Public Housing in Hong Kong and Singapore · HK and Singapore: similarities Origins of program in British colonial administration during period of new town development and council

Norman Fainstein

Presented at the Built Environment Research Seminars Faculty of Built Environment University of New South Wales, Australia 16 October 2013

Public Housing in Hong Kong and Singapore

Exceptional character of 2 Asian city-states

Despite tide of neo-liberalism still very large public housing programs

Housing development as basis of land planning

Public housing used as driver of economic growth

Public housing as basis of political legitimacy—and in Singapore of social policy: ethnic, family, and retirement

HK and Singapore: similarities

Origins of program in British colonial administration during period of new town development and council housing construction in Britain

Public ownership of land

Perceived need to resettle from squatter settlements (HK) and kampongs (Sg)

Large proportion of resident population in public housing (30% in HK public rental; 18% in subsidized owner-occupied; 83% in Sg, almost all owner-occupied)

Dominance of high-rise landscape

HK and Singapore: Differences

HK: situational responses to disasters and political unrest

under continued colonial rule; Sg: post-independence leadership strategic commitment to planning and an “ownership” (not “welfare”) state

HK: units very small with increasing residualization

(household of 4 @ 45 m2); Sg: better quality, much larger (90 m2) and include middle and UM classes

HK: mainly rental, privatization through right to buy and

subsidies to suppliers; Sg: individual ownership of units in HDB “condominiums”; right to sell in secondary market and keep most capital gains

Hong Kong Character and aims of program have changed

substantially since its inception; increasingly similar to West, influenced by Thatcherism and neo-liberalism

Strong influence of real estate industry, which has suppressed public-sector competition

Most construction in outlying New Territories, not well served with amenities or transit, though with site planning

Eligibility based on need, leading to stigmatization Nonetheless, government retains land ownership and

almost half of “official” population still resides in public housing.

Hong Kong: Shek Kip Mei Estate (oldest public housing project)

Hong Kong—new public housing

Singapore: required individual and employer funds as basis for housing demand along with public subsidy

Compulsory individual savings accounts (Central Provident Fund [CPF]), now about 33% of wages (of which 13% from employer)

Individual ownership of unit paid for by CPF mortgages at

2.6% interest. Housing and Development Board (HDB) ownership of buildings.

All land owned by public; originally acquired through

compulsory taking at confiscatory prices , with public capturing the unearned increment from new investment

HDB housing

One million flats constructed since 1960, housing more than 83% of resident population

Total demolition of pre-existing environment—hawkers removed to hawkers’ markets. Currently, for renewal of early projects, building occupants are moved en bloc

High rise/garden city--high quality landscaping, a lot of greenery, amenities and services for daily needs

Continuous reinvestment—small rooms but high quality

HDB existing housing, Jurong Lake District

HDB housing—”The Pinnacle” + restored shop houses

Issues raised by Singapore program

Ethnic integration policy

Family social engineering through housing policy

Tensions and contradictions of price management Secondary market prices correlate w. private condos “Welfare burden” requires capital appreciation and rising

resale values

Need to maintain and increase aggregate demand—requires immigration given low resident fertility, but immigration unpopular

Failure to plan for housing of large and growing contract-labor population: the new global other

Some lessons from HK and Singapore Even at the huge scale of Hong Kong and with original public

support, steady peripheralization and erosion is accompanying reassertion of private real estate interests

Singapore shows the tensions and limits of even excellent and ubiquitous public housing as the centerpiece of both private ownership and social policy

Neither Hong Kong nor Singapore seem able to address the needs of very large global other labor populations

And as a codicil: it looks to us like the more citizen participation in both cities, the more difficult it is for government to address the housing needs of non-citizens!