Public Housing in Singapore: Interpreting 'Quality' in the 1990S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School of Social Sciences School of Social Sciences 3-1997 Public Housing in Singapore: Interpreting 'Quality' in the 1990s Siew Eng Teo National University of Singapore Lily Kong Singapore Management University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Public Policy Commons, and the Urban Studies Commons Citation Teo, Siew Eng, & Kong, Lily.(1997). Public Housing in Singapore: Interpreting 'Quality' in the 1990s. Urban Studies, 34(3), 441-452. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/1691 This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Social Sciences at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection School of Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email [email protected]. Urban Studies,Vol. 34, No. 3, 441± 452, 1997 Published in Urban Studies, Volume 34, Issue 3, March 1997, Pages 441-452. http://doi.org/10.1080/0042098976069 Public HousinginSingapore:Interpreting `Quality’int he1990s TeoSiewEngandLily Kong {Paper® rst received,April 1996;in ®nal form, August 1996} Summary. While writings exist on variousaspects of public housinginS ingapore, recent developments inth e1990s have notyet been given anyseriousacademic attention.Ourintention inth is paper is to focuson such developments, payingparticular attention to thegovernment’s policy ofprovidingquality housing. After settingthecontextofefforts atprovidingquality inth e ®rst three decades of public housing bytheHousing andDevelopmentBoard,weturn our attention speci® cally to the1990s, focusing on three areas inw hich attempts are beingmadeto improve quality, namely, thephysical upgradingofolderestates, theprivatisation ofHUDC¯ats, andtheinvention ofnew schemessuch astheexecutive condominiumconcept. Inthe®nalsection, wearguethat, as inearlier decades, such efforts belie ahegemonic intent, essentially to manage Singaporeans’ growingaspirationsandthustogain political legitimacy for thegovernment. This weterm the`politics ofquality’ inp ublic housing.Wethen discussbrie¯y somereactionsto such attempts at hegemony. Introduction Bycomparison with many other large cities ple, documented the living conditions of a in the world, modern public housing in Sin- typical streetin Chinatownin 1954, describ- gapore has achievedimpressive results.From ing it asª among the most primitive in the old, badly degenerated, overcrowdedslums, urban areasof the worldº. Goh (1956) simi- characterisedby, inter alia,poor sanitation larly found in astudy conducted in 1953±54, and lackof hygiene,high-ris epublic ¯atsof that 73percentofsurveyed households lived varied designsand sizesnow characterisethe in badly overcrowded conditions. In another skyline.Whereastuberculosis wasrife and estimate,it wassugges tedthatin 1960 one buildings posed ®rehaz ards, Singaporeans quarterof amillion people lived in badly today enjoy high standards ofpublic hygiene degenerated slumsin the city centre and and safety asw ell asnumerous luxuriesin anotherone-third of amillion livedin squat- high-quality housing symbolic of modernity. terareas on the city fringe (Teh, 1975, p.5). Thesec hangesin the housing landscape This is signi® cant, considering that in 1960, have takenplaceover ashort period of time. the totalpopulation wasonly 1.6m (Depart- Upto the 1950s and early 1960s, Singapore ment of Statistics,1983). wasstill plaguedby the variedproblems Given the severeshorta ge of decent hous- outlinedabove. Kaye (1960, p.5), for exam- ing in that period, the Housing and Develop- TeoSiewEngandLilyKongarein theDepartmentofGeography,National Universityof Singapore,10KentRidgeCrescen t, Singapore 119260. Fax:65± 7773091.E-mail:geokong [email protected]. The authors wish to acknowledgeViviana Low’ shelpin theLorong Lew Lian questionnaire survey. 0042-0980/97/030441-12$7.00 Ó 1997 TheEditors ofU rbanStudies 442 TEOSIEW ENGANDLILY KONG ment Board (HDB)wasesta blishedin 1960, public housing.Wewill then discussbrie¯y replacing its predecessor, the Singapore Im- somereactions to such attempts athege- provement Trust, 1 taskedwith the job of mony. housing Singaporeans. The HDB’stop prior- ity wasto build asm any housing units as ImprovingQuality in Public Housing: The possiblew ithin ashort time.Bythe end ofits FirstT hreeDecades First Five-YearPlan in 1965, the HDBhad exceededits construction targetof 50000 In the late1960s, whenthe HDBbegan to units by 5000 and wasable to house 23 per pay heed to the need to improve the quality cent of the totalpopulation in public ¯ats. of its ¯ats, its strategywasto build bigger However, while the targets pertaining to units, replacing the minimalist one-room quantityhad beensatis® ed, the ¯atsw ere `emergency’¯atsof the early 1960s when very basicin nature, and little attentionwas the motivationalforcew aspurely to meet paid to quality.Indeed, many wereone -room quantitativetargets (seeT eh, 1975). Atten- `emergency’ ¯ats, eachwith akitchen, a tion in the latterpart of the 1960s wasa lso toilet-cum-bathroom,and aroom which paid to the living environment in toto, be- served simultaneously asbedroomand living yond the focus on the housing units per se. room (HDB,1961, p.3). Byits Second Five- For example, greaterem phasisw asplacedon YearPlan (1966±70), however, the HDB’s the provision of open spaces,landsc aping, successin meeting its quantitative targets carpa rk facilities and recreationalfacilities meant that it could now pay alittle more such aspla ygroundsand sports facilities. attention to quality,adirection that has per- In the 1970s, attention to quality took the sistedand indeed becomemost important shape ofeven biggerandbetter designed¯ats today. in more attractive locations, aswell asgood While writings exist on various aspectsof infrastructural supportinthe form ofef®cie nt public housing in Singapore (see,for exam- transport, adequatereta il and recreational fa- ple, Teh, 1975; Teoand Savage, 1985; Wong cilitiesand other amenities (Teo, 1986). At and Yeh, 1985; Teo, 1986; Tai, 1988; Pugh, the sametime,archite ctural variations were 1989; Castells et al., 1990; Ooi et al., 1993; introducedin the design of the ¯ats, thus and Chua, 1995), recent developments in the creatingmore attractive external designs.By 1990s whichdeserve documentationand the late1970s, providingahousing environ- analysis have not yet been given any serious ment of quality also meant encouragingan attention.It is our intentionin this paper to environment of neighbourlinessa nd friendli- focusonthe complexion ofpublic housing in nessthrough the setting up of Residents’ Singapore in the 1990s, paying particular Committees, and the continuedsupportgiven attention to the government’ spolicy of pro- to community centre activities.Both were viding quality housing. In the next section, geared towards organising activitiesfor wewill present the contextby outliningin residents, including socialand recreational brief the variedways in whichattention has programmes(such asexc ursions and get- beenpaid to quality in the ®rst threedecades together parties)a nd educational ones (such of public housing under the HDBin Singa- asforum sand exhibitions). pore.Wewill then turn our attention Between the late1970s and 1980s, exist- speci® cally to the 1990s, focusingon three ing estatesw erealso upgraded on an ad hoc areasin whichattempts arebe ing made to basis aspart of the effort to improve quality. improve quality. In the ®nal section,wewill Such upgrading took placea long four lines. argue that, asin earlierdec ades, such efforts First, old ¯atsw eredem olished so that land belie ahegemonic intent, essentially to man- could be made available for redevelopment. age Singaporeans’growing aspirations and Second, old one-room ¯ats wereconve rted thus gain politicalle gitimacy for the govern- into larger three-and four-room self-con- ment. This wetermthe `politicsofquality’in tained ¯atsby knocking downthe wallsbe- PUBLICHOUSING IN SINGAPORE 443 tween the old ¯ ats. Third, part of the up- landscapesquare with recreationalfacilities, grading also entailed the provision of addi- kindergarten,eating placesand localshops tional facilities for the older estates so as to among acluster of blocks. Precincts area lso ensure that they too had a share of better madem ore compactw ith closerspacingbe- facilities such as those found in the newer tween buildingsso asto enhancea senseof estates. At the estate level, for example, Toa community spirit and neighbourliness. Payoh estate was provided with a commer- cial complex with fast-food restaurants and `Quality’ in the 1990s of® ces, a new bus interchange, the Mass Rapid Transit line stopping in the town cen- While the HDBcertainly directedresources tre, and the ® rst government mini-hospital and energy towards improving the quality of of 40 beds. At the level of individual build- housing and the quality of life in new towns ings and units, new lifts were added; case- in the ®rst threedecades, atno point has this ment windows were installed to existing been more apparent thanin the 1990s where ¯ ats with open balconies; central television speci®c emphasis