The People’s Action Party, like its British predecessors, relies on elements of political, social, and cultural control to fulfill its ambitions. One of these methods of social control is through public housing.

Family responsibility

HDB provides grants from S$10,000 to S$30,000 (US$7,310 to $21,930) to Singaporeans who purchase resale flats to live with or to live near their parents. They can be either families or singles. Couples who buy resale flats to live closer to their adult, flat-owning children are also eligible.[1] This is a way for the state to encourage a communitarian vision of family,[2] especially for the care of older folk, which is preferable to “Western” state welfarism. This has been a core ideology of the PAP since its inception.[3]

Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP)

The state has long promoted a narrative of racial harmony in the country, promoting colorblind ideologies to display itself as a meritocratic state of equal opportunity. Even the mention of racism or initiating discourse around the topic is equated as racism itself and charged under the law (recent example, follow-up to recent example).

The EIP is a means of forcing Singaporeans of different races to live in communal spaces to promote racial tolerance. Its need was justified by the emergence of racial enclaves within HDB estates in the 1980s when the sale of units to people of all races was still unregulated. During the introduction of the policy, then-Minister for National Development, S. Dhanabalan, remarked that the government could break up such enclaves in the 1960s and 1970s with massive resettlement into public housing programs. However, this would no longer be feasible in the 1980s, hence the need for the EIP.[4] (Media: enclaves)

Many Singaporeans rely on the state for housing, amongst other things such as employment, business contracts, and their personal savings.[16] The state restricts access to public housing (and subsequent grants to afford these flats) to promote good citizenship. In Singapore, good citizenry looks like heterosexual couples getting married, maintaining employment, having children, taking care of their aging parents, and supporting the Government of the Day. Previously, we saw how the state promotes the last two factors through Proximity Housing Grants and withholding estate upgrading projects.

What happens to Singaporeans who wish to buy or rent flats but are not considered ‘good citizens?’

Singles

Before 1991, singles were not allowed to buy flats on their own, “in line with the government’s pro-family and pro-marriage stance.”[17] This rule was gradually relaxed. However, its current iteration is that only single Singaporeans above 35 years of age can purchase either 2-room flats in a non-mature town (estates that are less than 20 years old and are less likely to have developed amenities and public transport infrastructure) or resale flats.[18]

Singles looking to rent a public flat must apply under HDB’s Joint Singles Scheme and must do so as a pair. Both applicants must also be Singaporean and above 35 years of age.[19] (However, Singapore recently introduced the joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run pilot, where individual applicants can apply for rental and are matched with similar flatmates; however, this is targeted towards those that have no other housing options and no family support.[20])

Singapore has long promoted an ideal family type of a nuclear family with one mother and father to increase its fertility rate. Singapore currently has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at 1.1.[21]

Non-heteronormative families

Singapore has not legalized same-sex marriage and does not legally recognize such unions, even if they happened in other countries. As such, married couples who do not fit the heteronormative norm of one man and one woman are not allowed to purchase flats before 35 and must do so as singles. LGBTQ+ couples cannot access government-provided grants for married couples, such as the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (ECHG). The ECHG offsets up to S$80,000 (US$58,480) for first-timer applicants purchasing a flat.[22] LGBTQ+ people in Singapore often feel pushed to buy private property, fearing the limited supply of HDB flats and possible changes to the minimum age. Intolerant families may also kick them out of their family homes.[23]

Singapore’s Penal Code 377A criminalizes gay sex and is an archaic remnant of British colonial rule. India decriminalized this similar British-era law in 2018[24] but Singapore has yet to do so. Although state leaders have said on numerous occasions that 377A is not enforced[25], its continued presence trickles into all aspects of life for LGBTQ+ persons, including lack of anti-discrimination laws[26], lack of media representation, and social stigma.[27]

Discrimination

Discrimination still occurs in the largely unfettered private housing market. Landlords can discriminate against prospective tenants without legal consequence, often based on race[28], nationality[29], and sexuality[30]. The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), a government agency that regulates the real estate agency industry, has guidelines that advertising should not be discriminatory. However, the CEA cannot manage landlords who do not employ licensed agents. Moreover, the CEA says nothing of licensed agents following clients’ race-based instructions and filtering tenants accordingly.[31]

As in other countries, wealth in Singapore grants many privileges, including escape from state control. Private housing residents are not subject to the EIP. Data on private housing residents by race reveals who really has access to wealth in Singapore. In 2020, Singaporeans living in private housing rose from 17% to 21% in 2010. 16% lived in condominiums while 5% lived on landed property (e.g., bungalows, semi-detached houses, terrace houses).[32] 17.3% of Chinese and 16.2% of Indians reside in condominiums compared to just 3% of Malays. Similarly, 5.6% of Chinese and 3.9% of Indians live on landed property, against just 0.7% of Malays. In public housing, 16% of Malays live in 1- or 2-room flats (double the percentage from 2010), compared to 5.1% of Chinese and 7.7% of Indians.

An aerial view of the Bukit Timah neighborhood in Singapore. Notable schools in the area include Hwa Chong Institution and International School, Nanyang Girls' High School, National Junior College, and Raffles Girls' Primary School. You can tell from the different colored squares of houses around the schools that they are individual houses rather than longer, joint apartment buildings.

A closer view of the neighborhood.

Fun fact: This is what HDB estates look like from an aerial view.

On the other end of the spectrum are people who cannot access public housing in Singapore. The largest group within this category is migrant workers. Specifically, those considered dispensable labor, working in “low-skilled jobs” (though I do not believe there are low-skilled or high-skilled jobs). They are transient, not seeking to marry locals and settle down in Singapore. Migrant workers make up almost a third of Singapore’s workforce, and 90% of this block comprises low-wage temporary migrant workers. They may work in industries like construction, shipbuilding and repair, conservancy, and household work.[34]

Dorm-residing migrant workers

Around 200,000 low-wage temporary migrant workers live in dormitories located in industrial areas, segregated from the general Singapore populace. Each room houses 12 to 20 men, who share bathrooms and eating areas with dozens more. These dorms also often suffer poor maintenance and cleanliness. Workers who protest these conditions risk wage cuts or losing their jobs[35] (when they are already underpaid). Such conditions became the perfect storm during the pandemic when COVID-19 infected 47% of the dorm-residing population of migrant workers.[36] Divided from the Singapore populace, the government imposed harsher rules on migrant workers for the entirety of the pandemic. Singaporeans faced tightening and loosening restrictions on movement depending on the pandemic situation and daily infection numbers. However, migrant workers have been in lockdown for over a year, confined either to their rooms, workplaces, or designated recreation centers on certain days.[37]

Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs)

Amongst migrant workers who live in public housing (and other types of Singaporean dwellings) are over 200,000 Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs), who often live with their employers. MDWs contribute a large portion of domestic labor to double-income households. Their presence also alleviates the pressure of the state to provide public childcare facilities (and they even generate revenue from charging levies on employers to grant MDWs visas). [38]

However, Singaporeans can also exploit MDWs in various ways. Many MDWs may live in shared bedrooms with their employer's family members, in storerooms, bomb shelters, or the smallest room of the house. Many MDWs earn an average salary of S$515[39] (US$381) to S$650[40] (US$480). Furthermore, the unique living situation of MDWs within private households means authorities face difficulty protecting MDWs from “excessive working hours, deplorable living conditions, wage cuts and violations of rights.”[41] A 2015 survey found that only 32.6% of MDWs kept their passports, and 66% their work permits. 65% of MDWs did not have their employment contracts.[42] This dispossession renders exiting abusive situations, if necessary, near impossible. MDWs’ reliance on employers for food, shelter, and their job makes it difficult for abused workers to speak out against errant employers.

Singapore would not be far from what it is today without the contributions of migrant workers across all sectors. Yet, whether kept out of public housing or given stifling spaces within housing, migrant workers’ situations are not that different from each other. Their perceived dispensability, tacit relegation within Singapore’s occupational hierarchy, and lack of legal protections culminate, justifying their continued exploitation and devaluation.

In 2021, Singapore was the second most expensive city in the world to live in.[43] However, conversations around class and inequality are difficult because of the way we (do not) collect data. Singapore has refused to set a poverty line, obscuring the lower-income and house-insecure populations that reside on the island. In 2011, Singapore Management University’s Lien Center for Social Innovation estimated that absolute poverty levels in the country were 10-12%, while relative poverty levels were twice that figure.[44]

About 50,000 Singaporean households live in public rental flats as of 2018.[45] These are government-provided units with heavily subsidized rentals, for families with “no other housing options.”[46] However, these families must meet strict criteria to even request such housing: they must have a total household gross income of less than S$1,500 a month (US) and cannot apply if children of these families can financially provide other housing alternatives. Barred families who broke HDB rules may also lose eligibility. There are also waiting periods for families to receive their allotted flats, which is time some may not have.

Bureaucratic Hurdles

The process of applying for help in Singapore is challenging and can be dehumanizing. Singapore has a multitude of social service agencies and offices that cater to different and specific populations, prescribing precise remedies and solutions. Applicants must fill in numerous forms—so there is a requirement of literacy—and reveal many details about their education levels, employment history, family details, and so on to sell themselves as down-on-their-luck but industrious subjects worthy of receiving government aid. Many aid programs first require proof of employment[47] and the state constantly pushes workers to upgrade and learn new skills in line with the necessities of the changing economy. Stringent requirements may also lead to some families falling through the cracks, unable to receive assistance. Intensive questioning from social service providers on the moral failings of applicants, or fear of reprisal, may also deter them from seeking help.[48]

Left Stranded

What happens to people who earn too much to qualify for HDB’s Public Rental Scheme (household income must be less than S$1,500/US$1,097), but cannot afford to rent a room in Singapore (market price is at least above S$600/US$439), a month)?

“If you bring a child into the world in the West, the state cares for him. If you bring a child into the world in Asia, that’s your personal responsibility.”

– Lee Kuan Yew, first prime minister of Singapore[49]

“We want to teach the people that the government is not a rich uncle… We want to dissuade people of the notion that in a good society the rich must pay for the poor. We want to reduce welfare to the minimum, restricted only to those who are handicapped or old.”

– S. Rajaratnam, third deputy prime minister of Singapore[50]

HOPE

As sociologist Teo You Yenn points out, Singapore’s pronatalism looks different for different classes of Singaporeans. Although the state actively encourages couples to give birth and increase the national fertility rate, it has different policies for lower-income families, such as the HOPE Scheme. The Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) Scheme provides, among other incentives, housing and utility grants for parents who commit to keeping their families small. The government markets the scheme as a way for these lower-income parents to “focus their resources on giving their children a head start and improve their financial and social situation.”[51] Disbursement of grants happen quicker if recipients undergo irreversible sterilization.[52] Additionally, husbands of applying mothers must be employed. Ultimately, it reveals the state’s belief that upward economic mobility is the responsibility of individuals, and the role of the state is simply to guide them in the ‘right’ direction. The state valorizes self-reliance.

“There are no longer homeless, destitute, or starving people in Singapore.”
– Kishore Mahbubani, former diplomat, 2001[53]

Endemic Problems

Social service programs in Singapore supplement lower-income households with various food vouchers, subsidies, and grants. However, these are short-term and myopic solutions that do not address endemic issues. Low wages are made possible by a deliberate lack of minimum wage laws across all sectors and the continued and tolerated exploitation of foreign and local labor.