Well-Being of the Elderly

Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

HDB Sample Household Survey 2013 Published by Housing & 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 Clara Wong Lee Hua Lim E-Farn Fiona Lee Yiling Esther Chua Jia Ping Sangeetha d/o Panearselvan Amy Wong Jin Ying Phay Huai Yu Nur Asykin Ramli Wendy Li Xin Yvonne Tan Ci En Choo Kit Hoong

Advisor: Dr Chong Fook Loong Raymond Toh Chun Parng

Research Advisory Panel: Professor Aline Wong Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser Dr Lai Ah Eng Dr Kang Soon Hock Associate Professor Pow Choon Piew Dr Kevin Tan Siah Yeow Assistant Professor Chang Jiat Hwee

Published Dec 2014 All information is correct at the time of printing.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means.

Produced by HDB Research and Planning Group

ISBN 978-981-09-3829-1

Printed by Oxford Graphic Printers Pte Ltd 11 Kaki Bukit Road 1 #02-06/07/08 Eunos Technolink Singapore 415939 Tel: 6748 3898 Fax: 6747 5668 www.oxfordgraphic.com.sg

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

HDB Sample Household Survey 2013

FOREWORD

HDB homes have evolved over the years, from basic flats catering to simple, everyday needs, to homes that meet higher aspirational desires for quality living. Over the last 54 years, since its formation, HDB has made the transformation of public housing its key focus. In the process, the changes have impacted on the physical and social landscape of Singapore. More importantly, they have shaped the way residents live, work and play.

In our endeavour to positively impact the lives of our residents, we carry out surveys to find out what HDB residents like, or do not like, so that we can make changes and improvements, and plan our future designs and policies around them.

The large-scale Sample Household Surveys (SHS) conducted every five years are an important platform for HDB to gather residents’ views and feedback. HDB has completed ten SHSs, with the first survey carried out in 1968, and the latest in 2013. This latest survey covered 7,800 households living in all 23 HDB towns and three estates.

High-rise, high-density living in Singapore is liveable and a way of life. Findings from SHS 2013 survey show that residents are satisfied with their flat and the convenient access to estate facilities within their neighbourhood. Findings also show that family ties remained strong with frequent visits and strong familial support between parents and married children. Residents feel a greater sense of belonging and are proud to be part of their communities.

These are just some of the interesting insights from the survey. 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.

We deeply appreciate the cooperation, time and feedback given by residents. Their responses, observations and comments will go a long way in helping HDB provide better homes and towns for all.

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

Contents Page

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

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 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 COMMUNITY BONDING 13 2.1 Neighbourly Relations 14 2.2 Sense of Attachment & National Pride 29 2.3 Community Engagement 35 2.4 Summary of Findings 39

CHAPTER 3 FAMILY TIES 45 3.1 Physical Living Arrangement 47 3.2 Social Living Arrangement 51 3.3 Depth of Interaction 53 3.4 Forms and Extent of Family Support 59 3.5 Well-Being and Family Life 65 3.6 Impact of Proximity on Frequency of Visits, Familial Support 66 and Sense of Closeness 3.7 Ideal Elderly Living Arrangement and Caregiving 71 for Elderly Parents 3.8 Summary of Findings 73

iii

Contents Page

CHAPTER 4 WELL-BEING OF THE ELDERLY 77 4.1 Personal Aspects 79 4.1.1 Financial Well-Being 4.1.2 Perceived Level of Health 4.2 Social Aspects 91 4.2.1 Family Ties 4.2.2 Community Bonding 4.3 Housing Aspects 114 4.3.1 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment 4.3.2 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities 4.3.3 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations 4.4 Summary of Findings 131

CONCLUSION 137

List of Tables Page

Table 2.1 Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction ...... 16

Table 2.2 Neighbourly Interaction by Ethnic Group ...... 17

Table 2.3 Neighbourly Interaction by Type of Block ...... 18

Table 2.4 Reasons for Not Interacting with Neighbours ...... 19 of Other Ethnic Groups and/or Nationalities

Table 2.5 Types of Help Received/Provided ...... 20

Table 2.6 Received Help from/Provided Help to Neighbours ...... 21 by Attributes

Table 2.7 Tolerance Level for Types of Nuisances Faced by Year ...... 23

Table 2.8 Whether Residents Did Anything with Nuisances Faced ...... 25 by Attributes

Table 2.9 Places where Neighbours Meet for Interaction by Year ...... 26

Table 2.10 Types of Shared Experience/Memory ...... 27

Table 2.11 Face-to-Face Interaction with Social Network by Age Group ...... 29

Table 2.12 Virtual Mode of Interaction with Social Network by Age Group ...... 29

Table 2.13 Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence ...... 31

Table 2.14 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Age Group ...... 31

Table 2.15 Sense of Community Score by Year ...... 32

Table 2.16 Sense of Community Scores by Attributes ...... 33

Table 2.17 Sense of Pride towards Community by Attributes ...... 34

Table 2.18 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities ...... 37

Table 2.19 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Attributes ...... 37

Table 2.20 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community ...... 38 by Age Group

Table 2.21 Whether Contributed Services and Reasons for Not ...... 39 Contributing/Not Willing to Contribute

Table 3.1 Age Distribution of Younger Married Residents ...... 47 and Older Residents

Table 3.2 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ...... 48 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Year

Table 3.3 Present Physical Living Arrangement ...... 49 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage

Table 3.4 Preferred Physical Living Arrangement ...... 49 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage

Table 3.5 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ...... 51 of Older Residents with Married Children vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

List of Tables Page

Table 3.6 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...... 52 of Younger Married Residents by Year

Table 3.7 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...... 53 of Older Residents with Married Children by Year

Table 3.8 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ...... 54 and their Parents by Year

Table 3.9 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...... 54 and their Married Children by Year

Table 3.10 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ...... 55 and their Parents by Attributes

Table 3.11 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...... 55 and their Married Children by Flat Type

Table 3.12 Modes of Interaction with Family Members Not Living Together ....57

Table 3.13 Childcare Arrangements of Younger Married Residents ...... 58 with Children Aged Twelve Years and Below by Year

Table 3.14 Proximity of Grandparents’ Home to Married Children by Year .....58

Table 3.15 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents ...... 60 to Parents by Year

Table 3.16 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents ...... 60 to Parents by Attributes

Table 3.17 Amount Contributed to Parents from Younger Married ...... 61 Residents by Attributes

Table 3.18 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...... 61 with Married Children by Year

Table 3.19 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...... 62 with Married Children by Attributes

Table 3.20 Amount of Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...... 62 with Married Children by Attributes

Table 3.21 Person/Source Paying for Medical Bills ...... 63

Table 3.22 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Family Members ...... 64 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Table 3.23 Older Residents’ Reliance on Family Members ...... 65 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Table 3.24 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members ...... 66

Table 3.25 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ...... 67 and their Parents by Proximity

Table 3.26 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...... 68 and their Married Children by Proximity

Table 3.27 Residents’ Preferred Housing Type for Old Age ...... 71

Table 3.28 Caregiving for Elderly Parents ...... 73

List of Tables Page

Table 4.1 Reasons for Not Having Financial Planning for Old Age ...... 81 Needs among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.2 Financial Planning for Retirement Needs among Elderly ...... 82 and Future Elderly by Attributes

Table 4.3 Number of Financial Resources of Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 84 by Attributes

Table 4.4 Reasons for Having Inadequate Sources of Income ...... 85 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.5 Ways for Elderly and Future Elderly to Meet Any Shortfall ...... 85

Table 4.6 Adequacy of Sources of Income for Elderly and Future ...... 86 Elderly by Attributes

Table 4.7 Options among Elderly and Future Elderly Who Had ...... 89 No Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years When They Encounter Major Financial Difficulties

Table 4.8 Preferred Monetisation Options among Elderly and ...... 89 Future Elderly Who Intended to Monetise in the Next Five Years

Table 4.9 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 91 by Attributes

Table 4.10 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ...... 93 of Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

Table 4.11 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ...... 94 of Future Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

Table 4.12 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...... 95 of Elderly by Year

Table 4.13 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...... 95 of Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.14 Frequency of Visits between Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 96 with their Married Children by Year

Table 4.15 Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, ...... 98 Emotional and Financial Support

Table 4.16 Future Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, ...... 99 Emotional and Financial Support

Table 4.17 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly ...... 101 and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Table 4.18 Amount of Financial Support Received by Elderly ...... 101 and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Table 4.19 Elderly and Future Elderly Residents’ Perceived Ideal Living ..... 104 Arrangement for Elderly Persons Unable to Live on their Own

Table 4.20 Types of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly ...... 105 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.21 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction ...... 106 among Elderly

vii

List of Tables Page

Table 4.22 Places where Neighbours Meet among Elderly ...... 108 and Future Elderly

Table 4.23 Common Modes of Interaction among Elderly ...... 109 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.24 Sense of Belonging among Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 109 by Year

Table 4.25 Sense of Community (SOC) Score among Elderly ...... 110 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.26 Community Participation of Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 111 in the Last Twelve Months by Year

Table 4.27 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities ...... 111 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.28 Types of Community Participation among Elderly ...... 113 and Future Elderly over Past Twelve Months by Year

Table 4.29 Whether Participate in Community Activities ...... 113 among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Table 4.30 Elderly and Future Elderly with No Dislikes about Living in ...... 116 HDB Towns/Estates by Year

Table 4.31 Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment ...... 117 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.32 Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment ...... 118 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.33 Satisfaction with Various Types of Estate Facilities ...... 121 among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.34 Satisfaction with Elderly-Friendly Facilities by Year ...... 122

Table 4.35 Proportion who had Utilised Eldercare Services ...... 123

Table 4.36 Proportion who Agreed that Eldercare Services were ...... 124 Essential for Ageing-In-Place

Table 4.37 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Elderly ...... 126 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.38 Housing Type Content With among Elderly ...... 130 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.39 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age among Elderly ...... 131 and Future Elderly by Year

viii

List of Charts Page

Chart 2.1 Households Engaging in Various Types of Neighbourly ...... 15 Interaction by Year

Chart 2.2 Engagement in Inter-Ethnic/Nationality Interaction by Year ...... 19

Chart 2.3 Whether Received/Provided Help in Times of Emergencies ...... 20

Chart 2.4 Nuisances Faced From Neighbours by Year ...... 22

Chart 2.5 Ways of Resolving Nuisances ...... 24

Chart 2.6 Whether Had Shared Memories/Experiences with Neighbours .....27 by Year

Chart 2.7 Common Modes of Interaction with Social Networks by Year ...... 28

Chart 2.8 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence ...... 30

Chart 2.9 Sense of Belonging by Year ...... 30

Chart 2.10 Sense of Pride towards Community by Year ...... 33

Chart 2.11 Households with Positive Sentiments towards Singapore ...... 34 by Year

Chart 2.12 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Year ...... 35

Chart 2.13 Types and Frequency of Community Activities Participated ...... 36 over Past 12 Months

Chart 2.14 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Year ...... 38

Chart 3.1 Types of Activities Carried Out between Younger Married ...... 56 Residents and their Parents

Chart 3.2 Types of Activities Carried Out between Older Residents ...... 56 and their Married Children

Chart 3.3 Frequency of Keeping in Touch with Family Members Not ...... 57 Living Together

Chart 3.4 Whether Faced Problems when Communicating with Children .....59 and Grandchildren

Chart 3.5 Importance of and Satisfaction with Family Life by Year ...... 66

Chart 3.6 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Parents ...... 69 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

Chart 3.7 Older Residents’ Reliance on Married Children ...... 69 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

Chart 3.8 Younger Married Residents’ Provision of Physical, Emotional ...... 70 and Financial Support to Parents by Proximity

Chart 3.9 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members ...... 70 by Proximity

Chart 3.10 Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons ...... 72 Unable to Live on their Own

List of Charts Page

Chart 4.1 Elderly and Future Elderly who had Undertaken At Least One ...... 80 Financial Option in Planning for Retirement Needs

Chart 4.2 Financial Options for Retirement Planning among Elderly ...... 80 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.3 Regular Financial Sources of Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 83

Chart 4.4 Number of Regular Financial Sources of Elderly ...... 83 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.5 Adequacy of Sources of Income to Meet Daily Expenses ...... 84 for Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 4.6 Monetisation Options Taken after 50 Years Old ...... 87 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Chart 4.7 Whether Monetised after Turning 50 Years Old for Elderly ...... 88 and Future Elderly by Flat Type

Chart 4.8 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly ...... 88 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.9 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly ...... 90 and Future Elderly by Flat Type

Chart 4.10 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly ...... 90 by Year

Chart 4.11 Types of Activities Carried Out between Elderly ...... 97 and their Married Children

Chart 4.12 Types of Activities Carried Out between Future Elderly ...... 97 and their Married Children

Chart 4.13 Person/Source Paying Medical Bills for Elderly ...... 102 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.14 Keeping in Touch with Family Members whom Elderly ...... 103 and Future Elderly Do Not Live with

Chart 4.15 Whether Elderly and Future Elderly Faced Problems ...... 103 when Communicating with Children and Grandchildren

Chart 4.16 Interaction with Neighbours of Other ...... 107 Ethnic Groups/Nationalities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 4.17 Comparison of Community Participation Rate of Elderly ...... 112 by Year (Include and Exclude Sole Participation in Religious Activities)

Chart 4.18 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood ...... 115 among Elderly by Year

Chart 4.19 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood ...... 115 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Chart 4.20 Perception of Lift Reliability among Elderly and Future Elderly .. 119

List of Charts Page

Chart 4.21 Value for Money of HDB Flat among Elderly ...... 119 and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

Chart 4.22 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat among Elderly ...... 120 and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

Chart 4.23 Awareness of Eldercare Services ...... 123

Chart 4.24 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among Elderly ...... 127 and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 4.25 Where the Elderly and Future Elderly Intended to Live ...... 128 in Old Age

Chart 4.26 Housing Type Content With among Elderly ...... 129 and Future Elderly by Present Flat Type and Year

Key Indicators

Key Indicators of HDB Population by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013)

Total Chinese Malay Indian Others

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Demographic Characteristics

Resident Population (‘000) 2,923 3,058 2,158 2,248 478 476 240 272 47 62 (Excluding subtenants) (%) 100.0 100.0 73.8 73.5 16.3 15.6 8.2 8.9 1.6 2.0

Sex (%) Male 49.4 48.8 49.7 49.1 48.8 48.0 49.1 49.2 47.8 42.2 Female 50.6 51.2 50.3 50.9 51.2 52.0 50.9 50.8 52.2 57.8

Average Age (Years) 36.9 37.9 38.4 39.5 32.4 33.7 33.7 33.2 34.2 32.5 Median Age (Years) 37 39 39 40 30 31 34 34 35 34

Persons Aged Below 15 Years (%) 17.7 16.7 15.8 15.1 23.7 19.9 22.3 23.2 21.1 23.0 Persons Aged 15–64 Years (%) 72.6 72.3 73.2 72.3 70.2 73.1 71.2 70.9 72.2 72.8 Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%) 9.8 11.0 11.0 12.6 6.1 7.0 6.5 5.9 6.7 4.2

Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64 Old-Age Dependency Ratio 13.5 15.2 15.0 17.4 8.7 9.6 9.1 8.3 9.3 5.8 Child Dependency Ratio 24.4 23.1 21.6 20.9 33.8 27.2 31.3 32.7 29.2 31.6

Flat Type (%) 1-Room 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.9 1.6 2.2 1.4 2.6 2-Room 2.2 2.8 1.9 1.9 3.5 6.3 3.0 3.7 1.7 2.1 3-Room 19.6 19.3 19.7 19.3 17.8 19.8 21.0 19.1 21.7 17.4 4-Room 41.0 41.1 40.6 41.2 44.0 41.6 39.8 39.6 39.2 39.9 5-Room 26.7 26.6 27.4 27.6 24.8 22.0 24.4 25.9 27.0 28.0 Executive 9.3 8.6 9.4 8.8 8.6 7.4 10.3 9.5 9.0 10.0

Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)

Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000) 2,403 2,543 1,815 1,907 364 380 187 209 37 48

Sex (%) Male 49.0 48.4 49.2 48.7 48.1 47.8 48.8 48.7 46.4 41.4 Female 51.0 51.6 50.8 51.3 51.9 52.2 51.2 51.3 53.6 58.6

Economically Active (‘000) 1,539 1,649 1,183 1,246 214 236 118 133 24 33

Employed 1,480 1,583 1,141 1,202 204 222 112 126 23 32 Unemployed 59 66 42 44 10 14 6 7 1 1

Labour Force Participation Rate (%) 64.0 64.9 65.2 65.5 58.8 62.4 63.2 64.0 63.8 69.5 (LFPR) Male LFPR 75.4 74.6 75.3 73.7 75.0 76.0 77.1 80.7 78.4 79.5 Female LFPR 53.1 55.8 55.4 57.8 43.8 50.0 49.9 48.0 51.2 62.5

xiv

Key Indicators of HDB Population by Flat Type (2008 & 2013)

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

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Demographic Characteristics

Resident Population (‘000) 2,923 3,058 35 48 65 85 572 592 1,199 1,256 780 813 273 264 (Excluding subtenants) (%) 100.0 100.0 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.8 19.6 19.3 41.0 41.1 26.7 26.6 9.3 8.6

Sex (%) Male 49.4 48.8 54.0 52.4 48.6 47.7 48.2 47.9 49.7 48.9 50.4 48.8 47.9 49.8 Female 50.6 51.2 46.0 47.6 51.4 52.3 51.8 52.1 50.3 51.1 49.6 51.2 52.1 50.2

Average Age (Years) 36.9 37.9 55.9 49.9 45.3 40.5 42.0 42.7 36.1 37.2 34.3 35.3 33.2 35.2 Median Age (Years) 37 39 58 55 48 44 44 45 36 37 35 36 34 36

Persons Aged Below 15 years (%) 17.7 16.7 4.8 9.6 12.1 18.5 12.8 12.5 17.6 16.4 20.9 19.9 22.5 19.0 Persons Aged 15–64 Years (%) 72.6 72.3 56.6 58.6 65.0 62.2 71.6 70.3 74.4 74.1 71.7 72.3 72.5 73.6 Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%) 9.8 11.0 38.6 31.8 23.0 19.3 15.6 17.2 8.1 9.5 7.4 7.8 5.0 7.4

Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64 Old-Age Dependency Ratio 13.5 15.2 68.2 54.3 35.4 31.0 21.8 24.5 10.9 12.8 10.3 10.8 6.9 10.1 Child Dependency Ratio 24.4 23.1 8.5 16.4 18.6 29.7 17.9 17.8 23.7 22.1 29.1 27.5 31.0 25.8

Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)

Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000) 2,403 2,543 33 43 57 69 498 518 988 1,050 615 650 211 213

Sex (%) Male 49.0 48.4 53.9 53.6 48.3 46.9 47.9 47.5 49.7 48.6 49.1 48.6 47.3 49.0 Female 51.0 51.6 46.1 46.4 51.7 53.1 52.1 52.5 50.3 51.4 50.9 51.4 52.7 51.0

Economically Active (‘000) 1,539 1,649 18 23 32 41 315 332 634 697 402 423 137 133

Employed 1,480 1,583 17 21 29 37 300 318 610 669 391 411 133 128 Unemployed 59 66 1 2 3 4 15 14 24 28 12 12 4 5

Labour Force Participation Rate (%) 64.0 64.9 55.7 52.8 55.9 59.7 63.2 64.2 64.2 66.6 65.4 65.3 64.9 62.6 (LFPR) Male LFPR 75.4 74.6 66.9 63.0 69.5 68.3 75.6 74.0 75.8 76.5 75.6 75.3 75.8 70.9 Female LFPR 53.1 55.8 42.6 41.1 43.3 46.3 51.8 55.4 52.7 57.2 55.6 55.9 55.1 54.5

Key Indicators of HDB Households by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013)

Total Chinese Malay Indian Others

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Demographic Characteristics

Total Number of Households 866,026 908,499 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885

Type of Family Nucleus (%)

Nuclear Family 79.4 76.3 79.9 76.6 75.9 72.5 79.9 79.7 78.1 80.8 Extended Nuclear Family 7.4 8.3 7.0 7.9 9.4 10.6 8.3 8.3 8.7 7.5 Multi-Nuclear Family 4.1 6.2 3.4 5.4 8.1 11.2 3.8 6.1 3.3 6.4 Non-Nuclear Family 9.2 9.2 9.8 10.1 6.6 5.7 7.9 5.9 9.9 5.3

Household Size (%)

1 Person 8.0 8.4 8.5 9.3 5.9 5.3 6.8 5.0 7.9 4.8 2 Persons 22.0 20.4 23.8 22.1 13.5 12.0 18.8 18.4 18.9 16.1 3 Persons 22.1 23.6 22.9 24.7 17.6 18.4 22.5 21.8 25.1 25.2 4 Persons 27.2 26.7 28.1 26.9 20.6 20.4 29.5 33.4 26.3 30.7 5 Persons 13.7 13.5 12.1 12.1 22.2 21.7 14.8 13.6 13.8 13.6 6 or More Persons 7.0 7.4 4.7 4.9 20.2 22.2 7.7 7.8 8.1 9.6

Average Household Size (Persons) 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 4.1 4.2 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 Median Household Size (Persons) 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4

Flat Type (%)

1-Room 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.7 5.1 2.8 3.5 2.1 2.5 2-Room 3.3 3.8 2.9 3.0 5.1 7.8 3.9 4.5 4.3 3.5 3-Room 24.7 23.8 25.0 24.2 23.5 22.5 24.0 22.6 21.7 19.9 4-Room 38.3 39.0 37.9 39.1 41.1 38.8 38.2 38.3 36.5 38.7 5-Room 23.9 23.6 24.5 24.2 21.0 19.4 22.5 23.2 26.1 28.0 Executive 7.7 7.1 7.7 7.2 6.7 6.4 8.7 7.9 9.3 7.4

Economic Characteristics

Number of Income Earners (%)

None 7.7 8.5 8.0 9.4 6.1 5.7 7.2 5.1 7.2 6.2 1 Person 35.4 32.2 34.1 31.3 37.8 29.3 42.8 43.9 39.1 27.0 2 Persons 40.9 41.2 42.1 41.8 35.7 38.4 38.1 37.5 41.7 54.9 3 Persons 11.3 12.1 11.0 11.9 14.4 16.4 8.5 9.2 9.8 9.0 4 or More Persons 4.8 6.0 4.7 5.6 6.0 10.2 3.4 4.3 2.2 2.9

Average No. of Income Earners (Persons) 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8

xvi

Key Indicators of HDB Households by Flat Type (2008 & 2013)

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

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Demographic Characteristics

Total Number of Households 866,026 908,499 18,562 24,573 28,614 34,204 213,857 216,163 331,739 354,526 206,799 214,074 66,455 64,959

Type of Family Nucleus (%) Nuclear Family 79.4 76.3 44.8 51.5 69.2 69.4 72.7 69.9 83.1 79.5 83.6 80.8 83.6 79.5 Extended Nuclear Family 7.4 8.3 2.4 3.8 2.4 3.2 5.0 6.0 7.4 9.5 9.5 9.9 11.5 7.8 Multi-Nuclear Family 4.1 6.2 0.7 1.9 1.0 1.7 2.1 4.0 5.4 6.7 4.7 7.0 4.1 11.6 Non-Nuclear Family 9.2 9.2 52.1 42.8 27.5 25.7 20.3 20.1 4.1 4.3 2.2 2.3 0.9 1.1

Household Size (%) 1 Person 8.0 8.4 33.0 29.2 22.6 23.7 19.3 19.1 3.4 3.9 1.7 2.3 0.6 1.1 2 Persons 22.0 20.4 53.0 51.1 47.2 32.5 29.5 27.8 18.3 18.3 17.6 13.8 10.8 10.6 3 Persons 22.1 23.6 8.8 13.4 16.6 23.6 24.3 23.6 24.3 25.4 20.0 23.7 17.4 17.9 4 Persons 27.2 26.7 3.6 3.7 6.6 11.3 17.8 18.8 31.4 29.2 33.2 32.9 33.1 36.0 5 Persons 13.7 13.5 1.1 2.1 5.0 4.5 6.8 6.9 14.1 14.9 18.2 18.0 27.1 21.8 6 or more Persons 7.0 7.4 0.5 0.5 2.0 4.4 2.3 3.8 8.5 8.3 9.4 9.3 11.0 12.6

Average Household Size (Persons) 3.4 3.4 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.1 Median Household Size (Persons) 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Economic Characteristics

Number of Income Earners (%) None 7.7 8.5 26.5 30.8 26.5 23.1 13.3 13.9 5.2 5.8 3.6 4.1 1.4 3.1 1 Person 35.4 32.2 54.5 54.9 48.5 48.5 45.1 41.0 33.8 28.5 27.8 26.2 24.6 26.5 2 Persons 40.9 41.2 18.8 13.1 21.3 23.8 30.9 32.4 40.9 44.5 51.9 49.2 53.9 47.0 3 Persons 11.3 12.1 0.3 1.2 3.0 3.8 8.0 8.5 14.3 13.9 10.6 13.9 15.6 15.6 4 or more Persons 4.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 2.7 4.2 5.9 7.3 6.1 6.6 4.6 7.8

Average No. of Income Earners (Persons) 1.7 1.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0

xvii

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

HDB Resident Population

Resident population refers to Singapore citizens and Singapore permanent residents (SPRs) residing in HDB flats, excluding subtenants.

Elderly resident population refers to Singapore citizens and SPRs who are aged 65 years and above.

Future elderly resident population refers to Singapore citizens and SPRs who are aged between 55 and 64 years.

Age Dependency Ratio

(i) Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15 to 64 Years

The old-age dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of the elderly resident population aged 65 years and above to that of the resident population aged between 15 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:

Resident Population Aged 65 Years and Above Old ‐ Age Dependency Ratio  Resident Population Aged 15 to 64 Years

The child dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of non-working age resident population aged below 15 years to that of the resident population aged between 15 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:

Resident Population Aged Below 15 Years Child Dependency Ratio  Resident Population Aged 15 to 64 Years

The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows:

Total Dependency Ratio  Old ‐ Age Dependency Ratio  Child Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged 65 Years and Above  Aged Below 15 Years  Resident Population Aged 15 to 64 Years

xxi

(ii) Based on Per 100 Population Aged 20 to 64 Years

The old-age dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of the elderly resident population aged 65 years and above to that of the resident population aged between 20 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:

Resident Population Aged 65 Years and Above Old ‐ Age Dependency Ratio  Resident Population Aged 20 to 64 Years

The child dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of non-working age resident population aged below 20 years to that of the resident population aged between 20 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:

Resident Population Aged Below 20 Years Child Dependency Ratio  Resident Population Aged 20 to 64 Years

The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows:

Total Dependency Ratio  Old ‐ Age Dependency Ratio  Child Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged 65 Years and Above  Aged Below 20 Years  Resident Population Aged 20 to 64 Years

Economic Status

Labour force participation refers to persons who are economically active and aged 15 years and over, either employed or unemployed during the survey period.

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

xxii

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. Subtenants or maids dwelling in the same housing unit as the lessee(s) or registered tenant(s) do not constitute part of the household. This definition is often known as the household-dwelling unit concept.

An elderly household refers to a household in which the head (i.e. main lessee or registered tenant) is aged 65 years and above.

A future elderly household refers to a household in which the head (i.e. main lessee or registered tenant) is aged between 55 and 64 years.

Type of Family Nucleus

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

Nuclear family refers to either: (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) single-person households (a person living alone who could be single, widowed or divorced); or (ii) unrelated or distantly related persons staying together.

xxiii

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

Note: Non-family based households are excluded.

Resident or Household Life-Cycle Stage

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

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

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

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

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

xxiv

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 the 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 9. Tampines Estates : 10. Pasir Ris 1. Marine Parade 11. Woodlands 2. Central Area* 12. Yishun

Estate : 1. Bukit Timah * Covering areas such as Tanjong Pagar Plaza, Cantoment Road, Jalan Kukoh, Chin Swee Road, York Hill, Upper Cross Street, Sago Lane, Selegie Road

xxv

1 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 2013 is the 10th 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 emphasis of public housing.

From assessing the impact of relocation of residents to public housing, adaptation to high-rise, high-density living, community formation, to the present emphasis on social diversity and community cohesion, the research focus of the SHS reflects the evolving role of HDB and its mission.

The HDB Research Advisory Panel, chaired by Professor Aline Wong, comprising academics in sociology, geography and architectural, was formed in 2008 and their main role was to provide advice on salient research projects and socio-economic studies relevant to HDB. The panel was actively involved in SHS 2013, lending their expertise to HDB in the research scope, as well as the analysis of survey findings to further enhance the utility.

The survey findings serve as important inputs for HDB’s policy reviews and help identify aspects of the HDB environment to improve. Starting from conceptualisation of the research scope to the analysis of survey findings, HDB Groups were also consulted so that the survey could cater more specifically to their operational needs.

1.2 Objectives

The two key objectives of the SHS are to: a) Obtain demographic and socio-economic profile of residents and identify changing needs and expectations. These information are useful in the assessment of HDB’s operations and policies; and b) 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.

1.3 Sampling Design

A total of 7,755 households were successfully interviewed, yielding an overall sampling error of ±1.1% at 95% confidence level. A set of weights was used to generalise the survey data to the population level, so that the findings reported are representative of all HDB households.

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 August 2013.

A crucial requirement for collecting reliable primary data was to maintain high quality fieldwork control. 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: 2008.

1.4 Outline of Monograph

This monograph explores the extent of community bonding and family ties of HDB residents to give an indication on how active and cohesive the HDB community is. It also examines the well-being of elderly residents, especially in the face of ageing population in Singapore.

In the other monograph, Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences, the findings were presented in two parts. The first part analyses the profile of HDB population and households, specifically, the demographic and socio-economic profile of HDB residents. The second part focuses on residents’ physical living environment, in terms of their housing satisfaction and preferences. It is important for HDB to keep tab of how our residents adapt to and assess the quality of their physical living environment, which HDB has played a key role in creating and maintaining it.

Social Well- Being of HDB Communities

Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

With majority of the Singapore resident population living in HDB estates and towns, the HDB living experience continues to play an important role in the lives of Singaporeans. Public housing policies and schemes are formulated not only to meet changing needs and aspirations, but also to support national objectives such as maintaining social harmony and building stronger family ties, and focus on the needs of the elderly. In the recent years, HDB has proactively organised various activities to foster community bonding among its residents at precinct level, such as welcome parties for new residents in newly completed blocks.

Families are the key societal units and strong inter-generational relationships are important in achieving healthy families and a cohesive society. The strength of family ties is a key ingredient for a strong inter-generational support especially in terms of care provisions to ageing parents and other family members. Inter- generational relationships of residents could be examined by the extent of their interaction with and support for family members. With the trend of children setting up their own home after marriage, the geographical proximity between parents and married children also plays a key role in determining the levels of mutual care and support they can provide for each other.

With the growing number of elderly residents in HDB communities, it is also crucial to ensure that the well-being of elderly residents, in terms of their current financial situation, community involvement and satisfaction with physical living environment, are being looked after, so as to provide a quality living environment for them to age comfortably.

2 Community Bonding

Chapter 2

Community Bonding

Introduction

A community is usually defined as people living in the same geographical area, sharing common interests or experiences, and in the process, developing a sense of shared identity and belonging. In this regard, residents living in HDB towns and estates, or distinct parts of them, can be viewed as local communities living in planned residential areas with shared amenities. Community bonding is seen as a multi-dimensional concept linking people to other people and to the place where they live.

One of the key priorities of HDB is the building of cohesive communities within its towns. Living environments are provided with community spaces for residents to mingle and interact. Activities, be it government-led or resident-led, are organised to facilitate residents moving beyond their flats to enjoy the company of neighbours and friends in the community.

Objectives

The objectives of this chapter are: a) To examine residents’ level of engagement with the community, e.g. community participation, types and frequency of neighbourly interaction; b) To assess residents’ tolerance level towards nuisances caused by neighbours, e.g. noise, littering; and c) To assess sense of attachment to the town/estate, as well as to Singapore.

Framework

This chapter provides insight into trends in community development by monitoring changes in the indicators of community bonding. These include neighbourly relations, sense of attachment and national pride, as well as community engagement.

Framework for Community Bonding

Community Bonding

Neighbourly Sense of Community Relations Attachment & Engagement National Pride . Participation in . Neighbourly Interactions . Sense of Belonging to Community Activities . Inter-Ethnic /Inter- Town/Estate . Reason for Non- Nationality Interactions . Sense of Community Participation . Tolerance towards Nuisances . Sense of Belonging and Pride to Singapore

2.1 Neighbourly Relations

Nearly all HDB residents agreed unanimously (97.8%) that maintaining a good neighbourly relation is important. This is especially so when one needed help in times of emergency. Neighbours living in close proximity would be able to attend to crises more promptly compared with family members or friends who live elsewhere in Singapore. In addition, good neighbourly relations bring about a harmonious living environment.

Almost all residents engaged in exchanging greetings and casual conversation, less engaged in more intense interactions

Twelve types of neighbourly contacts were used to assess the intensity of interactions among HDB residents. These ranged from less intense interactions, such as exchanging greetings to more intense interactions, such as providing or receiving financial help. Residents who engaged in more intense forms of interaction, such as keeping house keys for neighbours 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 twelve ways (Chart 2.1). The findings showed that a higher proportion of residents engaged in neighbourly interactions in general compared with five years ago, though a lower proportion engaged in more intense forms of interaction such as borrowing/lending household items and helping to look after children. The latter could be due to a reduced need to do so as residents become more self- sufficient, coupled with the availability of retail shops and childcare centres in residential areas.

Chart 2.1 Households Engaging in Various Types of Neighbourly Interaction by Year

98.6 Exchange greetings 97.1 97.0 Casual conversation 94.1 53.3 Exchange food/gifts on special occasions 51.0 27.5 Exchange suggestions/advice 34.7 36.2 Visit one another 40.2 44.6 Keep watch over flat 42.9 15.2 2013 Help in buying groceries 17.9 17.8 2008 Borrow/lend household items 22.8 8.7 Help to look after children 11.7 7.5 Keep house keys 9.5 Communicate via social media* 4.8 2.5 Provide/receive financial help 4.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

* New variable on communication via social media was added in SHS 2013

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 2.1). Nonetheless, HDB residents would exchange food/gifts on special occasions and keep watch over each other’s flats

when a family was not at home. Such gestures imply that neighbourly ties are still alive and strong.

Table 2.1 Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction

At Least At Least Total Types of Neighbourly None at Daily Once a Once a Occasionally Interaction All Week Month % N*

Exchange Greetings 57.0 23.0 1.5 17.2 1.3 100.0 908,340 Casual Conversation 40.6 29.6 3.5 23.3 3.0 100.0 908,340 Exchange Food/Gifts 0.8 2.1 2.9 47.5 46.7 100.0 908,096 on Special Occasions Exchange 0.6 1.3 1.2 24.4 72.5 100.0 908,412 Suggestions/Advice Visit One Another 1.0 1.7 2.2 31.3 63.8 100.0 908,330 Keep Watch Over Flat 6.0 1.5 1.2 35.9 55.4 100.0 908,295 Help in Buying 0.5 0.9 0.7 13.1 84.8 100.0 908,008 Groceries Borrow/Lend 0.1 0.5 0.7 16.5 82.2 100.0 907,898 Household Items Help to Look After 0.5 0.4 0.3 7.4 91.4 100.0 908,143 Children Keep House Keys 0.8 0.2 0.2 6.2 92.6 100.0 907,705 Communicate via 0.5 0.6 0.4 3.4 95.1 100.0 907,342 Social Media Provide/Receive 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.1 97.5 100.0 907,599 Financial Help

* Excluding non-response cases

Types of neighbourly interaction differed across ethnic groups

While all ethnic groups mostly engaged in exchanging greetings and having casual conversations, significantly higher proportions of Malays and Indians engaged in more intense forms of interaction. Due to lifestyle and cultural influences, proportionately more Malays and Indians tended to engage in social activities with their neighbours, such as exchanging food or gifts on special occasions and visiting one another (Table 2.2).

The Chinese and Others appeared less involved in intense forms of interaction compared with Malays and Indians.

Table 2.2 Neighbourly Interaction by Ethnic Group

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

Exchange Greetings 98.5 98.9 98.8 99.3 Casual Conversation 97.0 97.7 96.3 96.0 Exchange Food/Gifts on Special Occasions 49.0 73.4 61.0 59.1 Exchange Suggestions/Advice 27.4 28.8 28.4 16.6 Visit One Another 33.1 52.2 41.8 31.8 Keep Watch Over Flat 42.9 54.7 47.0 38.1 Help in Buying Groceries 14.8 18.1 15.6 9.1 Borrow/Lend Household Items 18.6 15.4 17.1 8.7 Help to Look After Children 8.3 9.7 10.8 5.8 Keep House Keys 7.1 9.7 8.7 3.0 Communicate via Social Media 4.7 5.1 5.8 3.5 Provide/Receive Financial Help 2.4 3.5 2.6 0.9

Hybrid block design equally conducive for interactions

A high proportion of residents in hybrid blocks1 engaged in neighbourly activities, comparable to other types of block, that is, point blocks, slab blocks and staggered blocks (Table 2.3). The finding indicates that this relatively new block design implemented in the 80s, which comes with social spaces such as precinct pavilions and rooftop gardens, is equally conducive for neighbourly interactions.

1 The early typical HDB slab block was a straight, 10- to 13-storey building with flats that were served by a single common corridor on each storey. The slab block was the predominant housing block form throughout the 70s. Point blocks were previously built as 20- or 25-storey buildings with a central core that housed the lifts and staircase serving four flats per storey. From the 80s onwards, the precinct concept was implemented, putting greater emphasis on territoriality, scale, and shared facilities together with efforts to vary block design by combining slab blocks and other block configurations, such as “U”-shaped blocks, “pin-wheel” or the atrium block. In the most recent designs, the point block plans have been re-configured into blocks that have six to eight units per storey. These new types of building design are called “Hybrid” blocks. In this section, the extent of neighbourliness was analysed by the four broad categories of block: point blocks, slab blocks, staggered blocks (i.e. combination of point and slab) and hybrid blocks.

Table 2.3 Neighbourly Interaction by Type of Block

Households (%)

Types of Neighbourly Interaction Hybrid Point Staggered Slab Block Block Block Block

Exchange Greetings 98.7 99.7 98.6 98.6 Casual Conversation 96.7 97.9 97.1 96.6 Exchange Food/Gifts on Special Occasions 56.1 56.6 50.6 57.4 Exchange Suggestions/Advice 30.0 25.3 26.8 27.9 Visit One Another 41.1 40.3 33.1 38.8 Keep Watch Over Flat 47.0 51.2 41.4 51.3 Help in Buying Groceries 14.4 14.7 14.9 15.3 Borrow/Lend Household Items 19.4 20.9 16.6 16.9 Help to Look After Children 10.3 10.6 7.5 9.0 Keep House Keys 7.3 9.0 7.2 7.5 Communicate via Social Media 6.7 6.4 3.8 2.3 Provide/Receive Financial Help 2.4 1.7 2.3 3.4

More residents engaged in inter-ethnic/nationality interactions

HDB put in place the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in 1989 to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves and to ensure a balanced mix of the different ethnic groups in HDB estates. The SPR quota was introduced in 2010 to ensure better integration of SPR families into the local community for social cohesion and to prevent enclaves from forming in the public housing estates 2. Tolerance and acceptance of one another’s racial and cultural background are pivotal in a more diverse society, especially in a high-rise, high-density living environment where residents share common facilities. Social engagements among the various ethnic and nationality groups could bring about a better understanding, help bridge differences and strengthen social cohesion and harmony.

Chart 2.2 showed that over the past five years, the proportion of residents who had interacted with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities had increased (85.7% in 2013, 77.0% in 2008).

2 This quota only applies to non-Malaysian SPRs. Malaysian SPRs will not be subjected to the SPR quota, in view of their close cultural and historical similarities with Singaporeans. When the ethnic group proportion or SPR quota or both have reached the block/neighbourhood limit, a buyer will not be allowed to buy a flat in that block/neighbourhood as it will lead to an increase in that ethnic proportion or SPR quota or both.

Chart 2.2 Engagement in Inter-Ethnic/Nationality Interaction by Year

100 85.7% (2013) 77.0% (2008) 80 60.3 60 49.9

40 32.1 2008 23.0 14.7 2013 Households (%) 20 14.3 2.0 3.7 0 With Other Ethnic With Other With Other Ethnic With Same Ethnic Groups Only Nationalities Only Groups and Group and Nationalities Nationality

Among residents who interacted solely with neighbours of the same ethnic group and nationality, the majority (89.4%) said that it was because they only had neighbours of the same ethnic group and nationality (Table 2.4).

Table 2.4 Reasons for Not Interacting with Neighbours of Other Ethnic Groups and/or Nationalities

Reasons All

Do not have neighbours of other ethnic group and nationality 89.4 Language barrier 7.2 Not comfortable interacting with neighbours in general 2.3 No time/too busy 1.0 Others (e.g. poor health, just moved in, staying on different floors) 0.1

% 100.0 Total N* 125,918 * Excluding non-response cases

Neighbours provided general help to one another

A new question was introduced in SHS 2013 to find out the types of help neighbours provide or receive from one another in times of emergency, given that they are living in close proximity. More than eight in ten had not done so, mainly because there was no need to do so or that emergencies did not arise (Chart 2.3).

Chart 2.3 Whether Received/Provided Help in Times of Emergencies

Provided help 7.6% Received help 4.8% Received & provided help 4.6% Neither received nor provided help 82.9%

Among the 17.0% who had received or rendered help, more than four in ten (43.0%) provided general help, such as lending household items (Table 2.5). Another 15.0% helped to take care of elderly neighbours or neighbour’s child/parent, while 13.0% overcame occasional inconveniences with their neighbours, such as lift breakdowns or blackouts. Residents would also render help during emergencies like sending their neighbour to the hospital/putting out a fire (11.6%), or helping to inform the authorities (8.3%).

Table 2.5 Types of Help Received/Provided

Types of Help All

Provide general help (e.g. lend household items) 43.0 Help to take care of elderly neighbours/neighbour’s child/parent 15.0 Overcome occasional inconveniences (e.g. blackouts, lift breakdowns) 13.0 Help to send neighbour to hospital/put out fire 11.6 Help to inform authorities in times of emergency 8.3 Help to inform family members of neighbours in times of emergency 3.3 Provide financial help 2.1 Help with funeral preparations 1.7 Others (e.g. help to move into block, provide advice to neighbours on 2.0 handling sick children)

% 100.0 Total N* 150,044 * Excluding non-response cases

Residents more likely to provide or receive help with increased length of residence

Findings showed that the likelihood of providing help to or receiving help from neighbours increased with age of residents, which could also be largely attributed to their longer length of residence compared with their younger counterparts. With a longer length of residence, familiarity and comfort among neighbours could increase, thus increasing the opportunities and likelihood to help one another (Table 2.6). On the other hand, incidences of elderly residents providing help to others were lower, possibly due to their physical limitations.

Table 2.6 Received Help from/Provided Help to Neighbours by Attributes

Whether Received/ Total Attributes Provided Help Yes No % N*

Age Group (Years) Below 35 14.8 85.2 100.0 83,336 35 - 44 16.7 83.3 100.0 204,499 45 - 54 18.1 81.9 100.0 257,573 55 - 64 18.6 81.4 100.0 206,410 65 & Above 15.2 84.9 100.0 141,540 Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 12.4 87.7 100.0 252,432 6 - 10 18.9 81.1 100.0 139,251 11 - 15 18.2 81.8 100.0 219,404 16 - 20 19.0 81.0 100.0 96,684 21 - 30 20.0 80.0 100.0 130,466 31 & Above 20.0 80.0 100.0 55,554 * Excluding non-response cases

More faced intolerable nuisances from neighbours

In a high-rise, high-density environment, it can be a challenge to accommodate more people and at the same time achieve a cohesive living environment. Many a time, due to diversities in cultural backgrounds and lifestyle patterns, different behaviours and attitudes would arise, which may be viewed as nuisances for some. Such incidences could also lead to conflicts and disputes between neighbours, which may affect the relationships between them, hence bringing adverse effects on community bonding.

About half of the households (48.1%) claimed that they had faced some forms of nuisance from neighbours, be it minimal, tolerable or intolerable. This proportion was comparable to 50.4% in 2008 (Chart 2.4). For nuisances that were minimal or tolerable, it means that the residents did not find such behaviours affecting their daily lives, neither were they bothered by these nuisances. However, if the nuisances were deemed intolerable, it means that such behaviours could possibly have an impact on their daily lives or they were bothered by the nuisances. Overall, about seven in ten of the households either did not face any nuisance in their living environment or found the nuisances to be minimal/tolerable. It was observed that there was an increase in the proportion of residents facing intolerable nuisances caused by neighbours, from 26.6% in 2008 to 32.1% in 2013.

Chart 2.4 Nuisances Faced From Neighbours by Year

100

26.6 32.1 80 50.4% 48.1%

60 23.8 16.0

40 Households (%) Intolerable nuisances 49.6 51.9 20 Minimal/Tolerable nuisances Did not face nuisances

0 2008 2013

The main types of nuisances were littering, noise from neighbours and water dripping from wet laundry/air-conditioner compressor (Table 2.7). A higher proportion of residents faced intolerable nuisances such as littering, noise from neighbours and urine in public places. Compared with 2008, intolerable nuisances such as noise from neighbours and urine in public places had decreased, from 11.2% in 2008 to 7.7% in 2013 for the former and from 8.4% in 2008 to 6.7% in 2013 for the latter.

Table 2.7 Tolerance Level for Types of Nuisances Faced by Year

2008 2013

Household Households Types of Nuisances Faced Tolerance Level Tolerance Level Encountered Nuisances Encountered Nuisances

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

Littering 2.4 9.4 10.4 22.2 190,408 3.0 7.6 10.2 20.8 188,245

Noise from Neighbours 2.5 11.1 11.2 24.8 213,199 2.3 7.0 7.7 17.0 153,449 Water Dripping from Wet Laundry/Air-Conditioner 1.1 3.2 4.5 8.8 76,108 1.8 3.8 6.1 11.7 105,620 Compressor

Urine in Public Places 1.0 3.0 8.4 12.4 107,281 0.7 1.5 6.7 8.9 80,863

Irresponsible Pet Owner 0.6 1.9 3.8 6.2 53,694 0.5 1.5 4.5 6.5 58,473

Placing Belongings Along 0.4 1.5 2.2 4.1 43,046 0.9 2.1 2.9 5.9 53,797 Corridor

Killer Litter 0.4 0.8 2.1 3.3 28,577 0.4 0.7 4.1 5.2 47,209

Theft 1.5 1.5 3.5 6.5 56,416 0.7 1.2 3.3 5.2 47,200

Spitting 0.5 1.2 2.2 3.9 33,089 0.5 1.1 2.8 4.4 40,170

Vandalism 0.7 1.7 2.7 5.1 43,790 0.2 0.5 2.1 2.8 25,545

Illegal Parking - - 0.1 0.1 1,001 0.1 0.7 1.5 2.3 21,063

Cooking Smell - - - - - 0.1 0.9 1.1 2.2 19,422 Smoking in Common Areas - - - - - 1.3 0.3 - 1.6 14,734

* Excluding non-response cases

Few took action to address nuisances

Of the 48.1% of residents who faced nuisances in their neighbourhood, the majority (29.6%) did not take any action to address these nuisances (Chart 2.5). It would seem that they were tolerant or that they would rather live with the nuisances than to resolve them. Only about one in ten (9.1%) resolved nuisances personally, lower than the proportion of 12.0% in 2008. Another 9.4% of them took action by reporting the nuisances faced to the authorities.

Chart 2.5 Ways of Resolving Nuisances

60 51.9 49.7

40 30.9 29.6 2008 2013

Households (%) 20 12.0 9.4 9.1 7.4

0 Resolved Referred to Did not do Did not face nuisances authorities anything any nuisances personally

Elderly residents and those living in smaller flat types preferred not to deal with their neighbours for a resolution when faced with nuisances (Table 2.8). This could be due to factors such as language barrier or that they did not know how to handle and mediate the situation.

The finding showed that length of residence did not affect whether or not residents took initiatives to resolve nuisances faced.

Table 2.8 Whether Residents Did Anything with Nuisances Faced by Attributes

Whether Did Anything Households Encountered Attributes about Nuisances Faced Nuisances Yes No % N*

Flat Type 1-Room 11.7 88.3 100.0 14,031 2-Room 17.5 82.5 100.0 21,421 3-Room 21.8 78.2 100.0 107,859 4-Room 25.9 74.1 100.0 155,899 5-Room 25.2 74.8 100.0 103,307 Executive 30.8 69.2 100.0 32,938 Age Group (Years) Below 35 22.0 78.0 100.0 43,948 35 - 44 27.0 73.0 100.0 108,762 45 - 54 22.4 77.6 100.0 128,690 55 - 64 27.3 72.7 100.0 94,483 65 & Above 19.6 80.4 100.0 59,573 Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 21.4 78.6 100.0 131,084 6 - 10 24.6 75.4 100.0 76,723 11 - 15 25.3 74.7 100.0 101,072 16 - 20 28.1 71.9 100.0 46,494 21 - 30 25.4 74.6 100.0 51,751 31 & Above 23.8 76.2 100.0 28,331 * Excluding non-response cases

Residents tended to meet neighbours within block

HDB has been making conscious efforts to provide facilities and places for residents to meet and foster 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 distantly by facilities within the precinct or neighbourhood. Within the block, residents tended to meet and interact with their neighbours at common corridors/areas outside flats, lift lobbies and void decks. Beyond the block, they would meet and interact at markets or eating places within their precinct/neighbourhood. At town level, residents tended to meet at transport nodes such as MRT stations or bus interchanges (Table 2.9).

Table 2.9 Places where Neighbours Meet for Interaction by Year

Places Where Neighbours Meet 2008 2013

Within the Block Common corridor/area outside flat 27.2 30.9 Lift lobby/lift 21.5 68.8 25.8 75.6 Void deck 20.1 18.9 Within the Neighbourhood or Precinct Market 5.2 4.4 Coffee shop/eating house/food centre 4.8 4.0 Pathways/linkways to blocks 5.4 3.6 Carpark 1.8 1.5 Hawker centre 2.6 2.0 Playground 1.5 1.5 Within the Town Bus stop/interchange/MRT station 4.2 1.8 Shopping/entertainment area 1.0 1.3 Park/garden 1.0 1.1 Others (e.g. religious institution, library, drop-off 3.7 3.2 porch, sports facility/multi-purpose court)

% 100.0 100.0

Total No. of 2,217,636 2,301,626 Responses* * Each respondent was asked to provide up to 3 responses

Adequate places for neighbourly interactions to occur

Based on current provision, almost all residents (97.1%) agreed that there were sufficient places for neighbours to meet and interact. For the small handful of residents (2.9%) who felt otherwise, they suggested having more recreational corners at void decks, seats and benches at common places, as well as having gardens or small parks.

Shared memories and experiences helped promote community bonding

Some 10.3% of the residents had shared memories and common experiences with their neighbours, comparable to 11.5% in 2008 (Chart 2.6). Having such experiences could foster closer ties among residents as they would provide residents with topics for casual conversations, spurring more interactions between residents.

Chart 2.6 Whether Had Shared Memories/Experiences with Neighbours by Year

100 88.5 89.7

2008 40 2013 Household (%)

20 11.5 10.3

0 Shared memories/ Did not have shared experiences memories/ experiences

Some of such common memories/experiences shared were celebrations or get- together during festivities, experiences with raising children, issues related to re- settlement/Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), as well as the joy of doing things together (Table 2.10).

Table 2.10 Types of Shared Experience/Memory

Types of Shared Experience/Memory All

Festival celebrations 16.4 Bringing up children 13.3 Issues on re-settlement/SERS 8.6 Performed chores together 8.1 Renovation experiences 7.7 Rendered help 7.3 Share information on holidays/tours 6.2 Reminiscing yester-year 5.8 Common interests/hobbies 5.7 Go for dining/shopping together 4.7 Share general views 3.2 Share work experiences 2.9 Overcame/shared occasional problems faced with the living environment 2.7 Help take care of neighbour’s child/pet/parent 1.8 Others (e.g. attend funeral of neighbours’ family members, visit one 5.6 another, experienced similar bad experiences)

% 100.0 Total N* 89,382 * Excluding non-response cases

Face-to-face meetings remained as popular mode of interaction

Interactions via face-to-face meetings continued to be the most popular way by which residents kept in touch with members in their social network (e.g. neighbours, friends, and family members), followed by telephone calls (Chart 2.7). Sending text messages and e-mail/internet chat/video conferencing had also risen over the past five years.

In tandem with improving technology, interactions via social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedln, was mentioned as a mode of interaction. With increased usage of such networking sites, the proportion who engaged in such interactions with their social network is expected to increase over time.

Chart 2.7 Common Modes of Interaction with Social Networks by Year

91.1 Face-to-face meeting 88.9

74.4 Telephone calls 66.3

36.5 Text messaging (e.g. SMS, Whatsapp) 32.3 2013 25.0 E-mail/internet chat/video conferencing 2008 19.2

Social networking sites 12.8 (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn)

1.3 Snail mail 1.6

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

While it was found that the majority engaged in face-to-face meetings with those in their social circle, the proportion of residents who engaged in such mode of interaction was found to increase with age (Table 2.11).

Table 2.11 Face-to-Face Interaction with Social Network by Age Group

Whether Engaged in Total Age Group (Years) Face-to-Face Interactions Yes No % N*

Below 35 88.6 11.4 100.0 85,068 35 - 44 90.6 9.4 100.0 207,522 45 - 54 90.4 9.6 100.0 262,984 55 - 64 92.5 7.5 100.0 209,714 65 & Above 92.8 7.2 100.0 143,211

* Excluding non-response cases

Conversely, residents who engaged in virtual modes of interaction, e.g. text messaging, internet chat and social media, tended to be younger (Table 2.12).

Table 2.12 Virtual Mode of Interaction with Social Network by Age Group

Whether Engaged in Total Age Group (Years) Virtual Mode of Interactions Yes No % N*

Below 35 66.4 33.6 100.0 81,670 35 - 44 57.5 42.5 100.0 202,741 45 - 54 41.3 58.7 100.0 261,732 55 - 64 26.6 73.4 100.0 208,879 65 & Above 9.1 90.9 100.0 143,211

* Excluding non-response cases

2.2 Sense of Attachment & National Pride

In this study, a sense of attachment refers to how much feelings residents have towards the place they live in, their community, as well as to the country. It is often this sense of attachment that brews familiarity, belonging and pride among residents, making them reluctant to move elsewhere. In addition, it enhances one’s willingness to do things for the benefit of the community.

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

The sense of belonging to one’s town/estate could also be viewed as one’s familiarity to the people and one’s sense of having a stake in the living environment. Sense of belonging is often developed over time, increasing with

length of residence (Chart 2.8). The chart below showed that on a scale of 0 to 4 (‘0’ means did not have a sense of belonging while ‘4’ means having a very strong sense of belonging), the intensity increased from 3.0 for those living in their estates/towns for 10 years or less to 3.4 for those living there for more than 30 years.

Chart 2.8 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence

4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.1 3

(Score of 0 to 4) 1 Intensityof Sense 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 towns/estates continued to rise, reaching a high of 98.8% (Chart 2.9). This proportion is expected to grow as length of residence increases. The majority of residents (78.5%) developed a sense of belonging to both people and place (Table 2.13). Further analysis showed that in the first five years of residence, more residents would first develop a sense of belonging to the place. Thereafter, sense of belonging to both place and people would develop.

Chart 2.9 Sense of Belonging by Year

98.6 98.8 100 90.0 79.1 82.3 80

40 Household (%) 20

0 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Table 2.13 Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence

Length of Residence (Years)

31 & Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 30 All Above

Sense of Belonging to 22.7 15.1 18.6 16.4 15.1 15.0 18.2 Place Sense of Belonging to 3.3 3.6 4.5 2.7 2.1 2.1 3.3 People Sense of Belonging to 74.0 81.3 78.9 80.9 82.9 82.9 78.5 Place & People

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N 252,352 139,331 218,758 97,347 130,070 55,761 893,618 * Excluding non-response cases

Further analysis showed that intensity of belonging increased with age of residents, and this could also be explained by their longer length of residence within the town/estate (Table 2.14).

Table 2.14 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Age Group

Average Intensity Proportion Who Had Age Group (Years) (0 to 4) Sense of Belonging (%)

Below 35 2.8 97.9 35 - 44 3.0 98.4 45 - 54 3.1 99.0 55 - 64 3.2 99.0 65 & Above 3.3 99.2

Strong sense of community among residents

Sense of community (SOC) refers to shared sentiments enabling residents to feel that they are living among people who are friendly, helpful and tolerant. Based on six indicators3, sense of community among residents was found to increase over the past ten years (Table 2.15). However, among the various indicators, tolerance towards noise still remained a challenge.

Table 2.15 Sense of Community Score by Year

SOC Indicators 2003 2008 2013

a. “It is very easy to talk to people living in my HDB estate.” 75.0 75.0 75.0 b. “Noise from my neighbours is not annoying.” 67.5 65.0 66.0 c. “I can always get help from my neighbours when in need.” 70.0 72.5 74.3 d. “Residents in this block can recognise one another easily.” 72.5 72.5 74.3 e. “Residents here care about the maintenance of their block.” 67.5 70.0 71.8 f. “I feel a sense of belonging to this housing estate/town.” 67.5 72.5 77.5

Overall score (Over maximum of 100) 70.0 71.3 73.2

Sense of community increased with age and length of residence

Similar to sense of belonging, sense of community increased with length of residence. Residents who lived in a town/estate for a longer period of time, as well as elderly residents, had developed a stronger sense of community that made them less willing to uproot from their present living environment (Table 2.16).

3 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 respondents 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.” f) “I developed a sense of belonging to the estate/town I am living in.” 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.

Table 2.16 Sense of Community Scores by Attributes

SOC Score Attributes (Over maximum of 100) Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 71.9 6 - 10 72.7 11 - 15 73.1 16 - 20 73.8 21 - 30 74.9 31 & Above 75.2 Age Group (Years) Below 35 70.9 35 - 44 72.0 45 - 54 73.4 55 - 64 73.8 65 & Above 74.5

Majority proud to be part of the community

Nine in ten of the residents felt proud to be part of the community and this proportion had risen over the past five years (Chart 2.10).

Chart 2.10 Sense of Pride towards Community by Year

100 89.9 93.4

60 2008 40 2013 20 10.1 Households (%) 6.6 0 Proud Not Proud

Among the handful of residents who were not proud, they tended to be younger, with shorter length of residence (Table 2.17). Lower sense of pride to the community was more apparent among residents living in 1-room flats or rental flats due to the transient nature of their tenure, which resulted in shorter length of residence in the rental flats.

Table 2.17 Sense of Pride towards Community by Attributes

Total Attributes Proud Not Proud % N*

Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 92.1 7.9 100.0 256,105 6 - 10 93.4 6.6 100.0 141,269 11 - 15 92.4 7.6 100.0 221,414 16 - 20 92.8 7.2 100.0 98,105 21 - 30 96.5 3.5 100.0 130,579 31 & Above 96.9 3.1 100.0 56,150 Age Group (Years) Below 35 90.4 9.6 100.0 83,755 35 - 44 92.0 8.0 100.0 206,761 45 - 54 93.5 6.5 100.0 261,685 55 - 64 94.3 5.7 100.0 208,782 65 & Above 95.7 4.4 100.0 142,148 Flat Type 1-Room 88.7 11.3 100.0 24,261 2-Room 92.0 8.0 100.0 34,040 3-Room 95.1 4.9 100.0 215,603 4-Room 93.9 6.1 100.0 351,847 5-Room 91.4 8.6 100.0 212,928 Executive 93.6 6.4 100.0 64,943 Tenure Sold 93.5 6.5 100.0 854,936 Rental 90.8 9.2 100.0 48,686 * Excluding non-response cases

Strong sense of belonging and pride to Singapore

Sentiments towards Singapore in terms of belonging and national pride were generally very high among HDB residents, based on the three statements shown in Chart 2.11.

Chart 2.11 Households with Positive Sentiments towards Singapore by Year

96.0 96.7 97.1 97.3 100 95.0 94.9

60 2008 40 2013 Households (%) 20

0 I feel a strong sense of I am proud to be a I will always regard belonging to Singapore Singaporean (Excluding Singapore as my home non-citizens)

2.3 Community Engagement

Involvement in community-based activities encourages individuals to step out of their homes and forge associations and friendships with the community. Not only will it enhance interactions and bonding within the community, it also provides alternative support in times of emergency and strengthens social trust. Community agencies such as Community Clubs/Centres (CCs), Residents’ Committees (RCs), Community Development Councils (CDCs) and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) provide HDB residents with a calendar of activities that include mass events (e.g. festive or commemorative celebrations, block parties, group tours, interest group activities), as well as education and enrichment programmes tailored to meet varied interests of the residents. These activities create opportunities for shared experiences and interactions to take place.

Increasing participation in community activities over the years

Participation rate in community activities continued to increase (Chart 2.12), indicating that residents had responded well to the activities put up by the various agencies/organisations. Even if residents who participated solely in religious activities were excluded from the analysis, community participation also saw an increase from 40.0% in 2008 to 45.4% in 2013. Furthermore, in comparison with 2003 and 2008, the gap between participation in community activities with and without sole participation in religious activities was observed to have become closer, indicating that more residents were participating in other community activities, in addition to activities organised by religious institutions.

Chart 2.12 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Year

60 48.6 45.3 45.4

38.0 40.0 Including sole 40 participation in religious 29.4 activities 17.8 Excluding sole 20 13.2 participation in religious Households (%) activities

0 1993* 1998* 2003 2008 2013

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

Chart 2.13 showed that although participation rate had increased, the frequency of residents participating in these activities remained low. More frequent participation was found in activities organised by the Community Centres (CCs), religious organisations and the Residents’ Committees (RCs). Given the wide variety of activities organised, these organisations have the potential to attract greater participation, if the activities appeal to the participants.

Chart 2.13 Types and Frequency of Community Activities Participated over Past 12 Months

At least once a week At least once a month Occasionally

Community Clubs 3.7 2.5 21.8 1.3 Residents' Committees 2.0 20.2 0.2 Other organizations/associations 0.6 19.9 0.3 Residents 0.5 12.4

Religious organisations 2.6 1.2 11.6 0.3 Community Development Councils 0.5 8.5 0.2 Town Councils/HDB 0.8 8.3 0.4 Voluntary Welfare Organisations 0.5 5.2

All 6.9 4.5 37.1

0 20 40 60 Households (%)

For those who did not participate in community activities, they cited personal reasons such as lack of time, lack of interest in the organised activities or preference to participate in their own activities (Table 2.18). Smaller proportions claimed that they were not informed of the activities, or the activities organized were not suitable for or interesting to them.

Table 2.18 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities

Reasons Household (%)

No time/busy/always not at home 58.4 Not interested in any activity 13.2 Prefer to participate in own activities 11.2 Not informed of these activities 4.4 Activities organised were not suitable for residents/family 3.7 Activities organised were not interesting 3.2 Health problems 2.9 Others (e.g. old age, just moved in, no companion) 3.0

% 100.0 Total N* 482,022 * Excluding non-response cases

Children as catalysts for community participation

Participation rate for families with children was higher than that of families without children (Table 2.19). Activities that appealed to children could indirectly increase the involvement of parents or even grandparents. This also explained why participation levels in community activities was higher among residents aged 35 and above, where they were more likely to have children or grandchildren. Thus, organising more of such activities could help increase community participation levels, and at the same time, promote stronger family ties.

Table 2.19 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Attributes

Community Participation Total Attributes Did Not Participated % N* Participate Age Group (Years) Below 35 41.7 58.3 100.0 84,578 35 - 44 51.8 48.2 100.0 207,522 45 - 54 49.2 50.8 100.0 262,984 55 - 64 48.3 51.7 100.0 209,714 65 & Above 47.0 53.0 100.0 143,069 Family Structure Families with Children 50.1 49.9 100.0 730,087 Families without Children 42.2 57.8 100.0 63,534 * Excluding non-response cases

More residents willing to contribute their services for community

Some 27.1% of residents had performed services or contributed towards the benefit of the community (Chart 2.14). This could be in the form of informing the Town Council of any external improvements required or helping to raise funds for the needy living in the vicinity. Over the past five years, there was an increase in the proportion of residents (34.5%) who had not done so but expressed their willingness to contribute. This indicates that more residents care for and are willing to take ownership of their community.

Chart 2.14 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Year

41.8 38.4 40 34.5 31.7 27.1 26.5 2008

Households (%) 2013 20

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

Higher proportions of residents between the age of 35 and 64 years old had contributed their services for the benefit of the community (Table 2.20). Younger residents were less likely to do so probably due to their commitment to career and friends, leaving them less time for the community. Elderly residents aged 65 years and above also tended to contribute less, partly due to health or mobility issues, limiting their ability to contribute.

Table 2.20 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Age Group

Contribution of Services Total Age Group (Years) Have Not * Have Contributed % N Contributed

Below 35 21.4 78.6 100.0 84,305 35 - 44 28.7 71.3 100.0 207,522 45 - 54 29.2 70.8 100.0 262,893 55 - 64 27.6 72.4 100.0 209,714 65 & Above 23.7 76.3 100.0 143,069

* Excluding non-response cases

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

Of the 38.4% who had not contributed their services and were not willing to do so, 27.0% of them maintained that they did not have the time due to work and/or family commitments. Other reasons included lack of information on how to contribute, not interested in contributing, poor health or old age (Table 2.21).

Table 2.21 Whether Contributed Services and Reasons for Not Contributing/Not Willing to Contribute

Reasons All

Have contributed 27.1 Have not contributed but willing to do so 34.5

Have not contributed and not willing to do so

No time/busy 27.0

Not informed of the activities 3.5

Not interested/did not see the need 2.2 38.4 Old age 2.0

Heath issues 2.0 Others (e.g. prefer own activities, keep to oneself, 1.7 never thought of it, does not serve any purpose)

% 100.0 Total N* 908,136 * Excluding non-response cases

2.4 Summary of Findings

Almost all residents engaged in neighbourly interactions. The different types of neighbourly activities engaged by residents reflected the depth of relationship among residents. In 2013, the findings showed that a higher proportion of residents engaged in neighbourly interactions compared with five years ago, though a lower proportion engaged in more intense forms of interaction.

Compared with 2008, a higher proportion of residents had interacted with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities, from 77.0% in 2008 to 85.7% in 2013. Even among residents who reported interacting with neighbours of the same ethnic group and nationality only, the majority of them informed that it was because they only had neighbours of the same ethnic group and nationality.

Overall, about seven in ten of the households either did not face any nuisance in their living environment or found the nuisances to be minimal or tolerable. Among the remaining 32.1% of them who found the nuisances to be intolerable, common types of nuisances faced were littering, noise from neighbours and water dripping from wet laundry/air-conditioner compressor.

Almost all residents (97.1%) agreed that there were adequate places for interactions in their precincts. They tended to meet and interact with their neighbours within the block, mainly at common corridors/areas outside flats, lift lobbies and void decks. Beyond the block, they would meet and interact at markets or eating places within their precinct/neighbourhood, followed by incidental meetings along linkways/pathways.

The proportion of residents who had developed a sense of belonging to their towns/estates continued to climb, reaching a high of 98.8% in 2013. This proportion continued to grow as length of residence increased. Further analysis showed that during the first five years of residence, more residents would first develop a sense of belonging to the place. Thereafter, sense of belonging to both place and people would develop.

Residents’ sense of community was found to increase over the past ten years. Similar to sense of belonging, residents’ sense of community increased with their length of residence. The findings also showed that residents’ tolerance towards noise remained a challenge over the years.

Sense of pride towards community had risen over the past five years, from 89.9% in 2008 to 93.4% in 2013. Among the minority who were not proud, they tended to be younger and having shorter length of residence. Generally, residents had positive sentiments towards Singapore, in terms of belonging and national pride.

Participation in community activities continued to increase from 38.0% in 2003 to 48.6% in 2013. Higher proportions of them comprised families with younger children, which showed that children could be catalysts in fostering higher community participation. For those who did not participate in community activities, they gave personal reasons such as lack of time, lack of interest in the organised activities or a preference to participate in their own activities.

More residents were willing or had contributed their services (61.6%) for the benefit of the community, higher than 58.2% in 2008. Among those who did not contribute and were not willing to do so, apart from lack of time, they also cited that they were unaware of such activities.

3 Family Ties

Chapter 3

Family Ties

Introduction

The family unit plays a vital role in ensuring social cohesion, hence it is important that family ties are maintained and strengthened. This chapter analyses family ties of two major groups of residents, younger married residents with parents and older residents with married children. The well-being and caregiving preferences for elderly parents are also examined. Over the years, HDB has introduced various schemes such as the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS) and the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS) to encourage married children and parents to live together or near to each other. These schemes facilitate mutual care and support between family members. In this chapter, residents’ physical and social living arrangements, frequency and depth of interaction between family members, extent of family support, as well as residents’ views on caregiving for elderly parents are covered.

Objectives

The objectives of the chapter are: a) To examine residents’ physical and social living arrangements, frequency and depth of interaction between family members, extent of family support, and strength of relationships; and b) To gather residents’ views on caregiving for elderly parents so as to understand the preferences of HDB residents regarding responsibilities towards parental care, especially in view of an ageing population.

45 Framework

The framework focuses on inter-generational relationships between children and parents, familial support and caregiving for elderly parents. The specific aspects to be examined are listed in the framework. Findings in relation to residents from both younger and older age groups are analysed separately as views from these two cohorts might differ.

The details of the two groups of residents covered are as shown: a) Younger married residents with parents. This group comprises residents aged 54 years and below who have parents living in Singapore. There are presently about 272,619 of such households, and they provide a basis to examine family ties from the viewpoint of younger married residents with parents. b) Older residents with married children. This group comprises residents aged 55 years and above who have married children. There are presently about 207,620 of such households. The analysis examines family ties from the viewpoint of older residents with married children.

Framework for Family Ties

Ties between Parents and Children

Younger Married Residents Older Residents with with Parents* Married Children

54 Years & Below 55 Years & Above (N = 272,619) (N = 207,620)

Living Depth of Extent of Well-Being of Ideal Elderly Arrangement Interaction Support Family Life Living Arrangement

. Present and . Types & Levels . Regular Financial . Importance & . Preferred Housing Preferred of Interaction Support Satisfaction with Type when Old Physical & . Communication . Physical, Family Life . Ideal Elderly Living Social Living with Children & Emotional & . Strength of Arrangement & Arrangement Grandchildren Financial Support Family Ties Caregiving of Elderly Parents

* This group excludes parents who are not living in Singapore

The age distribution of the two groups of residents is as shown in Table 3.1. The majority of the younger married residents were aged between 30 and 49, while about one-third of older residents were aged 70 years and above.

Table 3.1 Age Distribution of Younger Married Residents and Older Residents

Younger Married Older Residents with Age Group (Years) Residents Married Children

21 - 29 4.9 - 30 - 39 31.4 - 40 - 49 44.8 - 50 - 54 18.9 - 55 - 59 - 22.3 60 - 64 - 25.0 65 - 69 - 20.7 70 & Above - 32.0

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 272,619 207,620 * Excluding non-response cases

3.1 Physical Living Arrangement

Physical living arrangement refers to the geographical proximity between parents’ and children’s residence. The present and preferred living arrangement of residents vis-à-vis their parents or married children are examined.

More married children living with or within close proximity to parents

Some 36.7% of younger married residents lived in the same flat or within close proximity4 to their parents (Table 3.2). Comparing with findings from the previous years, higher proportions of younger married residents were living with or near their parents in 2013. This could partly be attributed to policies such as the Married Child Priority Scheme5, Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS)6 and the CPF Housing Grant for Family, which encourage and provide the opportunity

4 Living “within close proximity” to their parents is defined as living next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, or in the same estate as their parents. 5 From November 2014 BTO exercise onwards, the Married Child Priority Scheme has been enhanced to set aside up to 30% of the public flat supply for first-timer families, and up to 15% for second-timer families. Details in http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyingNewFlatPriority?OpenDocument#MCPS 6 The Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS) encourages families to stay close to each other in Build-To- Order (BTO) projects where Studio Apartments (SA) or 2-room flats are integrated with other flat types. From September 2013 BTO exercise onwards, the parents may apply for a 3-room flat and enjoy the priority under the MGPS.

for married children and parents to live within close proximity to each other. The findings also showed that the gap between residents’ present and preferred living arrangements had narrowed as residents’ preference was increasingly being met. In contrast, the proportion that lived elsewhere in Singapore had decreased slightly over the years, from 45.1% in 2008 to 41.5% in 2013.

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

Physical Living 2003 2008 2013 Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred In the Same Flat 11.2 23.1 14.0 18.4 15.7 17.5 Next Door 1.2 7.4 0.6 3.1 0.4 2.4 In the Same Block 2.1 31.4 9.5 73.3 2.1 35.5 4.6 52.8 1.4 36.7 4.1 49.9 In a Nearby Block 6.1 17.2 9.0 13.0 8.4 12.3 In the Same Estate 10.8 16.1 9.8 13.7 10.8 13.6 In a Nearby Estate 21.2 14.1 16.9 16.2 21.8 21.3 Elsewhere in 44.7 11.4 45.1 29.3 41.5 28.7 Singapore Short-Term Stay with 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 - - Different Children Each Parent Staying 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.5 - - at a Different Place Overseas - - - - - 0.1 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 335,129 334,211 303,846 303,647 272,018 271,820 * Excluding non-response cases

Families with younger children preferred to live closer to parents

Higher proportions of younger married residents with young (42.2%) and teenaged children (38.0%) were living within close proximity to their parents compared with 26.1% of families with grown-up children and 33.0% of families without children (Table 3.3).

The same was observed with their preferred living arrangement, where higher proportions (ranging from 50.1% to 55.1%) of younger married residents with eldest child below 21 years old, preferred to live in closer proximity to their parents, compared with 41.1% of those with grown-up children (Table 3.4).

This suggests that families with younger children may prefer to live closer to their parents due to their needs for childcare arrangements, as grandparents remained

the next source of childcare provider besides mothers (Table 3.13). Nonetheless, families with older children may still prefer to live closer to their parents whom they may need to provide care for.

Table 3.3 Present Physical Living Arrangement of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage

Family with All Family Family with Family with Physical Living Unmarried Younger without Young Teenaged Arrangement Grown-Up Married Children Children Children Children Residents

In the Same Flat 16.0 18.5 15.8 9.3 15.7 Next Door 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.4 In the Same Block 1.2 33.0 0.6 42.2 3.0 38.0 1.1 26.1 1.4 36.7 In a Nearby Block 5.1 9.0 11.8 4.9 8.4 In the Same Estate 10.7 13.9 7.1 10.0 10.8 In a Nearby Estate 22.2 19.4 23.5 24.1 21.8 Elsewhere in Singapore 44.8 38.4 38.5 49.8 41.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 37,683 107,048 74,875 52,076 272,018 * Excluding non-response cases

Table 3.4 Preferred Physical Living Arrangement of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage

Family with All Family Family with Family with Physical Living Unmarried Younger without Young Teenaged Arrangement Grown-Up Married Children Children Children Children Residents

In the Same Flat 15.4 20.3 17.3 13.4 17.5 Next Door 0.3 2.8 1.5 4.5 2.4 In the Same Block 4.1 46.8 3.7 55.1 4.9 50.1 3.5 41.1 4.1 49.9 In a Nearby Block 11.7 12.8 14.6 8.4 12.3 In the Same Estate 15.3 15.5 11.8 11.3 13.6 In a Nearby Estate 20.6 18.4 23.5 24.4 21.3 Elsewhere in Singapore 32.6 26.4 26.2 34.5 28.7 Others 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 37,683 107,112 74,875 51,814 271,820

* Excluding non-response cases

More married children living in parents’ home temporarily while waiting for their flats

Over the years, there was a slight increase in the proportion of married children living together with older residents, from 14.3% in 2008 to 19.1% in 2013 (Table 3.5). Similarly, there was an increased preference for them to live together, from 14.7% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2013. However, it was noted that the proportion that preferred to live with married children was lower compared with actual living arrangement in 2013. Further analysis showed that married children living with parents could be a temporary arrangement as close to half of the 19.1% (i.e. 8.8%) were waiting for their new flat to be completed or renovated.

On the other hand, the proportion that was living in the same flat or within close proximity to their married children 7 remained constant over the years (42.6%, 42.7% and 40.5% in 2003, 2008 and 2013, respectively). Higher proportion of older residents would prefer to have such living arrangement even though this preference was increasingly being met over the years. As shown in Table 3.5, the gap between older residents’ present and preferred living arrangements had narrowed.

The findings indicate that there could be increasing acceptance for married children and parents to live apart from each other due to greater accessibility and improvements in Singapore’s transport network. Many of the older residents also preferred to age-in-place. Living in close proximity could be the preferred living arrangement for many as it provides the physical proximity and at the same time, privacy for both the younger and older residents.

7 Married child refers to the one who lives nearest to the parents if parents have more than one married child.

Table 3.5 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Older Residents with Married Children vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

Physical Living 2003 2008 2013 Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

In the Same Flat 9.4 15.0 14.3 14.7 19.1 17.3 Next Door 1.9 6.1 1.0 2.6 0.6 1.1

In the Same Block 2.9 42.6 9.0 72.7 2.8 42.7 5.3 54.8 2.0 40.5 3.5 49.1 In a Nearby Block 14.1 21.0 12.5 16.3 8.7 12.5 In the Same Estate 14.3 21.6 12.1 15.9 10.1 14.7

In a Nearby Estate 21.5 14.5 20.1 18.8 16.5 18.2 Elsewhere in Singapore 35.8 12.1 36.7 25.6 39.2 30.3 Short-Term Stay-In 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.6 - - with Children No Preference - - - 0.2 - - Overseas - - - - 3.8 2.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 128,845 129,143 166,355 167,278 204,965 204,965 * Excluding non-response cases

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. The majority 81.7% of younger married residents with parents were presently living with their spouse and/or unmarried children (Table 3.6). This trend remained constant when compared with previous years. Their preferred living arrangement was almost similar to their present living arrangement, indicating that their desired social living arrangements had been met.

The proportion of younger married residents who was living with their parents and/or parents-in-law increased slightly from 14.6% in 2008 to 16.2% in 2013.

The introduction of 3Gen flats8 in September 2013 would help facilitate this group of residents to live with their extended families, as well as promote mutual care and support.

Table 3.6 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Younger Married Residents by Year

2003 2008 2013 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or 82.4 64.3 81.5 78.2 81.7 81.6 Unmarried Children Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children and 15.3 28.1 14.6 17.6 16.2 16.1 Parents and/or Parents-in-law

Live with Married Children 0.5 1.8 0.8 1.0 1.9 2.2

Live Alone 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1

Other Living Arrangements (e.g. with companion/friends/relatives) 1.5 4.8 3.0 3.0 - -

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 335,680 335,174 304,965 304,455 272,619 272,369 * Excluding non-response cases

Similar to younger married residents, the majority of older residents with married children were living with spouse and/or unmarried children. However, this proportion continued to decline over the years, from 73.3% in 2003 to 68.1% in 2008, and dipping further to 65.8% in 2013. On the other hand, the proportion with married children living with them increased steadily to 18.5% in 2013, from 5.0% in 2003 and 13.8% in 2008 (Table 3.7). However, in 2013, a lower proportion of older residents actually preferred such a living arrangement. Hence, this could be a temporary living arrangement while their married children wait for their new flats to be completed or renovated.

8 3Gen flats - Introduced in September 2013, flats designed with additional bedroom with attached bathroom, to facilitate multi-generation families to stay under one roof.

Table 3.7 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Older Residents with Married Children by Year

2003 2008 2013 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or 73.3 61.1 68.1 65.7 65.8 67.5 Unmarried Children Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children and 5.2 4.8 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.0 Parents and/or Parents-in-law

Live with Married Children 5.0 17.4 13.8 16.9 18.5 17.6

Live Alone 11.3 13.0 10.3 9.7 11.1 10.7

Other Living Arrangements (e.g. with companion/friends/relatives) 5.2 3.7 6.4 6.0 2.6 2.2

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 132,094 131,977 172,040 171,790 207, 620 207,620

* Excluding non-response cases

3.3 Depth of Interaction

Interaction with family members is a crucial 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 are not living together in the same flat. Residents who live in the same flat as their family members would already have daily contact. Hence, they are excluded from the analyses in this section. Such interactions include visiting patterns and frequency of keeping in touch with family members. These will give insights on residents’ interaction and bonding with family members, as well as provide a good indication on the strength of family ties.

High frequency of visits between parents and married children indicating strong inter-generational 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 inter-generational relationships could be inferred.

Comparing with previous years, it was observed that inter-generational ties between younger married residents and their parents remained strong, with 90.3% visiting one another either daily, at least once a week or a month in 2013 (Table 3.8). It was noted that about half of them visited each other at least once a week.

Table 3.8 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and their Parents by Year

Frequency of Visits 2003 2008 2013

Daily 12.6 18.2 19.5 At Least Once a Week 50.8 90.6 48.6 90.7 50.3 90.3 At Least Once a Month 27.2 23.9 20.5 Less Than Once a Month 8.4 9.0 9.2 Never 1.0 0.3 0.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 303,084 251,372 231,742 * Excluding those who lived with their parents and non-response cases

Conversely, for older residents with married children, there was a slight drop in the proportion who visited each other either daily, at least once a week or a month, although the proportion remained high at 88.6% (Table 3.9). Nonetheless, the proportion of older residents with married children who visited each other daily or at least once a week was comparable across the years.

Table 3.9 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and their Married Children by Year

Frequency of Visits 2003 2008 2013

Daily 22.4 23.1 24.3 At Least Once a Week 50.5 90.1 49.6 90.8 49.0 88.6 At Least Once a Month 17.2 18.1 15.3 Less Than Once a Month 7.6 7.9 9.5 Never 2.3 1.3 1.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 117,392 140,166 181,916 * Excluding those who lived with their children and non-response cases

Looking at frequency of visits by different attributes, it was noted that a higher proportion of younger married residents and parents who visited each other more often was living in bigger flat types. They were also likely to be from families

without children or with young children (Table 3.10). Residents at their earlier life-cycle stages had more 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.

Table 3.10 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and their Parents by Attributes

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

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 79.5 20.5 100.0 7,386 3-Room 84.1 15.9 100.0 29,469 4-Room 90.2 9.8 100.0 92,637 5-Room & Bigger 93.0 7.0 100.0 102,250

Resident Family without Children 92.6 7.4 100.0 31,663 Life-Cycle Family with Young Children 93.4 6.6 100.0 88,879 Stage Family with Teenaged Children 89.8 10.2 100.0 63,513 Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children 83.5 16.5 100.0 47,549

* Excluding those living with parents and non-response cases

Similar to younger married residents, it was noted that a higher proportion of older residents and married children who visited each other more regularly was living in larger flat types (Table 3.11).

Table 3.11 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and their Married Children by Flat Type

Visited Visited Less Than Total Flat Type At Least Once a Month Once a Month or Never % N* 1- & 2-Room 75.1 24.9 100.0 18,208 3-Room 87.7 12.3 100.0 58,106 4-Room 90.7 9.3 100.0 64,249 5-Room & Bigger 92.2 7.8 100.0 41,353 * Excluding non-response cases

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

household chores. This scenario was also similar when older residents and their married children visited one another (Chart 3.2).

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

Share meals 11.2 52.4 22.8 12.2 1.4

Exchange suggestions/advice 11.6 37.0 17.8 16.7 16.9 about personal problems

Go on outings 2.5 33.1 30.4 25.4 8.6

Take care of parents 7.8 27.2 13.1 12.7 39.2

Help in household chores 4.9 16.3 8.9 9.2 60.7

Help in taking care 9.0 15.6 5.1 6.8 63.5 of young children

Help in buying groceries 3.2 15.9 10.0 10.6 60.3

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 16.5 50.3 16.3 13.7 3.2

Go on outings 3.2 35.4 24.1 28.1 9.2

Exchange suggestions/advice 10.5 34.3 14.2 22.0 19.0 about personal problems

Take care of parents 8.5 24.3 9.9 15.8 41.5

Help in taking care 15.7 15.3 4.4 5.7 58.9 of young children

Help in household chores 5.0 15.8 5.3 7.0 66.9

Help in buying groceries 3.7 14.0 7.1 8.9 66.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Households (%) Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Never

Majority kept in frequent contact with family members not living together

The majority of families with married children kept in touch with family members not living together on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, with more doing it at least once a week (Chart 3.3). A higher proportion of older residents with married

children kept in touch with family members on a daily basis compared with younger married residents.

Chart 3.3 Frequency of Keeping in Touch with Family Members Not Living Together

Younger Married 24.4 53.9 13.3 0.4 Residents 8.0

Older Residents with 28.0 48.5 12.8 9.6 1.1 Married Children

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month A Few Times a Year Never

Residents were asked on the modes of interaction they had with family members they did not live with. The findings showed that majority of them used multiple modes of communication to interact with family members. About eight in ten residents preferred to contact family members via telephone calls or face-to-face meetings (Table 3.12). In particular, a higher proportion of younger married residents preferred text messaging compared with older residents.

Table 3.12 Modes of Interaction with Family Members Not Living Together

Households (%) Modes of Interaction Younger Married Older Residents Residents with Married Children Telephone 80.8 80.9 Face-to-Face Meeting 78.1 78.2 Text Messaging 23.4 8.7 Email/Networking Sites 4.7 1.8 Video Conferencing 1.8 1.2 * Excluding non-response cases

Mothers remained as main childcare provider for younger children

Among younger married residents with children aged twelve years and below, the proportion with mothers as the main childcare provider remained high at 42.7%. This was a slight increase from 40.1% in 2008, although it was still lower compared with 52.6% in 2003 (Table 3.13). Grandparents remained as the next

source of help, followed by childcare centres/baby sitters and maids. Conversely, there was an increasing trend for childcare centres or baby sitters to be the main childcare provider, although the proportion remained relatively low at 12.4%. This shows that there is an increasing demand for professional childcare services, which is especially desired by households where both parents are working.

Table 3.13 Childcare Arrangements of Younger Married Residents with Children Aged Twelve Years and Below by Year

Main Childcare Provider 2003 2008 2013

Mother** 52.6 40.1 42.7 Father** 2.4 1.4 2.1 Grandparents** 19.7 29.6 27.7 Childcare Centre/Baby Sitter 8.3 11.0 12.4 Maids 10.1 13.9 11.6 Children Themselves 1.6 0.3 0.6 Relatives 2.0 1.4 1.4 Other Arrangements 3.3 2.3 1.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 212,739 166,117 148,484

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

Among the grandparents who were the main childcare provider, 75.5% of them were living in close proximity to their grandchildren (Table 3.14).

Table 3.14 Proximity of Grandparents’ Home to Married Children by Year

Location of Grandparents’** 2003 2008 2013 Home

Same Flat/Next Door 23.9 24.5 31.6 75.5 Same/Nearby Block 10.7 57.8 17.6 71.3 10.6 Same/Nearby Estate 23.2 29.2 33.3 Elsewhere in Singapore 39.1 26.5 24.5 Others 3.1 2.2 -

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 41,968 48,839 40,961 * Excluding non-response cases ** Grandparents who were main childcare provider

Majority could communicate well with children and grandchildren

Residents were asked whether they had any problems communicating with their children and grandchildren. The findings showed that the majority of both younger and older residents did not encounter any problems most of the time (Chart 3.4). For the minority who encountered problems communicating with children and grandchildren, the main reason cited was personality conflict with children, thus resulting in infrequent interaction with grandchildren as well.

Chart 3.4 Whether Faced Problems when Communicating with Children and Grandchildren

Communication Communication with Children with Grandchildren 0.8 2.7 2.2 100 4.2 3.9 2.5 80 No problem most of the time

60 Faced problems sometimes 95.0 93.4 95.3 40

Households (%) Faced problems very often/ 20 Did not usually communicate with them 0 Younger Married Older Residents with All Older Residents Residents Married Children with Grandchildren

3.4 Forms and Extent of Family Support

A new section was included in SHS 2013 to examine the forms and extent of support rendered by family members. The types of support covered include regular financial support and the ability to rely on family members for physical, emotional and financial support in times of emergency.

Majority of younger married residents provided regular financial support to parents

The level of financial support parents received from their children is one of the indicators of familial support. The proportion of younger married residents that provided regular financial support to their parents increased slightly from 70.2% in 2008 to 74.9% in 2013 (Table 3.15). The average amount they contributed to their parents increased to $400 per month, compared with about $340 in 2008.

Table 3.15 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents to Parents by Year

Financial Support to Parents 2008 2013

Provided Financial Support 70.2 74.9 to Parents (%)

Amount Contributed to Parents per month ($) Average 336 400 Median 300 300

Younger married residents who provided regular financial support were more likely to be males or economically active. Higher proportions of younger married residents without children, as well as younger married residents with young children were also providing regular financial support (Table 3.16).

Table 3.16 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents to Parents by Attributes

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

Sex Male 77.5 22.5 100.0 147,774 Female 71.8 28.2 100.0 124,845

Economic Economically Active 77.5 22.5 100.0 234,015 Status Economically Inactive 59.2 40.8 100.0 38,237

Resident Family without Children 82.2 17.8 100.0 37,780 Life-Cycle Family with Young Children 78.1 21.9 100.0 107,236 Stage Family with Teenaged Children 72.2 27.8 100.0 75,121 Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children 67.3 32.7 100.0 52,148

* Excluding non-response cases

The amount of regular financial support given to parents varies. Those who contributed more generously were likely to be males, economically active, or families with young children (Table 3.17).

Table 3.17 Amount Contributed to Parents from Younger Married Residents by Attributes

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

Sex Male 441 300 Female 347 250

Economic Economically Active 424 300 Status Economically Inactive 197 200

Resident Family without Children 456 400 Life-Cycle Family with Young Children 497 400 Stage Family with Teenaged Children 326 200 Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children 233 200

From the perspective of older residents with married children, the proportion who received regular financial support from their children (77.7%) was comparable to 2008 (79.4%) as shown in Table 3.18. The average amount received by each parent from all of their children had increased to $552 per month, compared with $445 in 2008.

Table 3.18 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Year

Financial Support Received from 2003* 2008 2013 Children

Received Financial Support from 80.4 79.4 77.7 Children (%)

Amount Received per Month ($)

Average - 445 552 Median - 300 400

* SHS2003 did not cover amount received per month

Older residents with married children who received regular financial support from their children were more likely to be females, economically inactive or living in 3- or 4-room flats (Table 3.19). Those who received a higher amount of financial support were more likely to be females, economically inactive or living in bigger flat types (Table 3.20).

Table 3.19 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Attributes

Received Did Not Receive Total Attributes Financial Financial Support Support % N*

Sex Male 70.8 29.2 100.0 96,549 Female 83.8 16.2 100.0 111,071

Economic Economically Active 65.8 34.2 100.0 75,188 Status Economically Inactive 84.5 15.5 100.0 132,206

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 72.6 27.4 100.0 18,553 3-Room 83.4 16.6 100.0 63,862 4-Room 79.8 20.2 100.0 75,861 5-Room & Bigger 69.2 30.8 100.0 49,345

* Excluding non-response cases

Table 3.20 Amount of Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Attributes

Amount Received per Month ($) Attributes Average Median

Sex Male 490 350 Female 599 500

Economic Economically Active 439 300 Status Economically Inactive 601 500

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 311 300 3-Room 504 400 4-Room 593 500 5-Room & Bigger 661 500

Majority would pay for own medical bills

The majority of younger and older residents would pay for their own medical bills when they fell ill (Table 3.21). Those with adult children were able to rely on their children to pay for medical bills. A higher proportion of younger married residents would also rely on their employers to pay for their medical bills as they were more likely to be working compared with older residents.

Table 3.21 Person/Source Paying for Medical Bills

Households (%) Person/Source Younger Married Older Residents Residents with Married Children

Self 64.7 66.6 Children 0.3 30.4 Employer 38.7 7.8 Health Insurance 14.8 11.6 Spouse/Ex-Spouse 16.1 8.1 Welfare Assistance 0.2 1.1 Pension 0.1 1.5 Relatives/Friends 0.2 0.4

Majority of younger married residents able to rely on siblings or parents for emotional support

This section examines whether residents are able to rely on family members for physical, emotional and financial support 9 in times of emergency. Family members in this analysis refer to parents, siblings, married and unmarried children.

A larger proportion of younger married residents was able to rely on their siblings or parents for emotional support compared with physical or financial support (Table 3.22). It was noted that a proportion of younger married residents (ranging from 23.3% to 37.0%) did not require physical and financial support from parents and siblings.

For those who mentioned that they were not able to rely on parents for physical and financial support, the reason cited was that their parents were old or not in good health to provide physical support, and their parents were not working, hence not able to provide financial support. For those who could not rely on siblings for physical and financial support, the reason mentioned was that their siblings were too busy to provide physical help and they had insufficient finances to help financially. Younger married residents were less able to rely on their

9 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 providing information or advice for emotional or moral support. Financial support refers to financial help in times of emergency.

unmarried children for all forms of support, as their children were too young and still dependent on them for support.

Table 3.22 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Unmarried Types of Support Parents Siblings Children

Physical Able to rely 55.6 57.0 53.0 Not able to rely 21.1 14.8 40.4 Do not require support 23.3 28.2 6.6

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 271,642 256,181 231,535

Emotional Able to rely 79.7 81.2 51.2 Not able to rely 6.3 2.2 40.9 Do not require support 14.0 16.6 7.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 271,642 256,181 231,535

Financial Able to rely 44.2 55.6 17.6 Not able to rely 26.1 7.4 75.2 Do not require support 29.7 37.0 7.2

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 271,494 256,050 231,706 * Excluding non-response cases

Majority of older residents able to rely on children for support

The majority of older residents was able to rely on both their married and unmarried children for all three forms of support, indicating strong presence of care and support from children to parents (Table 3.23).

Higher proportion of older residents was not able to rely on parents and grandchildren for all forms of support. This was mainly due to parents not working, being too old or not in good health and grandchildren being too young to provide them with the support required. They could not rely on siblings for physical and emotional support as well, mainly because their siblings were living far away from them to render physical help and they were not in close relationship with their siblings, hence not able to share emotionally. Neither could they rely on siblings for financial support, as their siblings had insufficient finances to provide assistance.

Table 3.23 Older Residents’ Reliance on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Unmarried Married Grand- Types of Support Parents Siblings Children Children children

Physical Able to rely 11.3 31.9 84.4 76.5 21.4 Not able to rely 60.7 34.8 8.6 12.5 59.5 Do not require support 28.0 33.3 7.0 11.0 19.1

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 37,033 176,418 116,352 205,042 114,678

Emotional Able to rely 54.2 64.8 91.1 90.1 26.5 Not able to rely 28.0 10.6 3.8 2.2 51.5 Do not require support 17.8 24.6 5.1 7.7 22.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 37,033 176,349 116,386 205,126 114,512

Financial Able to rely 18.7 34.3 83.3 86.2 10.8 Not able to rely 41.9 18.0 11.2 5.1 70.1 Do not require support 39.4 47.7 5.5 8.7 19.1

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 37,033 176,349 116,214 205,126 114,678 * Excluding non-response cases

3.5 Well-Being and Family Life

Importance of and satisfaction with family life remained high

Regarding overall well-being and family life, findings showed that the importance of and satisfaction with family life for both younger married residents with parents and older residents with married children continued to increase, indicating the significance of family life (Chart 3.5).

Chart 3.5 Importance of and Satisfaction with Family Life by Year

Importance Satisfaction

99.3 98.5 99.9 97.3 96.4 99.7 96.8 97.8 97.0 100 95.0 92.9 92.4

60 2003 40 2008 2013

Households (%) 20

0 Younger Married Older Residents with Younger Married Older Residents with Residents Married Children Residents Married Children

Strong sense of closeness to family members

Residents were asked to rate how close they felt with their family members in general, with a score of “0” being not close at all and a score of “10” being very close. The average scores for sense of closeness to family members were generally high, with older residents having slightly lower score compared with younger residents (Table 3.24).

Table 3.24 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members

Sense of Younger Married Older Residents with Closeness Residents Married Children

Average Score 8.9 8.5 (Scale: 0 - 10)

3.6 Impact of Proximity on Frequency of Visits, Familial Support and Sense of Closeness

Geographical proximity between parents and married children is an important determinant for inter-generational support. This section examines whether proximity affects frequency of visits between parents and children, provision of physical, emotional and financial support and sense of closeness to family members.

Closer proximity encouraged frequent visits between parents and married children

It was found that there was a strong correlation between proximity and frequency of visits. 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 3.25). In nearby estates or beyond, frequency of visits declined as higher proportion of them would tend to visit on a weekly rather than daily basis.

Table 3.25 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and their Parents by Proximity

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

Daily 37.2 16.5 11.7 83.9 68.3 63.4 At Least Once a Week 46.7 51.8 51.7 At Least Once a Month 11.2 22.7 24.3 Less Than Once a Month 4.8 9.0 11.3 Never 0.1 - 1.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 56,714 58,965 112,606

* Excluding those living with parents and non-response cases

A similar pattern was observed for older residents with married children (Table 3.26). These findings indicated that proximity played an important role in encouraging frequent visits between parents and married children and in promoting interactions between them. Nonetheless, it was noted that residents also made use of other modes of communication to interact with family members besides face-to-face meeting, as shown in Section 3.3.

Table 3.26 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and their Married Children by Proximity

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

Daily 41.9 25.7 15.1 90.5 81.4 66.3 At Least Once a Week 48.6 55.7 51.2 At Least Once a Month 7.3 14.3 18.7 Less Than Once a Month 1.6 4.2 12.0 Never 0.6 0.1 3.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 43,108 33,850 79,754

* Excluding those living with married children and non-response cases

Closer proximity facilitated physical support between parents and married children

Similarly, a strong correlation was found between proximity and physical support. It was observed that a higher proportion of younger married residents living nearer to their parents could rely on them for physical support (Chart 3.6). While the same pattern was observed for emotional and financial support, proximity played a less significant role as these forms of support would likely not require the physical presence of family members for help to be rendered.

In comparison, for financial support in times of emergency, the proportion of younger married residents who could rely on parents for help was lower, as the parents were likely to be economically inactive. Nonetheless, it was noted that when parents lived further away, the possibility of younger married residents relying on their parents for financial support decreased. However, for younger married residents with parents living with them, a lower proportion could rely on parents for financial support in times of emergency as these parents would likely be relying on their married children for financial support instead.

Chart 3.6 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Parents for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

72.4 In Same Flat 86.8 39.4

Within Close 64.0 82.9 Proximity 50.7 Physical Emotional 57.5 Financial In Nearby Estate 80.8 49.6

Elsewhere in 44.0 74.8 Singapore 40.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

For older residents with married children, a comparable relationship was observed between proximity, physical and emotional support. This was also similar to the case for younger married residents (Chart 3.7). Parents could be more reliant on married children for all forms of support as they are likely to be economically inactive or faced health issues.

Chart 3.7 Older Residents’ Reliance on Married Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

88.0 In Same Flat 95.6 93.1

Within Close 82.5 93.2 Proximity 89.5 Physical Emotional 80.6 In Nearby Estate 92.0 Financial 87.8

Elsewhere in 71.1 85.9 Singapore 82.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Households (%)

However, when younger married residents were asked whether they were able to provide support to their parents, proximity played a less pronounced role, as most residents cited that they were able to provide the required forms of support when needed, regardless of where they were living (Chart 3.8).

Chart 3.8 Younger Married Residents’ Provision of Physical, Emotional and Financial Support to Parents by Proximity

99.8 In Same Flat 99.3 99.0

Within Close 96.0 98.8 Proximity 96.6 Physical Emotional 95.8 Financial In Nearby Estate 98.9 96.1

Elsewhere in 89.1 96.8 Singapore 91.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Households (%)

It was found that sense of closeness to family members increased with closer proximity, especially if parents and married children were living together in the same flat, within close proximity or in nearby estate (Chart 3.9). However, this was not the case for younger married residents as findings showed that proximity had no impact on sense of closeness to family members among them. This could be due to younger married residents being more mobile and able to rely on other modes of communication such as social media platforms and text messaging to keep in touch with family members, compared with older residents. Hence, they were not affected by physical proximity.

Chart 3.9 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members by Proximity

Proximity to Parents Proximity to Married Children

10 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.8 8.3 8

6 In Same Flat Within Close Proximity 4 In Nearby Estate Average Score 2 Elsewhere in Singapore

0 Younger Married Older Residents with Residents Married Children

3.7 Ideal Elderly Living Arrangement and Caregiving for Elderly Parents

Preference to live in 3- or 4-room flats when old

The majority of older residents with married children, as well as younger married residents, preferred to live in 3- or 4-room sold flats in their old age (Table 3.27). Nonetheless, this proportion had dropped slightly compared with 2008 as there was an increase in the proportions who preferred 5-room or bigger flats, studio apartments or private properties. Residents generally preferred to own their housing when old, with only a small proportion preferring to rent.

Table 3.27 Residents’ Preferred Housing Type for Old Age

Younger Married Older Residents with Preferred Housing Type Residents Married Children for Old Age 2008 2013 2008 2013

Purchased 1-Room 2.1 1.3 2.9 1.5 2-Room 9.6 6.8 6.9 6.3 3-Room 38.0 28.2 40.5 34.4 58.6 51.3 64.9 62.8 4-Room 20.6 23.1 24.4 28.4 5-Room or Bigger 13.5 19.1 12.9 16.1 Studio Apartment 3.7 6.9 1.9 4.0 Private Properties 7.4 9.0 0.9 1.5 Rented 1-Room 0.7 0.1 3.4 2.3 2-Room 0.7 0.7 3.7 3.1 3-Room 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 4-Room 0.1 - - - 5-Room or Bigger - 0.3 - - Private Properties 1.0 0.8 0.1 - Others (e.g. old folks’ home, retirement village) 2.2 3.5 1.7 2.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 302,497 261,840 171,486 203,559 * Excluding non-response cases

Moving in with children the ideal living arrangement when elderly persons unable to live on their own

Residents were asked what they felt would be the ideal elderly living arrangement when an elderly person was unable to live on his or her own. The majority of the younger married residents (63.4%) felt that moving in with children, would be the best option (Chart 3.10). In contrast, although the majority of older residents (47.0%) also chose to move in with children as the ideal living arrangement, there were higher proportion of them (35.4%) who felt that living in their own home with increased care-giving by family members or domestic helpers, was the ideal arrangement. This reflects a preference to age-in-place.

Chart 3.10 Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons Unable to Live on their Own

Younger Married 63.4 22.2 6.4 7.3 0.7 Residents

Older Residents with 47.0 35.4 5.6 10.5 1.5 Married Children

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%) Move in with children (may hire maids) Live in own home with increased care-giving by family members and/or maids Live in own home with help from professional support services (e.g. daycare centres)

Live in institutions (e.g. nursing home, hospital, old folks' home) Others (e.g. retirement village, move in with other relatives)

Majority would take care of parents in their old age regardless of circumstances

To gain insights into residents’ opinions on caregiving for elderly parents, residents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed to the three statements as shown in Table 3.28.

Nine in ten of residents agreed with the first statement “I would take care of my parents in their old age, regardless of circumstances”, indicating the strong presence of family values among residents, such as filial piety. The proportion dropped slightly when the condition “if circumstances allowed” is added to the statement. Close to nine in ten of residents disagreed with the last statement, “I would leave matters to my parents or to the government”, which revealed a high sense of responsibility among children.

Table 3.28 Caregiving for Elderly Parents

Younger Married Older Residents with Statements Residents Married Children

Strongly Agree 41.2 27.2 I would take care of my 95.1 91.5 parents in their old age, Agree 53.9 64.3 regardless of Disagree 4.7 8.3 circumstances Strongly Disagree 0.2 0.2

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 271,716 36,743

Strongly Agree 35.4 20.1 I would take care of my 87.9 82.0 parents in their old age, Agree 52.5 61.9 if my circumstances Disagree 11.0 16.5 allowed Strongly Disagree 1.1 1.5

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 271,652 36,911

Strongly Agree 2.2 0.3 I would leave matters to Agree 8.8 9.0 my parents or to the Disagree 70.8 79.0 government 89.0 90.7 Strongly Disagree 18.2 11.7

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 271,245 36,543

* Excluding non-response cases

3.8 Summary of Findings

Family ties between parents and children remained generally strong for families with children. Over the years, higher proportions of younger married residents lived with or near their parents. Similarly, there was a slight increase in the proportion of older residents living in the same flat with their married children, although further analysis showed that this could be a temporary arrangement for married children while waiting for their new flat to be completed or renovated. For both groups, the gap between residents’ present and preferred living arrangements had narrowed over the years.

Inter-generational ties between parents and married children remained strong, with close to nine in ten visiting one another at least once a month. The majority of families with children also kept in touch with family members at least once a month. It was found that there was a strong correlation between proximity and frequency of visits. The frequency of visits between children and parents increased with closer proximity, especially for daily visits.

Similarly, with regard to reliance on family for support, a higher proportion of older residents was able to rely on their married children living closer to them for physical support. This trend was also observed among younger married residents. However, proximity was a less significant factor for the provision of emotional and financial support in times of emergency, as these two forms of support could still be rendered without being physically close by.

The proportion of older residents receiving regular financial support from their children remained high at 77.7%. Compared with 2008, the average monthly amount received by one parent, from all his/her children, had increased from $445 to $552.

The average score for sense of closeness to family members was generally high. Sense of closeness to family members was found to correlate with proximity among older residents with married children, as the average scores for sense of closeness to family members were higher when parents and married children live nearer to each other. However, sense of closeness was not dependent on proximity among younger married residents, possibly because they were more mobile and able to rely on other modes of communication (e.g. social media and text messaging) to keep in touch with family members.

With regard to ideal living arrangement for elderly persons who could no longer live on their own, a high proportion of younger married residents felt that the ideal living arrangement was for elderly persons to move in with their children. In contrast, more older residents with married children felt that living in their own home with increased caregiving by family members or domestic workers, was the ideal arrangement. This reflects older residents’ preference to age-in-place as they are comfortable and familiar with their existing home.

The majority of residents would take care of their parents regardless of circumstances, reflecting a strong presence of filial responsibility towards ageing parents.

4 Well-Being of the Elderly

Chapter 4

Well-Being of the Elderly

Introduction

Singapore’s population has been experiencing a rapid increase in ageing due to increasing life expectancy and declining birth rates and it is projected that there will be 900,000 elderly citizens by 203010. This would have a significant impact on the old-age support ratio and the economic growth of Singapore due to manpower inadequacy.

In the past decades, several committees such as the Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI) and the Ministerial Committee on Ageing (MCA), set up in 2004 and 2007, respectively, have been formed by the Singapore government to prepare for an ageing society. It coordinates the efforts by various ministries to provide a holistic approach towards addressing the challenges and opportunities of Singapore’s ageing population11. Since the formation of MCA, various initiatives such as the Wellness Programme and the City for All Ages (CFAA) Project have been rolled out to various constituencies. In addition, more Senior Activity Centres (SACs) have been set up near rental flats and studio apartments, while HDB has also introduced the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme to provide home modification services to flats12.

SHS 2013 findings showed that the proportion of elderly and future elderly population residing in HDB flats was 11.0% and 13.3%, respectively. Compared

10 January 2013. Population White Paper: A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore. National Population and Talent Division. Retrieved on 29 September 2014 (http://www.population.sg/whitepaper/downloads/population-white-paper.pdf). 11 Ministerial Committee on Ageing 2007, Ministerial Committee to Spearhead Successful Ageing for Singapore: Committee will build on strong family ties and enable families to support senior members, Retrieved on 13 October 2014 (http://app.msf.gov.sg/portals/0/summary/pressroom/10-2007.pdf) 12 Ministry of Health: Update on Ministerial Committee on Ageing, Oct 2013, Retrieved on 13 October 2014 (http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressRoom/Parliamentary_QA/2013/update-on-ministerial- committee-on-ageing-.html)

with national statistics 13 , there were proportionately more elderly and future elderly residents residing in HDB flats compared with private housing. Hence, it is important to keep tabs on the well-being of elderly and future elderly residents living in HDB towns and estates in terms of their financial well-being, community involvement and satisfaction with the living environment. This would facilitate the building of a conducive environment where elderly residents can age comfortably in their later years.

Objectives

The objectives of this chapter are to examine elderly residents in three main aspects: a) Personal aspects in terms of their financial well-being, views on monetisation and perceived health; b) Social aspects which comprise their family ties and community bonding; c) Housing aspects with regard to their satisfaction with the living environment, usage of estate facilities, housing preferences and preference to age-in- place.

Framework

As shown in the framework, elderly residents’ well-being is examined through three main aspects, namely, personal, social and housing. Comparison of findings on elderly residents are made with all HDB households and future elderly residents, as well as past SHS findings to provide a more comprehensive picture of the well-being of elderly residents in HDB estates. The two cohorts are defined as follows:

Elderly household is defined as one where the head of household is aged 65 years and above. There are presently about 113,294 such households.

Future elderly household is defined as one where the head of household is aged between 55 to 64 years. There are presently about 144,792 such households.

13 Population Trends 2013, Singapore Department of Statistics. The national data indicated that 10.5% of resident population were aged 65 years and above, and 13.1% were those aged between 55 and 64 years.

Framework for Well-Being of the Elderly

Well-Being of the Elderly

Future Elderly Elderly

55 - 64 Years 65 Years & Above (N = 144,792)* (N = 113,294)*

Personal Aspects Social Aspects Housing Aspects . Financial Well-being . Family Ties . Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment . Views on Monetisation . Community . Satisfaction & Usage of Estate Facilities . Perceived Health Bonding . Residential Mobility & Housing Aspirations

. Perceptions on Ageing-in-Place

* The figures are based on heads of elderly and future elderly households who responded to the survey

4.1 Personal Aspects

This section examines the personal well-being of elderly residents by looking at their current financial situation, financial planning for old age and perceived health. It is important to monitor such aspects to enable elderly residents to live comfortably in their later years.

4.1.1 Financial Well-Being

As both life expectancy and cost of living rise, it is inevitable that elderly residents would require more financial resources for old age. Hence, more financially vulnerable groups such as elderly residents living alone, those without sufficient financial support from family members or having insufficient income or assets, would require greater assistance. This section examines whether elderly residents have planned financially for their retirement needs, their regular sources of income, adequacy of resources to meet daily expenses and preference for various monetisation options.

More future elderly had at least one financial option for retirement needs

Four in ten of elderly residents (40.9%) had taken up at least one financial option in planning for their retirement needs (Chart 4.1). In comparison, a higher

proportion of future elderly residents (58.0%) had done so, indicating that a higher proportion of elderly residents in future would be financially more prepared for their retirement needs. However, it was noted that a substantial four in ten of future elderly residents did not have any financial option in planning for their retirement needs, hence the importance of financial planning should still be emphasised among residents, especially the younger cohorts.

Chart 4.1 Elderly and Future Elderly who had Undertaken At Least One Financial Option in Planning for Retirement Needs

58.0 60 40.9 40

Households (%) 20

0 Elderly Future Elderly

For those who had taken up at least one financial option in planning for their retirement needs, the more popular options were to have a regular savings plan, buying medical insurance coverage for illness in old age and non-medical insurance as a form of savings plan (Chart 4.2). It was observed that a higher proportion of elderly residents placed their money into a regular savings plan instead of other financial options compared with future elderly residents. This is not surprising as the majority of them may not be aware of other financial options or the options may not be available to them when they are making such plans.

Chart 4.2 Financial Options for Retirement Planning among Elderly and Future Elderly

Putting money into a regular savings plan 60.0 51.8 Buying medical insurance to protect from 43.4 illness in old age 57.2 Buying non-medical insurance as a form of 34.9 savings for retirement needs 48.1 Planned the amount of funds needed 22.9 for retirement 33.6

Investment in shares 18.1 16.7 Elderly Engaging financial advisor 1.6 Future to help with retirement planning 5.7 Elderly Other options (e.g. property investment, 3.0 monetisation) 3.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Households who Had Planned for Retirement (%)

Among elderly residents who did not plan financially for retirement, 39.4% of them cited that they had never thought about it or did not see the need to plan (Table 4.1). Another 20.5% of elderly residents said that they did not need to plan as they could rely on their children, spouse or other relatives for financial needs. Some 16.9% of them also mentioned that they did not know how to plan. For future elderly residents who did not plan financially, 39.8% of them had not thought about it or did not see the need to plan, while 25.2% of them cited a lack of funds to plan for their old age needs.

Table 4.1 Reasons for Not Having Financial Planning for Old Age Needs among Elderly and Future Elderly

Reasons Elderly Future Elderly

Never thought about it/Do not see the need to plan/Too late to plan 39.4 39.8 Depend on children/spouse/other relatives 20.5 7.6 Do not know how to plan 16.9 13.2 Insufficient income to plan 15.9 25.2 Sufficient income at present, no need to plan 6.9 12.6 Rely on pension/government welfare 0.4 1.6

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 66,699 60,468 * Excluding non-response cases

Profile analysis showed that higher proportions of elderly and future elderly residents who did not plan financially were living in rental flats or smaller flat types. More of them were female or less educated (Table 4.2). This is most likely due to the fact that residents living in rental flats or smaller flat types have insufficient income to plan for retirement needs. Elderly females were more likely to be economically inactive and therefore dependent on their children and spouse for financial support.

Table 4.2 Financial Planning for Retirement Needs among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly

Whether Planned Whether Planned Attributes Total Total Financially Financially

Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Economic Economically Active 40.5 59.5 100.0 31,870 58.9 41.1 100.0 105,136 Status Economically Inactive 41.2 58.8 100.0 81,059 55.4 44.6 100.0 38,920

Tenure Sold 45.5 54.5 100.0 98,024 61.8 38.2 100.0 131,615 Rental 11.6 88.4 100.0 15,132 19.0 81.0 100.0 12,691

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 17.8 82.2 100.0 19,024 20.5 79.5 100.0 14,402 3-Room 36.7 63.3 100.0 42,107 48.3 51.7 100.0 41,198 4-Room 46.7 53.3 100.0 34,356 64.2 35.8 100.0 46,384 5-Room & Bigger 64.7 35.3 100.0 17,668 73.4 26.6 100.0 42,324

Education Primary & Below** 29.6 70.4 100.0 66,571 40.0 60.0 100.0 45,298 Secondary 52.0 48.0 100.0 34,407 58.6 41.4 100.0 69,723 Post-secondary & 75.3 24.7 100.0 11,355 84.5 15.5 100.0 28,854 Above

Sex Male 44.7 55.3 100.0 68,213 60.5 39.5 100.0 94,025 Female 35.3 64.7 100.0 44,942 53.3 46.7 100.0 50,282

* Excluding non-response cases ** Those with no formal education and with primary education are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size

Majority of elderly relied on personal savings and financial support from children as regular sources of income

Elderly residents were asked to identify the sources of regular income they received monthly from a list of possible financial sources. The major sources of regular income they cited were from their personal savings and financial support from children (Chart 4.3). Close to seven in ten of future elderly residents had regular income from employment, higher compared with elderly residents as a higher proportion of them was economically active. Hence, it was not surprising that only four in ten of future elderly residents were relying on their children for regular allowances.

Chart 4.3 Regular Financial Sources of Elderly and Future Elderly

Draw down savings 79.1 78.5 Money from children 67.6 43.1 27.7 Income from work 69.6 CPF withdrawals 17.5 9.2 4.2 Annuity 2.2 3.1 Rental income from subletting of HDB 4.3 Returns from investments 2.8 3.2 Pensions 2.7 1.2 Welfare assistance 2.0 0.7 1.9 Money from relatives 2.2 Money from spouse 0.8 2.2 Rental from commercial properties 0.3 0.1 Elderly Lease Buyback Scheme 0.2 0.1 Future Elderly Rental from private property 0.2 0.4 Other sources (e.g. money from friends) 0.9 0.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

The proportion of future elderly residents having two or more regular financial sources (83.2%) was comparable to elderly residents (81.6%) as shown in Chart 4.4. However, it was noted that a higher proportion of future elderly residents had three or more regular financial sources (37.0%), compared with elderly residents (31.3%).

Chart 4.4 Number of Regular Financial Sources of Elderly and Future Elderly 80

60 50.3 46.2

40 28.3 24.7 Elderly

Households (%) Households 17.3 16.3 20 Future Elderly 6.6 8.7 1.1 0.5 0 One Two Three More than None three

A higher proportion of elderly and future elderly residents living in 4-room or bigger flats had two or more regular financial sources, compared with those living in 3-room or smaller flats (Table 4.3). However, there was no significant difference among genders for both elderly and future elderly residents.

Table 4.3 Number of Financial Resources of Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly

No. of Financial No. of Financial Total Total Attributes Resources Resources

One or Two or One or Two or % N* % N* None More None More

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 32.8 67.2 100.0 19,048 24.5 75.5 100.0 14,401 3-Room 18.2 81.8 100.0 42,222 20.2 79.8 100.0 41,508 4-Room 14.4 85.6 100.0 34,356 13.9 86.1 100.0 46,445 5-Room & Bigger 11.0 89.0 100.0 17,668 13.9 86.1 100.0 42,437

Sex Male 17.5 82.5 100.0 68,328 17.5 82.5 100.0 94,491 Female 19.8 80.2 100.0 44,966 15.3 84.7 100.0 50,301

* Excluding non-response cases

Majority felt income adequate to meet daily needs albeit declining proportions over past five years

More than seven in ten of elderly and future elderly residents felt that their sources of income were sufficient to cover their daily expenses (Chart 4.5). This was a decline from 2008, where eight in ten in both groups felt that their income was adequate.

Chart 4.5 Adequacy of Sources of Income to Meet Daily Expenses for Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly 100 4.0 7.6 5.3 6.9 15.4 13.7 80 17.5 19.6

Usually inadequate 60 Occasionally inadequate 71.9 71.9 40 80.6 70.8 81.0 67.7 74.9 73.5 Adequate

Households (%) 20 More than adequate

8.7 4.1 9.1 5.8 0 2008 2013 2008 2013

High cost of living was the main reason cited among elderly residents who felt that their income was inadequate. Other reasons stated were low income and high medical costs (Table 4.4). Similar reasons were cited by future elderly residents.

Table 4.4 Reasons for Having Inadequate Sources of Income among Elderly and Future Elderly

Reasons Elderly Future Elderly

High cost of living 63.5 62.4 Income too low/Irregular income 18.7 25.7 High medical costs 10.3 7.8 Children did not provide enough financial support 7.0 1.3 Children are still financially dependent 0.5 2.8

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 28,254 37,954 * Excluding non-response cases

Elderly residents would request for more money from their children/spouse or rely on their personal savings to meet any shortfall. Future elderly residents on the other hand, would rely more on their personal savings instead of obtaining financial support from their children (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Ways for Elderly and Future Elderly to Meet Any Shortfall

Ways to Meet Shortfall Elderly Future Elderly

Request more money from children/spouse 46.2 26.1 Personal savings 28.1 49.7 Borrow money from relatives/friends 10.2 9.8 Welfare assistance 6.3 3.2 CPF savings 4.0 3.7 Self-control by eating and spending less 1.8 1.3 Sell assets 1.5 3.5 Earn extra income by working part-time/longer hours 0.1 1.8 Others (e.g. seek help from religious institutions, neighbour) 1.8 0.9

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 28,136 37,909 * Excluding non-response cases

Profile analysis showed that a higher proportion of elderly and future elderly residents who had inadequate income to meet daily expenses lived in rental flats or smaller flat types (Table 4.6). As these residents were likely to have lower household income, they would have more difficulties meeting their daily expenses. Future elderly residents who were not working were also more likely to face financial challenges compared with those who remained in the workforce. Higher proportions of elderly males also perceived their income to be inadequate compared with females. However, the cost concerns faced by the elderly could be alleviated by the introduction of the Pioneer Generation Package in 2014, as

they will now benefit from extra subsidies for Medisheld Life and outpatient treatment, as well as annual Medisave top-ups.

Table 4.6 Adequacy of Sources of Income for Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly

Adequacy Adequacy Attributes Total Total of Income of Income

Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Economic Economically Active 76.2 23.8 100.0 31,496 75.0 25.0 100.0 104,674 Status Economically Inactive 74.3 25.7 100.0 80,717 69.5 30.5 100.0 38,646

Tenure Sold 77.4 22.6 100.0 97,324 75.9 24.1 100.0 130,879 Rental 58.9 41.1 100.0 15,116 48.8 51.2 100.0 12,691

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 61.2 38.8 100.0 19,032 51.7 48.3 100.0 14,402 3-Room 72.7 27.3 100.0 41,948 73.4 26.6 100.0 41,030 4-Room 77.6 22.4 100.0 33,905 75.4 24.6 100.0 46,278 5-Room & Bigger 89.5 10.5 100.0 17,554 79.1 20.9 100.0 41,861

Sex Male 73.2 26.8 100.0 67,952 73.1 26.9 100.0 93,270 Female 77.5 22.5 100.0 44,487 74.4 25.6 100.0 50,301

* Excluding non-response cases

Majority of elderly did not take up any monetisation option after turning 50 years old

As the majority of elderly and future elderly residents are homeowners, their HDB flat is an important monetary asset. To help them unlock the value of their flat, HDB has in place various monetisation options for elderly residents to supplement their retirement income if necessary. The different options available are subletting of whole flat or one or more room(s), right-sizing to HDB Studio Apartment or a smaller flat, cashing out and living with children or other family members or renting a flat/room, and applying for the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS)14.

14 The Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) is an additional monetisation option to help low-income elderly flat owners living in 3-room and smaller flats to unlock part of their housing equity while continuing to live in their homes, and receive a lifelong income stream to supplement their retirement income. Under the Enhanced LBS, the elderly flat owners sell part of their flat lease to HDB and retain a 30-year lease. Their proceeds from selling part of the flat lease will be used to top up their CPF Retirement Accounts (RAs). Eligible flat owners will use their full CPF RA savings to purchase a CPF LIFE plan to give them a monthly income for life. Each household will receive a LBS cash bonus of up to $20,000. Enhanced LBS is available to those who meet the following criteria: - Age of youngest lessee is CPF Draw-Down Age (currently 63 years) or older; - At least one owner is a Singapore citizen - Household income of $3,000 or less; - No concurrent ownership of second property; - Have lived in existing flat for 5 years or more. From 1 Apr 2015, the LBS will be extended to elderly flat owners living in 4-room flat as well, and the income ceiling will be raised from $3,000 to $10,000. All other eligibility criteria remain the same.

A question in SHS 2013 was asked on whether elderly and future elderly residents had taken any monetisation options after turning 50 years old. Before turning 50 years old, any transactions made on the flat (e.g. cashing out, right- sizing, subletting) would not be regarded as monetisation as they could be for other purposes such as meeting one’s aspirations. Given that the minimum age criteria for purchasing a studio apartment is 55 years old, a cut-off age of 50 years old was used. This is five years prior to 55 years old and in this timeframe, residents would have sufficient time to decide whether to exercise any monetisation options for retirement needs.

It was found that 11.8% of elderly residents and 11.0% of future elderly residents had taken up at least one monetisation option after turning 50 years old. The most popular option chosen by those who had opted to monetise was subletting of rooms. Other popular options included right-sizing to a smaller resale HDB flat or a smaller new HDB flat (Chart 4.6).

Chart 4.6 Monetisation Options Taken after 50 Years Old among Elderly and Future Elderly

37.1 Sublet of room(s) 54.3 30.4 Moved to smaller resale HDB flat 24.6 Moved from private property 11.9 to resale HDB flat 7.2 11.1 Moved to smaller new HDB flat 10.5 Moved from HDB flat 5.3 to Studio Apartment 0.3 3.8 Lease Buyback Scheme

Sold HDB flat/private property and 3.2 moved in with relatives 0.7 Sold HDB/private property and 2.6 rented whole HDB flat 1.2 Sublet whole flat 3.0 Moved from private property 0.9 to new HDB flat 0.2 Elderly

Moved from private property Future 2.4 to Studio Apartment Elderly Others (e.g. SERS, 2.7 sublet private property) 5.8 0 20 40 60 80 100 Households who Had Taken At Least One Monetisation Option (%)

Analysis by flat type showed that higher proportions of elderly residents living in 3- and 4-room flats had taken at least one monetisation option after turning 50 years old. For future elderly residents, close to one in five living in 3-room flats had taken at least one monetisation option after turning 50 years old (Chart 4.7).

Chart 4.7 Whether Monetised after Turning 50 Years Old for Elderly and Future Elderly by Flat Type

Elderly Future Elderly 100

60 81.1 85.0 87.8 90.4 93.2 91.4 98.7 91.8 40 No Yes

Households (%) 20 18.9 15.0 12.2 9.6 0 6.8 8.6 1.3 8.2 1- & 2- 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room 1- & 2- 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Room & Bigger Room & Bigger * Excluding non-response cases

When asked whether they would consider monetising in the next five years, 82.5% of elderly residents and 76.4% of future elderly residents indicated they would not do so (Chart 4.8). For those who had no intention to monetise, most would rely on children or other family members if they were to encounter major financial difficulties, such as not being able to work or having insufficient savings (Table 4.7). For those who intended to monetise in the next five years, the most common option was to sublet rooms (Table 4.8).

Chart 4.8 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly and Future Elderly 100

60 82.5 76.4 No 40 Yes Households (%) 20 17.5 23.6 0 Elderly Future Elderly (N= 97,922) (N= 130,843) * Excluding residents living in rental flats and non-response cases

Table 4.7 Options among Elderly and Future Elderly Who Had No Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years When They Encounter Major Financial Difficulties

Options in the Event of Major Financial Difficulties Elderly Future Elderly

Rely on children/family members 90.3 82.6 Have sufficient savings/assets in the event of financial difficulties 4.1 4.8 Rely on public assistance 4.0 9.7 Have not thought about it 1.2 1.3 Borrow from friends 0.3 1.1 Others (e.g. move overseas) 0.1 0.5

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 80,013 97,230 * Excluding residents living in rental flats and non-response cases

Table 4.8 Preferred Monetisation Options among Elderly and Future Elderly Who Intended to Monetise in the Next Five Years

Monetisation Options Elderly Future Elderly

Sublet room(s) 55.0 43.9 Sell flat and move to smaller flat 12.2 28.0 Sell flat and move to Studio Apartment 8.9 13.3 Sublet whole flat 8.2 5.4 Lease Buyback Scheme 7.7 5.0 Sell flat and move in with children/relatives 4.2 2.1 Sell flat and move to rental flat/rent room(s) 0.6 1.4 Others (e.g. sell flat and move to cheaper flat of same size, 3.2 0.9 SERS/En bloc)

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 17,099 30,883 * Excluding residents living in rental flats and non-response cases

Analysis by flat type showed that a higher proportion of elderly residents living in 4-room and smaller flats intended to monetise in the next five years. For future elderly residents, close to one in three living in 3-room and smaller flats intended to do so in the next five years (Chart 4.9).

Chart 4.9 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly and Future Elderly by Flat Type

Elderly Future Elderly 100

80 68.6 60 81.0 81.0 78.7 89.5 81.5 40 No Yes Households (%) 20 31.4 19.0 19.0 21.3 10.5 18.5 0 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room & Smaller & Bigger & Smaller & Bigger * Excluding residents living in rental flats and non-response cases ** 1- to 3-room flats are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size

4.1.2 Perceived Level of Health

Most elderly and future elderly perceived themselves as healthy

Elderly and future elderly residents were asked to rate their general health on a five-point scale ranging from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Very Poor’. The majority of elderly and future elderly residents perceived their health to be very good, good or fair (Chart 4.10). The proportion of future elderly residents who perceived themselves as being healthy was also slightly higher compared with 2008.

Chart 4.10 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly by Year Elderly Future Elderly 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.5 100 9.9 9.0 6.0 5.3

26.5 80 31.6 33.2 35.4 60 Very Poor 94.2 Poor 89.0 90.2 92.9 40 47.7 60.0 Fair 46.9 48.8 Good Households (%) 20 Very Good 8.9 13.6 0 6.0 7.7 2008 2013 2008 2013

For elderly and future elderly residents who perceived their health to be poor or very poor, higher proportions of them were economically inactive, living in rental flats or smaller flat types or with lower levels of education (Table 4.9). For future elderly residents, a higher proportion of females perceived their health to be poor

compared with males. There was no difference in perception of their health between genders among elderly residents.

Table 4.9 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly

Perception Perception Total Total of Health of Health Attributes Very Very Poor/ Poor/ Good/ Good/ Very % N* Very % N* Good/ Good Poor Poor Fair /Fair

Economic Economically Active 94.5 5.5 100.0 31,773 95.3 4.7 100.0 104,860 Status Economically Inactive 88.4 11.6 100.0 80,836 91.5 8.5 100.0 38,982

Tenure Sold 91.7 8.3 100.0 97,703 94.9 5.1 100.0 131,402 Rental 80.1 19.9 100.0 15,132 87.8 12.2 100.0 12,691

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 80.6 19.4 100.0 19,048 88.6 11.4 100.0 14,402 3-Room 90.5 9.5 100.0 41,986 92.1 7.9 100.0 41,213 4-Room 91.8 8.2 100.0 34,133 94.9 5.1 100.0 46,315 5- Room & Bigger 96.3 3.7 100.0 17,668 97.6 2.4 100.0 42,163

Education Primary & Below** 87.1 12.9 100.0 66,262 90.7 9.3 100.0 45,356 Secondary 92.9 7.1 100.0 34,396 94.6 5.4 100.0 69,614 Post-secondary & 98.7 1.3 100.0 11,355 98.8 1.2 100.0 28,691 Above

Sex Male 90.8 9.2 100.0 67,869 96.3 3.7 100.0 93,792 Female 89.1 10.9 100.0 44,966 90.5 9.5 100.0 50,301

* Excluding non-response cases ** Those with no formal education and with primary education are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size

4.2 Social Aspects

As seen from the findings on family ties, frequent interactions and regular support from family members are vital in maintaining the positive well-being of elderly residents. It is also important to examine elderly residents’ interactions with their neighbours and participation in activities, to ascertain the level of support they can obtain from the wider community. The following sections examine family ties and community bonding as indicators of social well-being of elderly residents in HDB estates.

4.2.1 Family Ties

In Chapter 3, the family ties between parents and children are examined. This section examines more specifically the family ties of elderly residents aged 65 years and above, as well as future elderly residents aged 55 to 64 years old. The strength of family ties is examined by looking at elderly and future elderly residents’ living arrangements in relation to their children, depth of interaction and support, sense of closeness to family members and caregiving for elderly parents.

More elderly preferred to live with or within close proximity to married children

Out of a total of 113,294 elderly households, 76.1% had married children. Among those with married children, the proportion of elderly residents who lived in the same flat with their married child had increased from 12.0% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2013 (Table 4.10). However, their preference to do so was lower than their present living arrangement. As mentioned in the chapter on Family Ties, the increase could be attributed to the married children living temporarily with their parents while waiting for their new flat to be ready. The proportion who were currently living elsewhere in relation to their married children had also increased from 2008.

Looking at their preferred living arrangement over time, the proportion of elderly residents who preferred to live in the same flat or within close proximity15 to their married children continued to decline from 69.1% in 2003 to 53.5% in 2008 and 48.8% in 2013. Correspondingly, there was increasing preference for married children to live elsewhere (17.2% in 2003 to 23.8% in 2008 and 35.5% in 2013). The preference to live elsewhere could possibly be attributed to a more comprehensive transport network, enabling elderly residents and their children to enjoy greater ease in meeting up.

15 Living “within close proximity” to their married children is defined as living together, next door, in the same block, in a nearby block, and in the same estate as their married children.

Table 4.10 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

Physical Living 2003 2008 2013 Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

In the Same Flat 7.6 16.2 12.0 13.3 17.3 16.9 Next Door 2.0 3.9 1.5 2.9 1.0 1.4 In the Same Block 5.0 43.2 11.0 69.1 3.4 40.2 7.0 53.5 3.0 40.8 4.8 48.8 In a Nearby Block 16.6 19.6 11.7 14.7 9.4 12.9 In the Same Estate 12.0 18.4 11.6 15.6 10.1 12.8 In a Nearby Estate 17.8 13.7 24.6 22.7 13.8 15.7 Elsewhere 39.0 17.2 35.2 23.8 45.4 35.5 (includes overseas)

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 53,357 53,357 74,593 74,187 84,024 84,024 * Excluding non-response cases

For future elderly residents, 42.4% of the 144,792 households had married children. Among those with married children, about 36.7% lived in the same flat or within close proximity to their nearest married child. This proportion was comparable to 2008 (Table 4.11). Similar to the trend observed for elderly residents, the proportion living in the same flat had increased compared with 2008, while the preference to do so was lower than their present living arrangement. In contrast to elderly residents, a slightly higher proportion of future elderly residents was living in nearby estates to their married children compared with 2008.

Looking at preferred living arrangement of future elderly residents, those who preferred to live in the same flat or within close proximity to their married children had decreased from 52.2% in 2008 to 46.3% in 2013. These findings were similar to those of elderly residents.

However, it was also observed that among both elderly and future elderly residents, a much higher proportion would still prefer their married children to live in closer proximity, compared with their present living arrangement. Hence, more housing schemes are now available16 to encourage married children and parents to live nearer to one another for mutual care and support.

16 The existing schemes to encourage parents and children to live near each other include the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS), Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS), Studio Apartment Priority Scheme (SAPS) and CPF Housing Grant for Family. In September 2013, 3-Generation Family Flats (3GEN) were also introduced to enable multi-generation families to live under one roof.

Table 4.11 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Future Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

2008 2013 Physical Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred

In the Same Flat 15.5 14.1 19.5 16.2 Next Door 0.0 2.1 0.2 1.2 In the Same Block 1.1 37.3 3.4 52.2 0.8 36.7 2.2 46.3 In a Nearby Block 9.9 16.8 5.9 10.0 In the Same Estate 10.8 15.8 10.3 16.7 In a Nearby Estate 17.3 16.9 20.2 20.7 Elsewhere (includes overseas) 45.4 30.9 43.1 33.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 56,884 56,870 58,819 58,819 * Excluding non-response cases

Preference to live with spouse and/or unmarried children among elderly mirrored current living arrangement

Close to six in ten (58.3%) of elderly residents lived with their spouse and/or unmarried children, which was comparable to previous years (Table 4.12). Another 12.7% of them lived with their married children and close to one in four were living alone (23.1%).

The proportion of elderly residents who lived alone had increased from 19.3% in 2008 to 23.1% in 2013. Their preference to do so had also increased from 18.0% in 2008 to 22.5% in 2013. Further analysis on the profile of elderly residents living alone showed that most of them were female (68.0%) or widowed (53.4%). Their socio-economic profiles revealed that 77.4% of them were economically inactive, 76.9% lived in 3-room or smaller flats, and 67.9% had primary or lower levels of education.

The present and preferred social living arrangement of elderly residents matched quite closely. Close to six in ten of elderly residents (59.8%) also preferred to live with their spouse and/or unmarried children, comparable to 59.6% in 2008. With regard to living with married children, the gap had narrowed as increasing proportions were living with married children while preference to do so continued to decline to 12.3% in 2013, from 14.6% in 2008. The proportion that was living

with unrelated persons had decreased, from 9.3% in 2008 to 2.2% in 2013, which mirrored their preference.

Table 4.12 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Elderly by Year

2003 2008 2013 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or 63.8 52.6 60.3 59.6 58.3 59.8 Unmarried Children Live with Married Children 7.2 16.5 10.9 14.6 12.7 12.3 Live with Siblings/Relatives 3.8 5.4 0.2 0.3 3.7 3.8

Live Alone 21.1 24.3 19.3 18.0 23.1 22.5 Live with Unrelated Persons 4.1 1.2 9.3 7.5 2.2 1.6

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 66,722 66,722 92,817 92,760 113,294 113,075 * Excluding non-response cases

In comparison with elderly residents, there was a higher proportion of future elderly residents who lived with their spouse and/or unmarried children as their children were likely to be younger (Table 4.13). The proportion living with married children and preferred to do so was lower compared with elderly residents. There was also a lower proportion of future elderly residents who lived alone, possibly because fewer were widowed compared with elderly residents. However, similar to the trends observed for elderly residents, the proportion of future elderly residents living alone had increased from 8.6% in 2008 to 14.5% in 2013. The proportion of those living with unrelated persons had also decreased from 7.2% in 2008 to 1.9% in 2013. Hence, future elderly residents’ preferred living arrangement mirrored their present living arrangement.

Table 4.13 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Future Elderly by Year

2008 2013 Social Living Arrangement Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children 77.1 75.5 73.1 73.7 Live with Married Children 6.5 7.4 7.2 7.1 Live with Siblings/Relatives 0.6 0.7 3.3 3.5 Live Alone 8.6 9.0 14.5 14.3 Live with Unrelated Persons 7.2 7.4 1.9 1.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 129,397 129,331 144,792 144,534

* Excluding non-response cases

Most had meals or went on outings together with married children when they visited each other

This section analyses the visiting patterns between elderly and future elderly residents with respect to their married children as well as types of activities carried out together. The analyses exclude those who lived in the same flat as their married children. The findings showed that only 1.8% of elderly residents did not exchange visits with their married children, comparable to 1.5% in 2008. Among those who exchanged visits, close to nine in ten (87.3%) did so at least once a month, comparable to 88.5% in 2008 (Table 4.14). Among future elderly residents who exchanged visits with their married children, 92.7% of them did so at least once a month, also comparable to 92.2% in 2008.

Table 4.14 Frequency of Visits between Elderly and Future Elderly with their Married Children by Year

Elderly Future Elderly Frequency of Visits 2003 2008 2013 2008 2013

Daily 23.0 21.8 24.9 23.6 22.5 At Least Once a Week 53.4 92.1 50.4 88.5 45.7 87.3 48.8 92.2 51.1 92.7 At Least Once a Month 15.7 16.3 16.7 19.8 19.1 Less Than Once a Month 7.9 11.5 12.7 7.8 7.3

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 47,039 67,283 76,226 48,462 48,946 * Excluding those who never visit, living together and non-response cases

Chart 4.11 shows the types and frequency of activities carried out by elderly residents with their married children. Having meals together (81.7%), going on outings (58.9%), and exchanging suggestions and advice about personal problems (52.9%) were the most common activities carried out at least once a month. In terms of daily visits, having meals together was the most common activity carried out, followed by helping in childcare.

Chart 4.11 Types of Activities Carried Out between Elderly and their Married Children

Share meals 18.0 46.7 17.0 14.9 3.4

Help in taking care of children 14.0 11.9 3.53.9 66.7

Exchange suggestions/advice 10.1 30.7 12.1 24.9 22.2

Take care of parents 9.3 25.0 9.0 14.7 42.0

Help in household chores 5.8 16.3 4.1 4.9 68.9

Help in marketing 3.7 15.1 6.2 7.6 67.4

Go on outings 3.1 34.2 21.6 30.7 10.4

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

In comparison with elderly residents, future elderly residents had nearly the same extent of contact with their married children for each of the activities discussed (Chart 4.12). However, in terms of daily visits, helping in childcare was the most common activity, followed by having meals together.

Chart 4.12 Types of Activities Carried Out between Future Elderly and their Married Children

Help in taking care of children 13.2 20.8 6.0 7.6 52.4

Share meals 12.0 51.9 18.8 12.7 4.6

Exchange suggestions/advice 8.8 35.6 16.0 19.2 20.4

Take care of parents 5.8 26.0 10.3 13.3 44.6

Help in household chores 4.2 14.8 6.6 9.7 64.7

Go on outings 2.7 35.0 25.2 27.2 9.9

Help in marketing 2.6 12.6 8.7 9.2 66.9

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

Majority could rely on children for physical, emotional and financial support

This section looks at the extent of support between children and older residents. As mentioned in the chapter on Family Ties, in addition to assessing whether elderly residents receive regular financial contributions from their children, it also examines for the first time whether family members provide physical, emotional and financial support17 to one another.

About three in four of both elderly and future elderly residents could rely on their married children for physical support, and about nine in ten could rely on both married and unmarried children for emotional support (Tables 4.15 and 4.16). As higher proportions of elderly and future elderly residents were living with their unmarried children, slightly higher proportions mentioned that they could rely on them for physical support compared with married children.

Table 4.15 Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Married Unmarried Types of Support Children Children

Physical Able to rely 76.4 81.5 Support Not able to rely 12.6 11.4 Do not require support 11.0 7.1

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 84,034 51,320

Emotional Able to rely 87.1 88.8 Support Not able to rely 3.2 5.5 Do not require support 9.7 5.7

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 84,118 51,320

Financial Able to rely 86.8 86.7 Support in Times Not able to rely 4.6 8.1 of Emergency Do not require support 8.6 5.2

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 84,118 51,320 * Excluding non-response cases

17 Physical support refers to helping with buying groceries, transportation, escorting to see doctor, housework/home maintenance, helping in taking care of health (e.g. medicine management, aid in moving around). Emotional support refers to providing information/advice or moral support. Financial support refers to financial help in times of emergency.

Table 4.16 Future Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Married Unmarried Types of Support Children Children

Physical Able to rely 73.6 84.4 Support Not able to rely 13.7 6.8 Do not require support 12.7 8.8

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 58,773 91,917

Emotional Able to rely 90.6 88.3 Support Not able to rely 2.6 4.2 Do not require support 6.8 7.5

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 58,773 91,952

Financial Able to rely 80.0 71.0 Support in Times Not able to rely 8.2 19.3 of Emergency Do not require support 11.8 9.7

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 58,773 91,779 * Excluding non-response cases

A lower proportion of future elderly residents would rely on married children and unmarried children for financial support in times of emergency compared with elderly residents (Tables 4.15 and 4.16). This is because a higher proportion of future elderly residents is still economically active and therefore may not require financial support from their children. Many of their unmarried children are also likely to be younger and may not be economically active.

For elderly residents who did not receive physical support from their married or unmarried children, the main reason given was that the children were too busy to do so. For the small proportion who was not receiving emotional support from married children, they mentioned that they were not close to their married children. Elderly residents who could not rely on their children for financial support during emergencies cited reason such as children not having sufficient finances or they were not working. Similar reasons were also given by future elderly residents.

Majority of elderly received regular financial allowances from children

The level of financial support received from children is another indicator of inter- generational support. Among elderly residents with children (87.2%), 77.5% of them received regular financial support from their children. This proportion was lower compared with 85.6% in 2008. However, the average amount received by one parent from all their children was $535 per month, higher compared with $461 per month in 2008. The decline in the proportion of elderly residents receiving regular financial support could be due to a higher proportion of them being economically active (16.4% in 2008 and 20.6% in 2013) and hence not requiring financial support from children.

Among future elderly residents with children (77.6%), 55.6% of them were financially supported by their children. This proportion was also lower compared with 62.3% in 2008. The average amount received by future elderly residents was slightly higher compared with elderly residents, at $553 per month. Similar to elderly residents, the decline in proportion of future elderly residents receiving financial support compared with 2008 could be due to a slightly higher proportion of them being economically active (62.7% in 2008 and 63.2% in 2013).

Further analysis showed that a higher proportion of elderly and future elderly who received financial support from their children was females or economically inactive (Table 4.17). In terms of flat type, both elderly and future elderly residents living in 1- and 2-room flats, as well as those in 5-room and bigger flats were less likely to receive regular financial support from their children. The children of the elderly and future elderly residents living in smaller flats were likely to be earning lower household incomes and hence might not be able to provide regular financial support. For elderly and future elderly residents living in 5-room and bigger flats, they could possibly draw upon their savings, thus did not require financial support from their children.

Economically inactive or female elderly and future elderly residents also received a higher amount compared with the economically active or male residents (Table 4.18). Those living in 5-room and bigger flats who received financial support also received a higher amount.

100

Table 4.17 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly

Financial Support Financial Support Attributes Total Total Received Received

Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Economic Economically Active 63.4 36.6 100.0 26,882 47.1 52.9 100.0 80,483 Status Economically Inactive 82.7 17.3 100.0 71,676 77.4 22.6 100.0 31,571

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 75.3 24.7 100.0 12,915 52.2 47.8 100.0 7,677 3-Room 79.3 20.7 100.0 37,670 61.0 39.0 100.0 25,343 4-Room 78.5 21.5 100.0 31,080 60.2 39.8 100.0 40,032 5-Room & Bigger 73.3 26.7 100.0 17,120 48.1 51.9 100.0 39,254

Sex Male 71.3 28.7 100.0 61,212 47.7 52.3 100.0 76,597 Female 87.6 12.4 100.0 37,573 72.5 27.5 100.0 35,708

* Excluding non-response cases

Table 4.18 Amount of Financial Support Received by Elderly and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Average Amount Received per Month ($) Attributes Elderly Future Elderly

Economic Status Economically Active 474 493 Economically Inactive 554 644

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 336 234 3-Room 524 433 4-Room 571 526 5-Room & Bigger 671 762

Sex Male 511 536 Female 568 575

Overall 535 553

* Excluding non-response cases and those without children

Elderly would rely on themselves or children to pay for their medical bills

A question was also asked on who would pay for the medical bills of elderly residents when they needed to seek medical treatments. It was found that the majority of elderly (67.0%) and future elderly (78.0%) residents would usually pay for their own medical bills, higher compared with 42.0% and 56.3% respectively, in 2008. A higher proportion of future elderly residents (22.7%), who were more likely to be economically active, would also rely on their employers to pay for their

101

medical bills than elderly residents. For elderly residents, about one in three would rely on children to pay for their medical bills (Chart 4.13).

Chart 4.13 Person/Source Paying Medical Bills for Elderly and Future Elderly

Myself 67.0 78.0 Children 33.1 9.5 Health Insurance 11.0 13.3 Employer 4.0 22.7 Welfare Assistance 2.8 1.1 Spouse 1.1 3.1 Elderly Relatives/Friends 0.9 Future Elderly 0.6 Pension 2.4 0.7 0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

Both elderly and future elderly had strong sense of closeness to family members

Elderly residents were asked to give a score on a scale of “0” to “10”, to indicate how close they were to their family members. A response of “0” means “not close at all” and “10” means “very close”. Both elderly and future elderly residents expressed comparably high scores for sense of closeness to family members, with an average score of 8.2 and 8.6, respectively.

Majority of elderly and future elderly kept in touch regularly with family members not living with them

In addition to having strong bonds between elderly residents and their children, about eight in ten of both elderly and future elderly residents kept in touch with family members who were not living with them on a daily, weekly or monthly basis (Chart 4.14).

102

Chart 4.14 Keeping in Touch with Family Members whom Elderly and Future Elderly Do Not Live With

2.9 100 5.9 12.9 17.2 80 15.3 17.5 Never 60 A few times a year 40.9 At least once a month 40 81.2 43.2 79.9 At least once a week Households (%) 20 Daily 25.0 19.2 0 Elderly Future Elderly

Most elderly and future elderly had no problems communicating with children and grandchildren

Among those with children and grandchildren, the majority of elderly and future elderly residents had no problems communicating with their children and grandchildren most of the time. This finding coupled with the earlier findings, suggest that family ties are both strong and harmonious (Chart 4.15).

Chart 4.15 Whether Elderly and Future Elderly Faced Problems when Communicating with Children and Grandchildren

Elderly Future Elderly 3.4 2.9 1.9 3.1 100 0.1 1.1 4.5 0.1 3.5 3.4 0.9 80

Do not communicate with them 60 Faced Problems most of the time 92.0 93.5 93.6 96.0 40 Faced Problems sometimes

Households (%) Faced no problems most of the time 20

0 Children Grandchildren Children Grandchildren

Moving in with children or remaining in their own home with caregiving by family members an ideal arrangement for elderly persons who could not live on their own

Residents were asked to select the living arrangement that they felt was the most ideal for elderly persons who could no longer live on their own. About equal proportions of elderly residents felt that moving in with children or remaining at

103

their current home with family members as caregivers would be the ideal living arrangement (Table 4.19). Less than one in ten felt that remaining in their home with professional caregivers was the ideal living arrangement, while 14.1% of elderly residents felt that elderly persons should move into an institution if they could no longer take care of themselves. For future elderly residents, similar trends were observed except a higher proportion of them felt that moving in with children would be the ideal living arrangement compared with remaining at their current home.

Table 4.19 Elderly and Future Elderly Residents’ Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons Unable to Live on their Own

Ideal Living Arrangement Elderly Future Elderly

Move in with children 37.8 45.7 Remain at home and rely on family members for caregiving 38.2 30.8 Remain at home and rely on professional caregiver 8.2 6.6 Move into an institution 14.1 15.2 Others (e.g. move in with siblings, friends) 1.7 1.7

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 112,702 143,819 * Excluding non-response cases

4.2.2 Community Bonding

This section on community bonding analyses aspects such as elderly residents’ social interactions with neighbours, sense of attachment to the living environment and their involvement in community activities.

Almost all elderly and future elderly had casual interactions with neighbours

Table 4.20 shows the types of neighbourly interactions among elderly and future elderly residents. Almost all elderly residents exchanged greetings and had casual conversations with their neighbours. However, the other more intense forms of neighbourly interactions such as visiting each other and exchanging suggestions/advice declined from 2008.

104

Both elderly and future elderly residents showed broadly similar trends and patterns of neighbourly interactions. These trends could be explained by an increase in the proportion of elderly and future elderly residents having interactions with neighbours of other ethnicities/nationalities compared with 2008 (Chart 4.16). This could have contributed to neighbourly interactions being more extensive but less intense since they were likely to be newer neighbours with not so well-developed social bonds.

Table 4.20 Types of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Households (%)

2008 2013 Types of Neighbourly Interaction Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

Exchange greetings 96.3 97.6 97.1 98.8 98.2 98.6 Casual conversations 94.5 95.2 94.1 97.7 96.6 97.0 Exchange food/gifts on special occasions 44.8 47.6 51.0 41.3 50.1 53.3 Visit one another 38.3 40.4 40.2 28.4 32.6 36.2 Keep watch over flat 38.5 42.9 42.9 36.1 43.0 44.6 Buying of groceries 18.8 17.8 17.9 16.4 14.9 15.2 Borrow/lend household items 19.5 20.7 22.8 13.6 15.6 17.8 Help to look after children 5.8 9.5 11.7 4.1 5.0 8.7 Keep house keys for them 9.5 10.6 9.5 5.3 8.5 7.5 Provide/receive financial help 4.5 6.4 4.2 2.1 2.9 2.5 Exchange suggestions/advice about 33.4 34.5 34.7 21.5 24.6 27.5 personal problems Communicate via social media* - - - 0.9 2.7 4.8

* New variable on communication via social media was added in SHS 2013

In terms of frequency of neighbourly interactions, close to six in ten of elderly residents exchanged greetings and close to half of them engaged in casual conversations with their neighbours on a daily basis. While a lower proportion of elderly residents had engaged in more intense forms of neighbourly interactions, about four in ten would exchange food/gifts on special occasions and keep watch over each other’s flat on a regular or occasional basis (Table 4.21).

105

Table 4.21 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly

At Least At Least Occa- None Total Types of Neighbourly Interaction Daily Once a Once a sionally at All Week Month % N*

Exchange greetings 59.5 22.8 0.8 15.7 1.2 100.0 113,135 Casual conversations 45.2 28.7 1.8 22.0 2.3 100.0 113,135 Exchange food/gifts on special occasions 0.8 1.7 1.5 37.3 58.7 100.0 113,023 Visit one another 0.6 1.4 1.7 24.7 71.6 100.0 113,222 Keep watch over flat 2.0 1.0 1.1 32.0 63.9 100.0 113,222 Buying of groceries 0.2 1.6 0.7 13.9 83.6 100.0 113,222 Borrow/lend household items 0.1 0.5 0.4 12.6 86.4 100.0 113,108 Help to look after children 0.3 0.1 - 3.7 95.9 100.0 113,125 Keep house keys for them 0.5 0.1 0.1 4.6 94.7 100.0 113,125 Provide/receive financial help 0.3 0.1 - 1.7 97.9 100.0 113,222 Exchange suggestions/advice about 0.5 0.9 0.6 19.5 78.5 100.0 113,222 personal problems Communicate via social media 0.1 0.2 - 0.6 99.1 100.0 112,657

* Excluding non-response cases

More elderly and future elderly interacted with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities

Apart from interacting with neighbours of their own ethnic group, 84.5% of elderly residents also interacted with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities, an increase from 72.3% in 2008 (Chart 4.16). As mentioned earlier, elderly residents could have more new neighbours from other ethnic groups and/or nationalities. A similar increase was also seen in the proportion of future elderly residents interacting with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities.

For elderly residents who did not interact with other ethnic groups or nationalities, this was mainly because they did not know neighbours of other ethnic groups or nationalities, or due to language barriers.

106

Chart 4.16 Interaction with Neighbours of Other Ethnic Groups/Nationalities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All 100 15.5 13.5 14.3 24.0 23.0 27.7 1.9 3.8 3.7 80 2.0

1.6 0.8 With own ethnic group only 25.3 11.8 12.6 31.0 14.7 32.1 60 With own ethnic group and other nationalities 84.5 86.5 85.7 With own, other ethnic groups 40 76.0 77.0 Households (%) 72.3 and other nationalities 59.7 57.3 61.8 60.3 51.7 49.9 With own and other ethnic 20 groups

0 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Close to one in ten (9.2%) of elderly residents had shared memories with their neighbours such as raising their families or celebrating festivities together, a decline from 15.1% in 2008. Similarly, 9.8% of future elderly residents also had such experiences, lower compared with 12.7% in 2008. This could be due to elderly residents having more new neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities, resulting in the decline in more intense forms of neighbourly interactions as well as shared memories with their neighbours.

Although the proportion of elderly and future elderly residents having shared memories with neighbours had declined, almost all (97.2% of elderly residents and 96.4% of future elderly residents) felt that it was important to maintain a good relationship with neighbours in order to provide and receive support in times of need and also to foster neighbourliness and harmonious living.

Elderly residents usually interacted with their neighbours within the block (74.9%), at places such as common corridors (29.5%), lift lobbies (24.6%) or void decks (20.5%) as shown in Table 4.22. Within the precinct, they would usually meet their neighbours at the market or eating places such as the coffee shop or eating house. Thus, places within the block such as common corridors, lift lobbies and void decks can be improved to make them more conducive for neighbourly interactions to take place.

107

Table 4.22 Places where Neighbours Meet among Elderly and Future Elderly

Future Places where Neighbours Meet Elderly All Elderly

Within the Block 74.9 77.1 76.2 Common corridor 29.5 30.8 30.9 Lift lobby/Within lift 24.6 25.4 25.8 Void deck 20.5 20.5 18.9 Others (e.g. drop-off porch, neighbour’s flat) 0.3 0.4 0.6 Within Neighbourhood/Precinct 20.1 17.8 18.1 Market 5.2 3.3 4.4 Coffee shop/Eating house/Food court 5.2 5.3 4.0 Pathway/Linkway 3.7 3.5 3.6 Hawker centre 3.4 2.5 2.0 Fitness Corner 0.7 0.6 0.4 Playground 0.6 0.6 1.5 Carpark 0.5 1.6 1.5 Others (e.g. multi-purpose court, precinct pavilion) 0.8 0.4 0.7 Within Town 5.0 5.1 5.7 Bus stop/Bus interchange 2.3 1.3 1.8 Park/Garden 0.9 1.1 1.1 MRT station 0.5 0.5 0.7 Shopping/Entertainment area 0.4 1.1 1.3 Community club/centre 0.3 0.5 0.3 Others (e.g. religious institution) 0.6 0.6 0.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total No. of Responses* 293,715 365,115 2,301,626 * Excluding non-response cases and each respondent was asked to provide up to 3 responses

Elderly residents were more likely to keep in touch with their social networks through face-to-face meetings and communicating via the telephone. A higher proportion of them was also using these modes compared with 2008 (Table 4.23). There was also an increase in the proportion of elderly residents using non- traditional modes of communication such as Short Message Services (SMS) and other online communication channels, although lower compared with future elderly residents. The usage of SMS and online communication channels among future elderly residents had also increased from 2008. Hence, it can be seen that both elderly and future elderly residents are adapting well to newer forms of communication, albeit at a slower pace for elderly residents.

108

Table 4.23 Common Modes of Interaction among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Household (%)

Modes of Interaction Elderly Future Elderly All

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Face-to-Face Meeting 88.8 93.6 87.6 93.1 88.9 91.1 Telephone 54.4 70.0 63.6 71.7 66.3 74.4 Text Messaging (e.g. SMS, Whatsapp) 3.3 8.7 18.9 27.1 32.3 36.5

Email/Internet Chat/Video Conferencing 2.2 6.9 9.9 16.4 19.2 25.0 Social Networking Sites - 1.2 - 5.0 - 12.8 (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIN) Snail Mail 0.8 0.5 2.2 1.3 1.6 1.3

Sense of belonging to towns/estates remained high among elderly and future elderly

As shown in the section on housing aspects, elderly residents showed a strong preference to age-in-place. Hence, it was not surprising that almost all elderly residents (99.1%) felt a sense of belonging to their towns/estates, comparable to the proportion in 2008 (Table 4.24). A similar trend was observed for future elderly residents.

Table 4.24 Sense of Belonging among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

2003 2008 2013 Sense of Future Future Belonging Elderly All Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

Yes 96.4 90.0 99.5 98.7 98.6 99.1 98.9 98.8 No 3.6 10.0 0.5 1.3 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.2

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 66,722 821,126 92,764 129,660 864,246 112,724 144,704 906,831 * Excluding non-response cases

More than eight in ten of elderly residents attributed their sense of belonging mainly to both place and people (81.6%), an increase from 75.7% in 2008 while another 16.4% attributed it to the place itself. A similar trend was also noted for future elderly residents. However, the proportion who attributed their sense of belonging to both place and people for future elderly residents was slightly lower (77.6%) compared with elderly residents, while a higher proportion (19.9%) attributed it to the place itself.

109

Sense of community among elderly and future elderly increased over past five years

Sense of Community (SOC) score is also used as an indicator to gauge the degree of neighbourliness. The indicators that comprise the Sense of Community score are listed in Table 4.25. For both elderly and future elderly residents, their sense of community had increased to a score of 73.2 and 72.8, from 72.5 and 71.3 in 2008, respectively. The increase in SOC could be attributed to higher average scores pertaining to ease of communicating with neighbours, tolerance towards noise from neighbours, being able to get help from neighbours when in need and care about maintenance of their block.

Table 4.25 Sense of Community (SOC) Score among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Average Score (Over maximum of 100)

2008 2013 SOC Indicators Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

a. “It is very easy to talk to people 75.0 72.5 75.0 76.1 74.6 75.0 living in my HDB estate.” b. “I can tolerate noise created by 65.0 65.0 65.0 67.7 66.3 66.0 my neighbours.” c. “I can always get help from my 72.5 70.0 72.5 73.9 73.5 74.3 neighbours when in need.” d. “Residents in this block can 75.0 72.5 72.5 74.5 75.1 74.3 recognise one another easily.” e. “Residents here care about the 70.0 70.0 70.0 71.7 72.1 71.8 maintenance of their block.” f. “I feel a sense of belonging to this housing estate.” 77.5 77.5 72.5 75.2 75.4 77.5

Overall Score (Over maximum of 100) 72.5 71.3 71.3 73.2 72.8 73.2

Elderly and future elderly remained active in the community

This section analyses elderly residents’ social ties with the wider community, through their participation in community activities and willingness to contribute services for the benefits of the community. The proportion of elderly residents who participated in community activities (47.1%) was comparable to 2008 (46.9%). This proportion was also comparable to that of future elderly residents but slightly lower compared with all households (Table 4.26).

110

Table 4.26 Community Participation of Elderly and Future Elderly in the Last Twelve Months by Year

2003 2008 2013 Community Participation Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

Yes 40.7 38.0 46.9 45.0 45.3 47.1 46.9 48.6 No 59.3 62.0 53.1 55.0 54.7 52.9 53.1 51.4

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 66,503 817,530 92,870 129,660 866,026 113,294 144,792 908,499 * Excluding non-response cases

For the 52.9% of elderly residents who did not participate in community activities, the main reason cited was that the activities were not interesting/suitable (Table 4.27). For the 53.1% of future elderly residents who did not participate in community activities at all, the main reason cited was a lack of time, as a higher proportion of them was still working.

Table 4.27 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities among Elderly and Future Elderly

Reasons Elderly Future Elderly

Activities organised are not interesting/suitable 49.4 30.1 No time/Too busy to participate 25.9 60.2 Do not participate due to old age/poor health 18.7 3.0 Not informed of any activities 3.4 4.1 Prefer not to socialise/keep to myself 0.2 0.8 Others (e.g. activities are too far, cannot afford to participate) 2.4 1.8

% 100.0 100.0 Total N* 59,495 76,584 * Excluding non-response cases

It was observed that the participation rate of elderly residents increased from 31.5% in 2008 to 42.8% in 2013 if the proportion of elderly residents who participated solely in religious activities was excluded (Chart 4.17). The findings show that efforts put in by agencies in organising activities for elderly residents have been fruitful. Moving forward, more active engagement with the seniors to encourage them to participate in a variety of activities would enhance their ties with the wider community.

111

Chart 4.17 Comparison of Community Participation Rate of Elderly by Year (Include and Exclude Sole Participation in Religious Activities) 80

60 46.9 47.1 40.7 42.8 40 30.6 31.5 2003 20 2008 2013 Elderly Households (%)

0 Participate in religious Exclude those who participate and non-religious activities in religious activities only

Analysis by types of community participation showed that participation rate for activities organised by some agencies had decreased. The proportion of elderly residents (27.2%) participating in activities organised by Community Clubs (CCs) on an occasional basis had decreased slightly from 28.7% in 2008 (Table 4.28). There was a more significant decrease in the proportion of elderly residents participating in activities organised by Residents’ Committees (RCs) and religious organisations, from 26.8% to 22.6% and 21.6% to 17.6% respectively, over the past five years. Participation in activities organised by Community Development Councils (CDCs) and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) had also increased slightly, albeit the proportions were still low. This further explains why the overall community participation has remained about the same for elderly residents.

112

Table 4.28 Types of Community Participation among Elderly and Future Elderly over Past Twelve Months by Year

Households who Participated At Least Occasionally (%)

2008 2013 Types of Community Participation Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

Community Clubs 28.7 21.5 22.9 27.2 25.4 28.0 Residents’ Committees 26.8 19.7 21.5 22.6 20.9 23.5 Other Organisations/Associations 18.4 18.9 20.0 19.8 17.8 20.7 Religious Organisations 21.6 22.2 20.7 17.6 16.8 15.4 Residents’ Own Activities 14.3 15.9 14.5 13.9 12.8 13.2 Town Councils/HDB* - - - 8.2 8.5 9.3 Community Development Councils 7.0 9.3 10.0 7.4 8.0 9.3 Voluntary Welfare Organisations 5.9 6.8 6.6 7.6 7.1 6.1

* Town Councils/HDB was added in SHS 2013

A higher proportion of elderly residents who participated in community activities was living in 3-room or bigger flat types or better educated (Table 4.29). Both the elderly and future elderly females were also more likely to participate in community activities.

Table 4.29 Whether Participate in Community Activities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Elderly Future Elderly Whether Whether Participated in Participated in Attributes Total Total Community Community Activities Activities

Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Economic Economically Active 45.9 54.1 100.0 31,870 46.6 53.4 100.0 105,559 Status Economically Inactive 47.7 52.3 100.0 81,198 47.5 52.5 100.0 38,982

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 40.6 59.4 100.0 19,048 37.9 62.1 100.0 14,402 3-Room 49.1 50.9 100.0 42,222 46.1 53.9 100.0 41,508 4-Room 45.9 54.1 100.0 34,356 49.0 51.0 100.0 46,445 5- Room & Bigger 51.7 48.3 100.0 17,668 48.4 51.6 100.0 42,437

Education Primary & Below** 46.5 53.5 100.0 66,696 41.8 58.2 100.0 45,765 Secondary 46.7 53.3 100.0 34,420 47.0 53.0 100.0 69,742 Post-secondary & 51.3 48.7 100.0 11,355 55.1 44.9 100.0 28,854 Above

Sex Male 45.4 54.6 100.0 68,328 44.0 56.0 100.0 94,491 Female 49.7 50.3 100.0 44,966 52.3 47.7 100.0 50,301

* Excluding non-response cases ** Those with no formal education and with primary education are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size

113

4.3 Housing Aspects

Elderly residents have consistently shown a strong preference to live in communities they have resided in for many years, where they can rely on the long-term relationships they have cultivated in the community for support. 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 made accessible and barrier-free. A Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA) Masterplan was announced in 2006 18, and HDB had worked with the Town Councils to ensure that all towns and estates are barrier-free by 2012. HDB has also implemented programmes such as Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) 19 and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP)20, to ensure that elderly residents would have access to lifts on every floor and possible neighbourhood improvements such as residents’ corners, seating areas at void decks and covered linkways. In addition, HDB has also stepped up efforts to install elderly-friendly fittings/fixtures in flats of elderly residents through its Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) 21 programme and Home Improvement Programme (HIP). As the proportion of elderly residents in HDB communities increases, the key challenge will be to facilitate the building of a conducive environment where they can enjoy quality of life in their later years. Hence, it is important to examine their satisfaction with the living environment, usage of estate facilities and housing aspirations.

The analysis concerning housing aspects focuses on three main areas: • Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment • Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities • Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

18 BCA's Masterplan key to accessibility improvements in Singapore. Retrieved on 13 October 2014 (http://www.bca.gov.sg/Newsroom/pr29032012_UD.html) 19 Under the Lift Upgrading Programme, lift services in old apartment blocks will be upgraded to achieve direct lift access for all flats, where feasible. This would benefit the elderly, families with very young children and the disabled. It is heavily subsidised, making it very affordable for citizens. 20 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 1989 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. 21 Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) was introduced under the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) from July 2012. Under EASE, elderly and vulnerable residents can apply for the following improvements to their flats at a subsidised rate: - Slip-resistant treatment to bathroom/ toilet floor tiles - Grab bars within the flat (where technically feasible) - Ramp(s) to negotiate level differences in the flat at the main entrance (where technically feasible)

114

4.3.1 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

This section examines elderly residents’ satisfaction with their living environment in terms of their overall satisfaction with flat and neighbourhood, the aspects they liked and disliked about living in HDB estates, whether they faced any maintenance issues within the flat and the reliability of lifts in the blocks. In addition, elderly residents’ sense of pride with their homes, whether they found their flats to be of value for money and the aspects which they viewed as important when it comes to making a flat feel like a home are also discussed.

Most elderly and future elderly satisfied with their flat and neighbourhood

Almost all elderly and future elderly residents were satisfied with both their flat and neighbourhood (Chart 4.18, Chart 4.19). While there was a slight decrease in satisfaction with flat among elderly residents compared with five years ago, the proportion was still higher (95.1%) compared with future elderly residents and all households.

Chart 4.18 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood among Elderly by Year

97.9 98.5 95.1 94.7 97.0 96.4

100

60 2003 40 2008 Households (%) 20 2013

0 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Flat Neighbourhood

Chart 4.19 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood among Elderly and Future Elderly

100 95.1 92.4 91.6 96.4 92.0 92.0

60 Elderly 40 Future Elderly Households (%) 20 All

0 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Flat Neighbourhood

115

For those satisfied with their flat, the main reason was that it was spacious and comfortable, or there were no major issues with the flat and the flat was in good condition. Poor condition of the flat surfaced as the main concern among the small proportion who was dissatisfied with their flat.

For those satisfied with their neighbourhood, the main reason was that the neighbours were friendly or there was good provision of facilities. For those who were dissatisfied, the main reason cited was that the neighbours were unfriendly and noisy, or the neighbourhood was dirty.

Location and transportation network most-liked aspects of HDB living environment among elderly and future elderly

Residents were asked to indicate whether they liked or disliked the various aspects from a list of external and internal aspects pertaining to their HDB living environment.

About one-third (35.0%) of elderly residents expressed that there was no aspect that they disliked about living in HDB towns/estates, comparable to the 36.4% registered in 2008 (Table 4.30). For future elderly residents, this proportion was lower at 25.0%.

Table 4.30 Elderly and Future Elderly with No Dislikes about Living in HDB Towns/Estates by Year

Whether Any Dislikes 2008 2013 about Living Future Future Elderly All Elderly All in HDB Towns/Estates Elderly Elderly

No 36.4 29.5 26.8 35.0 25.0 22.0 Yes 63.6 70.5 73.2 65.0 75.0 78.0

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 91,469 127,570 855,918 113,014 144,723 907,250 * Excluding non-response cases

Location, Transportation Network and Provision of Estate Facilities surfaced as the top three aspects that elderly residents liked most about living in HDB estates (Table 4.31). For future elderly residents and all households, their top three aspects were Location, Transportation Network and Size of Flat.

116

The main reason given by elderly residents for liking Location was that it was close to transportation networks and estates facilities, while they liked the aspect of Transportation Network as it was convenient to travel to most places. Elderly residents also found the Provision of Estate Facilities to be sufficient in general. For future elderly residents, they also gave similar reasons for liking Location and Transportation Network.

Table 4.31 Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment among Elderly and Future Elderly

Future Aspects Elderly All Elderly

1. Location 42.4 40.3 39.5 2. Transportation Network 16.1 16.6 14.7 3. Provision of Estate Facilities 7.0 4.6 5.6 4. Upgrading Programmes 5.1 5.2 3.6 5. Size of Flat 4.4 6.4 7.2 6. Safety/Security 4.2 3.7 4.0 7. View from Flat 3.3 2.3 2.7 8. Neighbours 3.2 2.4 3.5 9. Ventilation (Flat) 2.6 2.8 2.5 10. Adequacy of Open/Green Spaces 2.3 2.4 3.2 11. Walkability 1.8 0.8 1.3 12. Purchase Price of Flat 1.4 2.3 1.9 13. Cleanliness & Maintenance 1.3 2.9 2.6 14. Flat Design/Layout 1.1 2.5 2.6 15. Privacy 0.9 2.0 1.6 16. Protection from Weather 0.9 0.6 0.9 17. Provision of Carpark 0.6 0.8 0.9 18. Safety from Traffic 0.4 0.4 0.4 19. Seats/Benches 0.4 0.2 0.2 20. Block Design 0.3 0.3 0.6 21. Choice of Flat Types 0.3 0.5 0.5

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 111,453 142,301 890,260 * Excluding non-response cases

The aspects that elderly residents disliked the most were Cleanliness and Maintenance and Noise (Table 4.32). Similar aspects were also mentioned by future elderly residents and all households.

117

The main reason given by elderly residents for their dislikes in the area of Cleanliness and Maintenance was the irregular cleaning schedule or prevalence of littering. For Noise, the main reason cited was noise from neighbours and the external environment, e.g. from vehicles, precinct pavilions and void decks.

Table 4.32 Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment among Elderly and Future Elderly

Future Aspects Elderly All Elderly

1. Cleanliness & Maintenance 26.8 20.7 19.1 2. Noise 18.5 20.7 19.2 3. Protection from Weather 5.5 5.3 5.8 4. Transportation Network 5.1 7.4 8.2 5. Upgrading Programmes 4.7 5.2 3.5 6. Provision of Carpark 3.9 6.5 7.1 7. Provision of Estate Facilities 3.9 2.9 3.6 8. Seats/Benches 3.9 3.2 2.5 9. Neighbours 3.6 3.5 2.6 10. Safety/Security 3.4 4.2 4.3 11. Safety from Traffic 3.3 5.2 4.4 12. View from Flat 3.0 2.0 2.1 13. Ventilation (Flat) 3.0 1.9 2.2 14. Flat Design/Layout 2.8 1.9 2.9 15. Purchase Price of Flat 1.8 2.4 4.1 16. Block Design 1.4 1.6 1.3 17. Adequacy of Open/Green Spaces 1.0 1.3 1.3 18. Size of Flat 0.9 1.3 1.8 19. Location 0.8 0.4 0.9 20. Privacy 0.8 1.0 1.1 21. Walkability 0.3 0.6 0.7 22. Choice of Flat Types 0.2 - 0.1 23. Others (e.g. pests, workmanship of flat) 1.4 0.8 1.2

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 73,525 108,530 707,799 * Excluding non-response cases

Majority of elderly and future elderly found lifts to be reliable

Regarding the lifts, close to nine in ten elderly residents agreed that the lifts were reliable (Chart 4.20). This proportion was higher compared with future elderly residents and all households. For those who disagreed, the main reason mentioned was that they experienced frequent lift breakdowns.

118

Chart 4.20 Perception of Lift Reliability among Elderly and Future Elderly

100 89.6 83.8 85.6

40 Households (%) 20

0 Elderly Future Elderly All

Majority of elderly and future elderly perceived their flat to be value for money

A high 95.9% of elderly residents agreed that their flats were value for money (Chart 4.21), higher than the 93.0% in 2008. Compared with future elderly residents and all households, a higher proportion of elderly residents found their flats to be value for money.

About half of elderly and future elderly residents who felt that their flats were value for money attributed it to the appreciation in the value of the flat, followed by affordable flat prices at the time of purchase. Some also mentioned that the flat was in a good location and close to facilities. The minority who felt otherwise attributed it to the high purchase price.

Chart 4.21 Value for Money of HDB Flat among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

95.9 100 93.0 90.2 93.1 90.3

85.8 80

60 2008 40 2013 Households (%)

0 Elderly Future Elderly All

119

Majority of elderly and future elderly proud of their flat

Compared with 2008, a slightly lower proportion of elderly residents was proud of their flat (Chart 4.22). In comparison, the decline for future elderly residents was more significant, with a higher proportion feeling neutral towards their flat.

Chart 4.22 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

Elderly Future Elderly All 2.8 4.2 4.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 100

15.7 18.8 13.4 15.2 24.1 80 25.5

60 Not Proud Neutral 40 81.5 77.0 81.7 80.7

Households (%) 71.9 70.4 Proud 20

0 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Those who were proud attributed it mainly to the good and convenient location of their flat or benefits derived from sense of ownership such as sense of achievement and having a comfortable home to live in. For the minority who was not proud of their flat, the key reason given was that the HDB flat was merely a basic housing necessity and there was nothing special about living in one.

4.3.2 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

HDB residents rely extensively on estate facilities to meet their daily needs, such as shopping for groceries and spending time at eating and recreational facilities. They also use these facilities as meeting places for interaction and bonding with family members, friends and neighbours. It is therefore important to monitor the trend in their usage pattern as well as satisfaction with the provision of estate facilities.

120

Overall satisfaction with provision of estate facilities remained high among elderly and future elderly

The overall satisfaction level with the provision of estate facilities among elderly (98.4%) and future elderly (96.9%) residents remained high. These proportions were comparable to five years ago and were higher compared with all households (Table 4.33).

More than 80% of elderly and future elderly residents were satisfied with the specific categories of estate facilities. For every facility, elderly users were proportionately more satisfied than their younger counterparts.

Table 4.33 Satisfaction with Various Types of Estate Facilities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Households Satisfied (%)

2008 2013 Types of Estate Facilities Future Future Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shopping 96.9 94.5 93.3 97.0 93.2 93.4 - HDB shop/neighbourhood centre 94.3 90.8 89.1 95.8 90.0 89.9 - Shopping centre/shopping mall 93.2 91.1 89.9 94.9 91.4 90.8 (ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls 92.5 90.1 87.5 96.6 95.6 94.7 (iii) Eating Facilities 94.5 90.9 89.0 96.0 92.8 92.4 Transportation Facilities 91.4 84.6 84.1 90.2 81.1 80.4 Sports Facilities 92.4 89.7 85.2 95.2 90.8 88.9 Recreational & Leisure Facilities 94.6 90.9 89.1 96.6 93.2 91.7 Precinct Facilities 92.1 88.2 88.7 90.4 87.4 86.7 Community Facilities 97.5 96.8 94.3 97.0 94.7 94.6 Educational Facilities 98.6 97.1 96.5 97.6 97.1 95.0 Health/Medical Facilities 92.3 91.1 90.1 90.6 86.1 85.7 Financial Facilities 89.0 88.7 85.5 90.0 86.8 86.7

Overall Satisfaction 97.5 96.9 94.4 98.4 96.9 96.1

* Excluding non-response cases

Most satisfied with provision of elderly-friendly facilities

With the increasing proportion of elderly residents living in HDB towns and estates, more elderly-friendly facilities have been built to facilitate their movement around the precinct and beyond. Examples of such facilities are ramps, lift landings on every level and support handbars in the lifts or along corridors. Other facilities such as senior citizens’ corner/centre, pebble walks, fitness

121

stations and benches/seats/tables serve as places where elderly residents could interact with neighbours and friends. These provisions facilitate ageing-in-place.

The majority of elderly and future elderly residents was satisfied with the list of common facilities provided around their living environment, comparable to that of 2008 (Table 4.34).

Table 4.34 Satisfaction with Elderly-Friendly Facilities by Year

Households Satisfied (%)

Facilities for Elderly 2008 2013

Elderly Future Elderly Elderly Future Elderly

Bird singing corner 98.6 97.5 94.4 89.0 Support handbars in lifts/along corridor 98.2 97.4 97.9 96.7 Pebble walk 97.7 97.1 96.4 95.9 Fitness station for elderly 97.0 96.4 96.2 94.8 Ramp 96.9 97.7 97.2 97.5 Lift landing on every level 96.5 96.0 95.5 94.4 Senior citizens’ corner/centre 95.3 94.9 97.7 96.0 Benches/Seats/Tables 93.4 91.2 91.0 86.4

More future elderly aware of social support services and facilities than elderly

In SHS 2013, elderly residents were asked if they were aware of the common eldercare services22 available to them (Chart 4.23). More than seven in ten were aware of Senior Activity Centres/Neighbourhood Link and Social Daycare/Rehabilitation centres, while less than six in ten were aware of the emotional and social support services.

22 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, Neighbourhood Links, Seniors Service 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 Centres/Day Rehabilitation Centres for Elderly (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)

122

Chart 4.23 Awareness of Eldercare Services

Senior Activity Centre/ 71.1 Neighbourhood Link 74.5

Social Daycare/ 70.9 Rehabilitation Centre 77.2

63.5 Home-Based Services 72.2

63.3 Home-Help Services Elderly 68.1 Future Elderly Emotional/Social 57.9 Support Services 67.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 Households (%)

However, the majority of elderly residents had not used these services. Among those who were aware of such services, only 6.6% of them utilised the Senior Activity Centres (Table 4.35). This could be due to the limited availability of such centres as they are mostly located near rental flats and Studio Apartments. Utilisation rates could increase when more of these centres are available in more locations in the future. Other services garnered lower usage levels as the majority of elderly residents surveyed was ambulant, hence they did not require such services at the moment.

Table 4.35 Proportion who had Utilised Eldercare Services

Households (%) Eldercare Services Elderly Future Elderly

Senior Activity Centre/Neighbourhood Link 6.6 3.0 Emotional/Social Support Services 2.4 3.0 Home-help Services 2.3 2.2 Social Daycare/Rehabilitation Centres 2.0 1.7 Home-based Services 1.7 2.0

Although usage levels for support services were low, close to nine in ten agreed that these services would be essential to facilitate ageing-in-place for elderly residents (Table 4.36). These proportions were even higher among future elderly residents, indicating the importance of such facilities to meet the needs of an ageing population.

123

Table 4.36 Proportion who Agreed that Eldercare Services were Essential for Ageing-In-Place

Households (%) Eldercare Services Elderly Future Elderly

Social Daycare/Rehabilitation Centres 89.6 93.8 Home-help Services 89.3 92.0 Home-based Services 89.1 93.4 Senior Activity Centre/Neighbourhood Link 88.3 93.7 Emotional/Social Support Services 87.8 91.5

Weekly patronage of commercial facilities increased among elderly and future elderly households

The usage levels for all the commercial facilities had increased, especially for supermarkets and hawker centres, which had risen significantly over the past five years. A high proportion of elderly households patronised commercial facilities like wet/dry market, supermarkets and hawker centres on a weekly basis (Table 4.37). However, a lower proportion of elderly households patronised food courts and less than one in ten visited fast-food outlets weekly. This could be due to hawker centres and eating houses/coffee shops being more affordable than food courts. As for the lower patronage of fast-food outlets, it could be attributed to the suitability and preferences of food served.

Weekly usage of most sports and recreational facilities increased among elderly and future elderly households

Among elderly households, usage levels for most of the sports and recreational facilities had risen compared with five years ago, except for hard courts/multi- purpose courts. Similarly, usage levels among future elderly households had also increased, except for playgrounds/3G playgrounds and hard courts/multi- purpose courts. However, usage levels of sports and recreational facilities were generally lower among these two groups of elderly households, compared with all households (Table 4.37). Fitness corners/jogging tracks and neighbourhood park/common green were the two most popular facilities under this category, with 25.3% and 18.2% of elderly households frequenting these facilities at least once a week, respectively. The usage level for playgrounds/3G playgrounds, roof

124

gardens at multi-storey carpark (MSCP) and hard courts/multi-purpose courts were relatively low among elderly and future elderly households.

Covered linkway most well-utilised by elderly and future elderly households

The usage level of covered linkways on a weekly basis among both elderly and future elderly households remained high (Table 4.37). 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 Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP).

Besides covered linkways, void deck areas and drop-off porches also saw higher usage levels for both elderly and future elderly households, compared with other precinct and community facilities. On the other hand, facilities such as community clubs/centres and libraries were relatively less popular. The usage levels for most of these facilities had also declined compared with five years ago, especially for precinct pavilions.

125

Table 4.37 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year

Households Using Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)*

Type of Facilities 2003 2008 2013

Elderly All Elderly Future Elderly All Elderly Future Elderly All

Commercial Facilities Dry market 60.6 62.1 61.3 75.6^ 73.2^ 70.9^ 76.8 72.4 72.0 Wet market 85.5 85.7 72.6 83.2^ 68.9 86.8^ 66.4 87.1^ 84.6^ 87.7^ 89.2^ Supermarket 57.0 70.3 72.6 67.5 77.0 80.0 Shop 56.2 63.6 48.4 52.8 59.3 54.2 57.4 63.5 Hawker centre 56.6 60.6 48.3 58.3 57.7 61.3 66.0 64.4

Eating house/coffee shop 50.0 50.8^ 59.1 62.3^ 59.5 62.8^ 54.8 58.9^ 62.6 66.6^ 61.6 66.3^ 49.9 57.3 Food court 23.6 40.3 44.4 29.3 40.6 45.3 Fast food outlet - - - - - 6.9 17.6 22.7 Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/jogging track 14.7 18.8 21.2 23.2 24.6 25.3 25.3 27.4 Playground 4.7 17.9 7.0 8.4 16.3 8.9 6.6 16.5

Regional/town park 8.9 11.4 11.3 13.4 14.5 16.9 15.7 16.1 16.3^ 19.4^ 20.7^ 19.6^ 20.3^ 22.4^ Neighbourhood park/common green 15.3 17.5 18.3 18.2 18.8 19.8 Hard/multi-purpose court 0.9 5.3 3.0 6.0 5.9 2.5 3.2 4.7 Roof garden at top level of MSCP - - - - - 3.6 6.8 8.4 Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway 57.3 69.1 69.8 78.6 77.3 78.4 82.1 82.3 Drop-off porch 13.4 20.5 25.6 32.5 35.7 23.8 31.4 36.2 Precinct pavilion 29.0 23.7 39.1 42.6 42.6 18.2 14.8 16.6 Pavilion shelter 16.9 12.3 20.6 18.7 20.6 18.0 15.3 16.4 Trellis - - 16.6 11.9 13.8 13.4 12.6 13.6 Void deck 27.4 20.3 35.7 34.3 32.3 30.9 25.8 25.6 Regional/community library 5.2 20.1 5.1 9.9 17.7 6.2 9.9 15.4 Community club 5.6 7.1 6.1 8.2 8.9 8.8 6.0 9.0

* Analysis is based on responses of households who were aware of such a facility in their estate/neighbourhood/town. Excluding non-response cases. ^ Items mentioned were grouped for the purpose of trend analysis

126

4.3.3 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

This section examines elderly residents’ preference to age-in-place, by analysing their intention to move within the next five years, whether they wanted to age in the same flat or town and the housing type that they would be contented with in old age.

Most elderly had no intention to move, majority intended to age in existing flat

The majority of both elderly and future elderly residents had no intention to move within the next five years (Chart 4.24). The proportion of elderly residents with the intention to move declined from 7.8% in 2003 to 4.2% in 2013.

Chart 4.24 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Elderly Future Elderly All 100 4.2 7.8 7.3 8.8 8.2 18.6 11.5 12.4 7.7 10.5 12.8 17.7 16.8

80 19.9 17.9

60 Moving 40 79.4 85.0 85.3 81.4 Unsure 73.5 75.0 68.6 69.7 Households (%) Not Moving 20

0 2003 2008 2013 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013

For those with the intention to move, the main reason given by elderly residents was to right-size to a smaller flat or to move in with their children. For future elderly residents, they mainly wanted to right-size to a smaller flat, upgrade or move to a better environment.

Elderly residents were asked where they intended to live in old age, in terms of living in the same flat, moving to a different flat in the same town or moving to a different town. The majority of elderly residents (80.9%) intended to age in the same flat, with only 6.4% planning to live in a different flat but same or different town. For future elderly residents, a lower proportion (61.7%) intended to age in existing flat, while a higher proportion (15.2%) intended to live in a different flat

127

but same or different town (Chart 4.25). Another 10.1% of elderly residents and 18.1% of future elderly residents had not thought about where they would want to live in old age.

Chart 4.25 Where the Elderly and Future Elderly Intended to Live in Old Age

0.8 2.6 100 1.8 2.4 10.1 Same Flat 3.1 18.1 80 3.3 7.9 Different Flat and Same Town 7.3 60 Different Town Never Thought About It 40 80.9 Not Sure Households (%) 61.7 20 Others (e.g. old folks' home, migrate)

0 Elderly Future Elderly

The main reason given by elderly residents who wanted to live in the same flat was that the present flat was comfortable, they had an emotional attachment to the flat or they wanted their children to inherit the flat. Similar reasons were cited by future elderly residents. Hence, these findings indicate elderly residents’ preference to age-in-place.

Elderly residents who did not mind living in a different flat but same town cited reasons such as wanting to cash out on their flat, moving into a smaller home for easier maintenance, health reasons or due to decrease in household size. However, they did not want to move away from their town due to centralised location, good transportation network, familiar environment or sense of attachment to their town. Similar reasons were given by future elderly residents.

For elderly residents who intended to move away from the town, they planned to move in with children, move to a smaller flat for easier maintenance or health reasons, or cash out on their flat for additional income. They did not mind moving to another town with good transportation network, nearer to facilities or children’s place. For future elderly residents, they intended to cash out on their flats, move in with children or move to a smaller flat as household size had decreased. Similar to elderly residents, they would move to another town with good transportation networks and facilities or to be nearer to their children.

128

Majority of elderly content with present flat

Overall, the majority of elderly (77.5%) and future elderly (65.2%) residents was content with the flat types that they were currently residing in, similar to that of 2008 (Chart 4.26). These proportions were higher compared with that of all households (57.5%), showing the stronger preference among elderly and future elderly residents to age-in-place. Some 15.6% of elderly residents and 24.7% of future elderly residents aspired to upgrade to better housing while lower proportions (6.9% for elderly residents and 10.1% for future elderly residents) were content with smaller flat types. The proportion that aspired for better housing was also higher for both elderly and future elderly residents, compared with 2008.

Chart 4.26 Housing Type Content With among Elderly and Future Elderly by Present Flat Type and Year

Elderly Future Elderly All

100 10.5 15.6 19.7 24.7 28.6 80 35.0 Content with Better Housing or Flat Type 60 77.4 Content with 77.5 65.6 Present Flat Type 40 65.2 58.7 57.5

Households (%) Content with 20 Smaller Flat Type

12.1 14.7 10.1 12.7 0 6.9 7.5 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

The most common housing type that elderly residents were content with continued to be 3-room, followed by 4-room flats (Table 4.38). For future elderly residents, 4-room and 3-room flats were the most popular, followed by 5-room flats. The proportions who aspired to upgrade to private properties had increased since 2008 for both elderly and future elderly residents.

129

Table 4.38 Housing Type Content With among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

2008 2013 Housing Type Future Future Content With Elderly All Elderly All Elderly Elderly

HDB 1-Room 8.6 3.0 1.9 7.8 2.1 1.6 2-Room 10.7 6.6 3.5 8.5 5.8 3.2 3-Room 39.6 27.0 21.4 33.6 26.0 18.3 4-Room 24.1 34.4 34.0 27.6 28.5 30.9 5-Room 11.0 16.4 19.8 12.0 17.4 20.4 Executive Apartment/ 2.5 5.1 6.1 3.8 8.0 8.8 HUDC (Non-privatised) Studio Apartment 0.9 1.2 0.7 1.1 2.1 0.9 Private Property ** 2.6 6.3 12.6 5.6 10.1 15.9

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 91,493 128,179 858,316 112,712 144,442 905,882 * Excluding non-response cases ** Includes private apartment, private/executive condominium, terrace house, semi-detached house, bungalow, private studio apartment, retirement village and overseas property

Elderly and future elderly preferred to live in 3- or 4-room flats when old

For both elderly and future elderly residents, 3- or 4-room flats were the preferred type of housing for old age, similar to 2008. As the majority of elderly and future elderly residents was currently residing in these flat types, it reinforced earlier findings that showed older residents were strongly inclined to age-in-place (Table 4.39). The proportions who preferred to live in 5-room and bigger flat type and Studio Apartment for old age had increased slightly from 2008 for both elderly and future elderly residents, while those who preferred smaller flat types had decreased slightly. This could be due to a higher proportion of elderly and future elderly residents currently living in 5-room or bigger flat types compared with 2008 and wanting to age in their existing flat.

130

Table 4.39 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

2008 2013 Preferred Housing Type Elderly Future Elderly Elderly Future Elderly

Purchased 1-Room 3.2 3.4 2.2 1.6 2-Room 9.5 7.3 8.2 5.9 3-Room 39.8 38.9 35.8 31.9 61.9 61.7 59.2 56.8 4-Room 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.9 5-Room & Bigger 10.0 13.1 13.5 16.4 Studio Apartment 1.8 3.2 2.7 6.7 Private Properties 0.4 1.3 0.7 2.1 Rented 1-Room 5.4 2.6 6.1 1.9 2-Room 4.8 3.6 4.5 3.6 3-Room 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 Private Properties - 0.1 0.3 - Others (e.g. old folks’ home, 2.5 3.3 2.4 4.5 retirement village)

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total N* 92,428 129,094 112,104 141,580 * Excluding non-response cases

4.4 Summary of Findings

Personal Aspects

In terms of their financial well-being, the regular sources of income that elderly residents relied on were financial support from children, personal savings and income from work. A higher proportion of future elderly residents would rely on their personal savings and income from work, with fewer relying on their children for financial support. Less than half of all elderly residents (40.9%) had undertaken at least one financial option in planning for their retirement needs. In comparison, a higher proportion of future elderly residents (58.0%) had done so, indicating that they would be better prepared financially for retirement. Compared with elderly and future elderly males, lower proportions of both elderly and future elderly females had planned financially for retirement. However, slightly higher proportions of both elderly and future elderly females had more financial sources compared with males, as they were more likely to receive financial support from children. They also received a higher average monthly amount of financial support compared with male residents.

131

The majority of elderly (74.9%) and future elderly (73.5%) residents felt that their sources of income were sufficient to cover their daily expenses. However, this was lower compared with 2008, where eight in ten in both groups felt that their income was adequate. A higher proportion of elderly residents who encountered financial difficulties was living in smaller flat types. Despite being concerned about rising cost of living and not having planned for retirement, only 11.8% of elderly residents and 11.0% of future elderly residents had taken up at least one monetisation option after turning 50 years old. The more popular options were subletting a room in the flat for income, moving to a smaller resale HDB flat and moving to a smaller new HDB flat. The majority of elderly residents (82.5%) also had no intention to monetise in the next five years. They would rely on their children or family members for financial support in the event that they encountered major financial difficulties.

Social Aspects

Ties between elderly residents and their children remained strong. About nine in ten of elderly residents with married children not living with them visited each other at least once a month. About three in four of both elderly and future elderly residents could also rely on their married children for physical support, and about nine in ten could rely on married children for emotional support.

Elderly residents were engaging in less intensive neighbourly interactions compared with 2008. Almost all elderly residents had casual interactions with their neighbours through exchanging of greetings and casual conversations. However, the proportions having more intense forms of interaction such as visiting each other and exchanging food and gifts on festive occasions were lower. Around half of elderly residents interacted with neighbours beyond their own ethnic group. One in four (25.3%) of elderly residents also had interactions with neighbours of different ethnic groups and nationalities, a significant increase from 2008 (11.8%). This could be due to elderly residents having more new neighbours who would have resided in HDB estates for a shorter duration of time, which might be a reason that neighbourly interactions were less intense as social bonds would require time to develop. Common interaction places for both elderly and future elderly residents with neighbours were along common corridors, lift lobbies or void decks.

132

Community participation rate among elderly residents (47.1%) remained the same compared with five years ago. Those who participated in community activities were more likely to be living in bigger flat types and better educated. Both elderly and future elderly residents also had a strong sense of community and almost all of them felt a sense of belonging to their towns/estates.

Housing Aspects

Elderly residents were highly satisfied with their living environment. Overall, the majority of elderly residents was satisfied with both their flat and neighbourhood, citing the spaciousness of their flats or the friendly living environment as main reason for their satisfaction. Most of them also viewed their flat to be value for money and were proud of their home. Compared with 2008, they were more satisfied with most aspects of the HDB living environment and were also satisfied with the provision of estate facilities as well as elderly-friendly facilities.

Commercial facilities were popular among elderly residents as more than half of elderly households patronised most of the commercial facilities in their estates/neighbourhoods at least once a week. The usage levels of all commercial facilities had increased compared with five years ago. The wet/dry market and supermarket also garnered higher patronage levels compared with the other commercial facilities. Higher weekly usage levels were also observed for most sports and recreational facilities compared with five years ago. Elderly residents also showed a strong preference to age-in-place as most had no intention to move and were content with their current flat.

133

134

Conclusion

Social Well- Being of HDB Communities

Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

Conclusion

The SHS 2013 findings revealed that the overall social well-being of HDB communities is high. Among a confluence of factors, this promising level of social health could be attributed to the continual efforts of various agencies – private and government, in keeping families together and engaging HDB residents. These efforts ranged from pro-family policies, organised activities to the provision of adequate spaces for residents to meet and interact. In this respect, HDB is taking on an expanded role, going beyond being a provider of public housing and facilities, to being a cultivator of community and family relations, so as to help realise active and harmonious living in its towns/estates.

At the community level, while it was found that almost all HDB residents engaged in some forms of neighbourly interactions, these interactions could be further enhanced beyond the casual greetings of “hi” and “bye”. Residents could be encouraged to engage in more intense forms of neighbourly interactions, such as visiting one another, exchanging food and gifts during special occasions, hence increasing familiarity among neighbours, strengthening their relationships. With stronger bonds and accumulated wealth of goodwill, residents would be more able to empathise with one another and display greater tolerance towards neighbourly nuisances that might inevitable arise in today’s high-rise, high- density living environment. Recognising this, HDB has initiated the Good Neighbour Project, which encourages students and members in the community to propose projects that could promote neighbourliness and bonding in HDB neighbourhoods. Some of these programmes include helping residents with writing their resumes, teaching fellow residents to check blood pressure and drawing residents together to create art pieces.

137

Community activities are effective means to bring residents in the different precincts or neighbourhoods together and for them to get to know one another. While it was observed that participation level has increased over the years, more efforts on finding out residents’ interests for specific courses or activities can be made to increase participation further. Increasing participation rate can also be achieved with greater awareness of activities being organised. One of the ways is through the use of social media. In addition, activities can be designed to cater for families with young children as children are often catalysts for community participation among caregivers, e.g. parents and grandparents. Activities could also be tailored to better suit the needs of elderly residents to increase their participation rate.

Family ties have remained strong among HDB residents, with an increasing proportion of married children living together or near their parents. For those not living together, high proportions of married children and parents visited each other at least once a month, engaging in activities such as sharing meals and going on outings together. In terms of mutual care and support, a high proportion of parents was able to rely on married children for physical, emotional and financial support, and this increased with closer proximity. Frequency of visits and sense of closeness to family members also increased with closer proximity. Hence, the Married Child Priority Scheme and CPF Housing Grant for Family are important HDB schemes and policies to encourage parents and married children to live closer to one another for the provision of mutual care and support.

On elderly residents’ financial well-being, the majority felt that their sources of income were sufficient to cover their daily expenses, although this proportion was lower than that of five years ago. While the majority could rely on their children or other family members for financial assistance in the event that they encounter financial difficulties, there were monetisation options that could be utilised by elderly residents as potential sources of income should they wish to do so. These included subletting of whole flat or one or more room(s), right-sizing to an HDB Studio Apartment or a smaller flat, and applying for the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS).

138

With regard to the built environment, most elderly residents were satisfied with their flat and neighbourhood, as well as the provision of estate facilities. They also intended to age in the same community, as only a small proportion intended to move in the next five years and the majority intended to continue living in their existing flat. With a strong preference to age-in-place, it is important to provide more social support services and facilities for the growing proportion of elderly residents in HDB estates. Hence, HDB initiatives and schemes such as Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) and Home Improvement Programme (HIP) would facilitate them to age-in-place.

139

SEMBAWANG WOODLANDS

YISHUN

CHOA PUNGGOL CHU KANG SENGKANG CHANGI VILLAGE BUKIT PANJANG ANG MO KIO HOUGANG PASIR RIS

SERANGOON BUKIT BISHAN TAMPINES BUKIT CHANGI JURONG BATOK TIMAH WEST ESTATE AIRPORT JURONG TOA PAYOH EAST BEDOK FARRER KALLANG CLEMENTI ROAD GEYLANG WHAMPOA MARINE PARADE ESTATE QUEENSTOWN CENTRAL AREA BUKIT MERAH HDB DEVELOPMENT AREAS EXPRESSWAY

0 2000 4000

1000 3000 5000 Metres

HDB TOWNS AND ESTATES HDB Hub 480 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh Singapore 310480 HDB InfoWEB: www.hdb.gov.sg

ISBN 978-981-09-3829-1