iconic structure/place is “imbued with a special meaning that is symbolic for a culture and/or a time, and this special meaning has an aesthetic component. It is this unique combination of fame with symbolism and aesthetic quality that creates the icon12.” For the first time, SHS asked residents for iconic buildings/unique places that would come to mind when thinking of the town they lived in. This provided some indication of how important the built environment played in developing a sense of identity in residents living in the town and community.

About half of the residents (47.2%) were able to identify at least one iconic or unique place/building in their town. Generally, shopping malls and parks/gardens were more commonly mentioned, probably due to their functionality, whether in terms of shopping for household needs or for recreation purposes. There was clearly a strong preference for places that allow for concurrent activities such as in shopping mall, integrated hub13 or open spaces.

11 Raymond, C. M., Gottwald, S., Kouppa, J., and Kyttä, M. (2016). Integrating multiple elements of environmental justice into urban blue space planning using public participation GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. 153, 198–208 12 Leslie Sklair (2006), Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalisation, City, Vol. 10, No. 1, Apr 2006 13 Houses multiple facilities under one roof e.g. healthcare facilities/services, sports facilities, eating facilities, Branch services, etc. Examples include Our Tampines Hub and Kampung Admiralty

100

Table 5.15 Types of Iconic/Unique Places Within Town among Households who were Able to Identify Iconic/Unique Place/Building

Types of Iconic/Unique Places All

Shopping mall 35.2 Park/Garden/Green spaces/Open spaces 16.0 Integrated hub 8.1

Special site/Unique precinct (e.g., circular block at Ang Mo Kio, 6.9 Tanjong Pagar Adventure Playground, Bishan Loft)

Community facility (e.g., theatre, library) 5.0 Statue/Structure 4.1

Place of worship (e.g., churches, temples, mosques, religious 4.0 associations)

Market (e.g., wet and dry market) 3.1 Sports facility (e.g., sports hall/hub, stadium, swimming complex) 2.6 Community Centre/Residents’ Committee 2.4 Eatery (e.g., coffeeshop, foodcourt, hawker centre) 2.1 Office building 2.0 Others (e.g., transport nodes, Town Centre/Hub, schools) 8.5

% 100.0 Total N* 477,745

* Excluding non-response cases

Delving into each of the HDB towns, it was clear that the specific places/buildings that residents viewed as iconic or unique were the major shopping malls operated mainly by private enterprises, which were present in almost every town, except for Geylang (Table 5.16).

101

Table 5.16 Iconic Places Named by Town/Estate

Town/Estate Iconic Place (Top 2) Town/Estate Iconic Place (Top 2) Waterway Point Our Tampines Hub Punggol Tampines Punggol Waterway Park Tampines Mall Sun Plaza Causeway Point Sembawang Woodlands Sembawang Park Woodlands Waterfront Park Compass One North Point City Sengkang Yishun Chong Pang Neighbourhood The Seletar Mall Centre Junction 8 Ang Mo Kio Hub Bishan Ang Mo Kio Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park Clover-shaped HDB Block Little Guilin Bedok Mall Bukit Batok Bedok West Mall Heartbeat@Bedok Bukit Panjang Plaza Henderson Waves Bukit Panjang Bukit Merah Pang Sua Pond Tiong Bahru Plaza Bukit Timah Hill Clementi Mall Bukit Timah Beauty World Shopping Clementi Clementi Town Centre Centre Lot One Shoppers’ Mall The Pinnacle@Duxton Choa Chu Kang Central Area Kwan Im Thong Hood Cho Community Centres Temple Hougang Mall Geylang Serai Market Hougang Geylang Circuit Road Market/Food Institute of Mental Health Centre Jurong Regional Centre Singapore Sports Hub Jurong East Kallang/Whampoa Chinese Garden Kallang Riverside Park Jurong Point East Coast Park Jurong West Marine Parade Nanyang University Arch Parkway Parade

Downtown East Queenstown Library Pasir Ris Queenstown Holland Village Shopping White Sands Centre Nex Dragon Playground Serangoon Clock Tower at Toa Payoh Toa Payoh Town Park Serangoon North Ave 1

Strong sense of community among residents

Sense of community (SOC) refers to shared sentiments among residents which influence how they feel about the people living in their neighbourhood, whether

102

positive or negative. On the six indicators14, it can be seen that sense of community among residents had remained quite stable over the past five years (Table 5.17). Among the six indicators, tolerance towards noise from neighbours had increased somewhat.

Table 5.17 Sense of Community Score among HDB Households by Year

SOC Indicators 2003 2008 2013 2018

“It is very easy to talk to people living in my a. 75.0 75.0 75.0 73.4 HDB estate.”

b. “Noise from my neighbours is not annoying.” 67.5 65.0 66.0 68.7

“I can always get help from my neighbours c. 70.0 72.5 74.3 72.2 when in need.”

“Residents in this block can recognise one d. 72.5 72.5 74.3 73.1 another easily.”

“Residents here care about the maintenance of e. 67.5 70.0 71.8 72.5 their block.”

“I feel a sense of belonging to this housing f. 67.5 72.5 77.5 78.8 estate/town.”

Overall Mean Score (Over maximum of 100) 70.0 71.3 73.2 73.1

Sense of community had increased with length of residence, similar to that of sense of belonging. It increased with age as well. Elderly residents had developed a stronger sense of community that made them less willing to uproot from their present living environment (Table 5.18).

Residents living in the smaller flat types – most of whom were rental flat tenants – were found to possess lower sense of community as compared with those living in the bigger flat types. This may be attributed to their likelihood of being a more transient resident group.

14 Based on the dimensions discussed in “Oddvar, S., Garling, T. and Maeland, J.G., “A Multi-dimensional Measure of Neighbouring”, in American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 24, No.3, (1996), an additional statement was appended to the initial five statements. The residents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the following six statements: a) “It is very easy to talk to people living in my HDB estate.” b) “Noise from my neighbours can be very annoying.” c) “I can always get help from my neighbours when in need.” d) “Residents in this block can recognise one another easily.” e) “Residents here care about the maintenance of their block.” The average scores of all five statements, together with the question on sense of belonging, were summed up and expressed as a percentage of a maximum score of 100. Any score above 50 would indicate that residents had positive and shared community sentiments.

103

Table 5.18 Sense of Community Score among HDB Households by Attributes

Mean SOC Score Attributes (Over maximum of 100)

Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 71.1 6 – 10 72.7 11 – 15 73.1 16 – 20 73.4 21 – 30 74.5 31 & Above 75.4

Age Group (Years) Below 35 70.9 35 – 44 71.7 45 – 54 72.4 55 – 64 73.6 65 & Above 74.9

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 71.4 3-Room 73.4 4-Room 73.2 5-Room & Bigger 73.2

Majority proud to be part of the community

Nine in ten of the residents felt proud to be part of the community. This proportion had continued to rise slightly over the past five years (Chart 5.10).

Chart 5.10 Sense of Pride to Community by Year

100 93.4 94.5

60 2013

40 2018 Households (%) Households 20 6.6 5.5 0 Proud Not Proud

There was, however, a small proportion of residents who were not proud of their community. These tended to be younger, with shorter length of residence, as well as those living in rental flats (Table 5.19).

104

Table 5.19 Sense of Pride to Community among HDB Households by Attributes

Total Attributes Proud Not Proud % N*

Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 91.8 8.2 100.0 224,324 6 – 10 92.9 7.1 100.0 142,523 11 – 15 95.2 4.8 100.0 124,388 16 – 20 93.9 6.1 100.0 182,386 21 – 30 97.7 2.3 100.0 149,814 31 & Above 97.6 2.4 100.0 133,688 Age Group (Years) Below 35 94.0 6.0 100.0 64,335 35 – 44 92.1 7.9 100.0 174,161 45 – 54 93.3 6.7 100.0 220,020 55 – 64 95.0 5.0 100.0 247,528 65 & Above 96.8 3.2 100.0 251,079 Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 89.7 10.3 100.0 67,016 3-Room 95.2 4.8 100.0 221,069 4-Room 95.1 4.9 100.0 385,029

5-Room & 94.3 5.7 100.0 284,007 Bigger

* Excluding non-response cases

Strong sense of belonging and pride to Singapore

Sentiments towards Singapore in terms of sense of belonging and national pride were generally very high, with slight increases over the past five years, among HDB residents, as seen in their response to the four statements shown in Chart 5.11.

Chart 5.11 Sentiments towards Singapore by Year

97.2 98.1 97.3 98.2 95.0 94.9 93.0 100 88.4

40 2013 2018 Households (%) 20

0 I feel a strong sense I am proud to be a I will always regard Singapore is a place of belonging to Singaporean Singapore as my where I can fulfil my Singapore (excluding non- home aspirations in life citizens)

105

5.3 Community Engagement

Agencies such as Community Clubs/Centres (CCs), Residents’ Committees (RCs), Community Development Councils (CDCs) and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) provide residents with a slate of activities and the opportunities for them to interact with other participants, form friendship ties, and strengthen social trust within the community. These agencies also facilitated greater engagement and collaboration between the government and the citizenry under the Singapore Together Movement15.

Community participation declined mainly due to lack of time

The proportion of households participating in community activities had dipped over the past five years, from 48.6% in 2013 to 39.1% in 2018 (Chart 5.12). By excluding residents who participated only in religious activities, the proportion involved in community activities was observed to be even lower, decreasing from 45.4% in 2013 to 34.4% in 2018.

Chart 5.12 Community Participation Over Past 12 Months by Year 60

48.6 45.3 45.4 40.0 38.0 39.1 40 34.4 Including sole participation in religious 29.4 activities

Excluding sole

Households (%) Households 17.8 20 participation in religious 13.2 activities

0 1993* 1998* 2003 2008 2013 2018

* Prior to 2003, no differentiation was made between community and religious activities

Notwithstanding the decline in participation rate, the activities organised by the Community Clubs (CCs) and Residents’ Committees (RCs) remained relatively more popular than the other activities shown in Chart 5.13. However, the

15 Launched by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in June 2019, the movement aims to open up many more partnership opportunities for Singaporeans to participate in, and provide support for more citizen-led initiatives.

106

frequency of residents participating in these activities remained low. Participation was more frequent among residents involved in activities organised by the CCs and RCs. These organisations have the potential to attract greater participation, especially if the activities organised are of interest to residents.

Chart 5.13 Types and Frequency of Community Activities Participated Over Past 12 Months

At least once a week At least once a month Occasionally 3.3 2.1 Community Clubs 18.6 1.5 1.9 Residents' Committees 18.8 1.0 Religious organisations 0.8 10.9

Residents 1.0 0.5 5.6 0.1 Community Development 0.2 6.1 Councils 0.0 Town Councils/HDB 0.4 6.6

Voluntary Welfare 0.3 0.3 3.8 Organisations

All 6.0 4.0 29.1

0 20 40 Households (%)

Among those who did not participate in community activities, the most commonly cited reasons were too busy and lack of time, as was the case five years ago. These were followed by lack of interest in the activities and a preference to participate in self-organised activities (Table 5.20). Specifically, those who found the activities not interesting rose from 16.4% in 2013 to 23.9% in 2018. Only a small proportion said that they were not informed of the activities (4.4% in 2013, decreasing to 2.3% in 2018), perhaps showing a slight improvement in the dissemination of information on activities.

The finding suggests the need for better work-life balance, thereby enabling residents to allocate more time for community activities. With growing affluence among residents, there would likely be changes in lifestyles and preferences for types of community activities and hobby and skills upgrading courses. With more residents expressing willingness to contribute services to the community (to be discussed under Chart 5.15), there may also be a greater propensity to participate in engagement exercises organised under the banner of the Singapore Together Movement to provide opportunities for residents to voice their opinions and

107

concerns or even to participate in projects aimed at strengthening the nation and economy.

Table 5.20 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities by Year

Households who Did Not Participate Reasons in Community Activities 2013 2018

No time/Busy/Always not at home 58.4 58.2 Not interested/Activities not interesting 16.4 23.9 Prefer to participate in own activities 11.2 6.5 Health problems 2.9 3.2

Activities organised were not suitable for 3.7 2.7 residents/family

Not informed of these activities 4.4 2.3 Others (e.g., old age, just moved in, no companion) 3.0 3.2

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 482,022 615,530

* Excluding non-response cases

The survey found that the proportion of residents who participated in at least one community activity was higher among those who had attained higher education levels with at least a diploma. Further analysis showed that they had higher participation level in activities organised by CCs and CDCs (10.3% among diploma/degree holders compared with 4.6% for post-secondary and below), probably either because the types of activities or the outreach platforms, primarily publicity materials, had more traction with those who received higher education.

Community participation rate among rental tenants was much lower as compared with sold flat residents. However, tenants’ participation was higher in activities organised by the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) (10.4% among rental tenants compared with 4.1% among sold flat owners), reflecting the focus and efforts made by these organisations to reach out to rental tenants.

108

Table 5.21 Community Participation Over Past 12 Months among HDB Households by Attributes

Did Not Total Attributes Participated Participate % N*

Education Level Below Secondary 34.5 65.5 100.0 360,074 Secondary/Post- 35.6 64.4 100.0 319,382 secondary Diploma & Above 47.2 52.8 100.0 332,522

Tenure Sold 48.1 51.9 100.0 963,197

Rental 39.5 60.5 100.0 50,345

* Excluding non-response cases

Community participation declined, but augmented by hobby-related activities

Even if residents had been less active in community activities, it was observed that they were taking up hobby-related activities on a regular basis, i.e., at least once every three months. Apart from their interest in these activities, the flexibility in the timing of these activities could play a part in some residents’ preference for them.

About two in ten of residents participated in hobby-related activities. Participation in hobby-related activities was higher among those who attained higher education level (25.4% among diploma/degree holders compared to 16.5% among those who attained lower than diploma education). Chart 5.14 shows that community participation level increased from 39.1% to 47.6%, if involvement in regular hobby- related activities was taken into consideration.

109

Chart 5.14 Community Participation (Including Hobby-Related Activities) Over Past 12 Months

Community Centre 23.9

Residents' Committee 22.2

Hobby-related 19.5

Religious institution 12.6

Self-organised/Interest group 7.2

Town Council/HDB 7.1

Community Development Council 6.4

Voluntary Welfare Organisation 4.4

All Activities (Including hobby-related) 47.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Households (%)

In general, residents tended to participate in sports-related activities or exercises, which included ball games, jogging, martial arts, among others. This finding indicates the importance residents placed on maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

Table 5.22 Types of Hobby-Related Activities Participated in on Regular Basis

Households who Types Participated in Hobby- Related Activities (%)

Sports-related activities/exercises (e.g., jogging, gym, ball games, 72.1 cycling, trekking, swimming, martial arts)

Dancing-related activities (e.g., Zumba, line dance) 7.5 Gathering with friends/colleagues/neighbours 7.2 Singing (e.g., choir class at CC, karaoke) 6.0 Volunteering activities (e.g., organise activities, doing charitable work) 4.5 Gardening/Community gardening 3.4 Culinary/Baking class 3.1 Religious class/Praying session 3.0 Fishing/Prawning 3.0 Art & crafts (e.g., sewing, drawing, calligraphy) 2.7 Music 1.9 Interest group club (e.g., reading club, wine appreciation club) 1.8 Sightseeing/Road trips 1.8 Others (e.g., attending seminars, flying drones, delicious food hunting) 3.9

N* 197,106

* Excluding non-response cases and activities carried out alone

110

More residents willing to contribute their services for community

Beyond the household, it was observed that residents have gone the extra mile to render their help or services to the community. Over the past five years, it was heartening to see a substantial increase in the proportion of residents who had performed services or contributed towards the benefit of the community (Chart 5.15). This indicates that more residents were showing care for and are willing to take ownership of the needs in their community. In light of declining participation in organised community activities, this could be seen as an alternative form of participation where residents contribute their services to the community at their own time.

Chart 5.15 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Year

41.8 40.2 38.4 40 34.5 34.8 31.7 2008 26.5 27.1 25.0 2013

Households(%) 20 2018

0 Contributed Have not contributed Have not contributed but willing to do so and not willing to do so

Younger residents more likely to contribute their services to the community

It was observed that a higher proportion of younger residents had contributed their services for the benefit of the community (Table 5.23). In addition, they were willing to devote their time to the community, if given the opportunity to do so. However, as residents advanced in age, they tended to contribute less, probably due in part to health or mobility issues.

More residents from bigger flat types were found to have contributed their services to the community, probably due to their having more resources and capacity to help.

111

Table 5.23 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community among HDB Households by Attributes

Contribution of Services Total Have not Have not Attributes Have Contributed Contributed % N* Contributed but Willing and Unwilling Age Group Below 35 46.4 39.5 14.1 100.0 68,439 (Years) 35 – 44 49.0 35.9 15.1 100.0 188,761 45 – 54 42.6 37.2 20.2 100.0 234,925 55 – 64 39.2 34.9 25.9 100.0 259.514 65 & Above 31.1 30.4 38.5 100.0 258,968

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 32.1 34.5 33.4 100.0 74,547

3-Room 37.6 33.5 28.9 100.0 231,945 4-Room 40.7 35.8 23.4 100.0 402,873 5-Room & 43.6 34.4 22.0 100.0 301,242 Bigger * Excluding non-response cases

Of the 40.2% who had contributed their services, close to a quarter (23.2%) indicated that they had helped to clear litter and keep the common areas clean (Table 5.24), while a fifth provided general help to their neighbours in terms of receiving incoming parcels or watering their plants (19.4%). It was observed that another fifth (18.3%) contributed their services to the community by being a volunteer, while others had made monetary donations.

Table 5.24 Types of Help/Services Rendered

Households who Types of Help/Service Rendered Help/Services

Keep common areas clean/Pick up litter 23.2 General help (e.g., receive parcel, water plants) 19.4 Being a volunteer/Volunteer to help if needed 18.3 Make donation 14.3 Report issues to authorities 11.3 Look after one another 7.3 Help neighbour with household matters (e.g., fixing household 2.4 appliances, change light bulbs) Others (e.g., request authorities for additional facilities, educate 3.8 residents on correct recycling or mosquito prevention, etc.)

% 100.0 Total N* 399,976

* Excluding non-response cases

112

Lack of time was the main factor for not contributing services to community

Among the 25.0% who had neither contributed their services nor were willing to do so, 15.5% maintained that they did not have the time due to work and/or family commitment (Table 5.25). Other reasons included the lack of information on how to contribute, not interested in contributing, old age or poor health.

Table 5.25 Contribution of Services among HDB Households and Reasons for Not Contributing/Unwillingness to Contribute

Reasons All

Contributed 40.2 Have not contributed but willing to do so 34.8 Have not contributed and not willing to do so No time/busy 15.5 Not informed of the activities 3.2 Not interested/did not see the need 2.2 Old age 1.7 25.0 Heath issues 1.4

Others (e.g., do not like to socialise, prefer to stay at 1.0 home, never thought of it)

% 100.0 Total N* 1,010,833

* Excluding non-response cases

5.4 Summary of Findings

The HDB community possessed a healthy level of neighbourliness. Almost all residents engaged in neighbourly interactions, ranging from low intensity interactions, such as exchanging greetings, to high intensity ones like providing or receiving financial help.

Residents tended to meet their neighbours within the block, mainly at corridors/areas outside flats, lift lobbies and void decks. The proportions who met at these three locations had increased over the past ten years. Almost all (97.1%) agreed that there were sufficient places for neighbourly interactions to occur. Newer block designs continued to facilitate neighbourly interactions.

113

The proportion of residents encountering nuisances had fallen from 48.1% in 2013 to 30.0% in 2018. Some of these nuisances included noise from neighbours, littering, and smoking at public places. There was, however, a significant increase in nuisances relating to smoking in public areas, perhaps due in part to residents’ greater awareness of their rights to a smoke-free environment, as well as government’s efforts to restrict smoking at designated public places. Among those who faced nuisances, a higher proportion took the initiative to resolve these nuisances themselves.

A higher proportion of residents contributed help/services for the benefit of the community, increasing from 27.1% in 2013 to 40.2% in 2018. Some examples of the help rendered included keeping the common areas clean, providing general help or being a volunteer.

Participation in community activities had dipped over the past five years. Generally, while participation in all types of activities had dropped, those organised by CCs and RCs had remained more popular. Residents engaged in regular hobby-related activities (19.5%) even if they did not participate in community activities organised by formal institutions. Sports and exercises were commonly cited as popular hobby-related activities.

114

Conclusion Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

Conclusion

Personal Well-Being

The vast majority of residents were satisfied and happy with their current state of life. High self-reported personal resilience level was also observed. Individuals with lower than average resilience levels tended to be dissatisfied with their financial situation, weaker in their sense of community and/or reported lower extent of mutual help among family members.

Family Well-Being

Family ties remained strong between married children and parents, with nine in ten expressing strong commitment to family. The extent of trust and reciprocity among family members was high.

Comparing the physical living arrangements of younger married residents with that of their parents, it was observed that eight in ten younger married residents were satisfied with where they lived in relation to their parents, which also revealed a good match between their present and preferred living arrangements. Some 18.0% of them wished they were living closer to their parents, which would facilitate mutual care-giving and frequent visits.

Likewise, among older residents with married children, eight in ten were satisfied with where their married children lived in relation to them. Those who lived in closer

117

proximity to their married children were more likely to visit each other daily or at least once a week. They were able to rely on their married children for support, as compared with those whose married children lived farther away. These findings affirmed the importance of HDB’s mutual care and support policies in enabling parents and their married children to live closer to one another.

Social Capital

On average, social capital score remained high among HDB residents, with slight increase in levels of trust, reciprocity and confidence in institutions, when compared to ten years ago. However, total network size seemed to have decreased, likely indicating an emphasis on having fewer network ties, but stronger social relationships.

The implications are that sufficient attention should be paid to residents from certain socioeconomic and sociodemographic attributes – those from lower education levels, smaller flat types, divorced or separated – who were found to have lower than average social capital scores. Such residents are characterised by having insufficient resources to meet their needs, and need for support in areas of housing, childcare, and employment.

Community Well-Being

The HDB community revealed a healthy level of neighbourliness, with almost all residents having engaged in low intensity neighbourly interactions, such as exchanging greetings and chit chatting. Residents tended to meet their neighbours within the block, mainly at corridors/areas outside flats, lift lobbies and void decks. Almost all residents agreed that there were sufficient places for neighbourly interactions to occur.

Newer block designs, despite the absence of the ubiquitous long common corridors, continued to facilitate neighbourly interactions, as seen from the places where residents interacted and the frequency of their interactions. Other new block typologies with features like mid-level decks and sky terraces were found to be just as effective in enhancing neighbourly interactions.

118

The proportion of residents encountering nuisances fell. The common nuisances they encountered included noise from neighbours, littering, and smoking at public places. A higher proportion of residents took the initiative to resolve such issues themselves.

A higher proportion of residents contributed help/services for the benefit of the community. Such willingness could also be mobilised for community projects involving co-creation initiatives. While a lower proportion of residents participated in community activities organised by formal institutions, it was observed that some were engaging in regular hobby-related activities, such as sports and exercises.

119

6 Well-Being of the Elderly

Chapter 6

Well-Being of the Elderly

Introduction

Singapore has a rapidly ageing population due primarily to rising life expectancy and declining birth rates. As of June 2019, 586,000 (14.5%) of Singapore’s resident population were aged between 55 and 64 years old, while 582,000 were aged 65 years old and above (14.5%)16. Within the HDB resident population, SHS 2018 findings show that the proportion of residents aged 65 years old and above and aged 55 to 64 years old had increased from 11.0% and 13.3% to 16.5% and 15.8% respectively since 2013 (Refer to Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences, Chapter 2, Section 2.1, Table 2.4).

Coupled with the rise in the proportion of elderly is a decrease in the old-age support ratio from 7.4 residents in 2010 to 4.5 in 201917. This has significant implications for older Singaporeans, in terms of social well-being, as well as adequacy of the physical environment being elderly-friendly.

In the past decade, several initiatives had been carried out by the Singapore Government to prepare for an ageing society by creating an age-friendly environment. Elderly-friendly features such as support handbars in lifts, ramps and elderly fitness stations have been provided at the neighbourhood, precinct and block levels. Within the flat, the EASE programme has enabled households with

16 Department of Statistics Singapore. 2019. Population Trends, 2019. Department of Statistics. Singapore. Retrieved March 25, 2020 (https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/population-trends). 17 The old-age support ratio is defined as the ratio of residents aged 20-64 years old to residents aged 65 years old and above. Department of Statistics Singapore. 2019. Population Trends, 2019. Department of Statistics. Singapore. Retrieved March 25, 2020 (https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/population-trends).

125

older residents to install elderly-friendly features in their unit18. Additional elderly facilities and amenities are provided, such as the co-location of nursing homes and senior activity centres with HDB flats; along with Active Ageing Hubs (AAH) that will provide active ageing programmes for active and ambulant elderly, and day care/day rehabilitation centres and assisted living services for elderly who are less ambulant19.

Cultivating social bonds with family members and the wider community is a vital aspect of successful ageing. Some of the recent initiatives included the enhancement to the Proximity Housing Grant in February 201820 to encourage parents and their married children to live closer to one another for mutual care and support. HDB, MOH and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will also plan for eldercare and childcare facilities to be co-located in some ten new HDB housing developments for the purpose of creating more opportunities for intergenerational bonding 21 . The People’s Association Wellness Programme enables those aged 50 years old and above to go for subsidised health screenings and follow-up interventions, as well as participate in a variety of programmes organised by Residents’ Committees (RCs) and Community Clubs (CCs). The Organisation of Senior Volunteers has also been engaging senior volunteers in regard to available opportunities for serving the needs of the community22.

Objectives

The objectives of this chapter are to examine the well-being of elderly and future elderly residents:

a) Personal well-being in terms of their outlook on life and health status; b) Social well-being through analysing their ties with family members and the community; and

18 The Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programmes enables households who have elderly members to install improvement items such as grab bars, slip-resistant treatment to bathroom floor tiles and ramps, to make the flat more elderly-friendly. As of December 2019, about 200,000 households had installed such items within their flat. 192Ministry of Health. 2016. “Live in Friendlier Homes.” Retrieved October 10, 2020 (https://www.moh.gov.sg/ifeelyoungsg/how-can-i-age-in-place/live-in-friendlier-homes).

20 Applicants buying a resale HDB flat with or near their parents or married child would receive a grant of $30,000 or for single applicants, a grant of $15,000. The distance criterion has also widened to 4km. 21 Ministry of Health. 2018. “Promoting Intergenerational Harmony.” Retrieved March 25, 2020 (https://www.moh.gov.sg/ifeelyoungsg/how-can-we-build-stronger-ties/promoting-inter-generational-harmony). 22 The Organisation of Senior Volunteers. 2019. “About RSVP.” Retrieved March 25, 2020 (https://rsvp.org.sg).

126

c) Preference to age in place and the types of caregiving and social support they require.

6.1 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households

This section focuses on the socioeconomic characteristics of elderly and future elderly households in HDB. An elderly household is defined as one where the decision maker of the household is aged 65 years old and above, and comprises mainly the following:

(i) The owner, co-owner of HDB sold flat or registered tenant of HDB rental flat; or (ii) Spouse of owner or co-owner or registered tenant.

The future elderly household, aged between 55 and 64 years old, comprises the same categories as that of current elderly.

6.1.1 Demographic Characteristics

Number and Proportion of Elderly and Future Elderly Households

In 2018, elderly households made up 25.6% of total resident households living in HDB flats (Chart 6.1). The number of elderly households had increased significantly in the past five years from 143,211 in 2013 to 259,283 in 2018 (an increase of 9.8 percentage points), given that a sizeable proportion of the one million Singapore residents born between 1947 and 196423 (defined as the ‘Baby Boomer era’24) were aged 65 years old and above.

Similarly, the number of future elderly households had increased over the last five years, from 209,714 in 2013, to 260,815 in 2018. This translated to an increase of

23 Department of Statistics Singapore. 2019. Population Trends 2019. Department of Statistics Singapore.

Retrieved March 25, 2020 (https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/population-trends). 24 Chan Angelique and Yap Mui Teng. 2009. Baby Boomers Survey. Ministry of Social and Family Development. Singapore. Retrieved March 25, 2020 (https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20090116004/baby_boomer_survey_7jan09.pdf).

127

2.6 percentage points, bringing the proportion of future elderly households (25.7%) similar to that of elderly households (25.6%).

Chart 6.1 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year

1,200 1013.5 1,000 908.5 800 555.6 493.4 Elderly 600 (61.1%) (48.7%) ('000) Future Elderly 260.8 209.7 400 259.3 (25.7%) Non-Elderly (23.1%) (25.6%) 143.2 Number Number Households of 200 (15.8%) All

0 2013 2018

Type of Dwelling by Flat Type

The majority of elderly households lived in 3-room (32.0%) and 4-room (33.4%) flats (Table 6.1). Over the past five years, the proportion of elderly households living in 1- and 2-room flats had decreased from 14.5% in 2013 to 11.4% in 2018, corresponding to the decline in the proportion living in rental flats from 11.3% in 2013 to 7.1% in 2018. Conversely, the proportion of elderly households living in sold 1- and 2-room flats had increased from 3.2% in 2013 to 4.3% in 2018. There was a drop in the proportion of elderly households living in 3-room flats as a higher proportion of them were living in 5-room and Executive flats.

Among future elderly households, the proportions living in 1- and 2-room flats had risen slightly from 7.2% in 2013 to 7.9% in 2018 (Table 6.1), mainly due to the increase in the proportion living in sold 1-and 2-room flats, from 1.0% in 2013 to 2.9% in 2018. Similar to their elderly counterparts, the proportion residing in 3- room flats had decreased, while the proportions living in 4- and 5-room flats had risen. There was a slight decline in the proportion living in Executive flats, an indication that some may have right-sized to smaller flats.

128

Table 6.1 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Flat Type and Year

Elderly Future Elderly Non-Elderly All Flat Type 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1- & 14.5 11.4 7.2 7.9 4.1 4.9 6.5 7.4 2-Room

3-Room 36.3 32.0 26.9 23.0 19.4 18.2 23.8 22.9 4-Room 33.2 33.4 36.8 37.7 41.4 44.6 39.0 40.0 5-Room 12.4 18.3 20.7 23.5 27.5 25.9 23.6 23.3 Executive 3.6 4.9 8.4 7.9 7.6 6.4 7.1 6.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 143,211 259,283 209,714 260,815 555,574 493,444 908,499 1,013,542

Type of Family Nucleus and Household Size

Close to seven in ten of elderly households (68.3%) were composed of nuclear families, with the proportion being higher for future elderly households at 74.8% and non-elderly households at 79.8% (Table 6.2). There were also more one- person households among elderly households (22.8%), compared with future elderly (13.3%) and non-elderly households (6.9%).

There was a decrease in the proportion of extended and multi-nuclear families, together with a rise in one-person households over the last five years. Consequently, the average size of elderly households shrunk from 2.6 persons in 2013 to 2.3 persons in 2018, while that of future elderly households shrunk from 3.3 to 3.0 persons. A higher proportion of non-elderly households was family- based households, resulting in a larger average household size of 3.6 persons.

129

Table 6.2 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year

Type of Elderly Future Elderly Non-Elderly All Family Nucleus 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 Family- Based 79.5 75.8 88.3 85.6 93.4 92.7 90.8 86.6 Household

Nuclear 66.7 68.3 75.2 74.8 81.6 79.8 76.3 75.6 family

Extended nuclear 5.9 3.2 6.5 6.0 8.0 8.3 8.3 6.4 family

Multi- nuclear 6.9 4.3 6.6 4.8 3.8 4.6 6.2 4.6 family

Non-Family Based 20.5 24.2 11.7 14.4 6.6 7.3 9.2 13.5 Household

One- 18.5 22.8 11.0 13.3 6.0 6.9 8.4 12.6 person

Unrelated/ Distantly 2.0 1.4 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.9 related

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 143,211 259,283 209,714 260,815 555,574 493,444 908,499 1,013,542

Household Size (Persons)*

Mean 2.6 2.3 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.1 Median 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 * Household size includes all residents (excluding tenants and foreign domestic workers) living within the same roof

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

Labour Force Status

While close to seven in ten of the elderly (69.9%) were outside the labour force, the proportion that was in the labour force had increased from 25.2% in 2013 to 30.1% in 2018 (Table 6.3). The proportion that was still working full-time also rose from 12.8% in 2013 to 14.9% in 2018.

Among the future elderly, seven in ten (71.3%) were in the labour force, an increase from 63.8% in 2013. A higher proportion (47.4%) was working full-time, and the proportion of own account workers also rose from 4.4% in 2013 to 8.1% in 2018. However, there was a slight increase in those who were unemployed and looking for a job, from 2.6% in 2013 to 4.2% in 2018.

130

Table 6.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Labour Force Status and Year

Labour Force Elderly Future Elderly Non-Elderly All Status 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

In Labour 25.2 30.1 63.8 71.3 85.7 87.9 71.2 68.8 Force

Working Full-Time 12.8 14.9 43.4 47.4 71.2 72.0 55.5 51.0 (Single Job Holder) Working Part-Time 12.8 14.9 43.4 47.4 71.2 72.0 55.5 51.0 (Single Job Holder) Own Account Worker 1.5 3.3 4.4 8.1 4.2 6.5 3.9 6.1 (Single Job Holder)

Other Employed - 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.9 Persons*

Unemployed 0.5 1.1 2.6 4.2 2.8 3.4 2.4 3.0

Outside 74.8 69.9 36.2 28.7 14.3 12.1 28.8 31.2 Labour Force

Retiree/ 52.7 59.0 15.5 12.3 0.6 0.4 12.2 18.5 Pensioner

Homemaker 20.8 10.2 19.7 13.7 12.9 10.8 15.7 11.4 Others** 1.3 0.7 1.0 2.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.3

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N*** 142,984 259,283 209,463 260,756 554,828 493,058 907,275 1,013,097 * Including employers and contributing family workers holding one job, full-time National Servicemen and all employed holding two or more jobs ** Including persons before schooling-age, full-time students, those who are disabled/hospitalised, waiting for NS or exam results, in prison/drug rehabilitative centre, etc *** Excluding non-response cases

Education Level

More than three in ten (36.2%) of employed elderly had attained secondary education and above, compared with 25.4% in 2013 (Table 6.4). Close to six in ten of employed future elderly (58.7%) also attained secondary education and above, compared with 53.2% in 2013.

131

Table 6.4 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Education Level and Year

Highest Elderly Future Elderly Non-Elderly All Education Level Attained 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Below 74.6 63.8 46.8 41.3 21.1 13.0 29.5 26.1 Secondary

Secondary/ Post- 19.3 28.4 40.4 41.0 31.6 28.7 32.7 32.0 secondary

Diploma & 6.1 7.8 12.8 17.7 47.3 58.3 37.8 41.9 Above

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 36,038 78,041 133,344 185,477 472,968 433,337 642,350 696,855

* Excluding non-response cases

With more elderly having attained at least secondary education compared with five years ago, there was a shift towards higher-skilled and better-paid jobs. Among the elderly, the share of professionals, managers executives and technicians (PMETs) rose from 15.8% in 2013 to 17.0% in 2018. There was a slight decrease in those working as cleaners and labourers, from 39.6% in 2013 to 38.2% in 2018. Among the future elderly, about 33.8% were PMETs, an increase from 31.5% in 2013. The proportion who were cleaners and labourers also declined from 18.9% in 2013 to 15.8% in 2018. There was a slight increase in the proportion working as production workers or as plant and machine operators, from 18.6% in 2013 to 21.9% in 2018.

6.2 Personal Aspects

As the elderly are more likely to encounter issues such as a decline in socioeconomic status due to retirement or health problems due to ageing25, it is important that they maintain a positive outlook on life, which could help them remain healthy. This section examines the personal well-being of the elderly and future elderly by looking at their perceived outlook on life, level of personal resilience and health status. Monitoring these aspects could help relevant

25 World Health Organisation. 2017. “Mental health of older adults.” Retrieved March 25, 2020 (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-of-older-adults).

132

agencies develop suitable initiatives geared towards enhancing the personal well- being of elderly residents.

6.2.1 Outlook on Life

This section focuses on both the current and future personal well-being of the elderly. The indicators of current personal well-being include the level of satisfaction people have with regards to different aspects of their lives such as health, finances and family life; as well as overall life satisfaction and happiness and the variables influencing overall life satisfaction.

The focus on future personal well-being examines residents’ perceived ability to cope with changes and identifies key factors that could impede their ability to cope with challenges.

More elderly and future elderly satisfied with aspects of life

On satisfaction with various aspects of life, it was observed that not only were more than 90% of elderly and future elderly households satisfied with almost all aspects of life, but they also registered an increase in satisfaction levels relative to that of 2013 (Charts 6.2 and 6.3).

Chart 6.2 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life among Elderly Households by Year 97.5 97.7 99.0 98.1 99.6 98.6 100.0 100 94.3 95.1 95.6 94.9 83.9 85.7 78.4 80

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%)

0 Health Financial Work Family Neighbourly Personal Housing Religion Situation Situation* Situation Relations Relations* Relations Situation

2013 2018 * Financial Situation & Neighbourly Relations were not covered in SHS 2013

133

Chart 6.3 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life among Future Elderly Households by Year

100.0 98.0 96.8 99.0 98.4 98.4 100 92.2 92.7 97.1 95.3 96.4 88.7 89.7 83.7 80

HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 20

0 Health Financial Work Family Neighbourly Personal Housing Religion Situation Situation* Situation Relations Relations* Relations Situation 2013 2018 * Financial Situation & Neighbourly Relations were not covered in SHS 2013

Satisfaction levels for the various aspects of life among elderly and future elderly households were comparable with or higher than all HDB households except for their health situation (Chart 6.4). The elderly and future elderly were less likely to be satisfied with their current health situation, perhaps because of their higher vulnerability to chronic illnesses (Refer to Section 6.2.3, Table 6.8).

Chart 6.4 Satisfaction with Aspects of Life among Elderly and Future Elderly Households

99.9

99.6

99.2

99.0 99.0

98.4

98.2

98.1

98.0

97.7

97.5

96.9

96.8

100.0 100.0

95.1

94.3

92.7

92.2 92.2 91.6

100 91.1

89.7 85.7

20 HouseholdsSatisfied (%) 0 Health Financial Work Family Neighbourly Personal Housing Religion Situation Situation* Situation Relations Relations* Relations Situation

Elderly Future Elderly All

* Financial Situation & Neighbourly Relations were not covered in SHS 2013

High overall satisfaction with life among elderly and future elderly

Taking all aspects into consideration, overall satisfaction with life was high among elderly and future elderly households, at 97.7% and 96.7% respectively in 2018

134

(Table 6.5), showing an improvement compared with 2013. The proportion of elderly and future elderly households who were satisfied was comparable with all households.

Table 6.5 Overall Life Satisfaction of Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year

2013 2018 Overall Satisfaction Future Future Elderly All Elderly All with Life Elderly Elderly

Very 8.7 9.1 8.1 7.8 6.2 7.1 Satisfied 91.4 92.4 91.1 97.7 96.7 96.7 Satisfied 82.7 83.3 83.0 89.9 90.5 89.6 Dissatisfied 8.3 7.4 8.4 2.2 3.2 3.1

Very 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 Dissatisfied

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 143,211 209,714 908,464 259,283 260,815 1,013,223 * Excluding non-response cases

Most elderly and future elderly happy with life

The overall level of happiness had increased slightly from 2013 to 2018 for elderly households but remained about the same for future elderly households. However, the proportion of elderly households who were very happy or happy was slightly higher compared with future elderly households and all households (Chart 6.5).

Chart 6.5 Overall Level of Happiness among Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 100 6.8 4.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.9

60 84.4 82.9 82.4 84.9 83.9 83.1 92.9 94.9 93.3 93.6 93.3 93.7 40

Households(%) 20

8.5 12.0 10.9 8.7 9.4 10.6 0 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 Very Happy Happy Not Happy Not at All Happy

135

The elderly and future elderly with fewer personal and social resources were less resilient

For both elderly and future elderly households, the average personal resilience score was 15.0 and 15.2 respectively, lower compared with all households at 15.4 (Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.3 on the concept of personal resilience and how the resilience score is derived). The elderly also had a slightly lower personal resilience score compared with the future elderly.

It was found that those with lower levels of personal and social resources were more likely to report lower personal resilience scores (Table 6.6). The elderly and future elderly who were dissatisfied with their financial and health situation, as well as with personal relations (e.g., relationships with friends) had lower than average personal resilience scores. The elderly and future elderly who were dissatisfied with their family relations or had lower extent of mutual help with family members (Refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.1 on social capital or the extent of residents’ relationships with their community), as well as those who were weaker in their Sense of Community (SOC) (Refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Table 5.17 on how sense of community is used as an indicator to gauge the degree of neighbourliness) also reported lower than average personal resilience scores.

The elderly and future elderly females were also more likely to report lower than average personal resilience scores. The subsequent sections on family ties and community bonding (Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4 and Chapter 5, Sections 5.1 and 5.3 for more details on these concepts) will examine aspects that affect level of personal resilience, such as family support, neighbourly interactions and participation in community activities.

136

Table 6.6 Mean Personal Resilience Scores among Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Personal and Social Resources

Mean Resilience Score (4 to 20) Aspects Elderly Future Elderly

Satisfied 15.1 15.3 Financial Situation Dissatisfied 13.4 14.1

Satisfied 15.1 15.4 Health Situation Dissatisfied 14.0 14.1

Satisfied 15.0 15.2 Personal Relations Dissatisfied 11.9 13.7

Satisfied 15.0 15.3 Family Relations Dissatisfied 14.3 14.0

Higher Extent 15.0 15.4 Mutual Help (Family Members)* Lower Extent 14.8 14.8

Higher 15.1 15.4 Sense of Community (SOC)** Lower 14.7 15.0

Male 15.2 15.3 Sex Female 14.7 15.1

* The mean score for mutual help with family members was 8.8 and 8.9 for elderly and future elderly respectively (Please refer to Table 6.22 for more details). Those who scored above the mean was classified as having a higher extent of mutual help with family members, and those who scored below the mean was classified as having a lower extent of mutual help with family members. ** The mean score for SOC was 74.9 and 73.6 for elderly and future elderly respectively (Please refer to Table 6.29 for more details). Those who scored above the mean was classified as having a higher SOC, and those who scored below the mean was classified as having a lower SOC.

6.2.2 Health Status

The state of one’s health has an impact on older residents’ overall life satisfaction, happiness and personal resilience. It is therefore crucial to understand the common health issues and types of illnesses faced by the elderly and future elderly so as to effectively address such issues and enhance elderly residents’ outlook on life.

Most elderly and future elderly fully ambulant; but ambulant status decreases with age

It was observed that 80.9% of those aged 75 years old and above were fully ambulant, compared to 95.9% for those aged 65 to 74, and 98.0% for those aged 55 to 64 years old (Table 6.7).

137

Table 6.7 Whether Fully Ambulant by Age

Age Group (Years) Whether Fully Ambulant 55-64 65-74 75 & Above Yes 98.0 95.9 80.9 No 2.0 4.1 19.1

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 260,815 176,356 82,927

Almost all elderly and future elderly with long-term illnesses followed up with healthcare providers

About seven in ten of the elderly (70.3%) had at least one long-term illness, higher compared with the future elderly (47.2%), as shown in Chart 6.6. The most common long-term illnesses among the elderly and future elderly were high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes (Table 6.8).

Chart 6.6 Number of Long-Term Illnesses of Elderly and Future Elderly

6.4 1.9 100 8.3 14.1 11.8 More Than Three 80 47.2 Three 22.8 70.3 25.2 60 Two 40 27.0 One Households(%) 52.8 20 29.7 None 0 Elderly Future Elderly

Table 6.8 Most Common Long-Term Illnesses among Elderly and Future Elderly

Households (%) Types of Long-Term Illness Elderly Future Elderly High Blood Pressure 47.0 27.8 High Cholesterol 34.5 19.8 Diabetes 20.8 14.0 Heart Conditions 10.3 4.4 Arthritis 8.4 2.8

Among the elderly and future elderly with no long-term illnesses, about six in ten (62.7%) of the elderly and slightly more than half of the future elderly (54.3%) would go for regular health check-ups. Among the elderly and future elderly with at least

138

one long-term illness, almost all elderly (99.2%) and future elderly (98.3%) would follow-up regularly with a healthcare provider (Table 6.9).

Table 6.9 Whether Follow-up Regularly with Healthcare Providers for Elderly and Future Elderly

Elderly Future Elderly Whether Follow-Up With at Least With at Least Regularly with Healthcare With No Long- With No Long- One Long- One Long- Providers Term Illness Term Illness Term Illness Term Illness

Yes 62.7 99.2 54.3 98.3 No 37.3 0.8 45.7 1.7 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 75,775 181,559 136,657 121,965 * Excluding non-response cases

6.3 Social Aspects

The well-being of elderly persons is related to them having frequent interaction with and receiving regular support from family members (Refer to Section 6.2.1). It is also important to examine the elderly’s interactions with their neighbours as well as their participation in community activities. The following sections examine family ties, community bonding and social capital as indicators of social well-being of older residents in HDB estates.

6.3.1 Family Ties

This section examines specifically the family ties of the elderly and future elderly (More details on the family ties between parents and children can be found in Chapter 3: Family Ties). The strength of family ties is assessed by looking at the living arrangements of the elderly and future elderly in relation to their children, depth of family interaction and support, and views on family values.

More elderly and future elderly satisfied with where they lived in relation to their married children

Out of a total of 259,283 elderly households, 75.4% had married children. Among those with married children, 87.7% of the elderly were satisfied with where they

139

lived in relation to their married children, as shown by the summation of percentages in the diagonal unshaded cells of the matrix (Table 6.10), a figure that is higher than the 83.8% in 2013. Close to one in ten (10.4%) of the elderly (top triangle in darker shade of blue) preferred to live in closer proximity to their married children than their present living arrangement to facilitate caregiving support and ease of visitation. This proportion is lower than the 13.4% in 2013. Only 1.9% (bottom triangle in lighter shade of blue) preferred to live farther than their present living arrangement, lower compared with 2.8% in 2013.

The proportion presently living in the same flat with their married children had decreased from 17.2% in 2013 to 11.4% in 2018, and the preference to do so had also declined from 17.1% to 11.8% over the same time period. Conversely, the proportion presently living in close proximity or in a nearby estate had increased over the same period, from 37.8% in 2013 to 44.1% in 2018, with the preference for such living arrangements - also known as “intimacy at a distance” - increasing from 47.9% in 2013 to 50.8% in 2018. The decline in the proportion living with married children could be attributed to an increase in the number of BTO flats offered, enabling more married children to move into their own new HDB flats and thereby a lower likelihood of their residing with parents as a temporary living arrangement.

Table 6.10 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Elderly vis-à-vis Their Married Children by Year

Present Living Arrangement (%)

SHS 2018 In the Within In a Elsewhere (SHS 2013) Same Close Nearby in Overseas Total Flat Proximity* Estate Singapore

9.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 11.8 In the Same Flat -**

(14.8) (0.6) (0.1) 10.4 (1.1) (17.1)

Within Close 0.9 23.7 1.7 (13.4) 5.2 31.5 -** Proximity* (1.6) (21.9) (1.6) (5.3) (30.6)

In a Nearby 0.8 - 17.5 1.0 19.3 -

Estate (0.3) (0.3) (13.2) (3.5) (17.3)

Elsewhere in - 34.9 35.3 -** - -** Singapore (0.1) (31.8) (32.9) 1.9 2.1 2.1 Overseas - (2.8) - - -

(2.1) (2.1) PreferredLiving Arrangement (%) 11.4 24.3 19.8 41.9 2.6 100.0 Total (17.2) (22.8) (15.0) (41.7) (3.3) (100.0)

* Within close proximity refers to living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

140

For the future elderly, 40.9% of the 260,815 households had married children. Among those with married children, more than eight in ten (84.2%) were satisfied with where they lived in relation to their married children, as shown by the summation of percentages in the diagonal unshaded cells of the matrix (Table 6.11), a proportion which was considerably higher than the 75.5% in 2013. About one in ten (11.1%) of the future elderly (top triangle in darker shade of blue) preferred to live in closer proximity to their married children, a figure lower than the 15.8% in 2013. Only 4.7% (bottom triangle in lighter shade of blue) preferred to live farther compared with their present living arrangement, a proportion lower than the 8.7% in 2013.

The proportion of parents and married children presently living in the same flat had decreased slightly from 21.1% in 2013 to 19.6% in 2018, and the preference for this living arrangement had also decreased from 17.2% in 2013 to 16.4% in 2018.

Table 6.11 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Future Elderly vis-à-vis Their Married Children by Year

Present Living Arrangement (%)

SHS 2018 Within In a Elsewhere In the (SHS 2013) Close Nearby in Overseas Total Same Flat Proximity* Estate Singapore

14.9 - 16.4 In the Same Flat -** -** -** (12.8) 11.1 (0.8) (17.2)

Within Close 3.0 19.1 1.8 5.2 29.2 (15.8) -** Proximity* (4.8) (19.2) (2.0) (6.8) (33.1)

In a Nearby - 19.0 1.6 21.9 -** -** Estate (0.2) (15.3) (2.0) (19.3)

Elsewhere in - 28.3 29.5 -** - -** Singapore (0.2) (25.4) (27.6) 4.7 (8.7) 2.9 3.0 Overseas -** - - -

(2.8) (2.8) PreferredLiving Arrangement (%) 19.6 19.5 21.5 35.5 3.9 100.0 Total (21.1) (19.7) (18.6) (36.4) (4.2) (100.0)

* Within close proximity refers to living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

The above findings affirmed the importance of HDB’s mutual care and support policies in enabling parents and married children to live closer to one another. The enhancements made to the Proximity Housing Grant in August 2018 for resale flat

141

buyers26 and existing housing grants to enable parents and married children to live with or near each other27, would make it possible for more families to achieve their desired living arrangement.

Majority living with spouse and/or unmarried children, more elderly living alone and future elderly living with siblings and other relatives

Six in ten (61.3%) of the elderly were living with their spouse and/or unmarried children, comparable with the 62.7% in 2013 (Table 6.12). At the same time, the proportion who lived with their married children had decreased from 13.6% in 2013 to 9.4% in 2018, and the preference to live together had also declined from 13.3% to 9.7% over the same time period. This mirrored the same trend that was observed in their physical living arrangement. The proportion who lived alone had increased slightly from 18.6% in 2013 to 19.7% in 2018, with the preference for such an arrangement rising from 18.2% in 2013 to 19.6% in 2018. The proportion who lived with unrelated persons had also increased, from 1.7% in 2013 to 5.1% in 2018, with the preference for such a living arrangement increasing from 1.3% to 4.8% over the past five years.

Table 6.12 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Elderly by Year

2008 2013 2018 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or 65.1 63.4 62.7 63.9 61.3 61.6 Unmarried Children

Live with Married Children 10.0 13.8 13.6 13.3 9.4 9.7 Live with Siblings/Relatives 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 4.5 4.3 Live Alone 16.0 14.9 18.6 18.2 19.7 19.6 Live with Unrelated Persons 5.3 4.3 1.7 1.3 5.1 4.8 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 112,668 112,610 143,211 142,992 259,283 259,283 * Excluding non-response cases

26 The Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) was first introduced in 2015 to help Singaporean resale flat buyers live closer to their parents or children. The PHG was enhanced in 2018, where families could receive up to $30,000 and single buyers up to $15,000. The distance criterion was also widened to within 4km of where the applicant’s

parent or child was living in. 27 Other existing schemes/grants to encourage parents and children to live near each other include the Multi- Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS), Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS), Senior Priority Scheme (SPS). In September 2013, 3-Generation Family Flats (3Gen) were also introduced to enable multi-generation families to live under one roof.

142

The proportion of future elderly who lived with their spouse and/or unmarried children had decreased from 76.7% in 2013 to 69.7% in 2018 (Table 6.13). The preference to live with their spouse and/or unmarried children also declined from 77.3% to 70.9% over the past five years. The proportion presently living with married children and preferring this arrangement also decreased, reflecting the trend in their physical living arrangement. By contrast, the proportion living with siblings or relatives had increased from 2.6% in 2013 to 8.2% in 2018, with the same proportion preferring this arrangement.

Table 6.13 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Future Elderly by Year

2008 2013 2018 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or 76.6 75.0 76.7 77.3 69.7 70.9 Unmarried Children

Live with Married Children 8.0 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.1 6.9 Live with Siblings/Relatives 6.2 6.7 2.6 2.7 8.2 8.2 Live Alone 6.7 7.0 10.2 10.2 11.0 11.2 Live with Unrelated Persons 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.1 3.0 2.8 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 172,257 172,192 209,714 209,456 260,815 260,815 * Excluding non-response cases

Most had visits with married children at least once a month

The visiting patterns between the elderly and future elderly and their married children who were not living with them showed that almost all the parents and married children had visited one another. In 2018, only 1.0% of the elderly and their married children did not visit one another, lower than the 1.6% in 2013. Among the elderly and their married children who visited one another, 86.9% did so at least once a month, comparable with the 89.2% in 2013 (Table 6.14).

Some 1.4% of the future elderly and their married children did not visit one another, a proportion lower than the 2.2% in 2013. Among the future elderly and their married children who visited one another, 90.8% did so at least once a month, comparable with the 91.7% in 2013. However, the proportion who had daily visits with their married children declined from 23.7% in 2013 to 18.2% in 2018 for the elderly, and from 26.2% to 18.2% over the same period for the future elderly.

143

Table 6.14 Frequency of Visits between Elderly and Future Elderly with Their Married Children by Year

Elderly Future Elderly Frequency of Visits 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Daily 22.4 23.7 18.2 25.6 26.2 18.2

At Least Once a Week 50.9 89.8 49.1 89.2 50.2 86.9 48.4 94.0 50.9 91.7 52.8 90.8 At Least Once a 16.5 16.4 18.5 20.0 14.6 19.8 Month

Less Than Once a 10.2 10.8 13.1 6.0 8.3 9.2 Month

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 80,311 98,001 188,260 67,154 81,372 94,651 * Excluding those who never visit, living together and non-response cases

Most common activities carried out with married children was sharing meals, exchanging mutual care and providing advice

Chart 6.7 shows the types and frequency of activities carried out by the elderly with their married children. Having meals together (80.4%), taking care of each other (63.9%), and exchanging suggestions and advice about personal problems (61.2%) were the most common activities carried out at least once a month. In regard to daily visits, having meals together was the most common activity, followed by taking care of each other.

Chart 6.7 Types of Activities Carried Out between Elderly and Their Married Children

Share meals 11.1 49.5 19.8 17.7 1.9 Take care of each other in 10.9 36.4 16.6 20.0 general 16.1 Exchange suggestions/advice 9.0 34.0 18.2 27.2 11.6 about personal problems Go on outings 1.0 28.1 24.2 37.1 9.6 Help in taking care of young 9.0 17.1 5.6 7.8 60.5 children Help in marketing 1.7 17.0 7.5 16.3 57.5

Help in household chores 2.4 16.8 6.7 14.4 59.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Elderly Households (%)

Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Never

Note: Excluding those who never visit, living together and non-response cases

144

The future elderly had nearly the same pattern of contact with their married children for each of the activities discussed (Chart 6.8) as the elderly. However, in terms of daily visits, helping in childcare was the most common activity, followed by taking care of each other.

Chart 6.8 Types of Activities Carried Out between Future Elderly and Their Married Children

Share meals 9.6 52.5 22.4 13.5 2.0 Take care of each other in 11.8 39.6 16.8 17.5 14.3 general Exchange suggestions/advice 10.2 41.0 17.1 21.7 10.0 about personal problems Go on outings 1.4 33.8 24.2 33.9 6.7 Help in taking care of young 13.0 23.2 6.8 9.0 48.0 children Help in marketing 1.8 19.2 8.1 15.5 55.4

Help in household chores 3.9 17.3 7.1 14.4 57.3

0 20 40 60 80 100 Future Elderly Households (%) Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Never

Note: Excluding those who never visit, living together and non-response cases

Majority of elderly and future elderly kept in touch regularly with family members not living with them

In addition to regular visits between the elderly and their children, about eight in ten of both the elderly and future elderly kept in touch with family members who were not living with them either daily, at least once a week or at least once a month, a pattern comparable with 2013 (Chart 6.9). However, only 21.8% of the elderly kept in touch with family members daily, lower than the 24.1% in 2013. Among the future elderly, 18.7% kept in touch daily, while another 42.3% did so at least once a week, declining slightly from the 20.3% and 43.9% respectively in 2013.

145

Chart 6.9 Keeping in Touch with Family Members among Elderly and Future Elderly

Elderly Future Elderly 4.8 1.6 2.7 1.3 100 12.5 14.5 17.3 19.3 80 15.7 17.3 Never 15.8 18.4 A Few Times a Year 60 At Least Once a Month 42.9 44.8 40 82.7 83.9 43.9 80.0 42.3 79.4 At Least Once a Week Daily Households(%) 20 24.1 21.8 20.3 18.7 0 2013 2018 2013 2018

Note: Excluding those living together, with no family members and non-response cases

Further analysis revealed that lower proportions of the elderly and future elderly who were in the labour force kept in touch with family members daily or at least once a week, compared with those who were outside the labour force (Table 6.15). As the proportion of the elderly and future elderly in the labour force had risen from 2013, as shown earlier in Table 6.3, this would result in a corresponding decrease in the frequency of keeping in touch daily.

Table 6.15 Keeping in Touch with Family Members among Elderly and Future Elderly by Labour Force Status

Labour Force Status Elderly Future Elderly Frequency In Outside In Outside Labour Force Labour Force Labour Force Labour Force Daily 20.1 22.4 18.1 20.1 At Least Once a Week 41.2 46.3 40.5 47.0 Less Than Once a Week 38.7 31.3 41.4 32.9 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 75,473 177,872 183,091 73,595 * Excluding those living together, with no family members and non-response cases

Majority could rely on at least one family member for physical, emotional and financial support

More than seven in ten of the elderly (73.9%) and future elderly (78.7%) could rely on at least one family member (i.e., married children, unmarried children, grandchildren or siblings) for physical support (Table 6.16). Almost all (99.5% of the elderly and 99.9% of the future elderly) could rely on at least one family member

146

for emotional support. In terms of financial support in times of need, more than eight in ten (88.8% of the elderly and 83.5% of the future elderly) could rely on at least one family member for financial support.

Table 6.16 Whether Elderly and Future Elderly Able to Rely on at Least One Family Member for Support

Elderly Future Elderly Able to Rely on Able to Rely on at Least One at Least One Types of Support Total Total Family Member* Family Member* for Support for Support Yes No % N** Yes No % N**

Physical 73.9 26.1 100.0 248,166 78.7 21.3 100.0 253,781 Emotional 99.5 0.5 100.0 244,474 99.9 0.1 100.0 243,171

Financial 88.8 11.2 100.0 251,853 83.5 16.5 100.0 255,351 (In Times of Need)

* Whether able to rely on either married children/unmarried children/grandchildren/siblings ** Excluding non-response cases

Among the elderly, a majority could rely on their married and unmarried children for all three forms of support (Table 6.17). For physical support, they mainly relied on unmarried children (81.9%) and, to a lesser extent, on married children (70.9%), with a higher proportion being able to rely on unmarried children as they were more likely to be living with their parents. Those who could not rely on unmarried children mentioned that their children were too busy to help. In regard to financial support in times of need, the reasons given for not being able to rely on their married children were the latter’s not having sufficient funds or having to support their own family, while the reasons for unmarried children were insufficient funds or that they were not working.

Only a small proportion of the elderly could rely on grandchildren for all forms of support, as most of the latter were likely to be too young to be able to provide the support required. As for support from siblings, only three in ten could rely on siblings for physical support, around half (49.9%) for financial support and around seven in ten for emotional support. Those who could not rely on siblings for physical support cited reasons such as the latter not living with them or that they were in poor health. Siblings having to support their own family financially was given as the main reason for their not being able to rely on them for financial support, while not having close relationships with siblings or siblings living too far

147

away were reasons cited for their not being able to count on them for emotional support.

Table 6.17 Whether Elderly Households are Able to Rely on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Whether Elderly Households Able to Rely on Family Members for Support (%)* Types of Support Married Unmarried Grand- Siblings Children Children children

Physical Support 70.9 81.9 18.7 30.9 Help with housework 64.6 79.7 17.3 28.4

Help with marketing/transport/accompany 70.4 81.3 18.2 30.4 for doctors’ visits

Emotional Support 94.9 91.3 22.0 72.6

Discuss important matters/make important 94.1 91.2 20.4 70.4 decisions

Confide in when feeling down 93.2 89.7 22.0 71.5 Financial Support (In Times of Need) 89.6 82.8 13.4 49.9

* Excluding non-response cases

The findings on the future elderly were similar to that on the elderly, where a majority of them could rely on married and unmarried children for all three forms of support, with lower proportions being able to rely on grandchildren and siblings for support (Table 6.18).

Table 6.18 Whether Future Elderly Households are Able to Rely on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support (In Times of Need)

Whether Future Elderly Households Able to Rely on Family Members for Support (%)* Types of Support Married Unmarried Grand- Siblings Children Children children

Physical Support 69.6 87.0 6.0 44.5 Help with housework 64.3 85.3 5.5 42.4

Help with marketing/transport/accompany 69.5 85.9 4.5 43.9 for doctors’ visits

Emotional Support 95.0 92.4 5.8 83.6

Discuss important matters/make important 95.0 91.7 4.5 82.5 decisions

Confide in when feeling down 93.6 91.8 5.3 82.2 Financial Support (In Times of Need) 84.8 69.1 1.3 66.3

* Excluding non-response cases

148

Compared to the elderly, a lower proportion of the future elderly could rely on their children, especially unmarried children for financial support in times of need. This was because unmarried children were either too young, not working or had insufficient finances to support them. Similarly, a much lower proportion of the future elderly could rely on grandchildren for all forms of support as their grandchildren were too young.

A higher proportion of the future elderly could rely on their siblings for the various forms of support compared with the elderly. As the siblings of the future elderly would likely be in the same age group as them, they would still be in the labour force compared with the siblings of the elderly; hence, future elderly and their siblings would be more able to support one another physically and financially.

Fewer elderly and future elderly received regular financial allowances from children, one in ten relied on children for support in kind

The level of regular financial support received from children is another indicator of intergenerational support. Among the elderly with children (86.2%), 74.2% received regular financial support from their children. This proportion had declined across the years, from 85.6% in 2008, 77.2% in 2013 to 74.2% in 2018 (Chart 6.10). The decline in the proportion of the elderly receiving regular financial support could be due to a higher proportion of them being in the labour force (from 25.2% in 2013 to 30.1% in 2018) and hence not requiring financial support. For those who did not receive regular financial support, they were asked whether they had received other forms of support. It was found that 10.1% of elderly had children helping in kind (e.g., paying for groceries/utility bills/meals) while another 1.1% had children who were still dependent on them and were therefore unable to contribute financially.

Among the future elderly with children (79.3%), 54.4% received regular financial support from their children (Chart 6.10). This proportion had also declined since 2008. Some 11.6% of the future elderly received support in kind from their children, while 15.5% had children who were not contributing financially as they were still dependent on them. Similar to the elderly, the smaller proportion of future elderly receiving financial support in 2018, compared with 2013, could be due to a slightly higher proportion of them being in the labour force (from 63.8% in 2013 to 71.3% in 2018) and hence not requiring financial support.

149

Chart 6.10 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly Did not Receive Financial Support 100 14.4 14.6 18.5 22.8 1.1 Dependent Children 80 10.1 32.1 40.3 15.5

60 11.6 Received Support in Kind 40 85.6 77.2 74.2 67.9 59.7 54.4 Received Regular Households(%) 20 Financial Support from Children 0 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Note: Received support in kind and children who were still dependent was not asked in SHS 2008 and SHS 2013

Not only were a lower proportion of the elderly and future elderly receiving regular financial support from their children, but the amount they received had also decreased. The median nominal amount received by one elderly parent from all their children was $470 per month, lower compared with $500 per month in 2013. The median nominal amount received by the future elderly was also lower at $370 per month compared with $400 in 2013. The lower amounts received could be due to more of the elderly and future elderly being in the labour force and having more savings.

Among the elderly, those who received financial support from their children were likely to be outside the labour force, females or living in 3-room or bigger flats (Table 6.19). This could be due to more females being outside the labour force compared with males (74.3% for elderly females compared with 65.8% for elderly males; 40.9% for future elderly females compared with 17.0% for future elderly males). Among the elderly living in 3-room and bigger flat types, their children were likely to be more well-off than the children of those living in smaller or rental flat types, and hence were better able to provide regular financial support.

A similar trend was observed for the future elderly. However, a lower proportion of those living in 5-room and bigger flat types received financial support compared with those residing in 3- and 4-room flats. This could be due to those living in larger flat types having more financial resources and therefore able to draw upon their savings to support their own expenses.

150

Table 6.19 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly

Received Received Attributes Financial Total Financial Total Support Support

Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Labour In Labour 56.6 43.4 100.0 63,217 45.0 55.0 100.0 145,322 Force Force Status Outside 76.3 23.7 100.0 160,284 68.7 31.3 100.0 60,143 Labour Force

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 60.4 39.6 100.0 19,979 44.4 55.6 100.0 13,109 3-Room 70.3 29.7 100.0 68,943 56.5 43.5 100.0 37,032 4-Room 74.0 26.0 100.0 79,423 57.2 42.8 100.0 83,325

5-Room & 70.2 29.8 100.0 55,155 44.9 55.1 100.0 71,998 Bigger

Sex Male 65.2 34.8 100.0 120,093 39.2 60.8 100.0 104,436

Female 77.1 22.9 100.0 103,408 65.1 34.9 100.0 101,029 * Excluding non-response cases

The elderly and future elderly who were outside the labour force or female received a higher nominal amount of financial support compared with those in the labour force or male counterparts (Table 6.20). Those living in 4-room and bigger flat types also received a higher nominal amount compared with those living in smaller flat types.

Table 6.20 Amount of Financial Support Received by Elderly and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Median Amount Attributes Received per Month ($)* Elderly Future Elderly Labour Force In Labour Force 380 300 Status Outside Labour Force 490 470 Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 280 190 3-Room 380 290 4-Room 480 390 5-Room & Bigger 550 390 Sex Male 460 340 Female 480 400 Overall 470 370 * Excluding those without children

151

Both elderly and future elderly had high levels of trust and reciprocity with family members

Social capital scores for trust and reciprocity with family members and relatives among the elderly and future elderly were generally higher compared with 2008 and comparable with all households (see Tables 6.21 and 6.22). However, there was a decrease in informal network size of relatives for both elderly and future elderly and all households (Table 6.23). This could be due to lower frequency of regular contact with family members not living with them as shown earlier in Chart 6.9. The informal network size of relatives for the elderly was also smaller compared with all households, as the relatives of the elderly would be older and some were deceased; which would result in a smaller informal network size.

Table 6.21 Norms of Trust with Family Members and Relatives for Elderly and Future Elderly

Trust (Mean Score: 0 - 10) Networks Elderly Future Elderly All 2008 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018 a. Family members 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.1 b. Relatives 7.0 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4

Table 6.22 Norms of Reciprocity with Family Members and Relatives for Elderly and Future Elderly

Reciprocity (Mean Score: 0 - 10) Networks Elderly Future Elderly All 2008 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018 a. Family members 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.0 b. Relatives 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2

Table 6.23 Composition of Informal Network Size of Family Members and Relatives for Elderly and Future Elderly

Mean Network Size (Persons) Networks Elderly Future Elderly All 2008 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018 a. Family members 8 9 7 10 7 10 b. Relatives 16 13 18 15 17 16

152

Most elderly and future elderly agreed family values to be important

The elderly and future elderly were asked whether they agreed with the following statements on family values (Table 6.24). More than 90% of the elderly and future elderly agreed with the three statements, with a slightly lower proportion observed among the future elderly.

Table 6.24 Views of Elderly and Future Elderly on Family Values

Elderly Future Elderly

Statements* Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree/ /Strongly Agree/ /Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

“I regard family as being important in my life” 99.1 0.9 98.7 1.3

“I believe it is the duty of parents to do their best for their children, even at the expense of their 98.3 1.7 95.1 4.9 own well-being”

“I believe it is the duty of children to take care of their parents, even at the expense of their 95.1 4.5 92.2 7.5 own well-being”

* Excluding non-response cases

6.3.2 Community Bonding

This section on community bonding analyses multiple aspects such as older residents’ social interactions with neighbours, sense of attachment to the living environment and their involvement in community activities. The level of trust and reciprocity, as well as network size of non-family members are also examined here.

Almost all elderly and future elderly had casual interactions with neighbours, decline in more intense forms of interactions

Almost all elderly exchanged greetings and had casual conversations with their neighbours (Table 6.25). However, other more intense forms of neighbourly interaction such as keeping watch over the flat and exchanging suggestions/advice continued to decline from 2008. While fewer were engaging in more intense forms of interactions, the proportion of elderly who communicated with their neighbours via chatgroups rose from 1.0% in 2013 to 4.8% in 2018, while that for the future elderly rose from 2.8% to 8.7%. Both the elderly and future elderly showed broadly similar trends and patterns of neighbourly interactions.

153

Table 6.25 Types of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Households (%) 2008 2013 2018 Types of Neighbourly Interaction Future Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly Elderly

Exchange Greetings 96.2 97.8 97.1 98.9 98.5 98.6 97.5 97.9 97.0 Casual Conversation 94.3 95.8 94.1 98.0 97.0 97.0 95.1 95.2 94.4

Visit One Another/Exchange Food/Gifts on Special 52.6 56.2 51.0 47.1 55.1 53.3 48.2 50.9 52.9 Occasions

Keep Watch Over Flat 37.1 42.1 42.9 35.7 43.5 44.6 30.6 37.4 37.8

Help to Resolve Issues/Provide Solutions Relating to N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 16.9 22.0 23.3 Home Repair *

Exchange Suggestions/Advice 33.4 33.6 34.7 21.8 27.6 27.5 17.9 21.3 22.1 Help in Buying Groceries 19.1 17.5 17.9 16.1 15.7 15.2 13.4 13.3 13.5 Help to Look After Children 6.1 9.7 11.7 4.1 6.2 8.7 3.2 5.4 7.2 Communicate via Group Chats** N.A. N.A. N.A. 1.0 2.8 4.8 4.8 8.7 11.8 Provide/Receive Financial Help 4.1 5.5 4.2 2.0 3.1 2.5 1.4 2.5 2.2 * New variable on help to resolve issues/provide solutions relating to home repair was added in SHS 2018 ** New variable on communication via group chats was added in SHS 2013

154

In terms of frequency of neighbourly interactions, close to half of the elderly (Table 6.26) and future elderly (Table 6.27) exchanged greetings and about three in ten engaged in casual conversations with their neighbours on a daily basis. While a lower proportion of the elderly and future elderly had engaged in more intense forms of neighbourly interaction, more than four in ten visited one another and exchanged food/gifts only on an occasional basis.

Table 6.26 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly

At At Total Types of Neighbourly Least Least Occa- None Daily Interaction Once a Once a sionally at All Week Month % N* Exchange Greetings 48.7 33.8 2.3 12.7 2.5 100.0 259,283 Casual Conversation 31.3 37.9 4.1 21.8 4.9 100.0 259,283 Visit One Another/Exchange 0.4 2.1 2.2 43.5 51.8 100.0 259,283 Food/Gifts on Special Occasions Keep Watch Over Flat 0.8 0.9 1.0 27.9 69.4 100.0 259,283 Help to Resolve Issues/Provide - 0.3 0.3 16.3 83.1 100.0 259,283 Solutions Relating to Home Repair Exchange 0.3 0.7 0.4 16.5 82.1 100.0 259,283 Suggestions/Advice

Help in Buying - 0.6 0.4 12.4 86.6 100.0 259,239 Groceries

Help to Look After - 0.1 0.1 3.0 96.8 100.0 259,283 Children

Communicate via 0.2 0.4 0.5 3.7 95.2 100.0 259,283 Group Chats

Provide/Receive - - - 1.4 98.6 100.0 259,283 Financial Help

* Excluding non-response cases

155

Table 6.27 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among Future Elderly

At At Total Types of Neighbourly Least Least Occa- None Daily Interaction Once a Once a sionally at All Week Month % N Exchange Greetings 45.9 37.3 2.4 12.3 2.1 100.0 260,815 Casual Conversation 29.0 36.8 7.0 22.4 4.8 100.0 260,815 Visit One Another/Exchange 0.6 2.1 3.2 45.0 49.1 100.0 260,815 Food/Gifts on Special Occasions Keep Watch Over Flat 2.1 0.7 0.6 34.0 62.6 100.0 260,815 Help to Resolve Issues/Provide 0.3 0.2 0.4 21.1 78.0 100.0 260,815 Solutions Relating to Home Repair Exchange 0.3 0.3 0.7 20.0 78.7 100.0 260,815 Suggestions/Advice

Help in Buying 0.1 0.7 0.6 11.9 86.7 100.0 260,815 Groceries

Help to Look After - 0.3 0.2 4.9 94.6 100.0 260,815 Children

Communicate via 0.5 0.8 0.9 6.5 91.3 100.0 260,815 Group Chats

Provide/Receive - - - 2.5 97.5 100.0 260,815 Financial Help

Common corridors, lift lobbies and void decks most common places for interaction with neighbours

The elderly usually interacted with their neighbours within the block (79.5%) at spaces such as corridors/areas outside flats (37.0%), lift lobbies (21.3%) or void decks (20.3%), as shown in Table 6.28. Within the precinct, interactions with neighbours were common at the market or eating places such as hawker centre or eating house. Similar patterns were observed for both the future elderly and all households.

Almost all the elderly (97.5%) and future elderly (97.3%) agreed that such places facilitated their getting to know more neighbours. The majority of the elderly (98.4%) and future elderly (97.2%) also perceived that there were enough places for interactions with neighbours in their precinct.

156

Table 6.28 Places Where Neighbours Meet for Interaction among Elderly and Future Elderly

Places Where Neighbours Meet Elderly Future Elderly All Within the Block 79.5 83.7 83.8

Corridor/Area outside flat 37.0 38.6 39.1 Lift lobby/Lift 21.3 24.9 25.0 Void deck 20.3 19.6 19.1

Others (e.g., drop-off porch, 0.9 0.6 0.6 community living room)

Within the Neighbourhood or Precinct 16.2 12.7 12.5 Market/Hawker centre 7.4 5.3 4.7 Coffee shop/Eating house/Food centre 4.2 3.8 3.1 Pathways/Linkways to blocks 2.3 1.5 1.7 Playground 0.4 0.5 1.2

Others (e.g., provision shops/minimart, 1.9 1.6 1.8 community garden)

Within the Town 4.3 3.6 3.7 Bus stop/interchange 1.6 1.3 1.2 Park/Garden 0.9 0.3 0.5 Shopping/Entertainment area 0.6 0.7 0.8

Others (e.g., community club/centre, 1.2 1.3 1.2 religious institution)

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total No. of Responses* 646,469 655,360 2,516,053 * Excluding non-response cases and each resident was asked to provide up to three responses

Sense of community among elderly and future elderly comparable over past five years

Sense of Community (SOC) is also used as an indicator to gauge the degree of neighbourliness among HDB residents. For both the elderly and future elderly, their sense of community in 2018 was comparable with that in 2013, with a score of 74.9 and 73.6 respectively (Table 6.29). Both cohorts also had higher average scores compared with all households, with the elderly having the highest average score. Among the indicators, lower average scores were observed for tolerance towards noise from neighbours. However, the scores had improved compared with 2013.

157

Table 6.29 Sense of Community Score among Elderly and Future Elderly

Overall Mean Score (Over maximum of 100) 2013 2018 SOC Indicators Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

“It is very easy to talk to people a. 75.9 75.0 75.0 74.0 73.6 73.4 living in my HDB estate.”

“Noise from my neighbours is not b. 68.3 66.8 66.0 68.8 70.6 68.7 annoying.”

“I can always get help from my c. 74.0 74.0 74.3 73.1 72.2 72.2 neighbours when in need.”

“Residents in this block can d. 74.5 75.2 74.3 74.1 73.6 73.1 recognise one another easily.”

“Residents here care about the e. 72.0 72.4 71.8 73.8 72.8 72.5 maintenance of their block.”

“I feel a sense of belonging to f. 82.6 79.6 77.5 83.7 80.8 78.8 this housing estate/town.”

Overall Mean Score 74.5 73.8 73.2 74.9 73.6 73.1 (Over maximum of 100)

Fewer elderly and future elderly participating in community activities

The social ties of the elderly with the wider community are analysed in terms of their participation in community activities and willingness to contribute services for the benefit of the community. The proportion of the elderly who participated in community activities (38.1%) in 2018 was lower than that in 2013 (47.0%) (Table 6.30). Similarly, the proportion of the future elderly who participated in community activities had also declined, from 48.3% in 2013 to 38.3% in 2018.

Among the elderly who did not participate in community activities, the main reason cited was a lack of time (38.8%), a proportion which was considerably higher than the 25.9% in 2013 (Table 6.31). This could be due to a higher proportion of them being in the labour force, as shown previously in Table 6.3. There was also an increase in the proportion who mentioned a lack of interest in the activities offered (28.8%) and that the activities organised were not interesting (4.5%). Similar reasons were given by the future elderly.

158

Table 6.30 Community Participation of Elderly and Future Elderly Over Past 12 Months by Year

2008 2013 2018 Community Future Future Future Participation Elderly All Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly Elderly Yes 48.0 45.4 45.3 47.0 48.3 48.6 38.1 38.3 39.1 No 52.0 54.6 54.7 53.0 51.7 51.4 61.9 61.7 60.9 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 112,826 172,625 866,026 209,714 143,211 908,499 259,283 260,815 1,013,542 * Excluding non-response cases

Table 6.31 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly Reasons 2013 2018 2013 2018 No time/Busy/Always not at home 25.9 38.8 59.4 59.8 Not interested in any activity 25.8 28.8 16.2 18.9 Prefer to participate in own activities 14.6 6.4 10.0 7.3 Health problems 11.6 8.4 2.9 3.0 Activities organised were not suitable for residents/family 6.1 4.5 3.4 2.7 Old age 6.2 4.6 - - Activities organised not interesting 3.8 4.5 2.7 4.8 Not informed of these activities 3.2 1.4 3.3 2.0 Others (e.g., just moved in, no companion) 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.5 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 78,860 160,044 112,225 160,326 * Excluding non-response cases

159

The proportion of the elderly participating in activities organised by Community Clubs (CCs) had decreased from 27.4% in 2013 to 24.5% in 2018 (Table 6.32). There was also a decrease in the proportion of elderly participating in activities organised by religious organisations, from 17.0% to 11.3%, over the past five years. A lower proportion was also participating in self-organised activities, declining from 13.4% in 2013 to 6.1% in 2018. Similar trends were also observed for the future elderly.

Table 6.32 Types of Community Participation among Elderly and Future Elderly Over Past 12 Months by Year

Households Participated (%)* 2013 2018 Types of Community Participation Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

Community Clubs 27.4 27.5 28.0 24.5 23.2 24.0 Residents’ Committees 23.9 22.2 23.5 23.8 20.0 22.2 Religious Organisations 17.0 16.7 15.4 11.3 13.2 12.7 Residents’ Own Activities 13.4 13.1 13.2 6.1 7.5 7.1 Voluntary Welfare Organisations 7.4 8.1 6.1 5.2 4.8 4.4 Town Councils/HDB 8.3 8.9 9.3 4.7 6.1 7.0 Community Development Councils 7.6 7.1 9.3 3.2 6.2 6.4 * Excluding non-response cases

A higher proportion of the elderly and future elderly who participated in community activities were outside the labour force (Table 6.33). Both elderly and future elderly females were also more likely to participate in community activities.

Table 6.33 Participation in Community Activities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly

Community Community Attributes Total Total Participation Participation

Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Labour In Labour 34.3 65.7 100.0 78,052 36.6 63.4 100.0 185,966 Force Force Status Outside 39.7 60.3 100.0 181,231 42.7 57.3 100.0 74,849 Labour Force

Sex Male 34.8 65.2 100.0 134,378 33.4 66.6 100.0 133,428 Female 41.6 58.4 100.0 124,905 56.5 43.5 100.0 127,567 * Excluding non-response cases

160

Close to half of elderly and future elderly had participated in either community or hobby-related activities

Residents were asked if they were participating in any hobby-related activities on a regular basis and 17.3% of the elderly and 19.3% of the future elderly indicated that they had done so (Table 6.34). One in ten of elderly (10.9%) participated in social/cultural activities such as singing and dancing, while 8.9% participated in sports activities such as brisk walking/jogging and exercising in general.

Table 6.34 Participation in Hobby-Related Activities among Elderly and Future Elderly

Participated in Hobby-Related Activities Elderly Future Elderly All

Yes 17.3 19.3 19.5 No 82.7 80.7 80.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 259,283 260,424 1,012,942 * Excluding non-response cases

Close to half of the elderly (45.0%) and future elderly (45.6%) were active in either or both community and hobby-related activities (Table 6.35). It is important for older residents to remain active and maintain strong ties with the community should they choose to age in place. Given that the lack of interest in the activities offered was one of the main reasons given for the lower participation rates in community activities, it would be useful if residents could be involved in the curation of programmes to boost participation rates.

Table 6.35 Participation in Community and Hobby-Related Activities for Elderly and Future Elderly

Future Participation Elderly All Elderly

Participated in both community and 10.3 12.1 10.8 hobby-related activities

Participated in community activities only 27.8 45.0 26.3 45.6 28.2 47.6 Participated in hobby-related activities only 6.9 7.2 8.6 Did not participate in either activity 55.0 54.4 52.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 259,283 260,424 1,012,941 * Excluding non-response cases

161

More elderly and future elderly had contributed or willing to contribute services for the community

About three in ten of the elderly (31.1%) had contributed their services for the benefit of the community, higher than the 23.9% in 2013 (Chart 6.11). The proportion who was willing to contribute had also increased, from 16.1% in 2013 to 30.4% in 2018. A similar trend was observed for future elderly households. The services usually rendered by the elderly and future elderly who had contributed to the community include helping to keep common areas clean and acts of assistance such as helping other elderly persons to get around or helping neighbours with repairs (Table 6.36).

Chart 6.11 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All

100 Have not 25.9 25.0 80 38.5 44.5 43.0 41.8 38.4 contributed and not 57.7 60.0 willing to do so 60 34.9 34.8 Have not 30.4 40 27.2 29.3 31.7 34.5 contributed but 19.6 16.1 willing to do so

Households(%) 20 40.2 31.1 39.2 22.7 23.9 28.3 27.7 26.5 27.1 Contributed 0 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Table 6.36 Types of Help/Services Rendered by Elderly and Future Elderly

Types of Help/Service Elderly Future Elderly Keep common areas clean/Pick up litter 24.2 23.2

General help (e.g., help elderly to get around, help 22.7 19.8 neighbours with repairs)

Being a volunteer/Volunteer to help if needed 21.6 17.3 Giving donations 14.4 13.4

Report issues to authorities (e.g., safety/maintenance/ 9.2 12.8 emergency issues)

Look after one another (e.g., look after neighbour’s 6.3 9.0 child/elderly parents, cook for them when ill)

Request additional facilities from authorities 1.1 3.0

Others (e.g., join RCs/Grassroots organisations to 0.5 1.5 contribute ideas)

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 78,458 101,287 * Excluding non-response cases

162

Among those who did not contribute, lack of time was cited by both elderly (39.0%) and future elderly (68.5%) as the main reason, while 33.7% of the elderly also mentioned old age and poor health as a reason (Table 6.37).

Table 6.37 Reasons for Not Contributing Services among Elderly and Future Elderly

Reasons Elderly Future Elderly

No time/busy 39.0 68.5 Health issues/Old age 33.7 5.0 No information on how to contribute 11.6 11.6 Not interested 9.2 9.3 Do not want to interact with community 3.2 2.8 Do not think services are required 1.4 1.4 Others (e.g., language barrier) 1.9 1.4

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 177,658 148,446 * Excluding non-response cases

A higher proportion of the elderly who had contributed their services for the benefit of the community lived in bigger flat types, were better educated or had participated in community activities. A similar pattern was observed among the future elderly in terms of education level and community participation. Future elderly residents living in bigger flat types, with the exception of those living in 4-room flats, were also more likely to contribute to the community (Table 6.38). The high degree of willingness among elderly and future elderly residents to contribute their services, constitutes a potential source of volunteers which agencies or organisations could tap on for community projects.

163

Table 6.38 Actual Contribution among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly Attributes Contributed Total Contributed Total Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Flat Type 1- & 2- 25.2 74.8 100.0 29,580 34.9 65.1 100.0 20,604 Room

3-Room 30.5 69.5 100.0 82,832 41.2 58.8 100.0 59,828 4-Room 32.1 67.9 100.0 86,553 35.3 64.7 100.0 98,165

5-Room & 33.1 66.9 100.0 60,317 43.0 57.0 100.0 82,021 Bigger

Education Below 27.3 72.7 100.0 171,456 37.5 62.5 100.0 115,709 Level Secondary

Secondary/ Post- 36.6 63.4 100.0 69,114 39.8 60.2 100.0 104,409 secondary

Diploma & 46.1 53.9 100.0 18,143 41.1 58.9 100.0 40,149 Above

Community Yes 38.7 61.3 100.0 98,754 46.6 53.4 100.0 99,936 Participation No 26.4 73.6 100.0 160,529 34.3 65.7 100.0 160,681 * Excluding non-response cases

Elderly and future elderly had higher levels of trust and reciprocity with community, smaller network sizes

The trust and reciprocity scores of the elderly and future elderly residents in regard to friends and neighbours were higher in 2018 compared with 2008, but slightly lower when compared with all households (Tables 6.39 and 6.40). A further breakdown of the composition of the community network size of the elderly and future elderly revealed that they had fewer friends and neighbours in their informal community networks compared with 2008 (Table 6.41). The decline registered could be an artefact of the changed criterion (Refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.2).

164

Table 6.39 Norms of Trust with Informal Community Networks of Elderly and Future Elderly

Trust (Mean Score: 0 - 10)

Networks Elderly Future Elderly All

2008 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018

a. Friends (who are not neighbours) 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.8 b. Friends (who are neighbours) 5.9 6.0 6.1 c. Neighbours 4.7 5.8 4.7 5.9 4.9 6.0 d. Colleagues N.A. 5.9 N.A. 6.1 N.A. 6.3 e. Acquaintances N.A. 4.3 N.A. 4.2 N.A. 4.4

Table 6.40 Norms of Reciprocity with Informal Community Networks of Elderly and Future Elderly

Reciprocity (Mean Score: 0 - 10)

Networks Elderly Future Elderly All

2008 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018

a. Friends (who are not neighbours) 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.7 b. Friends (who are neighbours) 5.8 6.0 6.1 c. Neighbours 4.7 5.7 4.8 5.8 4.9 5.9 d. Colleagues N.A. 5.8 N.A. 6.0 N.A. 6.2 e. Acquaintances N.A. 4.2 N.A. 4.0 N.A. 4.2

Table 6.41 Composition of Informal Community Network Size for Elderly and Future Elderly

Mean Network Size (Persons) Networks Elderly Future Elderly All 2008 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018 a. Friends (who are not neighbours) 21 24 24 10 11 14 b. Friends (who are neighbours) 8 7 6 c. Neighbours in general 11 6 11 6 10 7 d. Colleagues N.A. 4 N.A. 9 N.A. 11 e. Acquaintances N.A. 3 N.A. 4 N.A. 5

Almost all elderly and future elderly had sense of belonging to towns/estates

Almost all the elderly (99.7%) felt a sense of belonging to their towns/estates, comparable with the proportion in 2013 (Table 6.42). A similar trend was observed for the future elderly.

165

Table 6.42 Sense of Belonging among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

2008 2013 2018 Sense of Future Future Future Belonging Elderly All Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly Elderly

Yes 99.4 98.6 98.6 99.2 99.0 98.8 99.7 99.3 99.0 No 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.3 0.7 1.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 112,721 172,625 864,246 142,641 209,435 906,831 259,118 260,815 1,013,339 * Excluding non-response cases

Close to eight in ten of the elderly attributed their sense of belonging mainly to both place and people (77.9%), while 18.9% attributed it only to the place, a proportion which was higher compared with 2013 (Chart 6.12). A similar trend was also observed for the future elderly and all households.

Chart 6.12 Sense of Belonging to Place and People among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All

100 1.9 3.2 3.4 4.8 3.3 4.8 16.2 18.9 18.8 20.6 18.2 80 21.3 To People 60 To Place 40 81.9 77.9 77.8 74.6 78.5 73.9

Households (%) Households 20 To Place & People

0 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

6.4 Housing Aspects

Given the strong sense of belonging to the town/estate, the next section on housing aspects will look at older residents’ strong inclination to age in place, whether their living environment fulfils their needs and what facilities and services should be provided for those who may require physical assistance.

To enable elderly residents to age in place, it is vital that the flats where they reside, as well as the estate amenities they utilise, are continually enhanced to provide a conducive environment for them. As mentioned, HDB has worked with Town

166

Councils to implement the Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA) masterplan in all estates, completed the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), as well as continuing with Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) 28 and Home Improvement Programme (HIP)29. The ongoing Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP)30 also ensures that elderly residents will benefit from neighbourhood improvements such as additional residents’ corners, community living rooms and covered linkways. With more elderly-friendly initiatives to be implemented in the next few decades, it is important to examine the needs and preferences of elderly and future elderly residents in order to strengthen future improvement plans.

The analysis on housing aspects focuses on four main areas: housing mobility and aspirations, physical living experience, satisfaction and usage levels of estate facilities and facilities for medical and social support.

6.4.1 Housing Mobility and Aspirations

This section examines elderly residents’ preference to age in place, by analysing their intention to move within the next five years, desire to age in the same flat or town, and preferred housing type for old age.

Majority of elderly and future elderly had no intention to move

The majority of both the elderly and future elderly had no intention to move within the next five years (Chart 6.13). The proportion of the elderly with intention to move remained comparable with 2013, while that of the future elderly rose slightly from 7.8% to 8.6% over the same period.

28 As of 1 August 2014, the age criterion to enrol in EASE (Direct Application) was lowered from 70 years old to 65 years old for Singapore Citizen households with an elderly family member, and from between 65 to 69 years old to between 60 and 64 years old for those that required assistance for at least one Activity of Daily Living (ADL). 29 From 20 August 2018, Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was extended to flats built between 1987 and 1997, benefiting an additional 230,000 households. Previously only flats built up to 1986 were eligible. 30 The Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) was introduced in Aug 2007 in response to feedback received from residents for more active consultation on the improvements to be provided in their precincts. Blocks built up to 1995 and have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) or IUP Plus are eligible for NRP. This programme is fully funded by the Government and implemented by the Town Councils.

167

Chart 6.13 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All 100 4.2 4.6 6.5 8.3 7.8 8.6 6.1 11.5 12.4 13.3 8.0 10.3 7.3 17.3 16.8 80 19.9 17.8 9.9

60 Yes 85.5 85.5 89.3 84.1 Unsure 40 74.4 75.4 76.8

Households(%) 69.8 68.6 No 20 0 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

For those elderly with the intention to move, the main reason given was to right- size to a smaller flat or a less expensive flat, while those among the future elderly expressed a desire to right-size to a smaller flat, move to a less expensive flat or upgrade to a bigger flat.

More elderly and future elderly intended to age in existing flat

The elderly were asked where they intended to live in for their old age, whether it would be staying in the same flat, moving to a different flat in the same town or moving to a different town. Most of the elderly (85.9%) intended to age in the same flat, which was higher compared with 2013 (80.2%). For the future elderly, 70.3% intended to age in their present flat, a proportion higher than the 60.9% in 2013. Some 8.3% of the elderly planned to live in a different flat but within the same town, while 4.6% would move to another town. Compared with the elderly, a higher proportion of the future elderly would either move to a different flat within the same town (17.0%) or away from the present town (10.8%) (Chart 6.14). Taken together, these findings indicated that most elderly residents had preference to age in place.

168

Chart 6.14 Where Elderly and Future Elderly Intended to Live for Old Age

Elderly Future Elderly 0.8 1.2 2.6 1.9 100 4.6 Others (e.g., old 12.2 8.3 10.8 folks' home, migrate) 3.6 21.2 80 3.2 17.0 Have not Thought 8.4 About It/Unsure 6.9 60 Different Town 85.9 40 80.2 70.3 Different Flat and

Households(%) 60.9 Same Town 20 Same Flat 0 2013 2018 2013 2018

The main reasons given by both the elderly and future elderly who wanted to live in the same flat was that it was comfortable, they had an emotional attachment to the flat or they wanted their children to inherit the flat.

For the elderly who did not mind living in a different flat but wanted to reside in the same town, they cited reasons such as moving into a smaller home for easier maintenance, a decrease in household size, or wanting to cash out on their flat. However, they preferred to remain in the same town due to its familiar environment or their sense of attachment to the town, good provision of facilities and good transportation network. Similar reasons were given by the future elderly.

Among the elderly and future elderly who intended to move away from the town, the main reasons cited were to move to a smaller flat due to a decrease in household size or for easier maintenance, cash out on their flat for additional income, or to move nearer to other family members. They did not mind moving to another town to be closer to their children’s home, or a place with more facilities and good transportation network.

Majority of elderly and future elderly content with present flat type

Overall, the majority of the elderly (77.7%) and future elderly (67.7%) were content with the flat types that they were currently residing in, similar to that in 2013 (Chart 6.15). These proportions were higher compared with that of all households (57.9%), suggesting that the elderly and future elderly would have fulfilled their housing aspirations. Some 14.2% of the elderly and 23.1% of the future elderly

169

aspired for better housing, while lower proportions (8.1% for the elderly and 9.2% for the future elderly) were content with smaller flat types.

Chart 6.15 Housing Aspirations among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All 100 10.4 14.8 14.2 18.5 23.5 23.1 28.6 80 35.0 35.2 Aspire for Better Housing 60 78.1 Content with 78.1 77.7 65.5 40 65.2 67.7 58.7 Present Flat 57.5 57.9 Type Content with

Households(%) 20 Smaller Flat Type 11.5 16.0 11.3 9.2 12.7 0 7.1 8.1 7.5 6.9 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

The most common housing type that the elderly was content with was 4-room, followed by 3-room flat (Table 6.43). For the future elderly, 4-room flat was the most popular flat type, followed by 5-room flat. The proportions who aspired for private housing in 2018 were similar to that in 2013 for both the elderly and future elderly.

Table 6.43 Housing Type Content with among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

2013 2018 Housing Type Future Future Content with Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

HDB 1-Room 6.3 1.6 1.6 3.2 1.7 1.4 2-Room 7.8 4.6 3.2 5.6 4.5 3.4 3-Room 33.5 24.8 18.3 29.2 18.6 17.1 4-Room 30.2 31.8 30.9 31.0 34.6 30.3 5-Room 12.0 17.4 20.4 16.0 20.4 21.6

Executive Apartment/ 3.8 7.7 8.8 4.6 7.2 7.9 3Gen Flat/HUDC

Short-Lease 2-Room Flexi Flat/Studio 1.1 2.0 0.9 4.1 2.6 1.8 Apartment*

Private Property ** 5.3 10.1 15.9 6.3 10.4 16.5 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N*** 142,629 209,363 905,882 259,200 260,607 1,012,784 * As of Aug 2015, the new 2-room Flexi Flat had replaced the existing 2-room flat and Studio Apartment ** Private property includes private apartment, private/executive condominium, terrace house, semi-detached house, bungalow, private studio apartment, retirement village and overseas property *** Excluding non-response cases

170

Elderly and future elderly preferred 3- or 4-room flats for old age

For both the elderly and future elderly, 3-room or 4-room flats were the preferred housing type for old age, similar to that in 2013. As the majority of the elderly and future elderly were currently residing in these flat types, it reinforced earlier findings that showed that older residents were strongly inclined to age in place (Table 6.44). The proportions who preferred to live in 5-room and bigger flat type and short-lease 2-room Flexi flat/Studio Apartment for old age had increased from 2013 for both the elderly and future elderly. As shown earlier in the section on type of dwelling by flat type (Refer to Section 6.1.1, Table 6.1), this increase could be due to a higher proportion of the elderly and future elderly living in these flat types compared with 2013; and their current flat type coincided with their preferences.

Table 6.44 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

2013 2018

Preferred Housing Type Future Future Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly

Purchased 1-Room 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 2-Room 7.6 5.7 5.1 7.6 3-Room 36.0 32.3 33.0 26.3 61.4 59.6 61.6 54.6 4-Room 25.4 27.3 28.6 28.3 5-Room & Bigger 13.6 16.0 16.8 18.9

Short-Lease 2-Room Flexi 2.6 6.7 6.7 9.1 Flat/Studio Apartment*

Private Properties 0.9 2.0 0.4 1.3 Rented 1-Room 5.1 1.3 3.6 1.4 2-Room 4.3 2.6 2.5 1.8

Others (e.g., rent 3-room & bigger flats, old folks’ home, 2.4 4.7 2.2 4.2 retirement village)

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N** 141,935 205,457 258,789 259,954 * As of Aug 2015, the new 2-room Flexi Flat had replaced the existing 2-room flat and Studio Apartment ** Excluding non-response cases

171

6.4.2 Physical Living Experience

With the majority of older residents preferring to age in place, it is critical to study if the living environment can meet their ageing needs. This section examines elderly residents’ physical living experience in terms of their overall satisfaction with flat and neighbourhood, their satisfaction with various aspects within HDB estates and the reliability of lifts in the blocks. In addition, elderly residents’ sense of pride with their homes and whether they find their flats to be value for money are also discussed.

High satisfaction with flat and neighbourhood among elderly and future elderly

Almost all of the elderly and future elderly were satisfied with both their flat and neighbourhood. There was also a slight increase in satisfaction with flat and neighbourhood among both the elderly and future elderly compared with five years ago (Chart 6.16).

Chart 6.16 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly 98.6 95.4 96.9 96.9 96.1 97.3 96.5 94.5 95.7 95.5 100 91.0 93.0

60 2008 40 2013

20 2018 Households(%) 0 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Flat Neighbourhood Flat Neighbourhood

For those satisfied with their flat, the main reason cited was that it was spacious, or that the flat was in good condition. The poor condition of the flat was the main concern among the small proportion of older residents who were dissatisfied with their flat.

For the elderly and future elderly who were satisfied with their neighbourhood, the main reasons cited were friendly neighbours, convenient location, as well as easy accessibility to transport nodes and commercial facilities. The environment being

172

quiet and peaceful was the other main factor. For those who were dissatisfied, the main reasons cited were that the neighbours were unfriendly and noisy.

Most elderly and future elderly satisfied with various aspects of HDB physical living environment except cleanliness and noise

Residents were asked to indicate whether they were satisfied with various external and internal aspects of their HDB physical living environment. Except for cleanliness, more than 90% of the elderly and future elderly were pleased with the external aspects of the HDB living environment (Chart 6.17). In comparison with the future elderly, a higher proportion of the elderly was satisfied with the external aspects.

Chart 6.17 Satisfaction with Aspects of External Living Environment among Elderly and Future Elderly

Location 99.7 98.4 Spaciousness of housing estate 99.1 98.3 Walkability to transport nodes 98.7 98.5 Accessibility to transport nodes 98.3 97.3 Accessibility to commercial facilities 98.2 96.6 Walkability to commercial facilities 98.1 97.9 Crowdedness at precinct 98.1 97.6 Safety/Security within precinct 97.4 96.5 Block design 97.4 96.0 Maintenance of housing estate 95.7 93.3 Provision of car park 95.4 93.0 Adequacy of lighting in neighbourhood 94.9 90.6 Pathways 94.7 92.9 Ease of cycling within HDB town 93.0 92.2 Safety from traffic for pedestrians 92.2 89.7 Cleanliness 85.5 76.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Households Satisfied (%) Elderly Future Elderly

173

Among the internal aspects of the HDB living environment surveyed, both the elderly and future elderly were least satisfied with the aspect of noise. The majority were satisfied with other internal aspects, such as the variety of flat types offered and privacy within the flat (Chart 6.18). Similar to external aspects, a higher proportion of the elderly were satisfied with internal aspects compared with the future elderly.

Chart 6.18 Satisfaction with Aspects of Internal Living Environment among Elderly and Future Elderly

Privacy of flat 99.2 96.9 Variety of flat types 98.9 98.1

Size of flat 98.4 96.3

Natural lighting within flat 97.5 95.8

Flat design/layout 97.5 95.0

Natural ventilation within flat 97.2 94.0

View from flat 97.1 92.5

Upgrading programme 94.3 90.1

Purchase price of flat 87.6 85.9

Noise 82.4 78.1

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households Satisfied (%) Elderly Future Elderly

Majority of elderly and future elderly found lifts to be reliable

A high proportion or 86.1% of the elderly agreed that the lifts were reliable, comparable with that in 2013 (Chart 6.19). This proportion was higher than that of the future elderly and all households. The main reason mentioned for their dissatisfaction with lift reliability was that they had experienced frequent lift breakdowns. On-going initiatives such as the Lift Enhancement Programme

174

(LEP)31, Lift Surveillance System (LSS)32, as well as the Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP)33 would help to enhance the reliability and performance of lifts in HDB blocks.

Chart 6.19 Proportion of Elderly and Future Elderly Households who Perceived Lifts to be Reliable

100 88.9 86.1 84.6 80.9 85.6 82.6 80 60 40

Households(%) 20

0 Elderly Future Elderly All 2013 2018

Slight decline in elderly and future elderly who perceived flat to be value for money

The physical living experience encompasses aspects beyond satisfaction with the environment and includes residents’ sentiments towards the perceived value of their flat.

Most of the elderly (94.7%) and future elderly (87.8%) agreed that their flats were value for money (Chart 6.20). However, the proportions of the elderly and future elderly who felt their flats were value for money were slightly lower compared with 2013. As the Resale Price Index (RPI) had declined from 2014 onwards, the

31 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. 32 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.

33 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.

175

elderly and future elderly may have perceived that the flat appreciation value had also decreased (Refer to Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences, Chapter 4, Section 4.1).

Chart 6.20 Value for Money of HDB Flat among Elderly and Future Elderly in Sold Flats by Year

100 94.4 96.8 94.7 89.2 94.5 87.8

20 Households(%) 0 Elderly Future Elderly 2008 2013 2018

Among the elderly and future elderly who felt that their flats were value for money, most attributed it mainly to affordable flat prices at the time of purchase, followed by the appreciation in the value of the flat. Some also mentioned that the flat was in a good location and close to various facilities. The minority who felt otherwise attributed it to the high purchase price and that there was no appreciation in flat price.

More elderly and future elderly proud of their flat

Compared with 2013, a higher proportion of the elderly and future elderly were proud of their flat (Chart 6.21), while 17.9% of the elderly and 22.7% of the future elderly felt neutral towards their flat.

176

Chart 6.21 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All

2.4 3.8 2.1 4.5 3.7 3.2 4.1 4.1 3.6 100 14.9 19.9 17.9 13.3 22.7 15.2 22.2 80 25.0 25.5

40 82.7 80.0 82.2 80.7 76.3 71.3 74.1 70.4 74.2

Households(%) 20

0 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 Proud Neutral Not Proud

Those who were proud of their flat attributed it mainly to the benefits derived from a sense of ownership such as having a comfortable home to live in, a sense of achievement in owning a flat, as well as its spaciousness and good and convenient location. The elderly and future elderly who felt neutral about their flat mentioned having a comfortable home to live in, while others felt that a flat was simply a housing necessity. For the minority who were not proud of their home, the key reason given was that the HDB flat was merely a housing necessity and there was nothing special about living in one.

6.4.3 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

To support older residents to age in place, estate facilities should meet their daily needs, such as providing them convenient access to places where they could shop for groceries; coffee shops and hawker centres to enjoy a meal and bond with family members, friends, and neighbours; and recreational facilities where they could have fun and interact with others from the neighbourhood. It is therefore important to monitor the trend in their usage pattern, as well as satisfaction with the provision of estate facilities, to facilitate future design and provision of these facilities.

177

Almost all elderly and future elderly satisfied with provision of estate facilities

Almost all elderly households (99.6%) and future elderly households (99.3%) were satisfied with the overall provision of estate facilities, rising from 98.0% and 97.0% respectively in 2013 (Table 6.45).

More than 90% of elderly and future elderly households were satisfied with the various types of estate facilities provided. These proportions were also higher compared with 2013. For every facility, proportionally more elderly users were satisfied than their younger counterparts.

Table 6.45 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Households Satisfied (%) 2013 2018 Types of Estate Facilities Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

General Retail Shops 97.0 94.1 93.4 99.1 98.3 97.9

HDB shop/ 95.7 90.3 89.9 98.0 94.4 94.8 Neighbourhood centre

Shopping centre/mall 95.2 92.2 90.8 97.4 97.0 96.3

Markets or Market-Produce 96.7 95.9 94.7 98.5 97.6 97.4 Shops/Stall

(iii) Eating Facilities 95.7 93.9 92.4 98.8 96.4 96.2 Transportation Facilities 89.8 81.8 80.4 96.0 92.5 91.4 Sports Facilities 95.3 90.5 88.9 96.5 95.3 93.6

Recreational & Leisure 96.0 93.4 91.7 98.4 96.3 95.7 Facilities

Precinct Facilities 90.1 87.5 86.7 96.3 94.6 94.2 Community Facilities 96.6 95.3 94.6 98.5 97.7 97.3 Educational Facilities 98.0 96.6 95.0 99.3 99.2 97.7 Health/Medical Facilities 90.1 84.9 85.7 96.0 93.8 93.9 Financial Facilities 90.8 86.0 86.7 92.9 90.5 90.0

Overall Satisfaction 98.0 97.0 96.1 99.6 99.3 98.6

High satisfaction with provision of elderly-friendly facilities

With an increasing proportion of elderly residents living in HDB towns and estates, more elderly-friendly facilities have been built to, for instance, facilitate their movement around the precinct and beyond. Some examples of these facilities

178

include ramps and support hand bars in the lifts or along corridors. Other facilities such as senior citizens’ corners, fitness stations and benches/seats/tables serve as places where elderly residents could interact with neighbours and friends.

More than 90% of the elderly and future elderly were satisfied with the elderly- friendly facilities provided around their living environment (Table 6.46). The proportions satisfied with these facilities were comparable with 2013 except for senior citizens’ corner and ramp, where the lack of such facilities was given as the main reason for their dissatisfaction.

Table 6.46 Satisfaction with Elderly-Friendly Estate Facilities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Households Satisfied (%)

2008 2013 2018 Facilities for Elderly Future Future Future Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly Elderly

Support hand bar in 97.9 98.0 97.4 97.1 96.9 96.2 lift/along corridor

Fitness station 96.6 95.9 95.4 94.6 95.5 94.4 Ramp 96.4 97.3 97.2 97.6 96.1 94.7 Senior citizens’ corner 95.9 94.0 97.8 95.9 93.6 93.7 Bench/Seat/Table 93.4 90.4 90.8 86.5 91.1 88.6

More elderly and future elderly households patronised supermarkets and eating houses/coffee shops at least once a week

The proportion of elderly households who patronised commercial facilities at least once a week had decreased over the past five years as more shifted to patronising these facilities only occasionally (i.e. those who patronised less than once a week), apart from supermarkets and eating houses/coffee shops (Table 6.47). There was, however, an increase in the proportion of the elderly patronising food and beverage outlets such as fast food outlets, cafes and restaurants at least once a week and occasionally.

Similarly, the frequency of future elderly households patronising supermarkets and eating houses/coffee shops at least once a week had increased (Table 6.48); with usage levels on an occasional basis increasing for the other commercial facilities. Overall, patronage of hawker centres and eating houses/coffee shops among

179

elderly and future elderly households was higher compared with food courts and other food establishments. This could be because the food served at hawker centres and eating houses/coffee shops were seen as more varied and affordable.

Regular usage of most sports and recreational facilities decreased among elderly and future elderly households

Among elderly households, the proportion who utilised sports and recreational facilities at least once a week had decreased compared with five years ago, except for roof/sky gardens and hard/multi-purpose courts. Similarly, the proportion of future elderly households who utilised these facilities at least once a week had also decreased, except for fitness stations/jogging tracks and hard/multi-purpose courts (Tables 6.47 and 6.48). This could be due to a higher proportion of the elderly and future elderly who were still in the labour force compared with five years ago; hence they did not utilise the facilities regularly due to lack of time. Meanwhile, usage levels on an occasional basis among both elderly and future elderly households had generally increased.

Overall, fitness corners/jogging tracks and neighbourhood parks/common greens were the two most popular facilities, with 24.0% and 13.8% of elderly households frequenting these facilities at least once a week, respectively. Similar trends were observed for future elderly households.

High usage of covered linkway by elderly and future elderly households

The usage level of covered linkways at least once a week among both elderly and future elderly households remained high (Tables 6.47 and 6.48). This proportion had also increased compared with five years ago, which could be due to the completion of more linkways under upgrading programmes such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and LTA’s Walk2Ride programme.

Besides covered linkways, shelters, void deck areas and drop-off porches also saw higher usage levels at least once a week or on an occasional basis for both elderly and future elderly households, compared with other precinct and community facilities. While facilities such as trellis, community clubs and libraries were

180

relatively less popular, the proportions that visited community clubs and libraries occasionally had increased.

Table 6.47 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Elderly by Year

2013 2018 Less Less At Least At Least Types of Estate Facilities Than Never Than Never Once a Once a Once a Use Once a Use Week Week Week Week Commercial Facilities Wet/Dry market 77.8 14.5 7.7 70.7 21.1 8.2 Supermarket 67.8 27.8 4.4 73.4 23.3 3.3 Hawker centre 60.1 29.9 10.0 57.2 35.1 7.7

HDB Shop/Neighbourhood 54.2 38.1 7.7 44.5 46.8 8.7 Centre

Eating house/Coffee shop 53.5 32.8 13.7 55.2 35.5 9.3 Food court 28.0 46.5 25.5 26.6 56.2 17.2

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast 6.9 39.4 53.7 9.5 53.2 37.3 food, café, restaurant)

Sports & Recreational

Facilities

Fitness station/ 25.1 20.6 54.3 24.0 26.2 49.8 Jogging track

Neighbourhood 17.9 28.7 53.4 13.8 35.4 50.8 park/Common green

Regional/Town park 13.2 25.2 61.6 9.3 27.7 63.0 Playground 8.0 9.4 82.6 6.2 13.0 80.8 Roof/Sky garden 3.0 11.4 85.6 3.9 13.1 83.0 Hard/Multi-purpose court 2.1 10.3 87.6 3.5 17.2 79.3 Community garden N.A. N.A. N.A. 6.8 20.4 72.8

Precinct & Community

Facilities

Covered linkway 78.7 17.8 3.5 80.5 17.2 2.3

Void deck/ 30.3 37.2 32.5 29.8 39.4 30.8 Community living room

Drop-off porch 22.0 45.8 32.2 17.1 57.6 25.3 Precinct pavilion 16.9 31.4 51.7 6.2 37.7 56.1 Shelter 16.2 35.3 48.5 20.2 39.1 40.7 Trellis 12.7 25.9 61.4 6.4 25.6 68.0 Community club 8.4 26.9 64.7 7.4 35.5 57.1 Regional/Community library 5.7 23.4 70.9 6.5 30.8 62.7

Note: a) Analysis is based on responses of households who were provided with the facility and were aware of the presence of such a facility in their estate/neighbourhood or town b) Only fast food outlet was analysed in 2013 under Other F&B Outlet c) Roof/Sky garden analysed as Roof garden at top level of MSCP in 2013 d) New variable on Community garden was added in 2018

181

Table 6.48 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Future Elderly by Year

2013 2018 Less Less At Least At Least Types of Estate Facilities Than Never Than Never Once a Once a Once a Use Once a Use Week Week Week Week Commercial Facilities Wet/Dry market 75.2 17.4 7.4 69.2 22.1 8.7 Supermarket 77.7 20.4 1.9 81.6 17.3 1.1 Hawker centre 65.8 29.7 4.5 60.1 31.2 8.7

HDB Shop/Neighbourhood 57.7 36.9 5.4 50.3 42.9 6.8 Centre

Eating house/Coffee shop 60.1 33.8 6.1 61.7 31.7 6.6 Food court 39.7 47.6 12.7 35.6 52.2 12.2

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast 16.5 52.1 31.4 16.2 63.6 20.2 food, café, restaurant)

Sports & Recreational

Facilities

Fitness station/ 24.2 24.9 50.9 24.4 32.3 43.3 Jogging track

Neighbourhood 17.3 34.0 48.7 16.6 40.9 42.5 park/Common green

Regional/Town park 13.9 33.9 52.2 7.9 41.5 50.6 Playground 7.3 13.6 79.1 6.1 13.0 80.9 Roof/Sky garden 6.3 13.8 79.9 1.6 14.5 83.9 Hard/Multi-purpose court 2.8 12.2 85.0 4.0 20.7 75.3 Community garden N.A. N.A. N.A. 4.5 22.6 72.9

Precinct & Community

Facilities

Covered linkway 82.2 14.5 3.3 86.1 12.7 1.2

Void deck/ 25.4 36.8 37.8 27.5 40.2 32.3 Community living room

Drop-off porch 32.1 37.7 30.2 25.5 50.4 24.1 Precinct pavilion 14.3 30.3 55.4 6.6 33.6 59.8 Shelter 15.0 31.7 53.3 22.3 35.9 41.8 Trellis 11.8 25.8 62.4 5.7 26.1 68.2 Community club 6.9 33.6 59.5 7.6 39.1 53.3 Regional/Community library 8.9 35.6 55.5 7.3 48.6 44.1

182

6.4.4 Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Who Require Assistance with Daily Living Activities

As most of the elderly and future elderly intend to age in place, more medical and social support services would be necessary, should more of them become less mobile and require more assistance with the tasks of daily living. The last section examines the perceived ideal living arrangement of elderly persons who may need assistance with daily living or move into assisted living facilities when assistance is needed, and whether older residents are aware of the medical and social support services available to them.

More viewed remaining in own home or moving into an institution as ideal arrangements for elderly persons who require assistance with daily living

Residents were asked to select the living arrangement that they felt was the most ideal for an elderly person who required assistance with daily living. The most popular option for both the elderly and future elderly was for the elderly to remain at their current home with family members or domestic helper as caregivers, a preference which saw an increase from 2013 (Chart 6.22). There was also an increase in the proportion who preferred to remain in their own home with professional support. The proportion of the elderly and future elderly who chose moving into their children’s homes as an option decreased from 2013; while those who chose moving into an institution as an ideal living arrangement increased over the same time period.

Chart 6.22 Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons Requiring Assistance with Daily Living among Elderly and Future Elderly

Elderly Future Elderly

1.8 0.1 1.4 0.5 Others (e.g., move in 100 with other 6.1 8.8 10.8 12.4 relatives/friends) 12.7 13.8 80 17.4 14.5 Live in Own Home with Professional Support

60 25.5 39.7 47.4 31.4 Stay in Institutions

40 Households(%) Move in with Children 46.2 20 41.2 37.0 31.3 Live in Own Home with 0 Caregiving by 2013 2018 2013 2018 Family/Domestic help

183

About half willing to live in assisted living facilities if require help with daily living activities

With a rising proportion of elderly living longer, it is important to ascertain the extent of their willingness to live in assisted living facilities should the need arise. About 42.0% of the elderly and 51.1% of the future elderly indicated a willingness to do so (Table 6.49).

Table 6.49 Willingness of Elderly and Future Elderly to Live in Assisted Living Facilities

Willingness to Live in Elderly Future Elderly Assisted Living Facilities

Yes 42.0 51.1 No 58.0 48.9

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 257,401 259,261 * Excluding non-response cases

For the elderly and future elderly who were willing to live in assisted living facilities, the main reason given was that they could have access to professional medical and nursing care. For those not willing to live in assisted living facilities, the main reason was that they preferred to live in their own home, while others said they did not want to live with strangers.

Majority of elderly and future elderly aware of social support services and facilities

Elderly residents were asked if they were aware of the common eldercare services34 available to them (Chart 6.23). A higher proportion of the elderly were

34 Common eldercare services covered in the survey are: a. Emotional/Social Support Services (e.g., self-help/support groups, social visits/befriending, counselling from a social worker/psychologist/telephone helplines) b. Home-based Services (e.g., home medical care, home nursing care, home therapy care, home hospice care, home modification) c. Senior Activity Centres (e.g., VWOs organise free or subsidised programmes, social activities, home visitations for elderly residents in surrounding areas, private operators provide both chargeable and non- chargeable support services for elderly residents living in the vicinity) d. Social Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres (e.g., full day activity programme for elderly who requires supervision during the day when family members are at work) e. Home Help Services (e.g., hired personal care services to elderly’s own home, includes housekeeping, preparing meals, escorts to medical appointments) f. Nursing Homes g. Community Hospitals

184

aware of the services available compared with 2013, with more than three in four aware of the senior activity centres and social day care/day rehabilitation centres, as well as community hospitals and nursing homes. The future elderly was also more aware of these services compared with five years ago. However, there was lower awareness among both elderly and future elderly regarding home-based and home help services, along with emotional/social support services compared with other eldercare services.

Chart 6.23 Awareness of Eldercare Services among Elderly and Future Elderly

88.0 Nursing Homes* 89.5

83.7 Community Hospitals* 86.0

79.9 Senior Activity Centres** 78.6 71.5 75.2

78.7 78.6 Social Day Care/Day 77.4 72.2 Rehabilitation Centres 67.9 Home-based Services 69.5 64.5 71.4 67.9 65.4 Emotional/Social Support 67.1 59.1 Services 64.9 65.8 Home Help Services 67.1 63.4

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Future Elderly Households (%) Elderly Households (%) 2013 2018

* New aspects on Nursing Home and Community Hospital added in SHS 2018 ** Senior activity centres were formerly known as ‘neighbourhood links’ for eldercare centres operated by VWOs which were set up in older precincts in the earlier years. Since 2016, neighbourhood links that received public funding were renamed as ‘senior activity centres’.

Despite their high awareness of eldercare services, most of the elderly and future elderly had not used these services, with only 3.7% of the elderly having utilised the senior activity centres (Table 6.50). Other services also garnered lower usage levels as the majority of the elderly and future elderly were ambulant and hence did not require such services currently.

185

Table 6.50 Elderly and Future Elderly who had Utilised Eldercare Services in Past 12 Months

Households (%) Eldercare Services Elderly Future Elderly Senior Activity Centres 3.7 1.1 Community Hospitals 1.6 0.5 Emotional/Social Support Services 1.0 1.1 Home-based Services 0.5 0.8 Social Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres 0.5 0.4 Nursing Homes 0.5 0.6 Home Help Services 0.3 0.1

6.5 Summary of Findings

Demographic Characteristics

The proportion of elderly households in HDB had increased significantly from 15.8% in 2013 to 25.6% in 2018. A similar trend was observed for future elderly households, from 23.1% in 2013 to 25.7% in 2018. Some 68.3% of elderly households and 74.8% of future elderly households had nuclear families as their household composition. The average household size had shrunk from 2.6 in 2013 to 2.3 persons in 2018 for elderly households, and from 3.3 to 3.0 persons for future elderly households.

The proportion of the elderly who were in the labour force had increased from 25.2% in 2013 to 30.1% in 2018, and that for the future elderly from 63.8% to 71.3% over the same period. More than three in ten (36.2%) of the employed elderly had attained secondary education and above, higher than the 25.4% in 2013. Likewise, the proportion of the employed future elderly with at least secondary education rose from 53.2% to 58.7%.

Personal Aspects

Older residents were more satisfied with their lives compared with five years ago, with overall life satisfaction above 95% for both the elderly and future elderly. The

186

elderly and future elderly also expressed satisfaction with major aspects of life compared with five years ago, with over 90% being happy with their lives.

It was found that 70.3% of the elderly and 47.2% of the future elderly had at least one long-term illness, however the proportion who were satisfied with their health situation was still high, with 85.7% of the elderly and 89.7% of the future elderly satisfied with their health. The most common long-term illnesses were high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.

Social Aspects

Ties between the elderly and future elderly and their children remained strong, with high levels of trust and reciprocity between them and their family members and relatives. In 2018, 87.7% of the elderly were satisfied with where they lived in relation to their married children, an increase from 83.8% in 2013; while 84.2% of the future elderly were satisfied with where they lived in relation to their married children, rising from 75.5% in 2013. More than four in ten (44.2%) of the elderly and future elderly (41.0%) lived in close proximity or in an estate near to their married children, proportions which are higher compared with 37.8% and 38.3% respectively in 2013.

About nine in ten of the elderly and future elderly with married children not living with them visited each other at least once a month. About three in four of the elderly and future elderly could rely on at least one of their family members for physical support, and almost all could rely on at least one family member for emotional support, while more than eight in ten could rely on at least one family member for financial support in times of need.

The proportion of the elderly and future elderly who engaged in more intense forms of interaction with their neighbours such as visiting each other and exchanging food and gifts on festive occasions decreased slightly, although almost all had exchanged greetings and engaged in casual conversations. Common corridors, lift lobbies and void decks remained the most likely interaction places for both the elderly and future elderly with their neighbours, with incidental meetings also taking place at markets and hawker centres.

187

Community participation rate among the elderly (38.1%) and future elderly (38.3%) declined significantly compared with five years ago. However, close to half of the elderly (45.0%) and future elderly (45.6%) participated in either activities organised by various agencies or hobby-related activities, or both types of activities. About 31.1% of the elderly and 39.2% of the future elderly had contributed services to the community, proportions which are higher than those in 2013.

Trust and reciprocity scores of the elderly and future elderly in regard to friends and neighbours were higher in 2018 compared with 2008. They also had a strong sense of community and almost all of them felt a sense of belonging to their towns/estates.

Housing Aspects

Both the elderly and future elderly showed a strong preference to age in place as most had no intention to move within the next five years (89.3% of the elderly and 84.1% of the future elderly) and were content with their current flat type (77.7% of the elderly and 67.7% of the future elderly). They were highly satisfied with their living environment, with more than 90% satisfied with both their flat and neighbourhood, citing the spaciousness of their flats or the convenient location as main reasons for their satisfaction. Most of them also viewed their flat to be value for money and were proud of their home. Both external and internal aspects of the HDB physical living environment also attained high satisfaction levels, except for noise and cleanliness.

Commercial facilities were popular among older residents as more than six in ten of elderly and future elderly households patronised several commercial facilities in their estates/neighbourhoods at least once a week. Higher proportions of elderly and future elderly households also patronised wet/dry market and supermarket at least once a week compared with the other commercial facilities. Patronage at hawker centres, shops and food courts on an occasional basis had increased from 2013.

Fitness stations/jogging tracks had the highest level of usage of at least once a week among sports and recreational facilities, while occasional usage of neighbourhood and town parks, as well as hard/multi-purpose courts increased

188

from 2013 to 2018. Covered linkways were the most well-used among precinct and community facilities; shelters, void deck areas and drop-off porches also saw higher usage levels of at least once a week or on an occasional basis for both elderly and future elderly households.

More than four in ten of the elderly (46.2%) and the future elderly (41.2%) felt living in their own home with increased caregiving from family members/domestic helper was the ideal living arrangement for an elderly person who required help with activities of daily living; while about half were willing to live in assisted living facilities should the need arise. Overall, more than three in four were aware of medical and social support services such as senior activity centres, social day care/day rehabilitation centres, as well as community hospitals and nursing homes; although usage levels remained low.

6.6 Conclusion

While most of the elderly and future elderly expressed overall satisfaction with their life, older residents were more likely to have long-term illnesses and be less ambulant, which would negatively impact their physical and emotional well-being. Customising approaches based on older residents’ lifestyles could be useful in encouraging active and healthy practices during old age.

The majority of the elderly and future elderly had frequent interactions with their children and could rely on them for physical, emotional and financial support. For those who were not able to rely on family members for support, community and wellness programmes could be established and customised to meet their social needs and prevent them from falling into isolation.

At the community level, the proportion of the elderly and future elderly engaging in more intense forms of neighbourly interaction and participating in community activities continued to decline somewhat from 2013. However, with more willing to contribute their services, residents could be involved in the co-creation of community activities, which would take into consideration their evolving preferences and help to formulate programmes to better suit their social needs.

189

Most older residents were satisfied with their living environment and the majority preferred to age in place. Those who required intensive caregiving assistance could be cared for at assisted living facilities; while for those who were more ambulant but still required some assistance with daily living activities, professional medical and social support services within the home could be provided. Such initiatives would enable older residents to age comfortably in their living environment by providing adequate levels of care and social support.

190