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 questionnairesurvey.

0042-0980/97/030441-12$7.00 Ó 1997 TheEditors ofU rbanStudies 442 TEOSIEWENGANDLILYKONG 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- PUBLICHOUSINGINSINGAPORE 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 is placedon quality and antennae were added; and rewiring and service.In this regard,avariety of measures reroo® ng took place (HDB, 1979/80, pp. 6± have been taken, such asefforts to improve 7). Fourth, as part of the effort to improve olderexistingestatesthrough ,for example, old estates, rules on ¯ at alterations were upgrading individualunits andblocks of ¯ats liberalised. Owners were allowed to make asw ell asentire estates; the introduction of minor alterations themselves. For example, new schemes, namely, executive condomini- owners of ® ve-room ¯ ats were allowed to umsand housing cooperatives, and newde- install windows in their open balconies; res- sign ¯ats;and the privatisation of Housing idents on ground ¯ oors were permitted to and UrbanDevelopment Corporation extend their courtyard shelters to keep out (HUDC)2 estates.In what follows, wewill the rain (The Straits Times, 3 March 1988, 6 outline details of eachpolicy, leaving the January 1990); the space in recessed en- analysis and interpretation of intentionand trances and along common corridors could response to the ®nal section. also be sold so that residents could turn them into mini-gardens or playgrounds and Improving Older Existing HDBEstates have improved security and privacy (The Straits Times, 25 February 1989). Attempts to improve existingHDBestatesin Throughout the 1980s, to improve the the 1990s take avariety of forms. Therea re quality of life in public housingestates, the the government’ sformalupgrad ing pro- HDBsought to promote newtowncharacter gramme,individualtowncouncil efforts to and community identity through the use of improve common facilities, the Selective En new buildingdesigns, in whichdifferent Bloc Redevelopment Schemeand govern- buildingheights werecom binedto breakthe ment efforts to redevelop selected towncen- monotony of the skyline.Greateruse was tres. Wewill elaborateon eachin turn. also madeof traditionalfeaturessuch asthe InJuly 1989, the government announceda pitchedroofs, overhangingeavesa nd tall formal, large-scaleS$15bn programmeto windowstypical of atropicalbuilding. In upgradeexistingHDBestateswith the aimto addition, the precinct concept, initiatedin ªbring about acompletechange in the per- 1978, wasfurther encouragedin the 1980s. ception of public housingº(S.Dhanabalan, Eachprecinct, consistingof600±1000 dwell- quoted in The Straits Times ,12 July 1989). ing units, and linked to other precincts by The projectwasto last15 yearsa nd would pedestrian paths, is meant to encourage affect95per cent ofHDBdwellers ( Business meaningful socialinteraction among resi- Times,12 July 1989). Other thanthe scaleof dents. The idea is to try to createa com- the programme,this plan differedfrom pre- munity activity focalpoint in the form of a vious upgrading schemesbeca use it did not 444 TEOSIEWENGANDLILYKONG require existing residents to relocate or pur- jection of amenities like multi-storeycar chaseanothe rdwelling elsewhere. In fact, parks, landscaped gardensand children’s upgrading wasto proceedw hile ownersw ere playgrounds. still living in the ¯ats. Second, atthe blocklevel, architectural In formulating the HDBupgrading pro- improvements arem ade to give each block gramme,the government hoped to retain the its ownindividuality. Lift lobbies and en- population, especially the youngersegment, trancesa reenclos ed to improve security in the olderestates. This wasdeemedaprior- while the designs of staircasesand corridors ity, given the government’ sconcern about area lso upgraded( The Straits Times , 12 July the social and economicconseq uencesof an 1989). ageing population in established estateslike Thethird aspectofupgrading concerns the Toa Payoh and Tiong Bahru ( The Straits ¯atitself. For example,¯atsw ith only one Times,8May 1989). For example,in 1970, bathroom/toilet have an extra toilet or bath- Toa Payoh had 3405 births but by 1987, the room installed inthem.The kitchenareamay numberof births had droppedto only 148. In also be expandedin the upgrading process contrast,aneweroutlying estatelike Yishun (The Straits Times ,12 July 1989; Business NewTow nreported3461 births in 1987, up Times,12 July 1989). from only 495 in 1980 ( The Straits Times , 8 ByMarch1993, it wasdecidedthatresi- May1989). Itwasfearedthat the smaller and dents would be offeredachoice of any one older population in the olderestatesw ould of three packages:basic,standard or stan- depressconsumption and forceshops and dard-plus. In all three packages,improve- other businessesto move out. Schools and ments to toilets arem ade and aluminium other socialamenities demandedby a windowsprovided. The differencebe tween youngerpopulation would also be under- the basica nd standard packagesliesin the utilised. Upgradingthe physicalenviron ment improvements to the block. The basicpack- wasthus away to stemthe ¯ow of younger ageonly focusesonessentials like upgrading people to the newernew towns like of existing toilets but does not include,for Tampines and PasirR is with their better example, upgrading of buildingfacËadesor facilities( The Straits Times ,24 July 1989). replacementofblock numbers. The standard- Atthe sametime,there wasanothe rex- plus package gets an additionalspace-adding pected spin-offfrom the upgrading pro- itemlike an extra toilet ( The Straits Times , grammein that it providedaconstant stream 11 March1993; BusinessTim es , 11 March of work for the construction industrythat 1993). would, also, require architectsa nd otherde- In general, the upgrading processaimsat signersto acquire anewlevel of expertise being as¯ exible aspossibl e,by allowing (The Straits Times ,20 October 1989). residents and towncouncils to participate in The upgrading programmeincorporates the decision-making process.M anagement of three main componentsof development. The the projectis undertaken by the respective ®rst involvesthe creation of precincts con- towncouncils which, though guided by aset sisting of distinctgroupings of ®ve to seven of generalprinciples, makethe ir respective blocks of ¯ats. The idea is to allow eachto decisions on the speci®c types and extent of have adistinctive appearancew hichwill, in the upgrading work to be done ( Business turn, help to createsm allcommunities with a Times,20 October1989). In any housing senseof identity,ownershipand belonging estateta rgeted for upgrading, residents of the (The Straits Times ,12July 1989). This repre- individualprec incts have the ®nal say with sents animprovement from past attempts at regard to whether the upgrading works areto precinct creation whichlacked proper plan- proceed or not. Only when atleast 75 per ning, and hencefaile dto achieve the desired cent of residents in aprecinctagreeto up- goals of precinctdevelopment (Teo, 1986). grade will the improvements beimplemented Additionally, the upgrading includesthe in- (BusinessTimes ,17 December1989). PUBLICHOUSINGINSINGAPORE 445

Animportant consideration in deciding The upgrading programmecanbroadly be whether to upgradeis the cost of the project categorised into threephasesof implemen- to HDBdwellers. From the onset, the tation: apilot phase,ademonstration phase government hadindicatedthat the project and amain phase,eachplannedsystemati- wasto be ajoint venture betweenthe Minis- cally to win residents’ supportfor the up- try for National Development and ¯at- grading programme.The pilot phase was owners (BusinessTim es ,20 October 1989). essentially to testout newmaterials and Initially,owners ofthree-and four-room ¯ats methods so that upgrading could be carried wereto payabout 25 per cent of the total out with minimaldisrupt ions to residents. upgrading costs, rising to 35 percent for For this purpose,4vacant blocks totalling those in the ®ve-room and executive¯ats. 480 units in TebanGardens and Woodlands Towncouncils wereto bear5 per cent of the wereuse d. In order to simulate actualliving total upgrading costs ( BusinessT imes , 17 conditions that residents would have to un- December1989) while the government’ s dergo during the upgrading process,seve ral sharew asbetween65 and 75 percent ( The families of employeesof the HDBwerere- Straits Times ,16 December1989). Soon af- cruited to live in the ¯ats( The Straits Times , ter, the government announced that it would 16 December 1989, 27 March1991). absorb agreaterperce ntage of the costs, in- Following the pilot phase,6 precincts cluding paying the full costs of the ancillary (Marine Parade, KimK eat, Lorong Lew works, suchasreplac ing lift cagesa nd con- Lian, Telok Blangah,Ang MoKio and structing ramps for the handicapped( The Clementi) werepicked for the demonstration Straits Times ,11 March1993). Effectively, phase,involvi ng atotal of 6000 units ( The ¯at-dwellershave to pay only 10±20 percent Straits Times ,4February 1993). The estates of the upgrading costs. The ratios werere- werese lectedon the basis of their locations, vised in the light of feedbackfrom residents being spread out in different parts of the and Members of Parliament. However, bet- island andbecause they belongedtothe older ter-off residents who choose the standard- estatesbuilt in the late1960s and early plus package have to pay 40±80 per cent of 1970s. The intentionof the demonstration the costs, partly because of the high cost of units wasto help HDBresidents to visualise the space-adding item( The Straits Times , 11 the overall effectof upgrading and to assist March1993). them in the decisionof whether or not to go Tohelp residents with payment, the Minis- along with the upgrading scheme( The Straits try of NationalDevelopment (MND,the Times,16 December 1989). Ministry under whichthe HDBfunctions as Toincreasethe range of ideason possible astatutory board) put together apackage of upgrading design options,the government ®nancial incentives. Theyinclude the use of farmed out three of the demonstration the residents’ CentralProvidentFund (CPF) 3 precincts to privatearchite cts. The oppor- savings, whichnormally cannot be used for tunity for private-sector participation wasen- renovation purposes,to repay the renovation thusiastically received by the Singapore loans providedby the HDB.The loanis Instituteof Architects,evidentin the variety extendedat0.1 per cent above the CPF of designssubmitted to the HDB. interestratea ndrepayment canbemade over The main phase of the programmewas 10 years. Ownersw ho have ®nancial implemented in 1993 with the ®rst batch of dif® culties area llowed to deferrepaym ent, precincts (Bukit Merah, Bukit HoSwee, with interest, until they selltheir ¯atortrans- Queenstown,Kallang Airport, Boon Layand ferthe leaseto anotherowner. This option is Balestier/St Michael’sEstate)ide nti® ed for designed to remove any ®nancialobstacle upgrading (The Straits Times ,24 April 1993, that may preventthe lessw ell-off owners 24May1993). Sincethen, anumber ofother from upgrading ( The Straits Times , 16 De- precincts have been earmarked. In the main cember 1989). phase,the privatese ctor also participated in 446 TEOSIEWENGANDLILYKONG the upgrading programme.Bukit Merahand old ¯atsand guaranteed anew one ata 20 St Michael’ sEstateare e xamples of estates per cent discountin mature estates.A san that wereupgra dedbased on designs pro- example of Sers, it wasannoun cedthat 16 duced by private architects( The Straits blocks of low-rise¯ atsin Boon Tiong Road Times,24 May 1993). in Tiong Bahru will be redeveloped. Al- In addition to the formalupgra ding pro- though there arem any other similar old SIT gramme,the HDBembarkedon an interim ¯atsin the vicinity, thesew erechosen be- `mini’ upgrading programmeof housing es- causeof the availability of empty plots of tatesbetw een 10 and 15 yearsold ( The land nearby on which the HDBcanbuild Straits Times ,12 February 1993). The in- ®rst. Residents can then move to thesenew terimprogra mmewasdeemednecessary asit blocks before their old ¯atsa rede molished wasestim atedthatthe main upgrading pro- and new ones built in place.In this way, the grammecould take up to 20 yearsto reach physicalliving environment canbe improved someestates. Interim upgrading is con® ned without having to move residents out of the to improving only the common areasof the area.T hesense ofcommunity and rootedness HDBestatesw hile the main programme to placeca nthus still be retained. would concentrate on the interiorsof the ¯ats Apart from Sers, it has also been proposed (The Straits Times ,14 February 1993). The that towncentresofentire estatesbe redevel- interim upgrading schemeis thus designedto oped. Thesepla ns will also proceedwithout complement the main upgrading programme. being put to the vote.The decisionto up- The formalupgra ding programme,though grade will lie solely with the authorities, after extensive in reach, is not the sole programme viewsareheard from residents and grass- in placeto improve existingHDBestatesin roots leaders. The ®rst plan to be unveiledin the 1990s. By1991, towncouncils of such this respectwasa comprehensive strategyto estatesas A ng MoKio hadalso announced rejuvenateToaPayoh towncentre. 4 The plan, plans to upgrade facilities and to improve the to be realised within ®ve yearsfrom 1995, physicale nvironment in their HDBestates includesthe construction of anewS$700m (The Straits Times ,17May1991). Unlike the commercialcom plex with of® ceand retail more piecemealnature of earlierplans, the spaceand anotherof® ceblock in the town new plans gave estatesa more upmarket and centre.It is also intendedthatpedestrian user-friendly high-quality environment asa mallsin Toa Payoh Centralwill be im- whole.Theseplans, while complementing proved;new roadlinkageswill beintroduced the government’ sinitiatives,also re¯ected to improve accessto Toa Payoh; and new the growing con® denceof towncouncils in housing will be constructedon vacant state managing their estates( The Straits Times , 17 land and land clearedwhen rentalblocks are May 1991). freedof tenants. Twoblocks of rental¯ats In1995, plans werealso announcedfor the with elderly residents will also be refur- selective redevelopment of old blocks of bishedwith newnon-sliptiles, pedestaltoi- ¯ats. This is knownasthe Selective En Bloc lets, hand-railsa nd alarmsystem s. Atthe Redevelopment Scheme(Sers), which will sametime,three community centresin the be applicable in somemore mature estatesin townwill be upgraded( The Straits Times , 2 the central arearather than in the outlying September1995). AfterToa Payoh, twonew new towns. The decision to redevelop selec- townsbuilt in the 1970s, Bedok and AngMo tively liesw ith the Ministry of NationalDe- Kio, will also be redeveloped. velopment and is not subjectto voting in the sameway that upgrading is. Atthe same time,unlike the upgrading schemewhich involvesimproving existing blocks,in Sers, Privatising HUDCEstates someblocks will be completely redeveloped. Residents would be compensatedfor their Asindicated earlier,the HUDCwassetup in PUBLICHOUSINGINSINGAPORE 447

1974 to caterfor the middle-incomegroup. Inventing NewSche mes This wasagroup thatenjoyed atotal house- Another major development ofthe 1990s that hold incomeexceeding the ceiling thatwould pays attentionto improving Singaporeans’ qualify themfor HDB¯ats, 5 yet found them- quality of life through their housing environ- selvespriced out of the private housing mar- ment is the introduction in 1995 of executive ket. In order to caterto their needs, condominiums, meant to house a`sandwich HUDC-constructed ¯ats followedthe condo- class’betw een HDBand private housing minium concept, with maisonettesa nd ¯ats (The Straits Times ,30 August 1995). The in an estatew ithin which communal ameni- schemesw ill approximatepriva tecondo- tiessuch aschildre n’splaygrounds and out- miniumsin that therew ill be facilitiessuch door ball courts areprovide d. Atthe timeof asa swimming pool or tennis court. The ®rst inception, the responsew asoverwhelming, 540 units will be in Jurong Eastand Pasir largely becausethey wereª exclusivedevel- Ris. First-timebuyers will be givena opments away from those sprawling HDB S$40 000 grant but must ®nd their own look-alikes, and pricedata considerable dis- ®nancing, whereasa pplicants for HDB¯ats count comparedwith privateprope rtyº( The will have HDB®nancing. Eighty per cent of Straits Times ,2September 1995). The the units will beofferedto those inthe queue HUDCmerged with the HDBin 1982 while for HDBexecutive ¯ats(the upper range of construction of HUDCestatesstoppe din HDB¯ats) while the restw ill be opento 1985 after19 estatesor 7750 units were others. Severalrestrictions must howeverbe completed. This wasdue to anumber of observed. Anexecutive condominium owner reasons: the closing gapbetweensalepric es cannever buy HDB¯atsdire ctly from the of HUDC¯atsand privateproper ty; im- HDB.The ¯atsm ust be occupiedfor ®ve provements in HDB¯ats;and the raising of yearsbefore they canbe sold to Singapore- HDB’sincomeeligibilityceiling. ans and permanent residents. Only afterthe In 1986, severalHUDCestateswereal- tenth yearw ill they be fully privatised; the lowed to manage their ownestates: Am- ownershiprestriction will then be lifted. This berville,B raddellView,ChanceryCourt, is to prevent speculators from buying execu- FarrerC ourt, Laguna Park and Lakeview, tive condominiumsfor investment. although residents did not ownthe strata In addition to executive condominiums, titlesÐtha tis, they did not ownthe common the HDBhas also introducedanothertwo areas.6 The rest of the 13 estatescameunder new schemes:D esign and Build ¯ats(intro- the purview of the HDB.In 1995, it was duced in 1991), and Design Plus ¯ats (intro- decided that residents in twoHUDCestates, duced in 1995). Thesehave betterdesigns Gillman Heights and Pine Grove, would be and ®nishes,such asc oordinated tilesand given the option to privatiseif atleast75 per sanitary®xtures,and have design inputs from cent of owners in each estatevote dfor it. private architects.Therew ill also beattempts Privatisation would allow leasesof ¯atsto be to incorporatenature in landscaping designs. convertedto stratatitles and ownersw ould ownand manage the estates,includi ng the common property areas( The Straits Times , The `Politicsof Quality’ :ManagingAspi- 25 May 1995). When voting took place, rations both estatesexceeded the necessary 75 per cent of votes. Afterprivati sation, residents As Castells et al.(1990, p.319) argue, the may decide how they wish to improve their successof public housing in Singapore was estates.Subseq uently, it wasa nnounced important in establishing the government’ s that four more estateswould be privatised in politicallegitimacyand dominance.This was the next stage,namely, FarrerPa rk, possiblein the early yearsof Singapore’ s Lakeview,Hougang South and Jurong East, independencebec ausepublic housing pro- and this would be followed up by yet others. vision washe ld astestim ony to the newly 448 TEOSIEWENGANDLILYKONG electedgovernment’ scommitment to better- terestin the scheme,the prestigeof living in ing the materialconditionsof Singaporeans private property and the additionalrec- (Chua,1995, p.131). 7 In lateryears, the tan- reational amenities arede® nite draws( The gible blocks of ¯ats becamepowerful sym- Straits Times ,31 August 1995). Market ana- bols of success,m onuments thatattest to the lysts suggestthatin the long term,executive HDB’sachievements, aclaimtha tis effec- condominiumswill ªsupportprivate housing tively madeby the government (Pugh, 1989, pricesby providing acheaperentry-p oint p.837; Chua, 1995, p.139). into the marketº( The Straits Times , 30 Au- In attempting to provide and/or to facili- gust 1995). The privatisation of HUDCes- tatequa lity housing in the 1990s, it may be tatesappearsto have been more said thatthe government is attempting to unequivocally welcomed, asm ore than the maintain its politicalle gitimacy. The provi- requisite proportion of residents in Gillman sions and schemesof the HDBin previous Heights and Pine Grove have agreedto pri- decadesno longersuf® ce.A sSingapore de- vatise while residents in someother HUDC velops and standards of living improve,Sin- estatesha ve requestedthat their estatesalso gaporeans of the 1990s have developed be privatised in the nearfuture. increasingly higher aspirations. This is most Upgradinghasalso receivedpositivere- clearly re¯ec ted in the desire to ownprivate sponse from those affected. The results of a propertiesand cars,tw oextremely limited questionnairesurve yconducted in late1994 commodities in the context of land-scarce involving100 randomly selected households Singapore. Inorder to manage Singaporeans’ in Lorong LewLian, one of abatchof six aspirations to ownprivate property, the housing estateside nti® ed for the demon- government has therefore introducedthe stration phaseupgrad ing in 1992, bearsthis executive condominium scheme( The Straits out. Times,31 August 1995) and hasprivatised Lorong LewLia nconsists of 8blocks of HUDCestates.N ewschemeshave also been ¯atsw ith 906 households. It wasbeginning introducedin which HDB¯ats areincrea s- to show signs ofdilapidation afterm ore than ingly providedwith the amenities, designs 15 yearsof existencea nd existingfacilities and ®ttings of private condominiums. For had becomeinadequateto meetthe needs of those whomay®nditfrustrating to remainin an increasing proportion of the elderly popu- their older housing estatesw hile other Singa- lation. In the attempt to provide the estate poreans proceed to realisetheir aspirations, with anew and distinctidentity,the upgrad- the upgrading programmewasintroducedto ing focusedon threelevels: precinct, block help to ful® ltheir expectations. Apart from and individualunits. The aimw asto create improving the conditionsinwhichthey lived, an environment that would be both aesthetic upgrading would also raisethe value of their and functional. Atthe precinct level, the HDB ¯ ats. design features includedpavilions, abird How successfularethese m easureslikely viewing area,open plaza,galle ries, pergolas, to be?Initial responseto the proposalto barbecuepits, landscapedgardens, residents’ build executive condominiumshasbeen cornerand covered walkways. Atthe block lukewarm.Many Singaporeans expressed the level, the emphasis wasonfeatures such asa view thatthey would be paying twoto two- new facËade, sheltered entranceporc h, im- and-a-half timesmore for executive condo- proved lifts, integrated ceiling and lift ®ttings miniumsthan for HDBexecutive ¯atseven and ®nishes.The upgrading ofthe individual though the latter areone -sixth to nearly one- units took the form of additionalbalcony half bigger.Yet, it must be noted that these spacea nd new aluminium window ®ttings, executive condominiumsare15± 20 percent ¯oor tiles for bathrooms, doors and water cheapertha ncomparableprivateapartm ents closet appliances. in similarlocations ( The Straits Times , 30 Theseim provements atthe various levels August 1995). For those who expressed in- to enhancethe estateunderl iethe overall PUBLICHOUSINGINSINGAPORE 449 objectivesof the HDB’supgrading pro- in part be due to the facttha tthe residents gramme:the idea is to createthrough the werethe most supportive of the upgrading precinct aliving environment thatis con- programmeamong the six estatesidenti® ed ducive to forging an interactive and cohesive for renewal, with 98 percent of the house- community while block and ¯atupgra ding holds voting in favour of the project( House- aredire cted towards improving the housing word,April 1992). Besidesachieving its condition ofresidents. The ultimateaim is to objective of providing abetter environment provide the estatew ith facilitiesand aliving and improved housing,the upgrading pro- environment thatarec omparablewith those grammehas managedto retain the younger found in the newerhousing estates(HDB, segment of the population in the estate.It 1991/92 ). remains to be seenw hetherin the forth- Agreatmajority of those surveyed ex- coming generalelections, Lorong LewLia n pressedsatisfa ction with the overallimprove- residents’ satisfaction with their improved ments in the quality of their living living conditionswill be translated into a environment. About 90per cent ofthe house- resoundingvictory for the government. hold heads interviewed said theywere While improving the quality of housing pleased with the block facËadede sign aswell has been madea hegemonic tool to gain asthe ®xturesand ®nishes to their ¯ats, politicallegitimacy, it has also been wielded especially the additionalbalconyspace.Al- directly asan objectof politicalpatrona ge. most 80 percent expressedthe view thatthe This is not unique to the 1990s. In 1985, Mr provision of precinct facilities like the chil- TehCheang Wan, thenMinisterfor National dren’splayground, barbecue pits and resi- Development, expressed the view thatthose dents’ cornershad brought residents closer who supportedopposition partieswould be together. It is more dif® cult to assessthe discriminated againstinthe delivery of some extent to which the newidentity resulting public estatem aintenanceservices.A she from the upgrading programmewill be able pointedout, to halt the out¯ow of the youngerpopulation This is avery practicalpoliticalde- from the estate. Lorong LewL ian is one of a cision¼ .It’ sfair from our party point of numberof olderestatesto have suffered a viewthatweshould give priority to the massiveoutw ard drift of its better-educated constituenciesw ith PAP{the ruling Peo- and more af¯uent youngerpopulation asthey ple’sAction Party} MPs and give lower upgradedto bigger and better-designed ¯ats priority to opposition MPs¼ .But they in the newerne wtowns. Atthe timeof the will not be denied the service.( The Straits survey, about four-® fths of Lorong Lew Times,22 March1985) Lian’ shousehold heads wereover 40 years old, while in the new towns, the heads are When introducing the TownCouncil Act, predominantly in the 25±35 age-group. Re- residents werea lso remindedthat ªit would spondents’ responsesto the questionwhether be in {their} interest¼ to be very careful they werecontem plating amove to the new whom they choose to be their representative towns now that the estatehad been upgraded in Parliamentº(M inistry of NationalDevel- indicated thatof the 15 respondents in the opment, 1988, p.15) becausethe ir chosen 20±39 age category, only one wasconsid er- representative would also run their town ing moving out becauseof growing family councils, overseeing estatem anagement and sizeand improved ®nancialposition.The improvements. Aconstituency with aless remaining 85 percent of the heads in the able candidate would presumably not be able 40-yearsand above age-group wereabso- to run the estatea swell asa highly quali® ed lutely certain of wanting to stay on. (PAP)candidate. The ®ndings of the Lorong LewL ian This appropriation of public housing and study suggest that the residents arehighly its management for politicalpurposesis evi- satis®ed with theirupgradedestate.This may dent in the contextof the formalupgrad ing 450 TEOSIEWENGANDLILYKONG programme.In 1992, for example, Prime and amenities.The ability to provide spa- Minister Goh Chok Tong madepublic the cious quartersw ithin the constraints of land- government’ sintentionto link the choice of scarceS ingapore in the form of high-rise housing estatesto be upgradedtothe strength estatesalso constitutes ameasureof `qual- of votesfor the PAPin the generalelections ity’ .The intention is also to createae sthetic (The Straits Times ,11 April 1992). In 1996, and distinctive environments, contributing to Community Development MinisterAbdullah aliving environment characterisedby ma- Tarmugi furtheroutlinedthe three criteria terial comfort and convenience.In addition, that the government would use in deciding `quality’is also measuredby the ability to which HDBblocks would be upgraded: sur- developcohesive neighbourhoodsin which pluses,agood spreadand support. social bonds arestrong. Speci®c ally, upgrading could be carriedout In all of these,the HDBhas largely been only if the government continued to enjoy successful, nowherem ore apparent than budgetsurpluses.The HDBwould also try to when the HDBwon the AsiaM anagement ensure agood geographicalspread of the Award in Development Management in precincts being upgraded. Finally,by way of 1995. Conferredby the Asian Instituteof garnering support, he suggestedthat Management, the award recognises the ex- cellentachievements of Asian management. ¼if you want your blocks and precincts to In the award citation,the HDBis said to be upgraded earlier,you know what to do have ªcreat{ed} substantial positive impact atthe next election. The answeris in your on target bene®ciariesthrough innovative, hands. (The Straits Times , 29 January sustainable and effective managementºand 1996) tohave improved the quality oflife ofpeople In the faceof criticisms, and by wayof (The Straits Times ,17 October1995). assurance,PrimeMinister Goh Chok Tong Although the HDBhas achievedmuch, assertedsubsequently thatall HDBresidents Singaporeans’ aspirations area lso growing, would bene®tfrom upgrading. Objective cri- and so demand for high-quality housing has teriasuch asthe ageof ¯ats, their location increased. In other words, this emphasison and the levelof residentinterest(asindica ted quality is necessarybe causeSingap oreans, by votes in favour of upgrading) hadbeen increasingly accustomed to good, basicpro- and would continue to be used, and only visions,arehanker ing for better and more. whentwoconstituencieshad HDB¯ats of For somesegments of the population, this similarageswould the levelof supportfor has translated into ademand for private the PAPgovernment be usedasa `tie- housing.For others,it has meant everbigger breaker’ (The Straits Times , 5 February and/or better-designed HDB¯ats. Theseas- 1996). pirations must be managed, particularly be- causein the context ofSingapore, ownership of property, particularly private property, Conclusion doesnot only stand for adesirefor more Singapore’ spublic housing efforts have materialcom fort, it represents asw ell a moved from attempts to dealwith the mass- status symbol. Givensuchascenario,the ive problemsof overcrowding and unhy- authorities, while having achievedmuch, are gienic conditions in the 1960s to a facedw ith the continuingchallenge of hav- commitment to provide quality housing.In ing to manage Singaporeans’ aspirations. the present context, `quality in the public Wehave shownin the preceding sections housing sector’ is measuredbyboth physical what efforts have been madeto provide and socialyardsticks. In the caseof the `quality’housing through the public agency, former,the aimis to ensure thathousing the HDB,in the 1990s. Atthe upper end of conditionsachieve featuresof modernity, the scale,attempts arebeing madeto convert with high accessibility to shared facilities HDB-managedHUDChousinginto private PUBLICHOUSINGINSINGAPORE 451 property, and effort has been put into intro- rations and, indeed,expectations of Singa- ducing HDBhousing that will eventually poreans, bearing the politicalcosts if they becomeprivate properties(executive condo- fail. Onthe other hand, if it choosesto miniums). Thesesche meshowevercom eata dangle policiesdesign edtoimprove people’s cost that maynot be easily affordableby all. living conditionsascarrots, and suggests that For the majority of Singaporeans, therefore, thesepolicie swill be put into action only if quality housingwill take the shape of im- they aregiven politicalsupport,it could proved designsfor new ¯ats and upgraded back® re.D espite having achievedmuch in old ¯ ats. the arenaof housingprovision in the last Given growing aspirations, the political threedecades, the provision of aquality implications of suchpoliciesare likely to housing environment in the 1990s and be- becomeaccentuatedhenceforth. The poten- yond will neverthelesscontinueto pose a tialpoliticalgains aregre at, if thesesc hemes major challenge. succeedin ful® lling aspirations. The govern- ment is fully awareof this, and hasturned Notes the situation around so thatif Singaporeans want to increasethe likelihood of their aspi- 1. The Singapore Improvement Trust was set rations being ful® lled, theymust ®rst give up in 1927 to superviseurban improvement and development. It was only in the 1930s politicalsupport. This is nowherem ore ap- that itventuredinto public housing in recog- parent than in the upgrading programme.As nition of the shortage of housing for lower- indicated in 1992, the government intends to incomegroups. While the SITattempted to use the programmeasthe centrepieceof its address the housing problem,its achieve- electoralplatformfor the next twogeneral ments were small in comparison with the magnitude of the problem. elections(due in 1996 and 2001) ( The Straits 2. In 1974, the Housing and Urban Develop- Times,13 April 1992). The government in- ment Corporation (HUDC)was created as a tends to makevote rsm ore responsibleby subsidiary of the HDBto build ¯ats that having them bearthe consequencesof their would cater for the middle-incomegroup. Its decisions atthe ballot box ( The Straits speci® crole will be discussedin more detail in alater part of the paper. Times,20 April 1992). This will become 3. The CPFis acompulsory national social signi® cant for the four opposition wardsÐ security savings schemekept in trust by the Bukit Gombak, Hougang,NeeSoon Central government. All employers and employees and Potong PasirÐwhich will exceed20 are obliged to contribute to it. yearsafter the 1996 elections. How they vote 4. Toa Payoh was the ®rst satellite new town built by the HDBin the 1960s. may then have abearingon whetherthey are 5. The HDBhas set alimit on the total house- upgradedsubsequently. hold incomethat would qualify ahousehold The politicisation of HDBupgrading has for ownership ofaHDB¯at. Theceiling has not beenwithout its critics.Concernhas been been revised upwards through the years to raisedtha tthe PAPshould not use tax- re¯ect rising salaries and higher costs of living. payers’money to further its ownpolitical 6. Owners, however, doowntheir car park lots. cause (The Straits Times ,5February 1996). 7. Singapore gained internal self-government in Furthermore, to tie votesto asingle issueÐ 1959. In 1963, it gained full independence the housing programmeÐis not necessarily from Britain as part of Malaya. The two effectivesincethey arem ore likelytobecast entities separatedin 1965 to form twoinde- pendent states, Malaysia and Singapore. basedonavariety ofissues.Thereis also the potentialthat suchpoliticisation would be ultimately harmful to the nation, breeding a References `Whatcanyou give meif Ivote for you?’ CASTELLS, M., GOH, L. and KW OK , R.Y.-W . electorate. The government thus has atight- (1990) TheShek Kip Mei Syndrome:Economic rope to walk. Onthe one hand, itwill have to Development and Public Housing in Hong manage,if not help to ful® l, the higher aspi- Kong and Singapore .London: Pion. 452 TEOSIEWENGANDLILYKONG

CHUA ,B.H.(1995) CommunitarianIdeology and PUGH ,C.(1989) The politicaleconomyof public Democracy in Singapore .London and New housing,in: K.S.S AND HU and P. W HEATLEY York: Routledge. (Eds) Management of Success:The Moulding D EPARTMENTOF STATISTICS (1983) Economic and of Modern Singapore ,pp. 833±859. Singapore: Social StatisticsSingapore 1960± 1982 . Singa- Institute of SoutheastAsian Studies. pore. SALAFF,J.W.(1988) State and Family in Singa- G OH,K.S.(1956) Urban Incomesand Housing: A pore: Restructuring an Industrial Society . Report on the Social Survey of Singapore, Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress. 1953± 54.Singapore:Department of Social TAI,C.L.(1988) Housing Policy and High-rise Welfare. Living: AStudy ofSingapore’ sPublic Housing . HDB(various years) Annual Reports .Singapore: Singapore: Chopmen. Housing and Development Board. TEH,C.W.(1975) Public housing inSingapore:an H ILL, M. and LIA N,K.F.(1995) The Politics of overview,in: S.H.K.Yeh (Ed.) Public Housing Nation Building and Citizenship in Singapore . in Singapore ,pp. 1±21. Singapore:Singapore London and New York: Routledge. University Press. K AYE, B. (1960) Upper Nankin Street Singapore: TEO,S.E.(1986) New towns planning and devel- ASociological Study of Chinese Households opment in Singapore, Third World Planning Living inaDensely Populated Area .Singapore: Review,8, pp. 252±271. University of Malaya Press. TEO, S.E. and SAVA GE,V.R.(1985) Singapore M INIS TRY OF N ATION AL D EVELO PMENT (1988) landscape: ahistoricaloverview of housing TownCouncils: Participating in Progress . change, SingaporeJournal ofTropical Geogra- Singapore . phy,6, pp. 48±63. O OI, G.L., SIDDIQ UE, S. and SOH,K.C.(1993) The W ON G, A.K. and Y EH, S. (1985) Housing aNa- Management of Ethnic Relations in Public tion: 25 Years ofPublic Housing in Singapore . Housing Estates .Singapore: Times Academic Singapore: Maruzen Asia. Press/The Institute of Policy Studies.