Published by...2021/02/10 · Amy Wong Jin Ying Esther Chua Jia Ping Phay Huai Yu Ian Lim Wei Wendy Li Xin Quek Xin Ping Cherie Lin Xinyi Max Chan Weng Kin Goh Pei Xuan Alysia Wee

Published by

Housing and 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 Lim E-Farn Fiona Lee Yiling Sangeetha D/O Panearselvan Amy Wong Jin Ying Esther Chua Jia Ping Phay Huai Yu Ian Lim Wei Wendy Li Xin Quek Xin Ping Cherie Lin Xinyi Max Chan Weng Kin Goh Pei Xuan Alysia Wee Wan Ting Advisor: Dr Chong Fook Loong Research Advisory Panel: Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser Associate Professor Pow Choon Piew Associate Professor Kang Soon Hock Associate Professor Nicholas Hon Hsueh Hsien Dr Ong Qiyan

We also wish to acknowledge with thanks:

• Dr. Lai Ah Eng for her guidance in the initial phase of the survey

• Yvonne Tan Ci En, Tan Hwee Koon, Nur Asykin Ramli, Paveena Seah Chia Shih and Michelle Fong Jing Ting for their contributions to the survey

Published Feb 2021 All information is correct at the time of printing.

© 2021 Housing & Development Board

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording without the written permission of the Housing and Development Board. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. ISBN 978-981-14-9468-0

PUBLIC HOUSING IN SINGAPORE: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

HDB Sample Household Survey 2018

i

FOREWORD

HDB has strived to provide a holistic living environment for HDB residents as well

as serve the many who use facilities in HDB towns. This is achieved by delivering

good homes in the form of affordable public housing and well-planned towns;

putting people at the centre of every plan and policy. A key to better homes is

undoubtedly developing a keen understanding of the people for whom we are

building. As HDB celebrates its 60th anniversary, it is timely to take stock of our

efforts and to obtain our residents’ feedback so as to continue to do better.

An important barometer of our residents’ sentiments is the Sample Household

Survey (SHS). First launched in 1968, SHS 2018 is the 11th in a series of large-

scale surveys carried out every five years. SHS 2018 covered close to 8,000 HDB

households across all towns/estates and flat types. The SHS has made trend

analysis possible and has provided insights on residents’ views on HDB living. The

findings serve as important inputs for policy reviews and improvements to the living

environment.

While HDB has made significant transformation to public housing, many dynamic

changes continue to take place. Aspirational desires for quality living will take new

shape. There are shifts in emphasis towards community-centric and liveability

issues. All these will have an impact on the physical and social landscape. SHS

2018 provided residents with a platform to share their HDB living experience from

the design of their flats, ease of accessibility, to the strength of community ties.

The survey also explored new evolving aspects like online shopping and unique

places in their towns that hold special memories.

The SHS 2018 findings have shown an improvement in satisfaction with the HDB

living environment from 2013. Besides affirming HDB policies, the findings also

lent support that the physical living environment is important in the building of ties,

contributing to residents’ overall well-being. Gaining insights from SHS 2018, there

is a greater need to engage the community to strengthen social capital and

resilience, especially among the more vulnerable households. In the planning of

our towns, HDB also intends to place residents’ health and wellness at the forefront.

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 &

Well-Being of the Elderly.

We deeply appreciate all residents who have generously given us their time and

invaluable feedback. Their responses will enable HDB to better design quality flats,

meaningful communal spaces and formulate new strategies to deepen residents’

sense of belonging to their towns.

Dr. Cheong Koon Hean

Chief Executive Officer

Housing & Development Board

iii

Contents Page

FOREWORD i

CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF CHARTS x

KEY INDICATORS xiv

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS xxi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 Background 3

1.2 Objectives 4

1.3 Sampling Design 4

1.4 Outline of Monograph 5

PART 1 PROFILE OF HDB POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS 9

Chapter 2 Profile of HDB Population 17

2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident Population 17

2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population 33

2.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population 45

2.3.1 Demographic Characteristics 45

2.3.2 Economic Characteristics 55

2.4 Summary of Findings 59

Chapter 3 Profile of HDB Households 65

3.1 Demographic Characteristics of HDB Households 65

3.2 Household Composition 71


PART 1 CONCLUSION 91

iv

Contents Page

PART 2 HOUSING SATISFACTION AND PREFERENCES 95

Chapter 4 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment 103

4.1 Sense of Pride and Value for Money 103

4.2 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood 107

4.3 Satisfaction with HDB Physical Living Environment 112


Chapter 5 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities 123

5.1 Satisfaction with Estate Facilities 123

5.2 Usage of Estate Facilities 131

5.3 Online Purchase 140

5.4 Places in Estate where Residents Usually Spend their Time 143


Chapter 6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations 151

6.1 Past Residential Mobility 151

6.2 Intention to Move within Next Five Years 159

6.3 Housing Aspirations 169

6.4 Preferred Housing Type when Old 173


Chapter 7 Transport and Travel Patterns 181

7.1 Place of Work 181

7.2 Travel Modes to Work 187

7.3 Travel Time to Work 191

7.4 Departure Time to Work 193

7.5 Place of School 193

7.6 Travel Modes to School 195

7.7 Travel Time to School 197

7.8 Departure Time to School 198

7.9 Maximum Time Willing to Travel 199

7.10 Ownership of Motor Vehicles 203

7.11 Ownership of Mobility Devices 206


PART 2 CONCLUSION 213

v

List of Tables Page

Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population .......................... 18 with Owner/Registered Tenant

Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Flat Type and Year ........... 19

Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year ........................ 20

Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Age and Year ............................................. 21

Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age, Sex and Year ................................ 22

Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age, Ethnic Group and Year .......... 23

Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age, Flat Type and Year .................... 25

Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age and Town/Estate .......................... 26

Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year ............................................. 28

Table 2.10 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year ........................ 28

Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Flat Type, ........................ 30 Ethnic Group and Year

Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ............. 31 by Marital Status and Year

Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ............. 31 by Marital Status and Sex

Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ............. 32 by Religion

Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above ............. 33 by Religion and Age

Table 2.16 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ............. 39 and Above by Education Level and Year

Table 2.17 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ............. 40 and Above by Education Level, Age and Year

Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ............. 40 and Above by Education Level, Sex and Year

Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ............. 41 and Above by Occupation and Year

Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ............. 43 and Above by Occupation, Age and Year

Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old ............. 44 and Above by Occupation, Sex and Year

Table 2.22 Role and Relationship with Owner/Registered Tenant .................... 47 of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population

Table 2.23 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 48 by Age, Sex and Year

Table 2.24 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 50 by Town/Estate and Year

vi

List of Tables Page

Table 2.25 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 51 by Tenure and Flat Type and Year

Table 2.26 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 52 by Ethnic Group and Year

Table 2.27 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 53 by Marital Status, Sex and Year

Table 2.28 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 54 by Ambulant Status and Year

Table 2.29 HDB Elderly Resident Population by Ambulant Status .................... 54 and Age

Table 2.30 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 55 by Labour Force Status and Year

Table 2.31 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 56 by Labour Force Status, Sex and Year

Table 2.32 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population .................... 57 by Education Level and Year

Table 2.33 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population .................... 58 by Occupation and Year

Table 3.1 HDB Households by Flat Type, Tenure and Year ................................. 66

Table 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure, Ethnic Group of ........................................ 68 Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.3 HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of .................................... 68 Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.4 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type ................................... 70

Table 3.5 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year ................... 72

Table 3.6 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Tenure ...................... 72 and Year

Table 3.7 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type ............... 74 and Year

Table 3.8 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Ethnic Group ...... 75 of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.9 HDB Households by Number of Generations and Year .................. 76

Table 3.10 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Flat Type ................. 78 and Year

Table 3.11 HDB Households by Number of Generations, ........................................ 78 Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Table 3.12 Attributes of One-Person Households ........................................................... 80

Table 3.13 HDB Households by Household Size, Flat Type and Year ............ 83

Table 3.14 HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of ................... 84 Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

vii

List of Tables Page

Table 3.15 HDB Households by Household Size, Type of ....................................... 85 Family Nucleus and Year

Table 3.16 Mean and Median HDB Household Size ...................................................... 87 by Town/Estate and Year

Table 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year ............................................. 108

Table 4.2 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood among HDB Households ......... 112 by Sense of Belonging to Town/Estate

Table 4.3 Aspects of HDB Physical Living Environment ......................................... 113

Table 4.4 Whether HDB Households Recycle Regularly ......................................... 116

Table 4.5 Recycling Methods of HDB Households who .......................................... 116 Recycled Regularly

Table 5.1 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year ........................... 125

Table 5.2 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Flat Type ................. 127

Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities ................................................ 129 by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 5.4 Frequency of Usage of Estate Facilities ........................................................ 131

Table 5.5 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week ........................... 134 by Types of Estate Facilities and Flat Type

Table 5.6 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week ........................... 136 by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 5.7 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week ........................... 139 by Types of Estate Facilities and Year

Table 5.8 Proportion of HDB Households who Made Online Purchase ....... 140 through Websites or Mobile Applications over Past Twelve Months

Table 5.9 HDB Households who Made Online Purchase through .................... 141 Websites or Mobile Applications by Attributes

Table 5.10 Types of Products Bought Online and Whether Patronise ............. 142 HDB Shop Less Often Due to Online Shopping

Table 5.11 Places where HDB Households Usually Spend Their ........................ 144 Time in Estate by Year

Table 6.1 First Housing Type Lived in since Marriage among ........................... 152 Married/Ever-Married Households by Age

Table 6.2 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among Married/ . 154 Ever-Married Households by Resident Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households ............... 156 by Age at Point of Move

Table 6.4 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat among Married/ ........................ 157 Ever-Married Households by Type of Move

viii

List of Tables Page

Table 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB ..................... 161 Households by Flat Type

Table 6.6 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB .................... 161 Households by Age

Table 6.7 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB ..................... 162 Households by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.8 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended ......... 164 to Move by Present Flat Type

Table 6.9 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended ......... 165 to Move by Age

Table 6.10 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended ......... 166 to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.11 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended ........... 168 to Move by Age

Table 6.12 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended ........... 168 to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage

Table 6.13 Housing Type Content with by Age ................................................................... 172

Table 7.1 Proportion of Employed HDB Resident Population .............................. 182

Table 7.2 Location of Work Place of Employed HDB Resident .......................... 183 Population by Place of Residence (Region)

Table 7.3 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population ..................... 184

Table 7.4 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population by .............. 186 Attributes

Table 7.5 Number of Transport Modes to Work among Employed .................. 188 HDB Resident Population

Table 7.6 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among Employed HDB ............... 189 Resident Population

Table 7.7 Transport Mode to Work of Employed HDB Resident........................ 189 Population

Table 7.8 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to Work of Employed ............ 190 HDB Resident Population

Table 7.9 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Work of Employed ....... 191 HDB Resident Population

Table 7.10 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Residence of .................... 192 Employed HDB Resident Population

Table 7.11 Median Travel Time to Work of Employed HDB Resident .............. 192 Population by Type of Transport Mode to Work

Table 7.12 Proportion of HDB Resident Population in School ................................ 193

Table 7.13 Place of School of HDB Resident Population in School ................... 194 by Education Level

ix

List of Tables Page

Table 7.14 Number of Transport Modes to School among HDB ........................... 195 Resident Population in School

Table 7.15 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among HDB Resident .................. 195 Population in School

Table 7.16 Transport Mode to School of HDB Resident Population .................. 196 in School

Table 7.17 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to School of HDB ..................... 197 Resident Population in School

Table 7.18 Travel Time to School of HDB Resident Population in ...................... 198 School by Education Level

Table 7.19 Maximum Time Employed HDB Households were Willing ............. 200 to Travel to Work

Table 7.20 Actual Travel Time Compared with Maximum Time ............................ 200 Employed HDB Households were Willing to Travel

Table 7.21 Actual Travel Time of Employed Households Compared ............... 202 with Maximum Time Willing to Travel by Attributes

Table 7.22 Car Ownership among HDB Households by ............................................. 204 Attributes

Table 7.23 Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five Years among ...................... 205 HDB Households

Table 7.24 Reasons for Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five ......................... 206 Years among HDB Households

Table 7.25 Number of Bicycles Owned among HDB Households ....................... 207

Table 7.26 Ownership of Personal Mobility Aids in Households with................ 208 At Least One Non-Ambulant Member

x

List of Charts Page

Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year ........................ 17

Chart 2.2 Labour Force Status of HDB Resident Population by Year ......... 34

Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident .............................. 34 Population by Sex and Year

Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate of ....................... 35 HDB Resident Population by Year

Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population ............... 38 Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Sex and Year

Chart 2.6 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year .. 46

Chart 3.1 HDB Households and Growth Rate by Year ............................................ 65

Chart 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure and Year ........................................................... 66

Chart 3.3 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year .............................................. 69

Chart 3.4 Mean HDB Household Size by Year ................................................................ 81

Chart 4.1 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year .................... 104

Chart 4.2 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year ............... 104

Chart 4.3 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Length of Residence ........... 105

Chart 4.4 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Tenure and Year ............................... 106

Chart 4.5 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year .......................... 106

Chart 4.6 Satisfaction with Flat by Year ................................................................................. 107

Chart 4.7 Satisfaction with Flat by Age ................................................................................... 109

Chart 4.8 Satisfaction with Flat by Length of Residence .......................................... 109

Chart 4.9 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year .................................................... 110

Chart 4.10 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Flat Type ......................................... 110

Chart 4.11 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Age ...................................................... 111

Chart 4.12 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Length of Residence ............. 111

Chart 4.13 Satisfaction with Various Aspects of ............................................................... 114 HDB Physical Living Environment

Chart 4.14 Proportion of HDB Households who Perceived Lifts ......................... 115 to be Reliable by Year

Chart 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Estate Facilities by Year ................................ 124

Chart 6.1 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among ...................... 153 Married/Ever-Married Households

Chart 6.2 Average Length of Residence in Previous Housing Unit ............... 154 among Married/Ever-Married Households by Year

Chart 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households .............. 155 by Year

xi

List of Charts Page

Chart 6.4 Extent of Geographical Move of Married/Ever-Married ..................... 159 Households by Present Town/Estate

Chart 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Year ................................ 160

Chart 6.6 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year ............................................ 163

Chart 6.7 Type of Potential Move by Year .......................................................................... 167

Chart 6.8 Housing Aspirations by Year................................................................................... 170

Chart 6.9 Housing Aspirations by Age ................................................................................... 170

Chart 6.10 Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year ............................................. 171

Chart 6.11 Housing Type Content with by Year ................................................................. 172

Chart 6.12 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age ................................................................ 173

Chart 6.13 Housing Preference for Old Age by Age ....................................................... 174

Chart 7.1 Departure Time to Work ............................................................................................. 193

Chart 7.2 Departure Time to School of HDB Resident Population ................... 199 in School

Chart 7.3 Motor Vehicle Ownership by Year ...................................................................... 203

Chart 7.4 Ownership of Mobility Devices .............................................................................. 207

Key Indicators

xiv

Key Indicators of HDB Population by Ethnic Group (2013 & 2018)

Total Chinese Malay Indian Others

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Demographic Characteristics

Resident Population (‘000)

(Excluding tenants) (%)

3,058

100.0

3,039

100.0

2,248

73.5

2,206

72.6

476

15.6

493

16.2

272

8.9

272

9.0

62

2.0

68

2.2

Sex (%)

Male

Female

48.8

51.2

48.9

51.1

49.1

50.9

48.9

51.1

48.0

52.0

49.7

50.3

49.2

50.8

49.2

50.8

42.2

57.8

41.1

58.9

Mean Age (Years)

Median Age (Years)

Persons Aged Below 15 Years (%)

Persons Aged 15-64 Years (%)

Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%)

37.9

39

16.7

72.3

11.0

41.3

42

14.3

69.2

16.5

39.5

40

15.1

72.3

12.6

43.1

44

12.9

68.0

19.1

33.7

31

19.9

73.1

7.0

35.7

33

19.0

71.7

9.3

33.2

34

23.2

70.9

5.9

37.6

38

17.2

71.7

11.1

32.5

34

23.0

72.8

4.2

37.5

39

15.0

76.8

8.2

Flat Type (%)

1-Room

2-Room

3-Room

4-Room

5-Room

Executive

1.6

2.8

19.3

41.1

26.6

8.6

1.8

3.6

18.2

42.1

26.5

7.8

1.2

1.9

19.3

41.2

27.6

8.8

1.4

2.3

18.0

42.4

27.9

8.0

2.9

6.3

19.8

41.6

22.0

7.4

3.5

8.5

18.1

42.1

20.8

7.0

2.2

3.7

19.1

39.6

25.9

9.5

2.4

5.0

19.9

40.6

24.2

7.9

2.6

2.1

17.4

39.9

28.0

10.0

1.3

2.2

19.4

39.0

30.2

7.9

Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)

Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000)

2,543

2,603

1,907

1,920

380

400

209

225

48

58

Sex (%)

Male

Female

48.4

51.6

48.3

51.7

48.7

51.3

48.5

51.5

47.8

52.2

49.1

50.9

48.7

51.3

48.3

51.7

41.4

58.6

39.3

60.7

Labour Force (‘000)

Employed

Unemployed

1,649

1,583

66

1,672

1,593

79

1,246

1,202

44

1,238

1,182

57

236

222

14

248

234

14

133

126

7

146

138

8

33

32

1

40

39

1

Labour Force Participation Rate (%) (LFPR)

Male LFPR

Female LFPR

64.9

74.6

55.8

64.3

72.6

56.6

65.5

73.7

57.8

64.6

71.1

58.4

62.4

76.0

50.0

62.1

76.2

48.5

64.0

80.7

48.0

64.9

77.2

53.5

69.5

79.5

62.5

68.9

79.1

62.3

xv

Key Indicators of HDB Population by Flat Type (2013 & 2018)

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

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018


Resident Population (‘000)

(Excluding tenants) (%)

3,058

100.0

3,039

100.0

48

1.6

56

1.8

85

2.8

108

3.6

592

19.3

553

18.2

1,256

41.1

1,279

42.1

813

26.6

806

26.5

264

8.6

237

7.8

Sex (%)

Male

Female

48.8

51.2

48.9

51.1

52.4

47.6

51.5

48.5

47.7

52.3

50.0

50.0

47.9

52.1

48.0

52.0

48.9

51.1

48.6

51.4

48.8

51.2

49.5

50.5

49.8

50.2

48.9

51.1

Mean Age (Years)

Median Age (Years)

Persons Aged Below 15 Years (%)

Persons Aged 15–64 Years (%)

Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%)

37.9

39

16.7

72.3

11.0

41.3

42

14.3

69.2

16.5

49.9

55

9.6

58.6

31.8

53.0

60

8.4

53.6

38.0

40.5

44

18.5

62.2

19.3

43.1

46

16.6

60.6

22.8

42.7

45

12.5

70.3

17.2

47.0

50

9.8

65.6

24.6

37.2

37

16.4

74.1

9.5

39.8

40

15.2

70.7

14.1

35.3

36

19.9

72.3

7.8

39.1

39

16.5

70.0

13.5

35.2

36

19.0

73.6

7.4

39.8

41

13.4

73.1

13.5

Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)

Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000)

2,543

2,603

43

51

69

90

518

499

1,050

1,084

650

673

213

205

Sex (%)

Male

Female

48.4

51.6

48.3

51.7

53.6

46.4

51.5

48.5

46.9

53.1

49.5

50.5

47.5

52.5

47.2

52.8

48.6

51.4

48.1

51.9

48.6

51.4

49.1

50.9

49.0

51.0

48.6

51.4

Labour Force (‘000)

Employed

Unemployed

1,649

1,583

66

1,672

1,593

79

23

21

2

25

22

3

41

37

4

49

44

5

332

318

14

309

292

17

697

669

28

722

692

30

423

411

12

437

419

18

133

128

5

129

123

6

Labour Force Participation Rate (%) (LFPR)

Male LFPR

Female LFPR

64.9

74.6

55.8

64.3

72.6

56.6

52.8

63.0

41.1

50.5

57.4

43.4

59.7

68.3

46.3

53.9

65.0

43.1

64.2

74.0

55.4

62.0

71.0

54.0

66.6

76.5

57.2

66.7

75.1

58.9

65.3

75.3

55.9

65.0

72.8

57.5

62.6

70.9

54.5

63.1

69.7

56.8

xvi

Key Indicators of HDB Households by Ethnic Group (2013 & 2018)

Total Chinese Malay Indian Others

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018


Total Number of Households 908,499 1,013,542 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409

Type of Family Nucleus (%)

Nuclear Family

Extended Nuclear Family

Multi-Nuclear Family

Non-Family Based Households

76.3

8.3

6.2

9.2

75.6

6.4

4.6

13.4

76.6

7.9

5.4

10.1

74.9

6.0

4.0

15.2

72.5

10.6

11.2

5.7

75.7

8.9

7.8

7.5

79.7

8.3

6.1

5.9

82.6

4.2

5.3

8.0

80.8

7.5

6.4

5.3

70.9

15.6

-*

11.4

Household Size (%)

1 Person

2 Persons

3 Persons

4 Persons

5 Persons

6 or More Persons

Mean Household Size (Persons)

Median Household Size (Persons)

8.4

20.4

23.6

26.7

13.5

7.4

3.4

3

12.6

25.7

23.0

23.6

10.0

5.0

3.1

3

9.3

22.1

24.7

26.9

12.1

4.9

3.3

3

14.3

27.0

24.0

22.6

8.7

3.4

3.0

2

5.3

12.0

18.4

20.4

21.7

22.2

4.2

4

6.8

21.6

18.3

22.2

16.4

14.6

3.7

3

5.0

18.4

21.8

33.4

13.6

7.8

3.6

4

6.9

22.0

21.8

33.8

9.8

5.6

3.4

3

4.8

16.1

25.2

30.7

13.6

9.6

3.7

4

9.1

18.5

21.4

27.2

19.8

4.0

3.4

3

Flat Type (%) 1-Room

2-Room

3-Room

4-Room

5-Room

Executive

2.7

3.8

23.8

39.0

23.6

7.1

3.0

4.4

22.9

40.0

23.3

6.4

2.3

3.0

24.2

39.1

24.2

7.2

2.5

3.5

23.0

40.6

24.0

6.5

5.1

7.8

22.5

38.8

19.4

6.4

5.9

9.2

22.3

38.2

18.7

5.6

3.5

4.5

22.6

38.3

23.2

7.9

3.3

5.7

23.4

38.0

22.7

6.9

2.5

3.5

19.9

38.7

28.0

7.4

1.3

2.3

20.7

37.2

30.7

7.8

* Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

xvii

Key Indicators of HDB Households by Flat Type (2013 & 2018)

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

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018


Total Number of Households

908,499

1,013,542

24,573

30,369

34,204

44,351

216,163

232,351

354,526

405,163

214,074

236,324

64,959

64,984

Type of Family Nucleus (%)

Nuclear Family



Non-Family Based Households

76.3

8.3

6.2

9.2

75.6

6.4

4.6

13.4

51.5

3.8

1.9

42.8

49.3

2.1

-*

48.2

69.4

3.2

1.7

25.7

66.4

4.1

1.2

28.3

69.9

6.0

4.0

20.1

66.9

4.2

3.0

26.0

79.5

9.5

6.7

4.3

78.3

7.7

5.0

8.9

80.8

9.9

7.0

2.3

83.3

6.6

5.7

4.3

79.5

7.8

11.6

1.1

80.2

9.1

7.2

3.6

Household Size (%)

1 Person

2 Persons

3 Persons

4 Persons

5 Persons

6 or More Persons

8.4

20.4

23.6

26.7

13.5

7.4

12.6

25.7

23.0

23.6

10.0

5.0

29.2

51.1

13.4

3.7

2.1

0.5

36.5

49.5

8.5

2.9

2.1

-*

23.7

32.5

23.6

11.3

4.5

4.4

26.9

31.7

19.5

12.6

5.3

4.0

19.1

27.8

23.6

18.8

6.9

3.8

24.8

32.0

21.7

13.8

4.7

2.9

3.9

18.3

25.4

29.2

14.9

8.3

8.7

23.5

24.7

27.3

10.9

4.9

2.3

13.8

23.7

32.9

18.0

9.3

4.0

21.2

24.2

30.5

13.4

6.7

1.1

10.6

17.9

36.0

21.8

12.6

3.4

17.6

22.2

28.2

17.9

10.7

Mean Household Size (Persons)

Median Household Size (Persons)

3.4

3

3.1

3

2.0

2

1.9

1

2.6

2

2.5

2

2.8

3

2.5

2

3.6

4

3.3

3

3.9

4

3.5

3

4.1

4

3.8

3



Glossary of Terms and Definitions

xxi

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

HDB Population

Resident population refers to Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent

Residents residing in HDB flats. They include owners/co-owners, HDB rental

tenants and occupiers.

Elderly resident population refers to resident population aged 65 years old and

above.

Future elderly resident population refers to resident population aged between

55 and 64 years old.

Highest Education Level Attained

Highest qualification attained refers to the highest grades or standard a person has

passed or the highest level where a certificate, diploma, or degree is awarded. The

Singapore Standard Educational Classification 2015 is used to classify persons by

highest qualification attained. Persons aged 15 years and above who are not

attending educational institutions as full-time students are classified into the

following main categories:

(i) Below Secondary includes persons with no qualification (i.e., those who have

never attended school, have primary education but without Primary School

Leaving Examination certificate (PSLE), Certificate in Basic Education for

Skills Training (BEST) 1-3 or their equivalent), primary education (i.e., those

who have PSLE, Certificate in BEST 4 or at least 3 Employability Skills

Systems (ESS) Workplace Literacy and Numeracy (WLPN) Statements of

Attainment at Level 1 or 2 or equivalent standard) or lower secondary

education (i.e., those who have secondary education without a General

Certificate of Education (GCE) Normal (‘N’)/Ordinary (‘O’) Level pass,

Certificate in Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) 1-3,

basic vocational certificates, at least 3 ESS WPLN Statements of Attainment

at Level 3 or 4, or equivalent).

(ii) Secondary/Post-secondary includes persons with secondary education (i.e.,

those who have at least 1 GCE ‘N’/’O’ Level pass, National ITE Certificate

xxii

(Intermediate), ITE Skills Certificate (ISC), or at least 3 ESS WPLN Statements

of Attainment at Level 5 and above); or post-secondary (non-tertiary)

education (i.e., those who have at least 1 GCE Advanced (‘A’)/Higher 2 (‘H2’)

Level pass, Nitec/Higher Nitec/Master Nitec, Workforce Skills Qualifications

(WSQ) Certificate/Higher Certificate/Advanced Certificate, International

Baccalaureate/High school diploma, or other certificates/qualifications of

equivalent standard).

(iii) Diploma and Professional Qualification includes persons who have

polytechnic diplomas, advanced diplomas or post-diploma certificates; as well

as persons who have qualifications awarded by professional bodies, or NIE

diploma, ITE diploma and other diploma qualifications (e.g., SIM diploma,

LASALLE diploma, NAFA diploma, WSQ diploma/specialist diploma).

(iv) Degree includes persons who have bachelor’s degree, or postgraduate

diploma (including NIE postgraduate diploma), or master’s degree, or

doctorate. It also includes persons with WSQ graduate certificate/graduate

diploma.

Labour Force Status

Labour force refers to persons aged 15 years old and above who were either

employed (i.e., working) or unemployed (i.e., actively looking for a job and available

for work) at the point of survey.

Employed persons refer to persons aged 15 years old and above who, at the

point of survey:

(i) worked for one hour or more either for pay or profit; or

(ii) have a job or business to return to but were temporarily absent because of

illness, injury, breakdown of machinery at workplace, labour management

dispute or other reasons.

Members of the Singapore Armed Forces including full-time National Servicemen

were included in the persons employed, unless otherwise specified.

Unemployed persons refer to persons aged 15 years old and above who were

not working but were actively looking for a job and available 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.

xxiii

Outside the labour force refers to persons who are neither working nor

unemployed at the point of survey. They also include persons before schooling-

age, full-time students, homemakers, retirees, etc.

Labour force participation rate is defined as the percentage of the labour force

to the population.

Tenure

Tenure of an HDB dwelling unit refers to the status of the property, which can either

be sold or rental. The unit is with respect to the dwelling in which the household

members live.

Rental refers to property units designated as subsidised HDB rental flats.

Sold refers to property units designated for sales. This includes households

renting from HDB homeowners.

Flat Type

1-room flats include 1-room Studio Apartments.

2-room flats include 2-room Studio Apartments and 2-room Flexi flats.

Executive flats include maisonette and adjoining flats.

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. Foreign domestic workers or room tenants dwelling in the same housing unit

as the owner/co-owner(s) or registered tenant do not constitute part of the

household. This definition is often known as the household-dwelling unit concept.

xxiv

Type of Family Nucleus

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

families.

Nuclear family refers to:

(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) one-person households (i.e., a person living alone who could be single,

widowed or divorced); or

(ii) unrelated or distantly related persons staying together.

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 or more generations refers to households where family members are from

three or more different generations, such as grandparents, parents and children all

living together.

Note: Non-family based households are excluded.

xxv

Resident Life Cycle Stage

For resident life cycle stage, the respondent is used as the reference point:

A family without children refers to a couple without children.

A family with young children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged

12 years old and below.

A family with teenaged children refers to a family in which the eldest child is

aged between 13 and 20 years old.

A family with unmarried grown-up children refers to a family in which the eldest

unmarried child is aged 21 years old and above.

A family with married children refers to a family with at least one married child.

Non-family refers to a single person, a divorced/separated or widowed person

without children.

Household Life Cycle Stage

For household life cycle stage, the oldest member living in the household is used

as the reference point:

A family with young children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged

12 years old and below.

A family with teenaged children refers to a family in which the eldest child is

aged between 13 and 20 years old.

A family with unmarried grown-up children refers to a family in which the eldest

unmarried child is aged 21 years old and above.

An elderly couple living alone refers to a married couple with at least one spouse

aged 65 years old and above.

A non-family household refers to:

(i) a one-person household (i.e., a person living alone who could be single,

widowed or divorced/separated); or

(ii) unrelated, siblings or distantly related persons living together.

xxvi

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 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

Estates: 9. Tampines

1. Marine Parade 10. Pasir Ris

2. Central Area* 11. Woodlands

12. Yishun

Estate:

1. Bukit Timah

* Covering areas such as Tanjong Pagar Plaza, Cantonment Road, Jalan Kukoh, Chin Swee Road, York Hill, Upper Cross Street, Sago Lane, Selegie Road

1

Introduction

3

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

HDB has conducted Sample Household Surveys (SHSs) of residents living in HDB

flats since 1968, at intervals of five years. SHS 2018 is the eleventh 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 evolving

roles of HDB and its mission. These include assessing the impact of relocation of

residents to public housing, adaptation to high-rise, high-density living, community

formation, and the present emphasis on social diversity and community cohesion.

Since its formation in 2008, the HDB Research Advisory Panel (RAP) has been

providing invaluable guidance to strengthen the Board’s research work. Associate

Professor Tan Ern Ser has chaired the HDB RAP since 2015. Together with other

panel members, comprising academics specialising in sociology, psychology,

geography, economics and statistics, its main role is to provide advice on research

projects and socioeconomic studies undertaken by HDB. The panel was actively

involved in SHS 2018, lending their expertise to HDB in the research scope, as

well as providing inputs on analysing the data collected, so as to enhance the utility

of the findings to HDB and also to other government agencies.

The survey findings serve as important inputs for HDB’s policy reviews and help

identify aspects of the HDB environment that could be improved. Starting from

conceptualisation of the research scope to the analysis of survey findings, various

4

Groups in HDB and government agencies were also consulted so that the survey

could cater more specifically to their respective operational needs.

1.2 Objectives

The two key objectives of the SHS are:

a) To obtain demographic and socioeconomic profile of residents and identify

changing needs and expectations. This information is useful in the

assessment of HDB’s operations and policies; and

b) To 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.

Since SHS 2003, the coverage of the survey has been expanded to include the

collection of data and feedback on the needs of residents living in various towns.

This information is useful in highlighting differences and trends across towns,

which include demographic profiles, areas of concern, adequacy of facilities,

housing aspirations, community bonding, and outlook on life.

1.3 Sampling Design

The target population comprised of households living in HDB sold and rental flats

occupied by Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents as at December 2017.

Each household occupying an HDB dwelling unit forms a sampling unit.

A total of 7,809 households were successfully interviewed, yielding a sampling

error of ±6.0% at 95% confidence level for each stratum. Non-response and post-

stratification adjustments were applied to the final sampling weights to ensure that

the survey data would represent the population as accurately as possible.

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 September 2018.

A crucial requirement for collecting reliable primary data was to maintain high

5

quality fieldwork supervision. This was achieved by adhering to the procedures of

HDB’s Survey Fieldwork Management Quality System that has been developed in

accordance with the requirements of SS ISO 9001: 2015.

1.4 Outline of Monograph

This monograph will present two parts of the survey findings:

a) Profile of HDB Population and Households; and

b) Housing Satisfaction and Preferences.

The first part presents the profile of HDB population and households, specifically,

the demographic and socioeconomic 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 tabs 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.

The other monograph, Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB

Communities and Well-Being of the Elderly, explores the extent of community

bonding and family ties of HDB residents and thereby gauges the degree of social

cohesiveness within HDB towns/estates. It also examines the well-being of elderly

residents, especially in the face of an ageing population in Singapore.

Part 1

Profile of HDB Population and Households

9

Part 1


Introduction

HDB population and households form the building blocks of the HDB living

environment and experience. Changes in their profiles would have important

implications for housing policies and development plans with respect to design and

provision. Therefore, keeping tabs on these changes and having a detailed

understanding of the residents and living arrangements would enable HDB to

better cater to their diverse and changing needs, expectations and aspirations.

The data also sets the context for in-depth insights on specific areas of interest

such as community bonding and housing satisfaction, as well as specific groups

like the elderly.

Objectives

The objectives of Part 1 are as follows:

a) To update on trends of sociodemographic profiles, as well as the economic

well-being of HDB population and households;

b) To identify emerging demographic trends; and

c) To provide profile data for cross analysis in other topics in the Sample

Household Survey (SHS).

10

Framework

The profiles of HDB residents are examined and presented in aggregate forms at

the population level in terms of two different units of analysis - individual and

household - and covering four key aspects:

a) At the population of individual resident’s level (Refer to Chapter 2), the

demographic profile and economic characteristics of the HDB resident

population are examined. This analysis on the demographic profile covers

population size and growth rate; role and relationship with

owners/registered tenants; types of dwelling in terms of tenure and flat type;

geographical distribution by town/estate; age structure; sex composition;

ethnic composition; marital status as well as religious affiliation. The

analysis on economic well-being of the resident population includes their

labour force status and labour force participation rate; as well as the key

economic characteristics of the employed population in terms of education

level and occupation.

b) At the population of households level (Refer to Chapter 3), the analysis on

demographic profile includes property status, geographical distribution by

town/estate, as well as flat type and ethnic group of owners/registered

tenants/main tenants. On household composition, indicators such as types

of family nucleus, family composition, number of generations and

household size are tracked.

In addition to analysing the HDB population of individuals and households, further

analyses on the elderly and future elderly population are included. Detailed

statistics on these groups would provide a more comprehensive picture of the

situation and a better understanding of the ageing population living in HDB flats.

11

Framework for Analysing the Profile of HDB Population and Households

2

Profile of HDB Population

*refers to owners/co-owners, HDB rental tenants and occupiers

17

Chapter 2

Profile of HDB Population

This chapter provides an update on the changing demographic profile and

economic characteristics of the resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens

and Singapore Permanent Residents, living in HDB sold and rental flats.

2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident Population

Size and growth rate of HDB resident population

The resident population (owners/co-owners, HDB rental tenants and occupiers)

living in HDB flats had shrunk slightly, from 3.06 million persons in 2013 to 3.04

million persons in 2018, registering a negative annualised growth rate of 0.1% for

the period 2013 to 2018 (Chart 2.1). The decline was mainly due to net outflow of

HDB resident population into private housing.

Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year

2,845 2,9233,058 3,039

1.00.5

0.9

-0.1

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

2003 2008 2013 2018

Annu

alis

ed G

row

th R

ate

(%

)

Num

ber

('000) Resident

Population(Persons)

AnnualisedGrowth Rate(%)

18

Role and relationship with owner/registered tenant

Overall, about one third (32.8%) of the HDB resident population were owners or

registered tenants renting HDB rental flats (Table 2.1). Almost a quarter (23.1%)

of them were co-owners who were mainly the spouse, while the remaining 44.1%

were occupiers who were mostly the children/children-in-law.

Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population with Owner/Registered Tenant

Role & Relationship with Owner/Registered Tenant All

Owner/Registered Tenant 32.8

Owner 31.1

Registered Tenant (renting HDB rental flats) 1.7

Co-owner (of Sold Flats) 23.1

Spouse 20.3

Children/Children-in-law 1.4

Parents/Parents-in-law 0.7

Sibling/Sibling-in-law 0.7

Occupier 44.1

Children/Children-in-law 36.5

Parents/Parents-in-law 2.6

Spouse 2.0

Sibling/Sibling-in-law 1.1

Other relative (e.g., grandchild, niece/nephew) 1.7

Unrelated (including friend) 0.2

Total % 100.0

Persons 3,039,400

Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type

The majority of the HDB resident population (96.2%) lived in sold flats, with 42.1%

residing in 4-room flats, followed by 26.5% in 5-room flats and another 18.2% in 3-

room flats (Table 2.2). The proportion of residents living in HDB rental flats and

smaller flat types (1- and 2-room flats) had increased slightly over the last decade.

This is due to the increase in the supply of rental flats in recent years in response

to the housing demand of lower income and vulnerable families. There was also

an increase in the supply of smaller flat types, mainly to accommodate elderly

households right-sizing to smaller flats and singles with the relaxation of housing

19

policy allowing singles aged 35 years old and above to purchase new 2-room Flexi

flats in non-mature estates1.

Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Flat Type and Year

Tenure & Flat Type 2003 2008 2013 2018

Tenure

Sold 97.1 97.0 96.3 96.2

Rental 2.9 3.0 3.7 3.8

Flat Type

1-Room 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8

2-Room 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.6

3-Room 21.5 19.6 19.3 18.2

4-Room 41.3 41.0 41.1 42.1

5-Room 25.2 26.7 26.6 26.5

Executive 8.7 9.3 8.6 7.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664 3,039,400

Geographical distribution

Woodlands, Jurong West, Tampines and Sengkang were the four most populous

towns, housing more than 200,000 persons in each town (Table 2.3). These four

towns also contained the largest number of HDB flats, ranging from about 66,000

to 72,000 occupied dwelling units (Refer to Chapter 3, Chart 3.3).

In general, towns with substantial additions to housing stock due to more intensive

developments, such as Punggol, Sengkang and Sembawang, registered the

highest population growth. In contrast, towns/estates with little or no increase in

housing stock experienced net outflow of HDB resident population, likely to other

HDB towns where there were new developments such as Build-to-Order (BTO)

projects or to private housing.

1 The Single Singapore Citizen (SSC) Scheme was first introduced in 1991 to allow single Singaporeans aged

35 years old and above to purchase HDB flats. Since then, the scheme has been further revised over the years. In July 2013, the scheme was relaxed to allow them to buy flats directly from HDB. In March 2015, the quota of 2-room BTO flats available for singles to purchase increased from 30% to 50%. The Enhanced CPF Housing Grant introduced in September 2019 also enabled first-timer, single flat buyers earning $4,500 or lower to be eligible for up to $40,000 in grants.

20

Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year

Town/Estate 2003 2008 2013 2018

Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons %

Young Towns

Sengkang 123,726 4.3 154,478 5.3 172,748 5.7 208,400 6.9

Punggol 38,290 1.3 57,767 2.0 94,829 3.1 140,600 4.6

Sembawang 57,033 2.0 63,125 2.2 68,055 2.2 76,700 2.5

Middle-Aged Towns/Estate

Woodlands 210,723 7.4 225,274 7.7 229,827 7.5 227,600 7.5

Jurong West 216,722 7.6 233,920 8.0 242,395 7.9 226,500 7.4

Tampines 228,722 8.0 227,042 7.8 237,281 7.8 222,300 7.3

Yishun 158,096 5.5 161,311 5.5 169,351 5.6 185,200 6.1

Choa Chu Kang 143,626 5.0 149,978 5.1 154,915 5.1 167,200 5.5

Hougang 172,388 6.1 168,601 5.8 165,247 5.4 163,700 5.4

Bukit Panjang 106,705 3.8 106,661 3.6 115,993 3.8 114,800 3.8

Pasir Ris 107,506 3.8 105,737 3.6 108,328 3.5 110,400 3.6

Bukit Batok 108,209 3.8 99,491 3.4 108,197 3.5 107,200 3.5

Jurong East 79,217 2.8 76,440 2.6 75,371 2.5 68,400 2.3

Serangoon 73,853 2.6 71,149 2.4 72,280 2.4 61,900 2.0

Bishan 66,311 2.3 64,060 2.2 62,456 2.0 55,600 1.8

Bukit Timah 8,794 0.3 8,402 0.3 7,830 0.3 7,600 0.3

Mature Towns/Estates

Bedok 188,909 6.6 183,302 6.3 187,313 6.1 174,900 5.8

Bukit Merah 123,741 4.3 136,297 4.7 144,714 4.7 134,700 4.4

Ang Mo Kio 146,680 5.2 144,313 4.9 144,329 4.7 126,300 4.2

Toa Payoh 102,054 3.6 101,107 3.5 102,544 3.4 95,000 3.1

Kallang/Whampoa 94,059 3.3 97,211 3.3 103,767 3.4 93,800 3.1

Queenstown 75,427 2.7 78,826 2.7 80,633 2.6 76,000 2.5

Geylang 93,545 3.3 90,808 3.1 87,967 2.9 75,400 2.5

Clementi 71,047 2.5 68,508 2.3 65,397 2.1 70,200 2.3

Central Area 27,622 1.0 28,607 1.0 33,396 1.1 30,300 1.0

Marine Parade 21,681 0.8 20,809 0.7 22,501 0.7 18,700 0.6

Total 2,844,686 100.0 2,923,224 100.0 3,057,664 100.0 3,039,400 100.0

21

Age structure

As the cohorts of “baby boomers”2 continued to age, coupled with increasing

longevity and declining fertility rate, the median age of the HDB resident population

rose rapidly in tandem, reaching 42 years old in 2018, up from 39 years old in 2013

(Table 2.4).

The proportion of elderly population had more than doubled and future elderly had

almost doubled over the last 15 years. Elderly persons accounted for 16.5% of the

resident population, while the future elderly persons constituted 15.8%. Together,

about one-third of the resident population were older persons aged 55 years old

and above in 2018. Compared to the proportions at the national level3, there were

more older persons living in HDB flats than in private housing. Correspondingly,

the share of the younger cohort aged below 15 years old continued to decline, from

21.6% in 2003 to 14.3% in 2018.

Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Age and Year

Age Group (Years) 2003 2008 2013 2018

Below 15 21.6 17.7 16.7 14.3

15 - 24 13.4 14.3 14.1 12.9

25 - 34 15.1 13.6 13.5 12.2

35 - 44 18.0 16.0 15.2 13.5

45 - 54 15.5 17.1 16.2 14.8

55 - 64 8.7 11.6 13.3 15.8

65 & Above 7.6 9.8 11.0 16.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,054,854 3,038,500

Age (Years)

Mean 34.4 36.9 37.9 41.3

Median 34 37 39 42

* Excluding non-response cases

2 The “baby boomers” cohort is defined as those born between 1947 and 1964. 3 The proportions of elderly and future elderly population were 13.7% and 14.4% of resident population

respectively, at the national level, based on Singapore Department of Statistics, Population Trends, 2018.

22

With longer life expectancy, the proportion of elderly population among females

was slightly higher at 17.6%, while that for males was 15.5%, resulting in a slightly

higher median age of the female resident population at 43 years old, compared

with their male counterpart at 41 years of age (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age, Sex and Year

Age Group (Years) Male Female All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Below 15 17.4 15.3 16.1 13.5 16.7 14.3

15 - 24 15.1 13.8 13.2 12.0 14.1 12.9

25 - 34 13.2 12.6 13.7 11.8 13.5 12.2

35 - 44 14.8 12.5 15.6 14.3 15.2 13.5

45 - 54 16.3 14.6 16.1 15.0 16.2 14.8

55 - 64 13.1 15.7 13.5 15.8 13.3 15.8

65 & Above 10.1 15.5 11.8 17.6 11.0 16.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 1,490,364 1,484,700 1,564,456 1,553,800 3,054,854 3,038,500

Age (Years)

Mean 37.2 40.3 38.5 42.2 37.9 41.3

Median 38 41 39 43 39 42


Further analysis by ethnic group showed that the resident Chinese population was

much older with a median age of 44 years old compared with other ethnic groups

(Table 2.6). Some 19.1% and 16.7% of the resident Chinese population were

elderly and future elderly residents respectively. The resident Malay population,

on the other hand, was the youngest, with only 9.3% comprising elderly persons.

Some 52.4% of the resident Malay population were aged below 35 years old, and

thereby its having a lower median age of 33 years old.

23

Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age, Ethnic Group and Year

Age Group (Years) Chinese Malay Indian Others All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Below 15 15.1 12.9 19.9 19.0 23.2 17.2 23.0 15.0 16.7 14.3

15 - 24 12.8 11.8 20.8 17.2 14.7 14.6 12.0 11.7 14.1 12.9

25 - 34 13.3 11.4 13.6 16.2 13.8 11.3 15.0 12.1 13.5 12.2

35 - 44 15.5 13.3 11.2 10.4 17.4 17.0 24.7 25.9 15.2 13.5

45 - 54 16.2 14.8 16.3 12.9 15.7 16.9 15.3 18.2 16.2 14.8

55 - 64 14.5 16.7 11.1 15.0 9.3 11.9 5.8 8.9 13.3 15.8

65 & Above 12.6 19.1 7.0 9.3 5.9 11.1 4.2 8.2 11.0 16.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 2,246,619 2,205,100 474,602 493,300 271,405 272,300 62,228 67,800 3,054,854 3,038,500

Age (Years)

Mean 39.5 43.1 33.7 35.7 33.2 37.6 32.5 37.5 37.9 41.3

Median 40 44 31 33 34 38 34 39 39 42


24

Among residents living in smaller flat types, some 38.0% of them in 1-room flats

were elderly (Table 2.7). Elderly persons made up about 22.8% and 24.6% among

those living in 2- and 3-room flats respectively. Together with 22.0% who were

future elderly residents, six in ten of the residents living in 1-room flats were aged

55 years old and above, with a median age of 60 years old. Similarly, about four

in ten of those living in 2- and 3-room flats were older persons aged 55 years old

and above. The median age of the resident population living in 2- and 3-room flats,

compared with other flat types, were older at 46 and 50 years old respectively.

Population movements will likely bring about changes in the age structure of a

town. Towns with significant injections of new housing, such as Punggol,

Sengkang and Sembawang, housed higher proportions of young families and

hence, had higher proportions of resident population aged below 15 years old at

25.3%, 21.2% and 18.2% respectively (Table 2.8). In contrast, mature and middle-

aged towns/estates generally housed more elderly and future elderly residents.

25

Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age, Flat Type and Year

Age Group (Years)

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

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Below 15 9.6 8.4 18.5 16.6 12.5 9.8 16.4 15.2 19.9 16.5 19.0 13.4 16.7 14.3

15 - 24 10.5 6.2 14.7 14.3 10.7 9.8 14.5 12.6 14.9 14.5 18.6 17.7 14.1 12.9

25 - 34 5.4 8.5 9.2 9.1 12.8 10.2 15.4 13.9 12.8 11.5 10.8 12.3 13.5 12.2

35 - 44 9.6 6.4 8.2 8.1 14.0 12.1 15.2 14.7 17.6 14.3 13.8 10.5 15.2 13.5

45 - 54 14.4 10.5 15.1 11.5 17.1 15.5 15.9 14.6 15.6 15.2 17.2 15.2 16.2 14.8

55 - 64 18.7 22.0 15.0 17.6 15.7 18.0 13.1 14.9 11.5 14.5 13.2 17.4 13.3 15.8

65 & Above 31.8 38.0 19.3 22.8 17.2 24.6 9.5 14.1 7.8 13.5 7.4 13.5 11.0 16.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 47,925 55,700 85,067 108,400 591,524 553,300 1,254,922 1,278,500 811,859 805,500 263,557 237,100 3,054,854 3,038,500

Age (Years)

Mean 49.9 53.0 40.5 43.1 42.7 47.0 37.2 39.8 35.3 39.1 35.2 39.8 37.9 41.3

Median 55 60 44 46 45 50 37 40 36 39 36 41 39 42


26

Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age and Town/Estate

Age Group (Years)

Young Towns Middle-Age Towns/Estate

Punggol Sengkang Semba-wang

Bishan Bukit Batok

Bukit Panjang

Choa Chu Kang

Hougang Jurong

East Jurong West

Pasir Ris

Seran-goon

Tampines Wood-lands

Below 15 25.3 21.2 18.2 9.8 12.1 13.4 13.1 12.1 9.2 16.8 12.9 9.3 15.9 16.2

15 - 24 7.0 11.9 14.6 13.3 13.5 13.5 19.0 13.5 12.4 11.8 19.8 13.3 12.7 18.7

25 - 34 20.8 14.6 14.4 10.0 11.3 14.4 12.1 11.0 13.3 9.7 12.7 9.9 14.3 10.5

35 - 44 22.6 15.9 15.6 12.9 11.5 10.3 12.1 13.4 12.5 15.0 11.4 13.0 12.7 14.1

45 - 54 9.7 16.1 14.7 14.2 16.3 16.4 16.6 16.9 14.1 16.2 16.7 15.3 11.9 17.3

55 - 64 8.7 10.2 15.4 19.9 18.1 17.2 15.9 16.6 16.6 15.8 17.1 18.2 18.4 12.7

65 & Above 5.9 10.1 7.1 19.9 17.2 14.8 11.2 16.5 21.9 14.7 9.4 21.0 14.1 10.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 140,400 208,400 76,500 55,500 107,100 114,800 167,200 163,700 68,400 226,500 110,400 61,900 222,300 227,600

Age (Years)

Mean 32.2 35.7 36.1 44.7 42.6 41.0 38.7 42.2 44.6 40.4 38.5 45.2 39.9 37.3

Median 33 35 36 47 45 42 39 44 46 42 40 46 39 38


27

Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age and Town/Estate (Continued)

Age Group (Years)



All

Yishun Bukit Timah

Ang Mo Kio

Bedok Bukit Merah

Clementi Geylang Kallang/

Whampoa Queens-

town Toa

Payoh Central

Area Marine Parade

Below 15 15.5 11.4 11.4 9.6 12.2 11.7 11.5 12.0 11.1 10.7 12.4 12.0 14.3

15 - 24 13.9 11.9 9.7 13.6 9.0 11.0 10.4 8.2 7.8 12.6 8.7 6.3 12.9

25 - 34 12.7 11.1 10.3 13.6 9.6 11.1 11.5 10.6 12.1 8.1 8.3 7.1 12.2

35 - 44 13.3 10.6 12.5 9.0 12.8 13.1 12.6 11.4 15.0 12.3 12.8 15.6 13.5

45 - 54 15.0 12.0 13.6 13.9 14.1 12.7 14.8 13.8 10.9 14.5 15.2 11.6 14.8

55 - 64 16.2 20.0 17.9 18.5 16.6 16.3 14.6 17.0 17.7 16.4 16.0 13.3 15.8

65 & Above 13.4 23.0 24.6 21.8 25.7 24.1 24.6 27.0 25.4 25.4 26.6 34.1 16.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 185,200 7,600 126,300 174,900 134,700 70,200 75,100 93,800 76,000 95,000 30,300 18,700 3,038,500

Age (Years)

Mean 39.7 45.6 46.4 44.9 46.4 45.3 45.3 47.0 46.9 46.3 46.5 49.8 41.3

Median 41 49 49 47 49 47 47 49 48 48 49 52 42


28

Sex composition

Among the HDB resident population, female residents (51.1%) continued to

outnumber their male counterpart (48.9%) (Table 2.9).

Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year

Sex 2003 2008 2013 2018

Male 49.6 49.5 48.8 48.9

Female 50.4 50.5 51.2 51.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 2,844,424 2,921,543 3,057,056 3,039,400


Ethnic composition

The ethnic composition of the resident population living in HDB flats had remained

stable over the last few years. The Chinese continued to form the majority of the

resident population at 72.6%, followed by Malays at 16.2%, Indians at 9.0% and

Others at 2.2% (Table 2.10). There has been a gradual decline in the proportion

of the resident Chinese population over the years. Correspondingly, the

proportions of the resident Indian and Others population rose slightly over the same

period.

Table 2.10 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year

Ethnic Group 2003 2008 2013 2018

Chinese 74.4 73.8 73.5 72.6

Malay 16.5 16.3 15.6 16.2

Indian 8.0 8.2 8.9 9.0

Others 1.1 1.6 2.0 2.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535 3,039,400


29

Among the resident Chinese and Indian population, tenure distribution had

remained relatively stable over the last five years (Tables 2.11). However, the

proportion of Malays and Indians in HDB rental flats had increased slightly, while

the proportion in sold flats decreased slightly. For the Others population, the

proportion living in HDB rental flats had decreased slightly, from 4.3% to 2.0% over

the same period.

In terms of flat type distribution, except for Others ethnic group, there was an

increase in the proportions of resident population living in 1- and 2-room flats

across all ethnic groups over the last five years (Table 2.11). The increase was

the highest among the resident Malay population at 2.8 percentage points, followed

by the resident Indian population at 1.5 percentage points and resident Chinese

population at 0.6 percentage point.

30

Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Flat Type, Ethnic Group and Year

Tenure & Flat Type

Chinese Malay Indian Others All

2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Tenure

Sold 97.4 97.6 97.7 95.2 91.6 90.4 96.2 94.4 94.2 97.0 95.7 98.0 97.0 96.3 96.2

Rental 2.6 2.4 2.3 4.8 8.4 9.6 3.8 5.6 5.8 3.0 4.3 2.0 3.0 3.7 3.8

Flat Type

1-Room 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 2.9 3.5 1.6 2.2 2.4 1.4 2.6 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.8

2-Room 1.9 1.9 2.3 3.5 6.3 8.5 3.0 3.7 5.0 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.6

3-Room 19.7 19.3 18.0 17.8 19.8 18.1 21.0 19.1 19.9 21.7 17.4 19.4 19.6 19.3 18.2

4-Room 40.6 41.2 42.4 44.0 41.6 42.1 39.8 39.6 40.6 39.2 39.9 39.0 41.0 41.1 42.1

5-Room 27.4 27.6 27.9 24.8 22.0 20.8 24.4 25.9 24.2 27.0 28.0 30.2 26.7 26.6 26.5

Executive 9.4 8.8 8.0 8.6 7.4 7.0 10.3 9.5 7.9 9.0 10.0 7.9 9.3 8.6 7.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 2,158,254 2,248,298 2,206,000 477,527 475,427 493,300 240,193 271,582 272,300 47,250 62,228 67,800 2,923,224 3,057,535 3,039,400


31

Marital status

The distribution of the HDB resident population aged 15 years old and above by

marital status had remained stable over the last decade (Table 2.12). In 2018,

57.4% of the resident population aged 15 years old and above were married and

32.2% were single. Widowed persons and those who were either divorced or

separated accounted for the remaining 5.8% and 4.6% respectively.

Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Marital Status and Year

Marital Status 2003 2008 2013 2018

Married 60.5 58.1 58.4 57.4

Widowed 4.8 5.4 5.3 5.8

Divorced/Separated 3.0 3.3 3.5 4.6

Single 31.6 33.2 32.8 32.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 2,228,799 2,403,134 2,543,159 2,602,300


With longer life expectancy, a higher proportion of females was widowed (9.3%),

compared with males (2.1%), as shown in Table 2.13. Proportionally, there were

also more females who were divorced/separated (5.9%), compared with males

(3.2%). Correspondingly, the shares of those who were married or single were

smaller among the females than the males.

Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Marital Status and Sex

Marital Status Male Female All

Married 59.9 55.1 57.4

Widowed 2.1 9.3 5.8

Divorced/Separated 3.2 5.9 4.6

Single 34.8 29.7 32.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 1,258,000 1,344,300 2,602,300


32

Religious affiliation

Among HDB resident population aged 15 years old and above, 46.5% identified

themselves as Buddhists/Taoists, 18.3% as Muslims, 14.4% as Christians and

5.0% as Hindus (Table 2.14). The proportion of residents without religious

affiliation was 15.6% in 2018.

Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Religion

Religion All

Buddhism/Taoism 46.5

Islam 18.3

Christianity 14.4

Hinduism 5.0

Other Religions 0.2

No Religion 15.6

Total % 100.0

Persons* 2,595,700


Higher proportions of younger residents aged below 55 years old (ranging between

17% and 19%) reported no religious affiliation compared to older residents aged

55 years old and above (about 12%) (Table 2.15). Reflecting the age structure of

the population where the Chinese were generally older and the Malays were

generally younger, a larger proportion of the older residents were

Buddhists/Taoists, while there were proportionally more Muslims among the

younger residents.

33

Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Religion and Age

Religion

Age Group (Years)

All 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64

65 & Above

Buddhism/Taoism 38.0 38.7 43.7 45.2 51.8 57.1 46.5

Islam 25.6 25.4 15.5 16.9 18.3 11.0 18.3

Christianity 13.0 13.1 16.0 14.2 13.7 15.9 14.4

Hinduism 5.9 3.7 7.3 6.5 3.6 3.6 5.0

Other Religions 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

No Religion 17.2 18.8 17.2 17.0 12.4 12.2 15.6

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 392,400 368,600 405,900 448,700 478,100 502,000 2,595,700


2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population

Labour force status

Slightly more than half of the resident population (55.1%) were in the labour force,

a slight increase from 2013 (Chart 2.2). The proportion of resident population that

was unemployed had remained low at 2.6%, though the proportion had risen

slightly over the same period.

Among the 44.9% of the resident population that was not in the labour force, full-

time students constituted the majority (18.3%), followed by retirees (11.5%) and

homemakers (8.9%). When compared with 2013, the proportion of retirees in 2018

was higher, reflecting a rapidly ageing population, making them the second largest

cohort among those who were not in the labour force after the student cohort.

Correspondingly, the proportions of students and homemakers had declined.

34

Chart 2.2 Labour Force Status of HDB Resident Population by Year

Labour force participation rate (LFPR)

Overall, 64.3% of the HDB resident population aged 15 years old and above were

working or actively seeking employment in 2018, a slight decline from 64.9% in

2013 and reversing the upward trend from 2003 to 2013 (Chart 2.3), due primarily

to a rapidly ageing cohort of baby boomers.

Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year

Holding Two or More Jobs 0.3% (2018) 0.0% (2013)

**** Including employers and unpaid family workers

** Including persons who are disabled/long-term hospitalised, waiting for NS or exam results, in prison/drug rehabilitative centre, etc

HDB Resident Population* (excluding tenants)

3,035,500 persons (2018) 3,057,664 persons (2013)

Employed 52.5% (2018) 51.9% (2013)

Unemployed 2.6% (2018) 2.2% (2013)

Students 18.3% (2018) 21.0% (2013)

Homemakers 8.9% (2018) 10.6% (2013)

Retirees 11.5% (2018) 7.7% (2013)

Before School-Age

4.3% (2018) 5.1% (2013)

Others** 1.9% (2018) 1.5% (2013)

Others**** 0.2% (2018) 0.0% (2013)

Employees 48.1% (2018) 49.5% (2013)

Own Account Workers*** 4.2% (2018) 2.4% (2013)

Full-Time*** 42.3% (2018) 43.9% (2013)

Part-Time*** 5.5% (2018) 5.6% (2013)

In labour force 55.1% (2018) 54.1% (2013)

Outside Labour Force 44.9% (2018) 45.9% (2013)

* Excluding non-responses cases *** Single job holders

75.8 75.4 74.6 72.6

50.053.1

55.8 56.6

62.7 64.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2008 2013 2018

Labour

Forc

e P

art

icip

ation R

ate

(%

)

Male

All

Female

64.9 64.3

35

While males were still playing the traditional role of the main breadwinner in the

family - as evident from a higher LFPR for males, the share of females in the labour

force continued to increase from 50.0% in 2003 to 56.6% in 2018; whereas the

share of males declined gradually from 75.8% to 72.6% over the same period

(Chart 2.3).

Chart 2.4 shows the age-sex specific LFPR of the resident population. Between

aged 15 and 29 years old, the male and female LFPRs moved in tandem,

increasing sharply in these age cohorts. The male LFPR peaked at aged 40 to 44

years old, with 98.5% of males in that cohort participating in the workforce, before

declining after aged 49 years old. Beyond aged 60 years old, the male LFPR

started to decline rapidly to the lowest level of 12.0% among those aged 75 years

old and above. In contrast, the female LFPR peaked at aged 25 to 29 years old

with 89.6% working, and thereafter, it declined gradually to the lowest rate of 6.1%

among those aged 75 years old and above.

Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Year

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-7475 &

Above

Male (2018) 11.8 57.1 91.5 97.7 98.0 98.5 98.0 94.1 90.8 76.1 52.1 32.4 12.0

Male (2013) 12.5 56.4 92.6 98.7 98.0 98.2 97.9 94.4 89.1 72.1 44.6 33.4 11.0

Male (2008) 8.4 62.0 91.8 97.9 97.8 99.0 97.9 96.2 87.0 71.9 46.1 23.5 7.3

Male (2003) 10.2 67.9 92.2 97.5 97.7 97.3 98.4 95.4 78.2 53.1 32.3 14.8 6.0

Female (2018) 6.4 51.8 89.6 86.1 81.8 80.0 80.6 66.1 63.0 48.0 35.9 18.3 6.1

Female (2013) 6.7 59.1 87.6 84.2 79.0 75.6 71.2 66.7 54.0 37.9 20.9 11.7 3.1

Female (2008) 5.1 55.9 87.1 80.1 74.9 68.9 69.2 61.7 49.3 37.9 12.2 9.6 1.9

Female (2003) 9.7 65.9 86.8 72.4 62.2 58.6 61.6 49.1 40.3 16.7 10.1 6.2 3.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Labour

Forc

e P

art

icip

ation R

ate

(%

)

Male LFPR

Female LFPR

36

Looking at the trend over the last decade, it was evident that women and older

residents were the two main driving forces behind the increase in LFPR. The

female LFPR had been on the rise for those aged 30 years old and above, likely

due to reasons such as females getting married and/or giving birth at a later age;

availability of more childcare facilities to support women with young children to

remain in the workforce; or older women returning to the workforce after their

children had grown up. While the male LFPR had remained high up to aged 55 to

59 years old over the last ten years, increasingly more males aged 60 years old

and above had either joined or remained in the workforce. More older workers are

remaining in the workforce likely facilitated by the introduction of the Retirement

and Re-employment Act (RRA)4 in 2012 to allow eligible older workers to work

longer should they want or need to do so. This proportion is likely to increase

further, with the gradual increase of statutory retirement age up to 65 years and

the re-employment age up to 70 years by 20305.

Types of employment of employed resident population

There were about 1.59 million employed residents in 2018, accounting for 52.5%

of the resident population, a slight increase from 2013 (Chart 2.2). Of the 52.5%,

a large majority were employees (48.1%), while the rest were mainly own-account

workers (4.2%). The bulk of the employed residents were single job holders

working full-time.

4 The Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA) was introduced by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in 2012.

Under the RRA, the statutory retirement age is 62 years old. Thereafter, employers are required to re-employ eligible employees who turn 62 years old, up to the age of 65 years old (and up to the age of 67 years old, with effect from 1 July 2017). (Source: Understanding Re-employment; National Trades Union Congress, Jul 2016)

5 The retirement age, which is currently at 62 years old will go up to 63 years old in 2022 before being raised further to 65 years old by 2030. The re-employment age of 67 years old will go up to 68 years old in 2022 before being raised further to 70 years old by 2030. Ministry of Manpower. “Key Recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers.” (https://www.mom.gov.sg/-/media/mom/documents/press-releases/2019/0819-twg-ow-infographic.pdf)

37

Age distribution of employed resident population

Chart 2.5(a) shows the age distribution of the employed resident population aged

15 years old and above. Overall, employed persons aged between 15 and 24

years old had continued to decline gradually over the years, from 9.1% in 2003 to

8.0% in 2013 and 7.3% in 2018. This is likely the result of a declining fertility rate

and an improved education profile of the younger residents, which likely relates to

their delaying employment to a later age to pursue higher education. As the

resident population continues to age, the proportions of employed persons in the

prime working age between 25 and 54 years old were also on the decline, from

80.4% to 72.0% and 64.8% over the same period, while the proportion of employed

persons aged 55 years old and above increased sharply, from 10.5% in 2003 to

20.0% in 2013 and 27.9% in 2018. With increasingly more older residents and

fewer younger residents participating in the workforce, the median age of the

resident labour force correspondingly increased from 39 years old in 2003 to 44

years old in 2018.

Charts 2.5(b) and 2.5(c) show the age distribution of the male and female resident

labour force. The proportion of employed females aged between 15 and 24 years

old fell from 10.3% in 2003 to 8.3% in 2013 and 6.8% in 2018, slightly more than

their male counterpart (from 8.3% in 2003 to 7.8% in 2013 and 7.7% in 2018), likely

due to their delaying employment to pursue higher education. The male labour

force aged 55 years old and above had more than doubled over the years, from

11.9% in 2003 to 22.7% in 2013 and 29.8% in 2018, while that of females, though

remaining slightly lower than their male counterparts, increased three folds from

8.5% to 16.8% and 25.8% over the same period. The median age of males and

females in the labour force also continued to rise, reaching 45 years old and 43

years old in 2018 respectively.

38

Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Sex and Year (a) All Population

(b) Male Population

(c) Female Population

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-6465 &

Above

2003 1.2 7.9 12.0 14.6 14.6 15.0 14.3 9.9 5.9 2.6 2.0

2008 0.9 7.0 11.1 11.8 12.8 13.3 13.4 13.0 8.8 5.0 3.1

2013 1.1 6.9 10.6 12.0 11.9 12.7 13.1 11.7 9.5 6.2 4.3

2018 0.9 6.4 10.3 10.0 10.8 11.1 11.3 11.3 11.0 8.9 8.0

0

5

10

15P

opu

lation (

%)

Median Age in 2018 = 44 years


15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-6465 &

Above

2003 1.2 7.1 9.9 13.1 14.9 16.1 15.0 10.8 6.2 3.2 2.5

2008 1.0 7.0 9.5 10.5 12.3 13.8 13.1 13.6 9.8 5.5 4.0

2013 1.5 6.3 9.3 11.1 11.4 12.2 12.9 12.5 10.1 7.3 5.3

2018 1.2 6.5 10.1 9.4 9.8 10.5 11.0 11.7 11.5 9.8 8.5

0

5

10

15

Popu

lation (

%)



15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-6465 &

Above

2003 1.1 9.2 14.9 16.7 14.3 13.5 13.2 8.6 5.5 1.7 1.3

2008 0.7 6.9 13.2 13.6 13.5 12.6 13.8 12.2 7.4 4.2 1.8

2013 0.7 7.6 12.2 13.0 12.6 13.2 13.3 10.7 8.8 4.9 3.1

2018 0.5 6.3 10.4 10.7 12.0 11.8 11.7 10.8 10.5 7.8 7.5

0

5

10

15

Popu

lation (

%)



39

Education level of employed resident population

The education profile of the employed residents continued to improve. Slightly

over a quarter (26.8%) of the employed residents were degree holders, up from

23.7% in 2013 and close to a two-fold increase from 14.2% in 2003 (Table 2.16).

Those with tertiary education, including the ones with diploma and professional

qualifications, constituted close to half of the employed residents (47.1%) in 2018,

up from 42.7% in 2013 and a significant increase from 27.4% in 2003. The

employed residents with below secondary qualifications comprised mainly elderly

persons.

Table 2.16 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Education Level and Year

Highest Education Level Attained 2003 2008 2013 2018

Below Secondary 33.3 30.5 24.4 21.6

Secondary/Post-Secondary 39.3 37.4 32.9 31.3

Diploma & Professional Qualification 13.2 16.0 19.0 20.3

Degree 14.2 16.1 23.7 26.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 1,286,110 1,468,972 1,573,256 1,585,200


Analysing the education profile across age groups revealed that the resident

workforce was becoming better qualified as young residents who received higher

education joined the workforce. At least six in ten of the employed residents in the

prime-working age of below 45 years old had completed tertiary education,

compared with 38.4% for those aged 45 to 54 years old and about less than two in

ten among those aged 55 years old and above (Table 2.17).

The female employed residents were slightly better educated than the males, with

28.5% of them possessing a university degree, compared with males at 25.4%

(Table 2.18). As better-educated women were more likely to participate in the

labour market, an improvement in the education profile of the female labour force

would have a positive impact on the female LFPR.

40

Table 2.17 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Education Level, Age and Year


Age Group (Years) All

15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Below Secondary 5.4 3.9 4.3 3.9 13.6 8.1 34.5 23.1 50.3 42.0 73.5 64.3 24.4 21.6

Secondary/Post-Secondary 40.9 37.1 24.2 19.8 29.7 24.5 39.1 38.5 39.2 41.6 21.3 27.4 32.9 31.3

Diploma & Professional Qualification

38.0 43.9 27.5 26.1 21.8 25.8 12.9 18.0 6.7 8.9 3.4 4.6 19.0 20.3

Degree 15.7 15.1 44.0 50.2 34.9 41.6 13.5 20.4 3.8 7.5 1.8 3.7 23.7 26.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 126,225 115,500 354,504 319,900 386,404 348,700 389,264 358,400 249,352 315,400 67,507 127,300 1,573,256 1,585,200


Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Education Level, Sex and Year

Highest Education Level Attained Male Female All

2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Below Secondary 35.6 32.5 25.9 22.5 29.9 27.8 22.5 20.5 33.3 30.5 24.4 21.6

Secondary/Post-Secondary 38.6 36.9 33.0 31.7 40.2 38.2 32.8 30.7 39.3 37.4 32.9 31.3

Diploma & Professional Qualification 12.6 15.4 19.3 20.4 14.1 16.7 18.5 20.3 13.2 16.0 19.0 20.3

Degree 13.2 15.2 21.8 25.4 15.8 17.3 26.2 28.5 14.2 16.1 23.7 26.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 766,754 848,127 877,627 863,100 519,355 620,846 695,629 722,100 1,286,110 1,468,972 1,573,256 1,585,200


41

Occupation of employed resident population

With improvements in the education profile of the resident workforce, a gradual

shift in occupation towards higher-skilled jobs among the employed was evident

over the years. The share of professionals, managers, executives and technicians

(PMETs) in the resident workforce rose from 43.4% in 2003 to 50.6% in 2013 and

51.9% in 2018 (Table 2.19).

Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Occupation and Year

Occupation* 2003 2008 2013 2018

Legislator, Senior Officials & Managers 11.4 10.7 13.3 12.2

Professionals 11.2 11.9 14.5 20.1

Associate Professionals & Technicians 20.8 22.6 22.8 19.6

Clerical Workers 13.5 12.8 12.9 10.0

Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers 12.8 12.6 11.8 13.0

Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers

17.8 15.0 11.9 12.0

Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers 8.6 10.7 9.2 9.7

Others (e.g., NS, SAF personnel) 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons** 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428 1,565,600

* Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series. Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively.

** Excluding non-response cases

At the same time, the proportion of employed residents in production jobs, including

plant or machine operators, had declined significantly, from 17.8% in 2003 to

11.9% in 2013 and had remained stable at 12.0% in 2018. Those performing

clerical works had also decreased gradually, from 13.5% in 2003 to 12.9% in 2013

and 10.0% in 2018. The proportion of employed residents in services or sales

related jobs had remained relatively stable at around 12% to 13% over the same

period. There was a slight increase in the proportion of employed residents in

cleaning or labour related works, from 8.6% in 2003 to 9.2% in 2013 and 9.7% in

2018. As the resident workforce upgraded and progressed into higher skilled jobs,

an increasing proportion of the lower skilled, labour intensive jobs, if they had not

disappeared, were taken up by older workers or non-residents.

PMETss

42

Reflecting the lower education profile of older workers due in part to limited

opportunities to pursue higher education in their earlier years, about four in ten

(38.2%) of those aged 55 to 64 years old and more than half (54.3%) of those aged

65 years old and above were employed in lower-skilled jobs such as cleaners and

labourers, production and plant or machine operators (Table 2.20). In sharp

contrast, among the younger cohort aged 25 to 44 years old, the proportion of

PMETs was larger than that of non-PMETs.

In 2018, about half the males (53.0%) and females (50.7%) among the employed

residents were PMETs (Table 2.21). With improved educational attainment of the

female workforce, more females were holding PMET jobs, resulting in the

narrowing gap between the proportions of males and females in this category. In

2018, 53.0% of employed male residents were PMETs, just 2.3 percentage points

higher than employed female residents. The gap was wider, at 3.5 percentage

points, in 2003. However, among those in non-PMET jobs, a higher proportion of

males were in jobs such as production and plant or machine operators; whereas

more females were found in jobs such as clerical works, services and sales.

43

Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Occupation, Age and Year

Occupation*

Age Group (Years) All

15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Legislator, Senior Officials & Managers

4.5 1.3 13.0 12.3 19.6 19.6 14.4 13.9 9.7 9.2 3.6 5.1 13.3 12.2

Professionals 10.6 13.1 24.9 33.0 20.1 28.9 9.2 17.6 4.3 9.0 4.0 5.0 14.5 20.1

Associate Professionals & Technicians

20.7 19.8 31.8 26.6 24.1 21.9 21.5 20.3 15.8 14.4 7.3 6.4 22.8 19.6

Clerical Workers 13.3 13.3 13.9 9.5 13.2 9.9 14.0 9.8 10.8 11.1 6.7 6.7 12.9 10.0

Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers

12.7 13.9 8.5 8.9 9.3 9.4 11.8 13.0 16.9 17.4 21.6 21.3 11.8 13.0

Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers

2.4 2.4 4.6 4.4 8.2 6.4 17.2 16.0 22.9 22.5 17.7 16.9 11.9 12.0

Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers

2.5 2.5 1.5 3.3 4.7 3.4 11.2 8.7 19.0 15.7 38.7 37.4 9.2 9.7

Others (e.g., NS, SAF personnel)

33.3 33.7 1.8 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.2 3.6 3.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons** 124,338 113,600 341,517 314,000 378,909 341,000 383,798 356,500 246,201 313,300 67,005 127,200 1,542,428 1,565,600



44

Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years Old and Above by Occupation, Sex and Year

Occupation* Male Female All

2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Legislator, Senior Officials & Managers

13.6 12.5 15.1 13.6 8.2 8.1 11.1 10.7 11.4 10.7 13.3 12.2

Professionals 10.9 12.1 13.9 20.3 11.6 11.5 15.1 19.8 11.2 11.9 14.5 20.1

Associate Professionals & Technicians

20.3 21.4 22.8 19.1 21.5 24.4 22.9 20.2 20.8 22.6 22.8 19.6

Clerical Workers 6.4 5.7 6.4 3.8 24.0 22.5 21.1 17.5 13.5 12.8 12.9 10.0


11.9 11.6 10.1 10.4 14.3 14.0 13.9 16.1 12.8 12.6 11.8 13.0


23.4 21.3 18.1 19.4 9.7 6.4 4.1 3.1 17.8 15.0 11.9 12.0


7.2 9.2 7.4 7.4 10.5 12.7 11.5 12.5 8.6 10.7 9.2 9.7

Others (e.g., NS, SAF personnel) 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons** 768,850 834,609 860,089 852,000 520,519 613,597 682,339 713,600 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428 1,565,600



45

2.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population

Singapore has one of the fastest ageing populations in the world. As the population

ages, the needs of the elderly population, ranging from financial security, housing

and healthcare, to family care, community support and social services, will be

accentuated and become more pressing.

This section analyses the statistics pertaining to the demographic and

socioeconomic aspects of the elderly and future elderly population living in HDB

flats. Detailed statistics on the elderly and the future elderly population would

provide planners and policy-makers with information to plan for and prioritise

facilities and programmes. More details on elderly and future elderly households

as well as their social, housing and personal aspects are covered in Chapter 6 on

Well-Being of the Elderly of the monograph Public Housing in Singapore: Social

Well-Being of HDB Communities & Well-Being of the Elderly.

2.3.1 Demographic Characteristics

Population size and growth rate

The number of elderly (aged 65 years old and above) and future elderly residents

(aged 55 to 64 years old) had been increasing steadily over the years, especially

over the last five years as the large cohort of “baby boomers” ages. In 2018, there

were about 502,700 elderly residents living in HDB flats, up from about 335,100

persons in 2013, an increase of about 167,600 persons (Chart 2.6). Elderly

persons constituted 16.5% of the total resident population, up from 11.0% in 2013.

The elderly population grew at an annualised rate of 8.4% for the period from 2013

to 2018, a significant increase from 3.3% for the preceding period from 2008 to

2013.

The number of future elderly residents in 2018 was about 479,600, accounting for

15.8% of the total resident population and an increase of about 72,300 persons

over the last five years. This translates to an annualised growth rate of 3.3% during

the five-year time period, slightly lower than the 3.7% registered in the preceding

period.

46

2,380(83.7%)

2,299(78.6%)

2,312(75.7%) 2,056

(67.7%)

247(8.7%)

339(11.6%)

407(13.3%) 480

(15.8%)

218(7.6%)

285(9.8%)

335(11.0%) 503

(16.5%)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2003 2008 2013 2018

Num

ber

('000 p

ers

on

s)

Elderly(65 Years Old & Above)

Future Elderly(55-64 Years Old)

Non-Elderly(Below 55 Years Old)

Together, both the elderly and future elderly made up close to one million persons

(or close to one-third) of the HDB resident population in 2018.

Chart 2.6 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year

Role and relationship with owner/registered tenant

More than half of the elderly population (55.5%) were either an owner or a

registered tenant, slightly lower than that of the future elderly population at 57.0%

(Table 2.22). The future elderly population had a higher proportion of co-owners

(35.3%) than the elderly population, which had a higher proportion of occupiers

(17.7%).

Detailed Breakdown:

Young-Old (65-74 years old) 10.7%

Old-Old (75-84 years old) 4.7%

Oldest-Old (85 years old & above) 1.1%

47

Table 2.22 Role and Relationship with Owner/Registered Tenant of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population

Role & Relationship with

Owner/Registered Tenant Elderly

Future

Elderly

Owner/Registered Tenant 55.5 57.0

Owner 51.7 54.2

Registered Tenant (renting HDB rental flats) 3.8 2.8

Co-owner (of Sold Flats) 26.8 35.3

Spouse 22.4 31.9

Parents/Parents-in-law 3.5 0.7

Sibling/Sibling-in-law 0.7 1.7

Children/Children-in-law 0.1 0.9

Other relative (e.g., uncle/aunt) 0.1 -

Unrelated (including friend) - 0.1

Occupier 17.7 7.7

Parents/Parents-in-law 13.8 1.9

Spouse 2.2 2.3

Sibling/Sibling-in-law 1.0 1.3

Children/Children-in-law 0.2 1.4

Other relative (e.g., uncle/aunt, cousin) 0.2 0.4

Unrelated (including friend) 0.3 0.4

Total % 100.0 100.0

Persons 502,700 479,600

Age distribution and sex composition

The median age of the elderly population was 71 years, while the median age of

the future elderly population, being younger, was 59 years old (Table 2.23).

In regard to age distribution, females formed a larger proportion of the elderly

population at 54.6% (274,300 elderly female), compared with males at 45.4%

(228,400 elderly male). Those aged 85 years old and above (the oldest-old) also

formed a slightly larger proportion (8.4%) among females compared with males

(5.0%). There was no significant difference in the age distribution between males

and females among the future elderly population.

48

Table 2.23

HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Age, Sex and Year

(a) HDB Elderly Resident Population

Age Group (Years)

2013 2018

Male Female All Elderly Male Female All Elderly

65 - 69 40.2 36.3 38.1 37.7 37.5 37.6

70 - 74 29.9 26.8 28.1 28.4 25.6 26.9

75 - 79 18.9 14.8 16.6 18.2 18.2 18.2

80 - 84 6.9 12.1 9.8 10.7 10.3 10.5

85 & Above 4.1 10.0 7.4 5.0 8.4 6.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 150,758 184,333 335,091 228,400 274,300 502,700

Age (Years)

Mean 72.1 73.7 73.0 72.7 73.4 73.1

Median 71 72 72 71 71 71


(b) HDB Future Elderly Resident Population

Age Group (Years)

2013 2018

Male Female All

Future Elderly Male Female

All Future Elderly

55 - 59 53.3 55.1 54.2 50.1 50.6 50.4

60 - 64 46.7 44.9 45.8 49.9 49.4 49.6

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 195,977 211,282 407,259 233,100 246,500 479,600

Age (Years)

Mean 59.3 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.4 59.4

Median 59 59 59 59 59 59



In terms of absolute number, mature towns such as Bedok, Bukit Merah and

Ang Mo Kio, as well as middle-aged towns such as Jurong West and Tampines

housed more elderly residents (Table 2.24). In the case of the future elderly

persons, a large number of them resided in middle-aged towns such as Tampines

and Jurong West.

More generally, all mature towns/estates recorded high proportions of elderly

population, ranging from 21.8% in Bedok to 34.1% in Marine Parade. Among

49

middle-aged towns/estate, Bukit Timah, Jurong East and Serangoon had high

proportions of elderly population, constituting 23.0%, 21.9% and 21.0% of their

respective population.

The future elderly residents, however, accounted for around 13% to 20% of the

population in all the mature and middle-aged towns/estates. Towns such as Choa

Chu Kang, Sembawang, Tampines and Pasir Ris saw higher increase, between 5

and 7 percentage points, in the proportions of future elderly population over the

last five years.

To cater to the rapidly ageing population and facilitate their ageing in place,

initiatives or programmes such as infrastructure upgrading, provisions of elder-

friendly facilities and social and medical services would have to be put in place in

HDB towns/estates.

50

Table 2.24 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year

Town/Estate Elderly Population Future Elderly Population

2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Young Towns

Sengkang 6,398 (5.2%) 9,114 (5.9%) 8,802 (5.1%) 21,200 (10.1%) 8,599 (7.0%) 12,822 (8.3%) 17,156 (9.9%) 21,200 (10.2%)

Punggol 1,387 (3.6%) 2,715 (4.7%) 4,517 (4.8%) 8,400 (5.9%) 2,715 (5.7%) 4,159 (7.2%) 7,651 (8.0%) 12,200 (8.7%)

Sembawang 2,262 (4.0%) 3,409 (5.4%) 2,842 (4.1%) 5,500 (7.1%) 2,588 (4.5%) 4,797 (7.6%) 6,156 (9.0%) 11,800 (15.4%)


Jurong West 11,885 (5.5%) 13,567 (5.8%) 13,670 (5.6%) 33,400 (14.7%) 14,095 (6.5%) 24,094 (10.3%) 27,526 (11.4%) 35,800 (15.8%)

Tampines 12,200 (5.3%) 17,936 (7.9%) 24,202 (10.2%) 31,000 (14.1%) 13,420 (5.9%) 25,202 (11.1%) 30,397 (12.8%) 41,000 (18.4%)

Hougang 12,300 (7.1%) 16,186 (9.6%) 17,068 (10.3%) 27,000 (16.5%) 11,744 (6.8%) 23,604 (14.0%) 25,737 (15.6%) 27,200 (16.6%)

Yishun 7,660 (4.8%) 9,840 (6.1%) 13,756 (8.0%) 24,800 (13.4%) 12,755 (8.1%) 18,067 (11.2%) 23,372 (13.9%) 30,000 (16.2%)

Woodlands 10,395 (4.9%) 10,813 (4.8%) 18,468 (8.0%) 24,000 (10.5%) 11,196 (5.3%) 17,346 (7.7%) 22,494 (9.8%) 28,800 (12.7%)

Choa Chu Kang 6,229 (4.3%) 7,199 (4.8%) 8,116 (5.2%) 18,500 (11.2%) 8,035 (5.6%) 12,148 (8.1%) 14,063 (9.1%) 26,600 (15.9%)

Bukit Batok 5,578 (5.2%) 7,362 (7.4%) 10,232 (9.4%) 18,400 (17.2%) 6,228 (5.8%) 11,939 (12.0%) 15,156 (14.1%) 19,300 (18.1%)

Bukit Panjang 6,823 (6.4%) 6,613 (6.2%) 11,008 (9.6%) 17,000 (14.8%) 6,504 (6.1%) 12,053 (11.3%) 15,028 (13.1%) 19,700 (17.2%)

Jurong East 5,354 (6.8%) 7,720 (10.1%) 9,023 (12.0%) 14,900 (21.9%) 8,693 (11.0%) 10,702 (14.0%) 11,339 (15.1%) 11,400 (16.6%)

Serangoon 6,738 (9.1%) 7,826 (11.0%) 7,305 (10.1%) 13,000 (21.0%) 6,128 (8.3%) 9,890 (13.9%) 11,775 (16.3%) 11,300 (18.2%)

Bishan 3,829 (5.8%) 5,381 (8.4%) 8,936 (14.3%) 11,000 (19.9%) 5,813 (8.8%) 6,726 (10.5%) 10,952 (17.6%) 11,000 (19.9%)

Pasir Ris 4,510 (4.2%) 4,547 (4.3%) 7,502 (6.9%) 10,400 (9.4%) 5,658 (5.3%) 8,670 (8.2%) 12,655 (11.7%) 18,800 (17.1%)

Bukit Timah 1,006 (11.4%) 1,168 (13.9%) 1,301 (16.6%) 1,700 (23.0%) 1,016 (11.6%) 1,059 (12.6%) 1,234 (15.8%) 1,500 (20.0%)


Bedok 16,234 (8.6%) 23,646 (12.9%) 21,499 (11.5%) 38,200 (21.8%) 18,793 (10.0%) 25,846 (14.1%) 31,487 (16.8%) 32,300 (18.5%)

Bukit Merah 20,261 (16.4%) 25,624 (18.8%) 25,134 (17.4%) 34,700 (25.7%) 21,025 (17.0%) 22,080 (16.2%) 25,190 (17.4%) 22,500 (16.6%)

Ang Mo Kio 13,739 (9.4%) 21,935 (15.2%) 24,314 (16.8%) 31,000 (24.6%) 16,453 (11.2%) 19,338 (13.4%) 23,025 (16.0%) 22,600 (17.9%)

Kallang/Whampoa 11,553 (12.3%) 17,401 (17.9%) 24,318 (23.5%) 25,300 (27.0%) 13,206 (14.0%) 13,609 (14.0%) 14,952 (14.4%) 15,900 (17.0%)

Toa Payoh 13,865 (13.6%) 18,098 (17.9%) 18,633 (18.2%) 24,100 (25.4%) 11,989 (11.8%) 12,335 (12.2%) 15,219 (14.8%) 15,600 (16.4%)

Queenstown 12,634 (16.7%) 14,189 (18.0%) 15,316 (19.0%) 19,300 (25.4%) 10,822 (14.4%) 9,853 (12.5%) 11,175 (13.8%) 13,400 (17.7%)

Geylang 8,179 (8.7%) 12,713 (14.0%) 15,015 (17.1%) 18,500 (24.6%) 11,857 (12.7%) 12,077 (13.3%) 14,089 (16.1%) 11,000 (14.6%)

Clementi 7,656 (10.8%) 10,413 (15.2%) 12,727 (19.6%) 17,000 (24.1%) 11,030 (15.5%) 12,674 (18.5%) 10,743 (16.5%) 11,400 (16.3%)

Central Area 5,352 (19.4%) 5,178 (18.1%) 6,817 (20.4%) 8,000 (26.6%) 4,174 (15.1%) 5,264 (18.4%) 5,630 (16.9%) 4,800 (16.0%)

Marine Parade 3,542 (16.3%) 4,869 (23.4%) 4,570 (20.3%) 6,400 (34.1%) 3,249 (15.0%) 3,142 (15.1%) 3,037 (13.5%) 2,500 (13.3%)

Total 217,568 (7.6%) 285,462 (9.8%) 335,091 (11.0%) 502,700 (16.5%) 247,488 (8.7%) 339,496 (11.6%) 407,259 (13.3%) 479,600 (15.8%)

Note: Figures in (brackets) denote concentrations of elderly or future elderly population within the town

51

Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type

Slightly more elderly (5.7%) and future elderly (4.1%) residents were living in HDB

rental flats, compared with the overall resident population at 3.8% (Table 2.25).

The proportions of elderly and future elderly population living in HDB rental flats

has, however, been on the decline.

In terms of flat type, compared with the overall resident population, there were

proportionally more elderly and future elderly residents living in 3-room or smaller

flat types. The proportions of elderly and future elderly residents living in 4-room

flats had remained quite stable over the last five years, while the proportion living

in 5-room flats had increased over the years.

Another observation is that the proportion of future elderly residents living in 2-

room flats has increased over the last five years, mainly due to HDB building more

smaller flat types to enable older residents to right-size, should they choose to do

so.

Table 2.25 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Tenure and Flat Type and Year

Tenure & Flat Type

Elderly Future Elderly All

2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Tenure

Sold 91.1 92.7 94.3 95.1 95.5 95.9 97.0 96.3 96.2

Rental 8.9 7.3 5.7 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.0 3.7 3.8

Flat Type

1-Room 4.7 4.6 4.2 2.2 2.2 2.6 1.2 1.6 1.8

2-Room 5.2 4.9 4.9 3.2 3.1 4.0 2.2 2.8 3.6

3-Room 31.2 30.4 27.1 24.0 22.8 20.7 19.6 19.3 18.2

4-Room 33.9 35.6 35.9 40.9 40.5 39.8 41.0 41.1 42.1

5-Room 20.2 18.8 21.6 21.7 22.8 24.3 26.7 26.6 26.5

Executive 4.8 5.7 6.3 7.9 8.6 8.6 9.3 8.6 7.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons 285,374 335,091 502,700 339,041 407,259 479,600 2,923,224 3,057,664 3,039,400

52

Ethnic composition

Compared with the overall population, there was over-representation of the

Chinese among the elderly and future elderly population at 83.7% and 76.6%

respectively (Table 2.26). These proportions had been observed to decline slightly

over the last five years.

The Malays comprised 9.2% of the elderly population in 2018, a slight decline

compared with 2013, while the proportions of Indian and Others elderly population

had increased slightly.

In contrast, the proportions of all minority ethnic groups among the future elderly

population had increased slightly over the last five years.

Table 2.26 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year

Ethnic Group Elderly Future Elderly All

2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Chinese 83.2 84.3 83.7 79.0 79.9 76.6 73.8 73.5 72.6

Malay 10.2 10.0 9.2 12.6 13.0 15.4 16.3 15.6 16.2

Indian 5.5 4.9 6.0 7.0 6.2 6.7 8.2 8.9 9.0

Others 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons 285,374 335,091 502,700 339,041 407,259 479,600 2,923,224 3,057,664 3,039,400

Marital status

Overall, 64.2% of elderly residents were married, 23.4% were widowed, 7.1% were

single, and the remaining 5.3% were divorced/separated (Table 2.27). Reflecting

the longer life expectancy of females, the proportion of widowed persons among

female elderly residents (35.6%) was much higher than that of males (8.7%). In

contrast, the proportion of married persons among male elderly residents (81.3%)

was much higher than that of females (49.9%).

Among future elderly residents, the majority, or 82.0% of males and 69.8% of

females, were married. However, the proportion of divorced/separated persons

among females had increased slightly from 7.7% in 2013 to 10.5% in 2018.

53

In addition, the proportion of singles among both elderly and future elderly

residents had been on the rise, indicating the likely need for more non-familial

social support.

Table 2.27 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Marital Status, Sex and Year

Marital Status Male Female

All Elderly/Future Elderly

2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Elderly

Married 79.8 80.9 81.3 42.6 44.2 49.9 59.2 60.7 64.2

Widowed 12.3 11.3 8.7 49.0 45.4 35.6 32.7 30.1 23.4

Divorced/ Separated

2.8 3.2 3.9 5.1 4.9 6.6 4.1 4.1 5.3

Single 5.0 4.6 6.1 3.3 5.5 7.9 4.1 5.1 7.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons 126,845 150,758 228,400 158,529 184,333 274,300 285,374 335,091 502,700

Future Elderly

Married 85.6 87.1 82.0 72.0 73.2 69.8 78.8 79.9 75.8

Widowed 1.9 1.6 2.3 11.8 8.9 7.7 6.9 5.4 5.1

Divorced/ Separated

3.6 2.3 4.9 7.0 7.7 10.5 5.3 5.1 7.7

Single 8.9 9.0 10.8 9.1 10.2 12.0 9.0 9.6 11.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons 168,322 195,977 233,100 170,719 211,282 246,500 339,041 407,259 479,600

Ambulant status

The state of health of elderly and future elderly residents was positive. The majority

of the elderly (87.3%) and the future elderly population (97.5%) were ambulant and

physically independent, but a slight decline of these proportions over the last five

years was also detected (Table 2.28).

Further analysis by age of the elderly population showed that ambulant status

declined sharply only after 85 years old (Table 2.29).

54

Table 2.28 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Ambulant Status and Year

Ambulant Status* Elderly Future Elderly

2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

Ambulant & Physically Independent 87.4 90.2 87.3 98.1 98.4 97.5

Ambulant & Physically Independent but Require Walking Aids

7.2 4.3 6.1 1.3 1.0 1.1

Require Some Physical Assistance to Move Around

3.8 3.5 4.5 0.3 0.4 1.0

Not Bedridden but Require Total Physical Assistance

1.3 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.3

Bedridden & Require Regular Turning in Bed

0.3 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons** 285,374 333,645 502,400 339,041 406,991 479,100

* Classification adapted from the National Survey of Senior Citizens (NSSC) 2005 ** Excluding non-response cases

Table 2.29 HDB Elderly Resident Population by Ambulant Status and Age

Ambulant Status* Age Group (Years) All

Elderly 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 & Above

Ambulant & Physically Independent 94.0 81.1 49.5 87.3

Ambulant & Physically Independent but Require Walking Aids

3.1 9.4 20.3 6.1

Require Some Physical Assistance to Move Around

1.9 6.4 20.9 4.5

Not Bedridden but Require Total Physical Assistance

0.6 1.9 6.4 1.3

Bedridden & Require Regular Turning in Bed

0.4 1.2 2.9 0.8

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons** 324,000 144,100 34,300 502,400

* Classification adapted from the National Survey of Senior Citizens (NSSC) 2005 ** Excluding non-response cases

55

2.3.2 Economic Characteristics

Labour force status

While the majority of elderly residents were outside the labour force (73.9%), there

are indications that the proportion remaining in or entering the workforce had been

increasing from 12.6% in 2003 to 26.1% in 2018 (Table 2.30). A similar trend was

observed among future elderly residents. With the legislation of the Retirement

and Re-employment Act (RRA) where employers are required to re-employ eligible

employees who have reached the prevailing statutory retirement age, more elderly

and future elderly residents would, if their health condition permits, likely remain in

the workforce to enhance their financial security and sense of well-being.

Table 2.30 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Labour Force Status and Year

Labour Force Status Elderly Future Elderly

2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Outside Labour Force 87.4 83.6 79.4 73.9 52.2 37.3 36.8 30.9

In Labour Force 12.6 16.4 20.6 26.1 47.8 62.7 63.2 69.1

Working Full-Time (Single Job Holder)

5.9 8.6 11.1 13.6 27.9 43.1 43.8 46.9

Working Part-Time (Single Job Holder)

3.2 5.6 8.1 8.9 7.9 11.6 12.4 10.3

Own Account Worker (Single Job Holder)

2.3 1.7 1.1 2.9 8.2 5.0 5.0 8.4

Other Employed Persons*

0.3 0.2 - 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4

Unemployed 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.6 3.3 2.5 1.9 3.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons** 217,568 285,374 334,299 502,100 247,233 339,041 406,760 479,100

* Including employers and contributing family workers holding one job, full-time National Servicemen and all employed holding two or more jobs


Analysis by sex showed that the proportions of both male and female elderly

residents who were in the labour force had been on the rise, from 19.5% in 2003

to 32.9% in 2018 for males, and from 6.5% to 20.4% for females over the same

period (Table 2.31). Similar trends were observed for the future elderly population.

There was a significant increase in the proportions who were in the labour force

among both female elderly and future elderly population by 8.6 and 8.9 percentage

points respectively, over the last five years.

56

Table 2.31 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Labour Force Status, Sex and Year

Labour Force Status Male Female

All Elderly/Future Elderly

2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Elderly

In Labour Force 19.5 27.5 31.3 32.9 6.5 7.4 11.8 20.4 12.6 16.4 20.6 26.1

Outside Labour Force 80.5 72.5 68.7 67.1 93.5 92.6 88.2 79.6 87.4 83.6 79.4 73.9

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 102,110 126,845 150,403 228,300 115,458 158,529 183,896 273,800 217,568 285,374 334,299 502,100

Future Elderly

In Labour Force 67.8 81.2 81.1 83.5 30.0 44.4 46.7 55.6 47.8 62.7 63.2 69.1

Outside Labour Force 32.2 18.8 18.9 16.5 70.0 55.6 53.3 44.4 52.2 37.3 36.8 30.9

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 116,784 168,322 195,550 232,700 130,449 170,719 211,210 246,400 247,233 339,041 406,760 479,100


57

Education level of employed resident population

The education level of the employed elderly population was low, with close to two-

thirds (64.3%) having below secondary education, however, it has improved over

the years (Table 2.32). The future elderly cohort had fared better, with close to six

in ten (58.0%) having at least a secondary education in 2018, compared to about

three in ten (31.4%) in 2003.

Table 2.32 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population by Education Level and Year


Elderly Future Elderly

2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Below Secondary 86.1 79.0 73.5 64.3 68.6 56.0 50.3 42.0

Secondary/ Post-Secondary

12.1 15.3 21.3 27.4 26.4 38.1 39.2 41.6


0.6 2.8 3.4 4.6 3.4 3.5 6.7 8.9

Degree 1.2 2.9 1.8 3.7 1.6 2.4 3.8 7.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons* 24,714 44,242 67,507 127,300 109,343 201,714 249,352 315,400


Occupation of employed resident population

In general, education level correlates highly with occupational status.

Corresponding to their lower educational attainment, more than half (54.3%) of the

employed elderly cohort were holding lower-skilled jobs such as cleaners,

production workers, or plant and machine operators (Table 2.33).

Conversely, with their better education profile, about one-third (32.6%) of the future

elderly cohort were working as PMETs, compared with 16.5% among the elderly

cohort. This proportion had also increased over the years, from 23.0% in 2003 to

29.9% in 2013 and 32.6% in 2018. Clearly, a shift towards higher-skilled jobs was

evident among this cohort.

58

Table 2.33 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Population by Occupation and Year

Occupation* Elderly Future Elderly

2003 2008 2013 2018 2003 2008 2013 2018

Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers 10.8 5.9 3.6 5.1 9.8 8.1 9.7 9.2

Professionals 4.0 3.1 4.0 5.0 2.5 4.2 4.3 9.0

Associate Professionals & Technicians 3.4 6.2 7.3 6.4 10.7 12.7 15.8 14.4

Clerical Workers 5.8 5.0 6.7 6.7 8.3 11.2 10.8 11.1

Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers 22.7 17.6 21.7 21.3 17.8 14.8 16.9 17.4

Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers

19.4 20.1 17.7 16.9 25.8 26.1 22.9 22.5

Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers 33.9 42.1 38.7 37.4 24.9 22.6 19.0 15.7

Others (e.g., NS, SAF personnel) - - 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons** 25,379 44,194 67,005 127,200 109,360 200,104 246,201 313,300



59

2.4 Summary of Findings

As of January 2018, the HDB resident population (owners/co-owners, HDB rental

tenants and occupiers) stood at 3.04 million persons, registering a negative

annualised growth rate for the period from 2013 to 2018. The decline was mainly

due to net outflow of HDB resident population into private housing.

The majority of the resident population lived in sold flats, predominantly in 4-room

flats. The proportions of residents living in HDB rental flats or 1- and 2-room flats

had increased slightly over the last five years. This is mainly due to the increase

in the supply of HDB rental flats in recent years to help lower-income and

vulnerable families; as well as smaller flat types to cater for the elderly’s right sizing

to smaller flats; and singles to purchase new 2-room flats in non-mature estates.

Woodlands, Jurong West, Tampines and Sengkang were the four most populous

towns. In general, towns with substantial additions to housing stock due to more

intensive developments registered population growth. In contrast, towns/estates

with little or no increase in housing stock experienced net outflow of HDB resident

population, likely to other HDB towns where there are new developments or to

private housing.

Slightly more than half of the resident population were in the labour force. The

majority of the employed residents were single job employees holding full-time jobs,

while only 2.6% were unemployed. The labour force participation rate of the

resident population declined slightly to 64.3%, mainly due to the rapid ageing of

the cohort of baby boomers. A significant improvement in education profile and a

gradual shift towards higher-skilled jobs among the employed resident population

were most evident.

Reflecting increasing longevity and declining fertility rates, the median age of the

resident population inched up to 42 years as the population matures. The elderly

and future elderly residents constituted 16.5% and 15.8% of the resident

population respectively, with higher concentrations of these age cohorts in mature

and middle-aged towns/estates. The majority of the elderly (87.3%) and future

elderly population (97.5%) were ambulant and physically independent. While the

majority of the elderly residents were outside the labour force, the proportion who

were in the labour force continued to increase and has more than doubled from

60

12.6% in 2003 to 26.1% in 2018. With the legislation of the Retirement and Re-

employment Act, more elderly residents would likely remain in the workforce to

enhance their financial security and sense of well-being. In addition, with higher

education levels attained, more elderly and future elderly residents would likely

continue working.

3

Profile of HDB Households

65

Chapter 3

Profile of HDB Households

The structure and composition of households reflect the social and economic well-

being of HDB residents. Cultural norms may influence expectations and

aspirations of these households with respect to their desired living arrangements.

All these have an impact on the changing composition of households. This chapter

provides the analyses on the demographic and socioeconomic profile of HDB

resident households. Trend analysis will be used, where available, to highlight the

demographic changes that have taken place over time.

Demographic Characteristics of HDB Households

Size and growth rate of resident households

In 2018, there were 1,013,542 resident households living in HDB flats, registering

an annualised growth rate of 2.2% from 908,499 in 2013 (Chart 3.1).

Chart 3.1 HDB Households and Growth Rate by Year

594

729821 866

9081,014

2.8 4.2 2.4

1.1 1.0

2.2

0

2

4

6

8

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Annu

al G

row

th R

ate

(%

)

Num

ber

of

Household

s

('000)

Resident Households

Annual Growth Rate

66

Type of dwelling by tenure, flat type and ethnic group of owner/registered

tenant

Of the 1.014 million resident households living in HDB flats, the majority (95.0%)

lived in sold flats (Chart 3.2). This proportion was slightly higher than that in 2013,

but lower compared with 2008. The proportion of resident households in HDB

rental flats decreased marginally from 5.4% in 2013 to 5.0% in 2018, due to a larger

increase in the quantum of sold flats as compared to rental flats.

Chart 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure and Year

Among sold flats, most households were living in 4-room flats (42.1%), followed by

5-room (24.5%) and 3-room (24.1%) flats as shown in Table 3.1. The proportion

of households living in 1- and 2-room flats increased to 2.6% from 1.1% in 2013,

mainly due to an increase in the provision of Studio Apartments and 2-room Flexi

flats in the last five years. This had resulted in an increase of about 15,000

households living in such flat types.

Table 3.1 HDB Households by Flat Type, Tenure and Year

Flat Type

Sold Rental All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

% N % N % N % N % N % N

1-Room 0.1 832 0.5 4,617 48.3 23,741 51.2 25,752 2.7 24,573 3.0 30,369

2-Room 1.0 8,830 2.1 20,057 51.6 25,374 48.3 24,294 3.8 34,204 4.4 44,351

3-Room 25.1 216,116 24.1 232,052 0.1 47 0.6 299 23.8 216,163 22.9 232,351

4-Room 41.3 354,526 42.1 405,163 - - - - 39.0 354,526 40.0 405,163

5-Room 24.9 214,074 24.5 236,324 - - - - 23.6 214,074 23.3 236,324

Executive 7.6 64,959 6.7 64,984 - - - - 7.1 64,959 6.4 64,984

Total 100.0 859,337 100.0 963,197 100.0 49,162 100.0 50,345 100.0 908,499 100.0 1,013,542


95.5 95.3 94.6 95.0

4.5 4.7 5.4 5.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2008 2013 2018

Household

s (

%)

Rental

Sold

67

The number of households living in HDB rental flats was 50,345, an annualised

increase of 0.5% (or 1,183 households) from 2013 (Table 3.1). Rental housing

units comprised predominantly 1- and 2-room flats.

The majority of resident households lived in sold flats. Relatively more Malay

(11.9%) and Indian (6.8%) households were living in HDB rental flats (Table 3.2).

The proportion of Chinese, Indian, and Others households living in HDB rental flats

had decreased over the last five years.

Although the majority of resident households lived in 3-, 4- and 5-room flats, there

were relatively more Malay and Indian households living in 1-room (5.9% Malay;

3.3% Indian) and 2-room (9.2% Malay; 5.7% Indian) flats (Table 3.3).

68

Table 3.2 HDB Households by Tenure, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Tenure Chinese Malay Indian Others All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Sold 95.8 96.4 88.3 88.1 92.7 93.2 95.0 97.5 94.6 95.0

Rental 4.2 3.6 11.7 11.9 7.3 6.8 5.0 2.5 5.4 5.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542

Table 3.3 HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Flat Type Chinese Malay Indian Others All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1-Room 2.3 2.5 5.1 5.9 3.5 3.3 2.5 1.3 2.7 3.0

2-Room 3.0 3.5 7.8 9.2 4.5 5.7 3.5 2.3 3.8 4.4

3-Room 24.2 23.0 22.5 22.3 22.6 23.4 19.9 20.7 23.8 22.9

4-Room 39.1 40.6 38.8 38.2 38.3 38.0 38.7 37.2 39.0 40.0

5-Room 24.2 24.0 19.4 18.7 23.2 22.7 28.0 30.7 23.6 23.3

Executive 7.2 6.5 6.4 5.6 7.9 6.9 7.4 7.8 7.1 6.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542

69


Middle-aged towns in Jurong West, Tampines, and Woodlands had the highest

number of households (Chart 3.3). Compared with 2013, Punggol, Sengkang, and

Yishun had the largest increase in the number of households, as more new flats

were built in these towns over the past five years.

Mature towns/estates tended to have a higher proportion of households living in

smaller flat types (3-room or smaller), while young and middle-aged towns/estates

had a higher proportion of those living in bigger flat types (4-room or larger) (Table

3.4).

Chart 3.3 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year

49

.1

27

.8

18

.4

67

.7

63

.3

59

.4

48

.6

48

.1

40

.2

31

.7

30

.6

27

.5

22

.8

21

.2

19.6

2.4

58

.8

49.4

48

.4

36

.1

35

.4

29

.3

28

.7

23

.9

12

.4

7.8

66

.0

46.1

23

.3

72

.4

67

.8

66

.0

61

.1

53

.5

48

.0

35

.4

35

.2

29

.5

23

.7

21

.4

19

.6

2.5

60

.5

50

.9

49

.6

36

.9

38

.1

31

.3

29

.1

26

.2

11

.7

7.7

0

20

40

60

80

Seng

kang

Pung

gol

Sem

ba

wang

Juro

ng W

est

Ta

mpin

es

Woodla

nds

Yis

hu

n

Hou

gang

Cho

a C

hu K

ang

Bukit B

ato

k

Bukit P

anja

ng

Pasir R

is

Juro

ng E

ast

Sera

ngoon

Bis

ha

n

Bukit T

imah

Bedo

k

Bukit M

era

h

Ang M

o K

io

To

a P

ayoh

Kalla

ng/W

ham

po

a

Queensto

wn

Geyla

ng

Cle

menti

Cen

tral A

rea

Mari

ne

Para

de

Num

ber

of

Household

s (

'000)

2013 2018

Young Towns

Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates

70

Table 3.4 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type

HDB Town/Estate 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Total

% N

Yo

un

g

To

wn

s Punggol 3.0 4.3 9.7 46.4 34.1 2.4 100.0 46,105

Sengkang 1.5 3.0 5.6 46.7 36.4 6.8 100.0 65,957

Sembawang 1.8 5.2 3.5 41.6 35.6 12.3 100.0 23,300

Mid

dle

-Ag

ed

To

wn

s/E

sta

te

Bishan 2.5 0.5 11.9 47.6 29.1 8.5 100.0 19,595

Bukit Batok 1.7 1.1 29.6 43.3 16.5 7.7 100.0 35,427

Bukit Panjang 0.7 2.4 10.4 47.3 29.6 9.6 100.0 35,181

Bukit Timah 1.2 3.2 17.4 36.4 26.8 15.1 100.0 2,516

Choa Chu Kang 1.6 2.4 5.1 48.3 32.7 9.9 100.0 47,987

Hougang 1.7 2.1 19.4 48.3 20.4 8.0 100.0 53,497

Jurong East 1.5 2.1 29.2 34.4 24.9 7.9 100.0 23,703

Jurong West 1.4 2.8 16.0 40.4 30.5 9.0 100.0 72,396

Pasir Ris 0.9 1.3 1.7 39.2 31.7 25.2 100.0 29,518

Serangoon 1.2 1.7 21.0 47.6 17.5 11.0 100.0 21,390

Tampines 1.7 2.1 19.5 42.6 25.6 8.6 100.0 67,760

Woodlands 2.7 3.3 10.0 43.9 30.6 9.4 100.0 65,960

Yishun 2.6 2.3 25.1 48.8 16.7 4.5 100.0 61,133

Matu

re T

ow

ns/E

sta

tes

Ang Mo Kio 2.7 7.2 48.5 28.7 11.9 1.0 100.0 49,648

Bedok 4.0 3.6 37.1 33.7 17.1 4.5 100.0 60,476

Bukit Merah 9.3 11.2 30.7 30.6 18.1 0.1 100.0 50,940

Central Area 16.9 10.3 35.8 29.2 7.5 0.3 100.0 11,689

Clementi 1.7 2.7 46.3 34.8 12.1 2.4 100.0 26,230

Geylang 3.5 10.5 38.0 32.8 12.3 2.9 100.0 29,129

Kallang/Whampoa 11.2 6.8 35.7 30.7 14.3 1.3 100.0 38,062

Marine Parade - 16.7 38.7 23.1 21.6 - 100.0 7,717

Queenstown 2.0 10.5 44.1 29.7 12.6 1.1 100.0 31,338

Toa Payoh 3.5 9.7 40.8 27.4 16.3 2.3 100.0 36,888

All 3.0 4.4 22.9 40.0 23.3 6.4 100.0 1,013,542


71

Household Composition

The household composition reflects the characteristics of the people living together

and their relationship to one another. Households may be family-based, such as

married couples with or without children, single-parents with children, siblings and

extended family members (e.g., grandparents, relatives) living together. They may

also be non-family based, such as one person living alone, or unrelated/distantly-

related persons living together. Changes to household composition tend to be

driven by lifestyle changes, such as an increased preference for personal space

and/or independent living, as well as enhancements to housing policies, such as

the introduction of 2-room Flexi and 3Gen flats to accommodate different

household living arrangements, and policies allowing singles aged 35 years old

and above to purchase 2-room Flexi flats in non-mature estates.

This section examines the characteristics of HDB households in terms of the types

of family nucleus, number of generations in the households and household size.

Type of family nucleus

Family-based households remained the predominant household type, accounting

for 86.6% of HDB households, though the proportion had declined over the years

(Table 3.5). Nuclear families formed the majority of family-based households at

75.6%. However, all types of family-based households decreased over the last

five years.

More than one in eight (13.4%) households were non-family based. Almost all of

these were one-person households. This proportion had increased almost three-

fold over the last two decades.

72

Table 3.5 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year

Type of Family Nucleus 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 94.5 91.3 90.9 90.8 86.6

Nuclear family 82.6 80.4 79.4 76.3 75.6

Extended nuclear family 7.5 7.7 7.4 8.3 6.4

Multi-nuclear family 4.4 3.2 4.1 6.2 4.6

Non-Family Based Household 5.5 8.7 9.2 9.2 13.4

One-person 4.6 7.1 8.0 8.4 11.9

Unrelated/Distantly related 0.9 1.6 1.2 0.8 1.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 728,815 821,126 866,026 908,499 1,013,542


Type of family nucleus by tenure and flat type

About 65.2% of households living in HDB rental flats were family-based

households, with nuclear families forming the majority (Table 3.6). This proportion

was lower than that of family-based households in sold flats (87.7%). There were

higher proportions of one-person households (26.9%) and households with

unrelated or distantly related persons (7.9%) living in HDB rental flats compared

with sold flats. Compared with 2013, the proportion of one-person households in

both rental and sold flats had increased significantly.

Table 3.6 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Tenure and Year

Type of Family Nucleus Rental Sold All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 68.4 65.2 92.1 87.7 90.8 86.6

Nuclear family 63.1 60.4 77.2 76.4 76.3 75.6

Extended nuclear family 3.7 4.1 8.5 6.5 8.3 6.4

Multi-nuclear family 1.6 0.7 6.4 4.8 6.2 4.6

Non-Family Based Household 31.6 34.8 7.9 12.4 9.2 13.4

One-person 23.7 26.9 7.5 11.2 8.4 11.9

Unrelated/Distantly related 7.9 7.9 0.4 1.2 0.8 1.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 49,162 50,345 859,337 963,197 908,499 1,013,542


73

Family-based households were more predominant in bigger flat types, ranging

from 91.0% in 4-room flats to 96.5% in Executive flats (Table 3.7). In relative terms,

there were proportionally more non-family based households, especially one-

person households, in 3-room and smaller flat types.

Overall, the proportion of non-family based households in all flat types had

increased over the last five years. This was mainly due to an increase in the

proportion of one-person households.

Type of family nucleus by ethnic group of owner/registered tenant

Family-based households remained the most prevalent household type across

ethnic groups. While about nine in ten Malay and Indian households consisted of

family-based households, the proportion of family-based Chinese and Others

households was relatively lower at 84.9% and 88.6% respectively (Table 3.8).

Among family-based households, nuclear families were the predominant

household type across all ethnic groups. The proportions of nuclear families

among Malay and Indian households had increased over the past five years, while

extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families had declined. Among Others

households, the proportion of extended nuclear families increased significantly

from 7.5% to 15.6%. All family-based household types decreased proportion-wise

for Chinese households.

The proportion of one-person households increased for all ethnic groups over the

past five years. The largest increases were observed among Chinese (from 9.3%

to 13.6%) and Others (from 4.8% to 9.1%) households.

74

Table 3.7 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type and Year

Type of Family Nucleus 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 57.2 51.8 74.3 71.7 79.9 74.1 95.7 91.0 97.7 95.6 98.9 96.5 90.8 86.6

Nuclear family 51.5 49.3 69.4 66.4 69.9 66.9 79.5 78.3 80.8 83.3 79.5 80.2 76.3 75.6

Extended nuclear family 3.8 2.1 3.2 4.1 6.0 4.2 9.5 7.7 9.9 6.6 7.8 9.1 8.3 6.4

Multi-nuclear family 1.9 -* 1.7 1.2 4.0 3.0 6.7 5.0 7.0 5.7 11.6 7.2 6.2 4.6

Non-Family Based Household 42.8 48.2 25.7 28.3 20.1 26.0 4.3 8.9 2.3 4.3 1.1 3.6 9.2 13.4

One-person 29.2 36.7 23.8 26.8 19.2 24.0 3.9 7.8 2.3 3.7 1.1 2.7 8.4 11.9

Unrelated/Distantly related 13.6 11.5 1.9 1.5 0.9 2.0 0.4 1.1 - 0.6 - -* 0.8 1.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 24,573 30,369 34,204 44,351 216,163 232,351 354,526 405,163 214,074 236,324 64,959 64,984 908,499 1,013,542

* Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

75

Table 3.8 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Type of Family Nucleus Chinese Malay Indian Others All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 89.9 84.9 94.3 92.4 94.1 92.1 94.7 88.6 90.8 86.6

Nuclear family 76.6 74.9 72.5 75.7 79.7 82.6 80.8 70.9 76.3 75.6

Extended nuclear family 7.9 6.0 10.6 8.9 8.3 4.2 7.5 15.6 8.3 6.4

Multi-nuclear family 5.4 4.0 11.2 7.8 6.1 5.3 6.4 -* 6.2 4.6

Non-Family Based Household 10.1 15.2 5.7 7.5 5.9 8.0 5.3 11.4 9.2 13.4

One-person 9.3 13.6 5.3 6.5 5.0 6.3 4.8 9.1 8.4 11.9

Unrelated/Distantly related 0.8 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.7 0.5 -* 0.8 1.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542

* Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped Note: Figures may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding

76

Number of generations in family-based households

Family-based resident households (86.6%) comprised mainly two-generation

families (61.5%), followed by one-generation families (18.0%) and families with

three or more generations (7.1%) as shown in Table 3.9.

The proportion of households with two-generation families continued to decline,

from 75.4% in 1998 to 61.5% in 2018 while the proportion of households with one

generation increased from 10.9% to 18.0% over the same period. The proportion

of households with three or more generations fell from 10.1% in 2013 to 7.1% in

2018, reversing the increasing trend since 2003. This is in line with the general

decrease in all family-based household types as shown in earlier findings in Table

3.5.

Table 3.9 HDB Households by Number of Generations and Year

Number of Generations 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 94.5 91.3 90.9 90.8 86.6

One generation 10.9 13.5 15.1 13.9 18.0

Two generations 75.4 69.9 67.2 66.8 61.5

Three or more generations 8.2 7.9 8.6 10.1 7.1

Non-Family Based Household 5.5 8.7 9.2 9.2 13.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 728,815 821,126 866,026 908,499 1,013,542

77

Number of generations in family-based households by flat type

There were proportionally more one-generation families in 3-room and smaller flat

types. In contrast, higher proportions of households with two or more generations

were living in 4-room and bigger flat types (Table 3.10).

Compared with 2013, the proportion of one-generation families in all flat types

increased significantly, with the exception of one-generation families in 1-room flats

which registered a slight decrease. There was also a decrease in two-generation

families among households living in all flat types. Similar findings were observed

for families with three or more generations, which decreased in proportion across

all flat types, with the exception of 2-room flats where there was a slight increase.

This also reflects the declining trend in family-based households seen in Table 3.7.

Number of generations in family-based households by ethnic group of

owner/registered tenant

Two-generation families remained the predominant type of family-based

household across the different ethnic groups. In particular, there were

proportionally more two-generation families among Malay, Indian and Others

households (Table 3.11).

Compared with 2013, Chinese, Malay, and Indian households showed a decrease

in the proportion of two-generation and three-or-more-generation families as

compared to one-generation families which increased in proportion. For Others

households, the proportion of one-generation and three-or-more generation

families decreased while that of two-generation families remained largely similar.

78

Table 3.10 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Flat Type and Year

Number of Generations 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 57.2 51.9 74.4 71.6 79.9 74.1 95.7 91.0 97.7 95.6 98.9 96.5 90.8 86.6

One generation 22.5 22.1 17.0 20.9 18.2 21.8 13.0 16.9 11.0 16.2 9.2 14.4 13.9 18.0

Two generations 30.9 28.8 54.5 47.3 55.3 47.7 71.3 66.5 74.8 70.8 74.2 70.3 66.8 61.5

Three or more generations 3.8 1.0 2.9 3.4 6.4 4.6 11.4 7.6 11.9 8.6 15.5 11.8 10.1 7.1

Non-Family Based Household 42.8 48.1 25.6 28.4 20.1 25.9 4.3 9.0 2.3 4.4 1.1 3.5 9.2 13.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 24,573 30,369 34,204 44,351 216,163 232,351 354,526 405,163 214,074 236,324 64,959 64,984 908,499 1,013,542

Table 3.11 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Number of Generations Chinese Malay Indian Others All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Family-Based Household 89.9 84.8 94.3 92.5 94.1 92.1 94.7 88.6 90.8 86.6

One Generation 15.2 19.2 7.2 14.4 12.4 14.4 14.3 11.6 13.9 18.0

Two Generations 65.5 59.4 71.5 65.6 71.4 70.9 71.4 71.3 66.8 61.5

Three or More Generations 9.2 6.2 15.6 12.5 10.3 6.8 9.0 5.7 10.1 7.1

Non-Family Based Household 10.1 15.2 5.7 7.5 5.9 7.9 5.3 11.4 9.2 13.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542


79

One-person households

Non-family based households accounted for almost one in seven (13.4%) of all

HDB households in 2018 (Table 3.5), which was more than double the proportion

in 1998 (5.5%). This was mainly attributed to the rising proportion of one-person

households, from just 4.6% in 1998 to 11.9% in 2018.

Among the one-person households, almost three-quarters were aged 55 years old

and above in 2018 (Table 3.12). This represented a significant increase from more

than half in 2008 and about two-thirds in 2013. This trend could be attributed to

higher proportions of widowed and divorced/separated persons, preferences

among seniors to live on their own for greater privacy and independence, and/or

an ageing population. Chinese residents were over-represented in this category

at 86.8%. Almost half of the one-person households were singles (45.5%),

followed by widowed (31.2%) or divorced/separated (20.6%). Almost two-thirds of

them were females (63.4%), an increase over the last decade. This was largely

due to a rise in older, widowed residents in this group, who were more likely to be

female, given longer female life expectancy.

Among one-person households, an increasing proportion lived in 3-room or bigger

flats. The proportion living in 4-room flats increased significantly from 16.9% to

26.2% over the last decade. Conversely, the proportion living in 3-room flats

decreased from 59.3% to 46.0% over this period. Less than six in ten (57.7%)

were in the labour force, a decrease from 64.7% in the last decade.

80

Table 3.12 Attributes of One-Person Households

Attributes 2008 2013 2018

Age Group (Years)

Below 35 0.8 0.8 1.3

35 – 44 15.7 11.7 7.7

45 – 54 30.8 21.1 16.2

55 – 64 21.1 29.5 27.3

65 & Above 31.7 37.0 47.5

Ethnic Group Chinese 82.0 86.0 86.8

Malay 9.7 7.9 7.1

Indian 6.9 5.2 4.6

Others 1.4 0.9 1.5

Marital Status

Single 49.4 54.2 45.5

Married 9.8 1.9 2.7

Widowed 23.3 25.1 31.2

Divorced/Separated 17.5 18.8 20.6

Sex Female 56.1 59.4 63.4

Male 43.0 40.6 36.6

Flat Type 1-Room 8.9 9.4 9.2

2-Room 9.4 10.6 9.8

3-Room 59.3 54.4 46.0

4-Room 16.9 18.2 26.2

5-Room 5.2 6.4 7.3

Executive 0.5 1.0 1.4

Labour Force Status

In Labour Force 64.7 61.3 57.7

Outside Labour Force 35.3 38.7 42.3

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 69,130 76,119 120,970


74.8 66.5 52.8

81

Household size

The average household size, excluding foreign domestic workers and tenants,

continued to decline since 1968. In 2018, households had an average of 3.1

persons, a 1.8% annualised rate of decrease from 2013 (Chart 3.4). Overall, about

7% of HDB households included at least one foreign domestic worker. Including

foreign domestic workers but excluding tenants, the overall average household

size was 3.2 persons in 2018, similar to the national-level figures reported by DOS6

(3.2 persons).

About one-quarter of resident households (25.7%) had two persons (Table 3.13).

This was followed by households with four persons (23.6%) and three persons

(23.0%). The proportion of households with fewer than three persons had

increased, while the proportion of households with three or more persons had

decreased over the past five years. This decrease can be attributed to the decline

in proportion of family-based households, as well as the decrease of households

with two or more generations.

Chart 3.4 Mean HDB Household Size by Year

Note: Excluding foreign domestic workers and tenants

6 Department of Statistics. 2019. Population Trends. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade &

Industry, Republic of Singapore. Retrieved July 6, 2020 (http://singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2019.pdf)

Household

Siz

e

(Pers

ons)

Annu

al R

ate

of D

eclin

e (

%)

6.25.7

5.24.8

4.44.1

3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.1

-1.7-2.3

-1.8-1.5 -1.4

-1.8-1.2

-0.50.0

-1.8

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

1968 1973 1977 1981 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018

Mean Household Size(Persons)

Annual Rate of Decline(%)

82

Household size by flat type and ethnic group of owner/registered tenant

Household size increased proportionately with size of flat, from an average of 1.9

persons in 1-room flats to 3.8 persons in Executive flats (Table 3.13). However,

the average household size decreased for all flat types since 2013, with the biggest

decline occurring for bigger flat types.

While the overall average household size was 3.1 persons, non-Chinese

households tended to have larger families, with Malay households having the

largest average household size of 3.7 persons (Table 3.14). In comparison,

Chinese households had the smallest average household size at 3.0 persons. The

average household size for all ethnic groups decreased compared to five years

ago, with the biggest decrease occurring for Malay households.

Household size by type of family nucleus

Multi-nuclear families had the largest average household size of 5.6 persons,

followed by extended nuclear families with an average of 4.4 persons (Table 3.15).

Compared with 2013, the average household size across the different types of

family nucleus had decreased. The proportion of nuclear families with a household

size of three or more persons decreased compared to five years ago. The

proportions of extended nuclear families with four and six or more persons were

also lower over this same period. The proportion of multi-nuclear families with five

or more persons declined as well. The proportion of non-family based households

with only one person increased to 93.6% from 91.3% in 2013.

83

Table 3.13 HDB Households by Household Size, Flat Type and Year

Household Size

(Persons)


2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1 Person 29.2 36.5 23.7 26.9 19.1 24.8 3.9 8.7 2.3 4.0 1.1 3.4 8.4 12.6

2 Persons 51.1 49.5 32.5 31.7 27.8 32.0 18.3 23.5 13.8 21.2 10.6 17.6 20.4 25.7

3 Persons 13.4 8.5 23.6 19.5 23.6 21.7 25.4 24.7 23.7 24.2 17.9 22.2 23.6 23.0

4 Persons 3.7 2.9 11.3 12.6 18.8 13.8 29.2 27.3 32.9 30.5 36.0 28.2 26.7 23.6

5 Persons 2.1 2.1 4.5 5.3 6.9 4.7 14.9 10.9 18.0 13.4 21.8 17.9 13.5 10.0

6 or More Persons 0.5 -* 4.4 4.0 3.8 2.9 8.3 4.9 9.3 6.7 12.6 10.7 7.4 5.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 24,573 30,369 34,204 44,351 216,163 232,351 354,526 405,163 214,074 236,324 64,959 64,984 908,499 1,013,542

Household Size (Persons)

Mean 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.6 3.3 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.1

Median 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3

*Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

84

Table 3.14 HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of Owner/Registered Tenant and Year

Household Size

(Persons)

Chinese Malay Indian Others All

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1 Person 9.3 14.3 5.3 6.8 5.0 6.9 4.8 9.1 8.4 12.6

2 Persons 22.1 27.0 12.0 21.6 18.4 22.0 16.1 18.5 20.4 25.7

3 Persons 24.7 24.0 18.4 18.3 21.8 21.8 25.2 21.4 23.6 23.0

4 Persons 26.9 22.6 20.4 22.2 33.4 33.8 30.7 27.2 26.7 23.6

5 Persons 12.1 8.7 21.7 16.4 13.6 9.8 13.6 19.8 13.5 10.0

6 or More Persons 4.9 3.4 22.2 14.6 7.8 5.6 9.6 4.0 7.4 5.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 702,366 773,953 113,489 132,029 78,759 88,151 13,885 19,409 908,499 1,013,542


Mean 3.3 3.0 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1

Median 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3

85

Table 3.15 HDB Households by Household Size, Type of Family Nucleus and Year

Household Size

(Persons)

Family-Based Household Non-Family

Based Household

All Nuclear Family



2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

1 Person - - - - - - 91.3 93.6 8.4 12.6

2 Persons 25.7 32.9 - - - - 8.4 6.0 20.4 25.7

3 Persons 29.3 28.3 14.7 25.2 - - 0.3 -* 23.6 23.0

4 Persons 29.9 27.4 31.0 27.5 20.9 25.6 - -* 26.7 23.6

5 Persons 11.9 8.9 32.7 33.4 27.7 25.4 - - 13.5 10.0

6 or More Persons 3.2 2.5 21.6 13.9 51.4 49.0 - - 7.4 5.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 693,950 765,874 75,114 64,901 56,072 46,374 83,364 136,393 908,499 1,013,542


Mean 3.4 3.2 4.7 4.4 5.8 5.6 1.1 1.1 3.4 3.1

Median 3 3 5 4 6 5 1 1 3 3

*Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

86

Household size by town/estate

Table 3.16 shows the distribution of household size in the different HDB

towns/estates. Similar to previous years, households in mature towns/estates

were smaller in household size, ranging from an average of 2.5 to 3.0 persons.

The average household sizes for young towns ranged between 3.2 and 3.4

persons, whereas average household sizes in middle-aged towns/estate were

generally larger, ranging from 2.9 to 3.8 persons. Compared with 2013, average

household size for all towns/estates had decreased, with the exception of Clementi,

where average household size had remained unchanged.

It can be seen that household size tended to vary with the different life cycle stages

of a family, which accounted for the variations in household sizes across HDB

towns/estates. For instance, young towns generally had smaller household sizes

compared with middle-aged towns/estate as more residents in young towns were

in their early stages of their family life cycle. Most of these residents in young

towns could be newly married couples planning to have children or married couples

with young dependent children. On the other hand, households in mature

towns/estates comprised mainly older residents with grown-up children, some of

whom were likely to have married and moved out to start their own family.

87

Table 3.16 Mean and Median HDB Household Size by Town/Estate and Year

HDB Town/Estate

Mean Household Size

(Persons)

Median Household Size

(Persons)

Mean Age of Town in

2018 (Years)*

2013 2018 2013 2018

Young Towns

Punggol 3.5 3.2 3 3 7.4

Sengkang 3.6 3.3 4 3 11.6

Sembawang 3.8 3.4 4 3 15.1

Middle-Aged Towns/ Estate

Bishan 3.2 2.9 3 2 29.4

Bukit Batok 3.5 3.2 4 3 28.8

Bukit Panjang 3.9 3.4 4 3 21.9

Bukit Timah 3.3 3.1 3 3 31.8

Choa Chu Kang 3.9 3.5 4 3 20.5

Hougang 3.5 3.2 4 3 26.7

Jurong East 3.4 3.0 3 2 28.8

Jurong West 3.6 3.3 4 3 24.5

Pasir Ris 4.0 3.8 4 3 23.8

Serangoon 3.5 3.0 4 2 30.1

Tampines 3.9 3.4 4 3 27.4

Woodlands 4.0 3.6 4 3 23.4

Yishun 3.6 3.2 4 3 26.9

Mature Towns/ Estates

Ang Mo Kio 3.0 2.7 3 2 36.4

Bedok 3.3 3.0 3 2 34.9

Bukit Merah 3.0 2.7 3 2 32.5

Central Area 2.8 2.7 2 2 36.7

Clementi 2.8 2.8 3 2 31.7

Geylang 3.1 2.7 3 2 36.8

Kallang/Whampoa 3.0 2.6 3 2 34.5

Marine Parade 2.9 2.5 3 2 42.7

Queenstown 2.8 2.5 3 2 31.9

Toa Payoh 2.9 2.7 3 2 37.0

All 3.4 3.1 3 3 26.7

* Based on mean age of blocks in town/estate of households that responded to SHS2018

88

Summary of Findings

There were 1,013,542 HDB households in 2018, growing at an annualised rate of

2.2% since 2013. The majority (95.0%) of households lived in sold flats, with 4-

room flats being the predominant flat type, followed by 5-room and 3-room flats.

There was an increase of approximately 15,000 households living in sold 1-room

and 2-room flats, mainly facilitated by the provision of more Studio Apartments and

2-room Flexi flats. While the number of households living in HDB rental flats had

increased slightly from 2013 to 2018, this was mainly due to an increase in the

provision of 1-room rental flats between 2013 and 2018.

While Jurong West, Tampines, and Woodlands remained the towns with the

largest number of households, Punggol, Sengkang, and Yishun saw the largest

increase in the number of households, mainly due to the new flats that had been

provided over the past five years.

While family-based households remained the predominant household type

(86.6%), their proportion had continued to decline over the years. Conversely,

there was an increase in non-family based households from 5.5% in 1998 to 13.4%

in 2018. This was mainly due to the rise of one-person households, from 4.6% to

11.9% over the last two decades. Households were also increasingly flatter, with

the proportion of households with one generation increasing from 10.9% to 18.0%

from 1998 to 2018, and the proportion of two-generation family households

decreasing from 75.4% to 61.5% over the same period.

The proportion of one-person households increased over the last decade. Elderly

residents made up a higher proportion of one-person households. An increasing

proportion of one-person households lived in larger flats.

Overall, the average size of HDB households decreased to 3.1 persons. This

reflects the continuing demographic trends that have been earlier observed, such

as an ageing population, the splintering of households as children get married and

move out to start their own families, and the decline in number of children per

family. Household size tended to vary with the different life cycle stages of a family,

which accounted for the variations in household sizes across HDB towns/estates.

Part 1 - Conclusion


91

Part 1


Conclusion

The socioeconomic profile of HDB communities has continued to evolve in line with

overall demographic trends, as well as the prevailing housing preferences of

residents. HDB resident households continued to increase over the last five years.

This increase was largely due to increasing preferences for new household

formation, particularly among younger families and singles, who were inclined

towards having greater privacy and living space. The formation of these new

households was also facilitated through HDB’s building programme in providing a

steady supply of new flats. Conversely, there was a slight decrease in HDB

resident population with a negative annualised growth rate of 0.1%. This was

driven both by demographic factors such as a low fertility rate and an ageing

population, as well as the aspirations of HDB residents to crossover to private

housing.

The effect of HDB population ageing continued to be evident, with one in three

residents aged 55 years old and above, compared with one in five just a decade

ago. The median age of residents also rose sharply from 37 years in 2008 to 42

years in 2018. With increasing longevity due to continuous improvements in

healthcare, coupled with declining birth rates, the population has been ageing more

rapidly. It is therefore important to understand how the HDB living environment

could be improved to enhance the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of

residents as they live through their silver years. In particular, facilities could be

planned or repurposed to meet the diverse, changing needs of households living

within HDB towns as they transit between the various life cycle stages.

Rejuvenation opportunities and strategies would be continually reviewed to help

92

address the changing needs of the various segments of the population, including

facilitating the preference to age-in-place. Towards the long-term, the re-planning

of existing housing estates would be useful in rebalancing the age distribution and

mitigating the population ageing effects within HDB towns.

These demographic trends also had a net effect on household composition, as

observed through the lower proportion of family-based households and higher

proportion of non-family based households, primarily one-person households. The

formation of new households among younger families also accelerated the

increase in proportion of “empty nesters” among older residents. This has resulted

in flatter households where two or fewer generations live within the same housing

unit. The effects of these trends were observed in the decrease in average

household size over the past decade, from 3.4 persons in 2008 to 3.1 persons in

2018. It is important therefore to continue monitoring how lifestyle patterns are

changing and identify emergent trends, as these would have implications on the

efficacy of our current policies and provisions in the face of constraints such as an

increasing scarcity of land. While meeting the housing needs of residents remains

HDB’s paramount consideration, it is also important to ensure that the high

standards of liveability in the living environment continues to be maintained.

HDB communities have always been diverse, with an active mix of different

ethnicities and nationalities living together in the heartlands. It is hence crucial to

stay in tune with the aspirations and preferences of the various communities that

live within HDB towns, as well as gauge the strength of community ties, in order to

understand how a high degree of social cohesion and inclusivity can be maintained

within HDB communities in the face of population and social changes.

Part 2

Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

95

Part 2


Introduction

As a public housing provider, HDB has been instrumental in creating and

developing the physical environment in which more than eight in ten of the resident

population live and interact. The 23 towns and three estates are planned to be

self-sufficient with a comprehensive range of estate facilities at the precinct,

neighbourhood and town/estate level. Changing demographics and an ageing

population could have implications for the physical provision in the towns/estates.

To enable HDB to continually and progressively enhance the design of public

housing and neighbourhoods, and meet the needs and aspirations of residents, it

is important to track their changing needs. The findings in this part of the

monograph assess residents’ satisfaction with housing in terms of their physical

living environment and facilities provided in HDB towns/estates and their pride and

attachment to their homes. Residents’ housing preferences are assessed in terms

of their residential mobility (both in the past and within next five years) and housing

aspirations. The assessment of the self-sufficiency of HDB towns/estates in terms

of job and school provision within town, as well as transport connectivity to place

of work and school was re-introduced in this SHS to provide a more complete

assessment of the HDB living experience. These findings would serve as a useful

reference for HDB to continually review its provisions in its role as the public

housing provider.

96

Objectives

The objectives of Part 2 are as follows:

a) To determine residents’ satisfaction with their physical living environment,

sense of pride towards their flat and whether they find their flat to be value

for money;

b) To assess the HDB environment in terms of external (e.g., estate facilities,

cleanliness of housing estate) and internal (e.g., flat design/layout) aspects

of the living environment;

c) To examine residents’ housing needs and preferences by looking at their

past residential mobility, intention to move within next five years and

housing aspirations;

d) To understand residents' preferred housing type in their old age;

e) To determine the travel patterns of the working and schooling population

within and outside the HDB towns/estates in relation to their place of work

or school; and

f) To assess car-lite readiness in HDB towns/estates by examining key

drivers for and against car ownership

Framework

The HDB living experience is examined through drawing associations between

housing satisfaction and housing preferences. Housing satisfaction is assessed in

terms of residents’ satisfaction with their physical living environment which includes

both their flat and neighbourhood and estate facilities; as well as whether they

consider their flat to be value for money and feel a sense of pride towards their flat.

Satisfaction with various aspects of the HDB living environment are also identified,

as well as perception of lift reliability. Housing preferences are gauged from the

patterns of residential mobility and residents’ housing aspirations. The indicators

of residential mobility include residents’ length of residence, information on their

previous move(s), as well as residents’ intentions to move within the next five years.

Housing aspirations are inferred from the housing types that residents are content

with as well as their perception of ageing in place.

97

This section has four chapters. Chapters 4 and 5 cover residents’ satisfaction with

their internal (flat) and external living environment (neighbourhood and estate

facilities), as well as their sentiments towards other aspects of the flat. Housing

preferences in terms of mobility and aspirations are discussed in Chapter 6.

Chapter 7 explores the travel patterns of the working and schooling population and

the key drivers for or against car ownership.

Framework for Gauging Housing Satisfaction and Preferences

4

Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

$ $

103

Chapter 4


As Singapore’s public housing provider, it is crucial that HDB provides a quality

physical living environment for its residents. This chapter looks at residents’

physical living experience in terms of satisfaction with flat, neighbourhood and

various aspects of HDB’s physical living environment (i.e., external and internal

living environment, accessibility and connectivity). This chapter will also discuss

the softer aspects of the physical living experience, measured in terms of residents’

feeling of sense of pride in their flat and whether they thought of it as “value for

money”.

4.1 Sense of Pride and Value for Money

This section will explore the factors that influence residents’ sense of pride in their

flat, whether they perceive it as value for money, and in turn their housing

satisfaction.

Majority proud of their flats, higher pride level among flat owners

Overall, 74.2% of households living in both sold and rental flats were proud of their

flat. This was an increase of 3.8 percentage points over a five-year period (Chart

4.1). About 22.2% of households felt neutral towards their flat and 3.6% were not

proud of their flat. The main reasons for being proud of flat were the good

design/layout of flat, a sense of ownership and good/convenient location. Many

households who felt neutral or not proud expressed that it was common to live in

104

an HDB flat or that housing was considered a necessity. Further analyses by

tenure and flat type showed similar reasons for those who felt neutral or not proud.

The proportion of households who were proud of their flat was significantly higher

among residents living in sold flats (74.9%) compared with rental flats (59.8%).

Besides being proud of having a spacious flat and the ability to own a flat, many

homeowners also cited the good/convenient location of their flat. In contrast, a

lower proportion of rental tenants were proud of their flat, while a higher proportion

felt neutral towards their flat. Those who were proud cited having a good living

environment and those who felt neutral mentioned that it was common to live in

HDB flats.

Chart 4.1 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year

A higher proportion of households living in 4-room and bigger flats were proud of

their flats, in particular for their spaciousness. However, those living in 3-room and

smaller flats were likely to cite having a sense of ownership.

Chart 4.2 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year

59.2 59.871.0 74.9 70.4 74.2

30.6 33.325.2 21.7 25.5 22.2

10.2 6.9 3.8 3.4 4.1 3.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Household

s (

%)

Not Proud

Neutral

Proud

70.9 70.5 68.4 73.9 71.6 77.6 74.0 80.570.4 74.2

25.0 24.7 27.8 22.8 23.719.4 21.3

17.325.5 22.2

4.1 4.8 3.8 3.3 4.7 3.0 4.7 2.2 4.1 3.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018 2013 2018

Household

s (

%)

Not Proud

Neutral

Proud

Rental Sold All

3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All & Smaller

105

Higher pride level with longer length of residence

Comparing pride level across the different length of residence reveals that pride

level was highest (81.0%) among households who lived in their current flat for more

than 30 years (Chart 4.3). Besides citing good design/layout, residents were also

proud of their flat due to it being in a good/convenient location. Higher proportions

of households who lived in their flat for ten years or less were neutral or not proud

of their flat. These households expressed that it was common to own an HDB flat

and that they considered it a necessity in any case.

Chart 4.3 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Length of Residence

Majority agreed flats were value for money

Overall, most households (84.9%) from both sold and rental flats agreed that their

flat was value for money (Chart 4.4). Further analysis by tenure showed that a

higher proportion of households who agreed that their flat was value for money

resided in sold flats (85.0%). Their reasons for agreeing was that they had

purchased their flats at an affordable price; there was appreciation in flat price; and

the location of their flat was good/convenient. Conversely, those who disagreed

felt that the purchase price was high or there was no appreciation in flat price.

Households living in rental flats who disagreed that the flat was value for money

felt that the rental was too high.

The overall price movements of HDB resale flats, as measured by the HDB Resale

Price Index (RPI), could have some influence on residents’ assessment of their flat.

The RPI had increased gradually from 2008 and peaked in mid-2013 before

tapering down slightly to a stable plateau by the end of 2018. A higher proportion

69.8 69.2 74.5 75.8 76.4 76.2 81.0 74.2

25.3 26.5 22.9 19.9 20.7 20.9 17.522.2

4.9 4.3 2.6 4.3 2.9 2.9 1.5 3.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 &Above

All

Household

s (

%)

Length of Residence (Years)

Not Proud

Neutral

Proud

106

of residents in SHS 2013 who agreed that their flat was value for money cited

appreciation in flat value (47.1%) as one of the main reasons, as a majority of

resale flat buyers purchased their flats before 2013. In SHS 2018, there were more

resale flat buyers who purchased their flats between mid-2011 to 2016 when the

RPI was high. This could have led to a lower proportion of residents who felt that

their flat value had appreciated (23.0%).

Chart 4.4 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Tenure and Year

There was, however, a decrease in the proportion of households who agreed that

their flats were value for money across all flat types. Households living in 3-room

and smaller flats who agreed had the largest decrease in proportion by 7.5

percentage points over the past five years (Chart 4.5). High purchase price of flat

was the main reason cited by households across all flat types who disagreed that

their flat was value for money.

Chart 4.5 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year

87.1 90.4 90.382.6 85.0 84.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rental Sold All

Household

s A

gre

ed (

%)

2013

2018

91.7 91.587.5 86.5

90.384.2 86.0 83.8 85.1 84.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

3-Room& Smaller

4-Room 5-Room Executive All

Household

s A

gre

ed (

%)

2013

2018

107

4.2 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood

This section would focus on examining residents’ satisfaction with the physical

aspects of public housing in terms of two broad aspects, namely, flat and

neighbourhood. Residents’ satisfaction with their flats could be influenced by

various factors. These include the physical aspects such as flat size, condition of

flat and flat design/layout. Similarly, various factors in a neighbourhood could

influence residents’ satisfaction with the neighbourhood. Location, cleanliness and

neighbourly relations are some of the important factors influencing residents’

satisfaction with the neighbourhood.

High and sustained levels of satisfaction with flats

Overall, 93.2% of households were satisfied with their flat (Chart 4.6), which was

a slight increase compared with 2013. The proportion of households who were

satisfied remained high at above 90% across the years.

Chart 4.6 Satisfaction with Flat by Year

For households who were satisfied with their flat, the main reasons cited included

spaciousness of flat, no major issues with the flat in general, or the design/layout

of the flat. For households who were dissatisfied with their flat, the reasons given

were mainly related to issues with the condition of their flats such as spalling

concrete and ceiling leaks.

Over 90% of households across all flat types were satisfied with their flat (Table

4.1), which was an increase compared to that of 2013. A higher proportion of

94.2 96.491.6 93.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2008 2013 2018

Household

s S

atisfied (

%)

108

households living in 5-room and bigger units were satisfied with their flat, citing

spaciousness as the main reason. Satisfied households living in 1- and 2-room

flats (90.8% and 90.1% respectively) cited that there were no major issues with

their flat.

Table 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year

Flat Type Households Satisfied (%)

2008 2013 2018

1-Room 98.5 87.7 90.8

2-Room 95.3 89.8 90.1

3-Room 96.5 91.4 93.2

4-Room 96.5 91.2 92.8

5-Room 96.5 92.9 93.9

Executive 94.7 92.1 95.6

The satisfaction levels with flat were close to or above 90% across all households

of various attributes such as tenure of flat and age of residents. The proportion of

households living in sold flats who were satisfied (93.2%) was higher than those

living in rental flats (91.4%). Sold flat owners who were satisfied with their flat cited

spaciousness of the flat as their main reason. Both sold flat owners and rental flat

tenants who were satisfied also cited having no major problems with their flat.

In Chart 4.7, analysis by age shows that more elderly households (aged 65 years

old and above) were satisfied with their flat (96.9%) compared with the other age

groups (ranging from 89.6% to 94.5%). While more residents aged below 45 years

old were satisfied cited the design/layout of their flats as a reason, more elderly

residents were satisfied as they found their flats comfortable.

109

Chart 4.7 Satisfaction with Flat by Age

Satisfaction with flat was also higher among households, which include a large

proportion of elderly households, who had lived in their flat for more than 25 years

(Chart 4.8). Besides citing having a spacious flat or no issues with flat condition

as the main reason for satisfaction, those who had lived in their flat for more than

25 years also mentioned that their flat was comfortable.

Chart 4.8 Satisfaction with Flat by Length of Residence

Majority satisfied with their neighbourhood

The majority of households (95.3%) were satisfied with their neighbourhood. This

proportion had increased slightly by 3.3 percentage points from 2013 (Chart 4.9).

Households who were satisfied attributed it to convenient location, having friendly

neighbours or a peaceful/quiet environment. Households who were dissatisfied

felt that their neighbours were noisy, inconsiderate or unfriendly or that the

neighbourhood was dirty.

89.6 91.0 90.294.5 96.9

93.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 &Above

All

Household

s S

atisfied (

%)

Age Group (Years)

91.0 89.594.0 92.3 95.0

98.7 97.493.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 &Above

All

Household

s S

atisfied (

%)


110

Chart 4.9 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year

The satisfaction level with neighbourhood was over 90% across various attributes

such as tenure of flat, flat type, age of resident and length of residence.

Satisfaction with neighbourhood was higher in sold flats (95.4%) compared with

rental flats (92.8%). Most households from various flat types were highly satisfied

with neighbourhood (Chart 4.10). Households living in 2-, 3- and 4-room flats were

satisfied with the convenient location while 1-room, 5-room and bigger flats were

satisfied due to their having a pleasant/peaceful/quiet environment.

Chart 4.10 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Flat Type

Similar to satisfaction with flat, a higher proportion of elderly households (aged 65

years old and above) expressed satisfaction with neighbourhood (97.3%)

compared with younger households (ranging from 93.2% to 95.5% as shown in

Chart 4.11). Elderly households attributed their satisfaction to having friendly

neighbours. Younger households aged below 35 years old were satisfied mainly

with their pleasant/peaceful/quiet environment, while those aged between 35 to 64

years old attributed their satisfaction with neighbourhood to its convenient location.

93.3 95.1 92.0 95.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2008 2013 2018

Household

s S

atisfied (

%)

92.8 92.9 95.8 95.3 95.9 94.3 95.3

0

20

40

60

80

100


Household

s S

atisfied (

%)

111

Chart 4.11 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Age

Satisfaction with neighbourhood was observed to increase with length of residence

(Chart 4.12). Households with a longer length of residence tend to comprise a

higher proportion of elderly households, with more of them attributing their

satisfaction to having friendly neighbours or convenient location.

Chart 4.12 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Length of Residence

Greater sense of belonging among residents who were satisfied with neighbourhood

Further analysis showed an association between residents’ sense of belonging and

satisfaction with neighbourhood. Among households who felt a sense of belonging

towards their towns/estates, a higher proportion was satisfied with their

neighbourhood (99.3%) compared with those who were dissatisfied (94.4%), as

shown in Table 4.2.

93.2 94.6 94.1 95.5 97.3 95.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 &Above

All

Household

s S

atisfied (

%)

Age Group (Years)

94.1 93.9 95.8 94.7 96.4 96.6 97.9 95.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 &Above

All

Household

s S

atisfied (

%)


112

Table 4.2 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood among HDB Households by Sense of Belonging to Town/Estate

Sense of Belonging to Town/Estate

Satisfaction with Neighbourhood

Satisfied Dissatisfied

Yes 99.3 94.4

No 0.7 5.6

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 965,661 47,678


4.3 Satisfaction with HDB Physical Living Environment

This is a new section included in 2018 which examines various aspects of the HDB

physical living environment. The aspects are categorised into four main

categories; accessibility and connectivity, external, internal and other aspects

(Table 4.3). Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction level with each aspect

and provide a main reason for their dissatisfaction.

113

Table 4.3 Aspects of HDB Physical Living Environment

Aspects

Accessibility & Connectivity 1. Location

2. Walkability to transport node

3. Walkability to commercial facilities

4. Accessibility to commercial facilities

5. Accessibility to transport nodes

6. Pathways

7. Adequacy of lighting in neighbourhood

8. Ease of cycling within HDB town

9. Safety from traffic for pedestrians

External 10. Spaciousness of housing estate

11. Crowdedness at precinct

12. Safety/Security within precinct

13. Block design

14. Maintenance of housing estate

15. Provision of car park

16. Cleanliness

Internal 17. Flat privacy

18. Natural lighting within flat

19. Flat size

20. Natural ventilation within flat

21. Flat design/layout

22. View from flat

23. Noise

Others 24. Variety of flat types offered

25. Upgrading programme

26. Purchase price of flat

Majority satisfied with various aspects of physical living environment except for noise and cleanliness

Overall, the majority of households were satisfied with most aspects of the HDB

physical living environment (Chart 4.13). The aspects with the lowest satisfaction

levels were cleanliness (77.4%) and noise (75.7%). The main reasons cited were

irregular cleaning or poor cleanliness due to inconsiderate neighbours, and

disturbances from neighbours or noise from the external environment (e.g.,

traffic/vehicles).

114

Chart 4.13 Satisfaction with Various Aspects of HDB Physical Living Environment

Slight dip in proportion of households who perceived lifts to be reliable

Lift reliability is an important aspect of high-rise living. The survey showed that the

perception of lift reliability had declined slightly from 85.6% in 2013 to 82.6% in

2018 (Chart 4.14). Frequent lift breakdowns were cited as the main reason. On-

going initiatives such as the Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP)7, Lift Surveillance

7 Under the Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP) to enhance lift safety, lifts in HDB blocks that have been in

operation for 18 years or less (as of 1 April 2017) and are not equipped with features such as unintended lift car movement protection (to guard against failure of lift components) and light curtain sensors (to enable better detection of objects between lift doors), would be eligible for the programme. About 20,000 existing lifts in HDB estates are eligible, and HDB co-funds the LEP substantially. The LEP is being carried out by respective Town Councils (TCs) over a period of 10 years, and the award of LEP works commenced in 1Q 2019.

81.5

91.4

97.2

75.7

91.9

93.3

93.6

93.7

95.2

95.9

77.4

92.3

92.4

94.8

95.3

96.0

97.6

89.6

90.9

91.7

92.0

96.6

96.7

97.4

98.0

98.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Purchase price of flat

Upgrading programme

Variety of flat types offered

Noise

View from flat

Flat design/layout

Natural ventilation within flat

Size of flat

Natural lighting within flat

Privacy of flat

Cleanliness

Provision of car park

Maintenance of housing estate

Block design

Safety/Security within precinct

Crowdedness at precinct

Spaciousness of housing estate

Safety from traffic for pedestrians

Ease of cycling within HDB town

Adequacy of lighting in neighbourhood

Pathways

Accessibility to transport nodes

Accessibility to commercial facilities

Walkability to commercial facilities

Walkability to transport nodes

Location

Households Satisfied (%)

External

Internal

Others

Accessibility & Connectivity

115

System (LSS)8, as well as the Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP)9

would help to enhance the reliability and performance of lifts in HDB blocks.

Chart 4.14 Proportion of HDB Households who Perceived Lifts to be Reliable by Year

Note: Lift reliability was not included in SHS 2008

More than four in ten households recycled regularly

SHS 2018 explored a new question to understand households’ recycling habits

and accessed if they were doing so regularly. If households recycled occasionally

or once a year (e.g., during spring cleaning), it would not be deemed as regular

recycling. Currently, centralised chutes for recyclables are provided in new

developments (e.g., Build-To-Order flats) and can be found on every floor of the

block. These are chutes meant only for the disposal of recyclables. Central

recycling bins (i.e., blue bins) are also provided on the ground floor of every block

in all HDB developments.

About 45.1% of households were recycling regularly via at least one recycling

method while 52.9% households did not recycle regularly. The remaining 2.0% of

households occasionally gave/sold their items to rag and bone men or gave away

8 Lift Surveillance System (LSS) was first introduced under the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), where most

TCs have opted to install the LSS. It is also provided for all new lifts in new BTOs which are installed from July 2016 onwards. Some TCs have also retrofitted LSS to some older lifts within their respective TCs. The LSS helps to deter vandalism to the lift and misuse of lift doors. It is now a regulatory requirement to provide LSS in lift cars, and building owners (including TCs for lifts in HDB estates) are required to provide footage recorded by the LSS to relevant authorities if necessary, to facilitate investigation into any lift-related incident.

9 Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP) was introduced in September 2014. It is implemented by the Town Councils (TCs) and when completed would have replaced about 800 old lifts with new ones that come with more energy-efficient motors, vision panels in lift doors, accessibility code-compliant features, and multi-beam door sensors for added energy efficiency, safety and security. HDB also co-funds the replacement of these lifts.

85.6 85.682.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2013 2018

Household

s (

%)

116

items to non-profit organisations, neighbours, family members and friends (Table

4.4). Most households who recycled regularly had disposed recyclables into the

central recycling bins while a small proportion of households preferred to donate

to charity instead (Table 4.5). The proportion of households who disposed

recyclables regularly in designated centralised chute was small, as such chutes

are mostly found in new blocks in Punggol.

Table 4.4 Whether HDB Households Recycle Regularly

Whether Recycle Regularly All

Yes (at least one recycling method) 45.1

No 52.9

Others (e.g., give/sell to rag and bone men, give VWOs/religious organisations/neighbours/schools/family members/friends)

2.0

Total % 100.0

N* 1,004,687


Table 4.5 Recycling Methods of HDB Households who Recycled Regularly

Recycling Methods Households (%)*

Dispose regularly in central recycling bins (i.e., blue bins) 41.7

Donate regularly to charity 3.4

Dispose regularly in centralised chute for recyclables 1.0



The proportion of households from both sold and rental flats who were proud of

their flats was 74.2% in 2018 compared to 70.4% in 2013. The increase in sense

of pride over the last five years was likely due to improvements in factors such as

satisfaction with flat.

More than eight in ten homeowners (85.0%) agreed that their flat was value for

money. The proportion of households who felt that their flats were value for money

was higher among those who purchased their flats directly from HDB than those

who bought resale flats. Homeowners’ perception on whether their flat was value

for money depends to a great extent on the purchase price of their flat. Further

117

analysis of those households who bought resale flat by the year of purchase

showed that their perception was sensitive to fluctuations in the RPI.

The satisfaction level with flat (93.2%) and neighbourhood (95.3%) had increased

since the previous survey in 2013. The most common attributes associated with

flat satisfaction were spaciousness of flat, no issues with condition of flat and good

flat design/layout. Most households were satisfied with the various aspects of the

HDB physical living environment, though satisfaction was lower for cleanliness

(77.4%) and noise (75.7%). The proportion of households who perceived their lifts

to be reliable had declined slightly from 85.6% in 2013 to 82.6% in 2018. Among

the households (45.1%) who were recycling regularly via at least one recycling

method, most disposed of their recyclables in the central recycling bins. The

proportion of households utilising the centralised chute for recyclables was small

as these chutes were only available in new developments.

5

Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

123

Chapter 5

Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

HDB towns are planned to be self-sufficient, offering a wide range of facilities at

the precinct, neighbourhood and town levels. As the population in housing estates

evolves, the amenities provided must also respond to meet their changing needs.

Findings on households’ satisfaction with, and usage levels of the various facilities

in HDB towns/estates would enable HDB to better understand residents’ needs

and preferences, anticipate changing preferences, and thereby cater for them.

This chapter assesses the adequacy of estate facilities provided in terms of

residents’ satisfaction with and usage levels of estate facilities. With the advent of

e-commerce, together with greater access to internet connectivity via mobile

devices, more residents are moving towards online shopping. In light of this trend,

understanding the prevalence of online shopping among HDB residents and the

common categories of goods purchased online would be useful in determining the

need to continue providing certain types of essential trade within HDB

towns/estates.

5.1 Satisfaction with Estate Facilities

High satisfaction with estate facilities

Overall satisfaction with provision of estate facilities had increased over the years

and reached a high of 98.6%, an increase of 4.2 percentage points from a decade

ago (Chart 5.1).

124

Chart 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Estate Facilities by Year

Overall increase in satisfaction level of various estate facilities

Satisfaction with specific categories of estate facilities was also high, ranging from

89.4% for benches/seats/tables to 97.9% for overall retail shops (Table 5.1).

Compared with five years ago, satisfaction levels with all facilities had increased.

The facilities that had shown the greatest improvements over the past five years

were related to transportation (from 80.4% in 2013 to 91.4% in 2018), healthcare

(from 85.7% in 2013 to 93.9% in 2018) and precinct facilities (from 86.7% in 2013

to 94.2% in 2018).

Transportation, health/medical-related, and precinct facilities had garnered higher

satisfaction due to major improvements made to these aspects by agencies since

2013. For transportation facilities, it was the shorter waiting time and more

comfortable travel journey with Bus Service Enhancement Programme 10 , and

expansion of the MRT network and improvement of rail lines. For health/medical

facilities, it was the higher predictability of waiting time with the Enhanced

Appointment System at polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme

contributing to reduced load on public hospitals and polyclinics. More hospitals

have also been built since 201311. For precinct facilities, more seats/benches have

10 Land Transport Authority: Completion of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). Retrieved on 12

June 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2017/12/2/completion-of-the-bus-service-enhancement-programme-bsep.html)

11 Upcoming and Completed Healthcare Facilities. Retrieved on 12 June 2020. (https://www.moh.gov.sg/upcoming-and-completed- healthcare-facilities)

93.4 94.4 96.1 98.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2008 2013 2018

Household

s S

atisie

d (

%)

https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2017/12/2/completion-of-the-bus-service-enhancement-programme-bsep.html

https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2017/12/2/completion-of-the-bus-service-enhancement-programme-bsep.html

https://www.moh.gov.sg/upcoming-and-completed-%20healthcare-facilities

125

been provided in the void decks and landscaped areas. HDB and LTA have also

collaborated to provide a comprehensive network of linkways.

Table 5.1 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year

Types of Estate Facilities Households Satisfied (%)

2003 2008 2013 2018

Commercial Facilities

(i) General Retail Shops 85.6 93.3 93.4 97.9

HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre N.A. 89.1 89.9 94.8

Shopping centre/mall N.A. 89.9 90.8 96.3

(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls 83.6 87.5 94.7 97.4

Wet/Dry market N.A. N.A. 85.4 89.8

Supermarket N.A. N.A. 94.1 96.3

(iii) Eating Facilities 85.5 89.0 92.4 96.2

Hawker centre N.A. N.A. 86.3 89.5

Eating house (e.g., coffee shop) N.A. N.A. 88.3 92.5

Food court N.A. N.A. 89.1 93.5

Other F& B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, restaurant)

N.A. N.A. N.A. 97.1

Elderly-Friendly Facilities*

Bench/Seat/Table N.A. N.A. N.A. 89.4

Support hand bar in lift/along corridor N.A. N.A. N.A. 96.5

Ramp N.A. N.A. N.A. 95.6

Fitness station for elderly N.A. N.A. N.A. 95.1

Senior citizens’ corner N.A. N.A. N.A. 93.6

Playground N.A. N.A. N.A. 94.7

Parks & Greenery N.A. N.A. N.A. 95.9

Transportation Facilities 84.1 84.1 80.4 91.4

Sports Facilities 81.8 85.2 88.9 93.6

Recreational & Leisure Facilities 86.3 89.1 91.7 95.7

Precinct Facilities 88.5**

88.7 86.7 94.2

Community Facilities 94.3 94.6 97.3

Education Facilities 96.0 96.5 95.0 97.7

Health/Medical Facilities 87.8 90.1 85.7 93.9

Financial Facilities 80.7 85.5 86.7 90.0

Overall Satisfaction 93.4 94.4 96.1 98.6

* Prior to SHS 2018, questions on satisfaction with elderly-friendly facilities were posed to residents aged 55 years old and above only. (Refer to Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities and Well-Being of Elderly, Chapter 6 Well-Being of Elderly, Section 6.4.3, Table 6.55) for more details

** Precinct and community facilities were grouped in the same category in SHS 2003.

126

Satisfaction with estate facilities remained high, especially among households in smaller flat types

Overall satisfaction level with estate facilities were high across all flat types (Table

5.2). At least 97.5% of households across all flat types were satisfied with the

overall provision of estate facilities in their living environment.

It was observed that households living in 5-room and bigger flats tended to be less

satisfied with the various types of estate facilities. Specifically, a slightly lower

proportion of these households were satisfied with wet/dry markets, hawker

centres, eating houses/coffee shops, benches/seats/tables, transportation and

financial facilities. The main reasons cited for dissatisfaction with wet/dry markets

were lack of variety (e.g., fewer stalls), the products for sale were expensive, or

their location was too far. For eating facilities, the main reason cited for

dissatisfaction with hawker centres was the absence of such facility nearby in their

estates. Limited food selection at eating house/coffee shop was also commonly

cited. For benches/seats/tables, households mentioned a lack of such facilities or

that cleanliness was an issue at these facilities. For transportation and financial

facilities, some reasons cited were limited or insufficient bus services and absence

of nearby financial facilities such as ATM and banks.

127

Table 5.2 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Flat Type

Types of Estate Facilities Households Satisfied (%)



(i) General Retail Shops 98.9 98.0 99.0 97.8 97.0 97.0 97.9

HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre

95.7 96.1 96.7 94.8 92.9 93.6 94.8

Shopping centre/mall 97.8 95.8 96.7 95.9 96.6 95.9 96.3

(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls

98.2 96.7 97.6 97.8 96.8 96.1 97.4

Wet/Dry market 93.1 90.3 93.1 89.9 86.9 86.5 89.8

Supermarket 96.9 96.3 96.8 96.4 96.0 95.2 96.3

(iii) Eating Facilities 97.1 96.6 97.7 96.0 95.4 95.2 96.2

Hawker centre 93.7 89.6 93.9 88.9 85.8 87.1 89.5

Eating house/Coffee shop 95.7 93.1 94.3 93.3 89.9 89.5 92.5

Food court 96.5 94.3 95.3 93.5 91.7 92.0 93.5

Other F&B outlets (e.g., fast food, café, restaurant)

98.5 97.8 97.7 96.8 97.2 95.4 97.1

(iv) Elderly-Friendly Facilities

Bench/Seat/Table 89.6 88.6 90.5 89.7 88.3 87.5 89.4

Support hand bar in lift/along corridor

96.7 96.4 97.0 96.8 95.9 94.8 96.5

Ramp 96.7 97.0 95.5 96.1 94.9 93.8 95.6

Fitness station 94.4 96.4 94.8 95.3 94.9 94.3 95.1

Senior citizens’ corner 94.4 93.6 94.0 93.5 93.2 93.4 93.6

Playground 95.5 96.7 95.6 94.3 94.5 93.7 94.7

Parks & Greenery 98.4 96.0 96.1 96.6 94.7 94.8 95.9

Transportation Facilities 95.6 91.9 94.1 91.5 88.9 88.0 91.4

Sports Facilities 95.9 95.3 95.1 93.8 91.7 92.6 93.6

Recreational & Leisure Facilities

96.8 96.6 96.9 96.1 93.8 94.5 95.7

Precinct Facilities 96.5 94.5 95.4 93.6 94.7 90.9 94.2

Community Facilities 98.6 96.9 98.1 97.4 96.6 96.4 97.3

Education Facilities 98.2 97.0 98.7 97.4 96.9 98.1 97.7

Health/Medical Facilities 95.9 94.7 95.3 93.8 92.4 93.1 93.9

Financial Facilities 92.4 90.9 90.7 90.5 88.1 90.1 90.0

Overall Satisfaction 99.1 98.7 99.3 98.5 98.1 97.5 98.6

128

Families with young children less satisfied with hawker centres, wet/dry markets, financial facilities, eating houses/coffee shops, transportation and playgrounds

Overall satisfaction with estate facilities was high at above 96.6%, across all

households with families at different life cycle stages (Table 5.3). Among them, a

lower proportion of families with young children were satisfied with the various

estate facilities, including hawker centres (85.7%), wet/dry markets (86.5%),

financial facilities (87.4%), eating houses/coffee shops (87.9%), transportation

(88.1%) and playgrounds (88.1%). For hawker centres, they commented on the

absence of such facilities or that their locations were too far. Some also cited

limited food selections. For wet/dry markets, the main concern was with the limited

variety of goods for sale or range of stalls. Some also mentioned that the products

for sale were expensive or that the market was not located near their home. For

financial they cited a lack of financial facilities such as ATM and banks. With regard

to eating houses/coffee shops, the main concern was with the lack of food variety.

For transportation facilities, the main reasons cited were limited or insufficient bus

services. Families with young children that were dissatisfied with playgrounds

cited the size of playgrounds was too small.

129

Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Household Life Cycle Stage

Types of Estate Facilities


Family without Children

Family with Young

Children

Family with Teenaged Children

Family with Unmarried Grown-

up Children

Family with Married Children

Elderly Couple

Living Alone Others* All


(i) General Retail Shops 96.0 97.1 96.9 98.4 97.1 98.6 98.9 97.9

HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 91.3 92.6 93.2 94.9 95.8 97.1 97.3 94.8

Shopping centre/Mall 96.0 95.3 94.6 97.6 95.0 96.2 96.9 96.3

(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls 97.1 96.3 96.6 97.3 97.0 98.6 98.5 97.4

Wet/Dry market 87.1 86.5 88.4 89.2 89.4 92.1 95.0 89.8

Supermarket 94.8 95.8 95.7 96.3 96.7 98.9 96.3 96.3

(iii) Eating Facilities 93.2 94.0 95.3 96.9 96.9 98.8 97.1 96.2

Hawker centre 86.8 85.7 87.2 89.0 89.5 94.7 93.4 89.5

Eating house/Coffee shop 87.2 87.9 91.2 93.8 93.3 96.3 94.9 92.5

Food court 90.7 91.7 92.0 93.8 93.9 96.7 94.9 93.5

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, restaurant) 98.1 95.6 95.7 97.6 97.4 98.0 97.6 97.1

(Iv) Elderly-Friendly Facilities

Bench/Seat/Table 88.9 89.7 87.9 89.4 88.3 90.6 90.5 89.4

Support hand bar in lift/along corridor 97.3 96.7 96.8 96.4 95.5 96.3 96.8 96.5

Ramp 96.4 96.1 96.3 94.7 95.6 96.6 95.6 95.6

Fitness station 94.4 97.1 94.2 94.5 94.1 96.8 95.1 95.1

Senior citizens’ corner 93.3 94.5 93.3 92.4 93.0 94.8 95.0 93.6

* Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

130

Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Household Life Cycle Stage (Continued)




Family with Young

Children


Family with Unmarried Grown-

up Children


Elderly Couple

Living Alone Others* All

Playground 95.3 88.1 94.4 96.5 93.2 98.2 96.7 94.7

Parks & Greenery 96.0 95.5 96.2 96.3 96.2 95.7 95.3 95.9

Transportation Facilities 86.0 88.1 90.2 91.8 91.8 94.2 94.9 91.4

Sports Facilities 90.2 91.0 92.6 94.7 92.6 95.0 96.1 93.6

Recreational & Leisure Facilities 95.8 92.5 94.3 96.6 94.6 98.6 96.9 95.7

Precinct Facilities 94.8 92.2 94.3 93.8 94.6 97.4 94.5 94.2

Community Facilities 97.9 97.0 96.2 97.5 96.4 98.6 97.8 97.3

Education Facilities 98.9 92.2 98.1 99.1 96.9 99.0 98.8 97.7

Health/Medical Facilities 94.7 91.9 93.2 94.5 93.2 95.2 94.5 93.9

Financial Facilities 88.0 87.4 91.5 90.4 89.0 91.9 91.1 90.0

Overall Satisfaction 97.6 96.6 98.6 98.9 99.1 98.9 99.5 98.6


131

5.2 Usage of Estate Facilities

The usage levels for various estate facilities were determined by asking

households on the frequency of usage for each facility, either by themselves or by

their family members. The full list of estate facilities covered is shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Frequency of Usage of Estate Facilities


Frequency of Usage Total

At Least Once a Week

Less Than Once a Week

Never Use

% N*


Supermarket 81.4 17.2 1.4 100.0 1,012,226

Wet/Dry market 63.9 25.2 10.9 100.0 1,004,680

HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 50.7 41.6 7.7 100.0 1,007,055

Eating house/Coffee shop 59.9 33.0 7.1 100.0 1,011,319

Hawker centre 56.5 33.6 9.9 100.0 881,791

Food court 38.1 51.0 10.9 100.0 992,820

Other F&B outlet (e.g., fast food, café, restaurant)

23.1 58.3 18.6 100.0 1,005,981

Sports & Recreational Facilities

Fitness station/Jogging track 25.5 32.6 41.9 100.0 1,002,679

Neighbourhood park/Common green 17.8 41.7 40.5 100.0 981,595

Playground 15.2 17.5 67.3 100.0 1,005,474

Regional/Town park 10.2 41.6 48.2 100.0 947,697

Hard/Multi-purpose court 6.5 23.7 69.8 100.0 976,656

Community garden 6.3 23.2 70.5 100.0 824,114

Roof/Sky garden 3.4 17.5 79.1 100.0 474,867

Precinct & Community Facilities

Covered linkway 84.2 13.8 2.0 100.0 1,004,084

Drop-off porch 30.3 49.5 20.2 100.0 982,952

Void deck/Community living room 27.7 39.7 32.6 100.0 979,940

Shelter 22.1 39.0 38.9 100.0 973,195

Precinct pavilion 7.9 36.2 55.9 100.0 904,644

Trellis 7.0 28.4 64.6 100.0 774,996

Regional/Community library 11.1 42.6 46.3 100.0 963,722

Community club 7.7 40.1 52.2 100.0 1,002,680


Note: Analysis was based on responses of households who were provided with the facility and were aware of the presence of such a facility in their estates/neighbourhoods or towns

132

Commercial facilities important and remained the most used

In general, all commercial facilities were well utilised by at least nine in ten

households, except other F&B outlets like fast food, cafes and restaurants, which

were patronised by at least eight in ten households (Table 5.4). The proportion of

households who patronised the various commercial facilities at least once a week

ranged from 23.1% for other F&B outlets (e.g., fast food, cafes, restaurants) to

81.4% for supermarkets.

The findings showed that at least once a week usage for supermarkets (81.4%)

was higher than wet/dry markets (63.9%), probably because the former offered a

wider range of products, better shopping experience and longer operating hours.

While patronage levels for hawker centres and eating houses/coffee shops were

similar to one another, they were lower for food courts and other F&B outlets,

probably due to their higher food prices.

As commercial facilities catered to essential needs of households, patronage levels

were significantly higher as compared with sports and recreational facilities, as well

as precinct and community facilities.

Sports & recreational and precinct & community facilities well utilised

Among those who used sports and recreational facilities at least once a week,

fitness stations/jogging tracks (25.5%) and neighbourhood parks/common greens

(17.8%) had the highest usage levels. Conversely, usage levels for roof/sky

gardens (3.4%), community gardens (6.3%) and hard/multi-purpose courts (6.5%)

were lower. The facilities provided cater to different segments of the population.

Given a typical precinct of about 800 dwelling units, a 5% usage level of at least

once a week translates to at least 40 households. Therefore, even with lower

usage levels, these facilities were still important to the segment of the residents

who used them. Facilities such as roof/sky gardens are not only a place for

recreation, but the greenery also provides visual relief and help lower the ambient

temperature.

The covered linkway (84.2%) was the most frequently used facility compared with

other precinct facilities. Covered linkways are widely available and useful in

133

providing shelter from the elements and convenient access, linking housing blocks

to transport nodes, neighbourhood shops, other precincts/neighbourhoods, and

town centres. Besides covered linkways, usage of drop-off porches and void

decks/community living rooms were also relatively high, with about 30.3% and

27.7% of households using them at least once a week respectively.

Usage of commercial facilities lower for households in smaller flat types

Generally, commercial facilities were well used by all flat types, albeit lower usage

among households living in smaller flat types (Table 5.5). In particular, households

living in smaller flat types patronised the food courts and other F&B outlets less

often, as price could be a barrier. These residents were more likely to use the

hawker centres and the eating houses/coffee shops, where cooked food options

tend to be more affordable

Among the sports and recreational facilities, fitness stations/jogging tracks were

the most frequently used facility across all flat types. The findings also showed

that at least once a week usage for playgrounds and neighbourhood

parks/common greens were higher among those residing in bigger flat types.

Further analysis showed that more family-based households were residing in

bigger flat types and higher proportion of them were using these facilities as shown

in Table 5.6.

On precinct and community facilities, covered linkways continued to be the most

frequently used across all flat types, followed by shelters and void

decks/community living rooms. It was also observed that households residing in

bigger flat types tended to use the drop-off porches and regional/community

libraries more frequently.

134

Table 5.5 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Flat Type

Types of Estate Facilities Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)



Supermarket 56.2 64.2 75.4 84.3 87.6 85.5 81.4

Wet/Dry market 49.9 55.7 67.5 64.5 63.1 62.0 63.9

HDB shop/ Neighbourhood centre

40.3 44.5 51.8 53.2 47.9 50.5 50.7

Eating house/Coffee shop

52.4 49.6 61.0 61.5 58.9 60.5 59.9

Hawker centre 52.5 52.7 65.4 54.0 54.2 50.5 56.5

Food court 19.4 26.1 28.7 41.4 44.6 42.5 38.1


10.2 13.1 16.7 25.5 28.1 25.1 23.1


Fitness station/Jogging track

17.2 16.2 21.2 25.9 30.2 31.2 25.5

Neighbourhood park/Common green

8.4 9.5 14.0 18.8 21.5 20.8 17.8

Playground 6.4 9.8 10.7 17.3 18.4 13.7 15.2

Regional/Town park 2.8 5.9 7.0 10.8 13.4 12.4 10.2

Hard/Multi-purpose court 3.6 3.4 4.0 7.1 8.4 7.5 6.5

Community garden 5.3 5.6 5.1 6.7 7.5 4.2 6.3

Roof/Sky garden 4.4 3.8 2.1 3.9 4.2 0.4 3.4


Covered linkway 74.7 78.4 85.4 83.6 86.3 84.6 84.2

Drop-off porch 16.8 17.5 19.4 30.3 40.4 47.2 30.3

Void deck/Community living room

30.1 28.3 28.4 27.2 26.8 29.3 27.7

Shelter 24.7 25.5 21.6 22.1 22.0 21.2 22.1

Precinct pavilion 8.1 8.4 4.9 8.9 9.4 6.7 7.9

Trellis 7.6 7.1 5.3 7.8 8.0 3.7 7.0

Regional/Community library

4.3 6.9 8.3 11.9 13.6 12.8 11.1

Community club 5.0 6.5 6.8 7.5 9.1 9.9 7.7

135

Usage levels of estate facilities differed across household life cycle stages

Families at various life cycle stages have differing needs, which can be seen from

their usage levels of various estate facilities provided in the living environment

(Table 5.6).

Commercial facilities were found to be well utilised by households across all

different life cycle stages. However, the usage levels for some facilities were

higher than others. Wet/Dry markets were most frequented by elderly couples

living alone (76.1%), and least frequented by families without children (53.6%),

other households (53.9%) and families with young children (56.5%). The findings

also showed that a lower proportion of elderly couples living alone and non-family

based households patronised HDB shops/neighbourhood centres, food courts and

other F&B outlets.

In general, families with young children used sports and recreational facilities more

frequently compared with other households. In particular, they were more likely to

use playgrounds. In addition, fitness stations/jogging tracks were the most utilised

facilities by households across all family life cycle stages.

Precinct and community facilities, such as covered linkways, were well-used by all

households across the various family life cycle stages. In general, a higher

proportion of families with young children used precinct and community facilities at

least once a week compared with other households, especially drop-off porches.

This could be due to school-going children using drop-off porches as a waiting area

for school buses. In addition, a higher proportion of families with married children

and elderly couples living alone spent time at void decks/community living rooms.

Void deck/community living room spaces are potential bonding spaces for

residents to meet and interact, especially for elderly residents who tend to meet

within the block or near their homes.

136

Table 5.6 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life Cycle Stage


Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)


Family with Young

Children


Family with Unmarried

Grown-up Children


Elderly Couple Living

Alone Others* All


Supermarket 82.0 89.8 83.5 83.5 83.9 77.7 68.5 81.4

Wet/Dry market 53.6 56.5 61.6 68.9 73.4 76.1 53.9 63.9

HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 54.3 58.5 54.6 50.1 53.2 48.0 40.8 50.7

Eating house/Coffee shop 64.4 63.2 59.4 61.7 56.0 57.6 56.2 59.9

Hawker centre 60.7 56.5 50.0 58.1 52.7 57.9 58.2 56.5

Food court 43.5 52.4 44.5 36.4 37.9 28.3 27.0 38.1


27.9 41.2 31.5 20.7 23.3 7.7 11.5 23.1


Fitness station/Jogging track 23.8 30.9 28.4 26.2 22.6 27.6 19.3 25.5

Neighbourhood park/Common green 18.5 24.8 19.0 16.9 18.5 16.1 12.6 17.8

Playground 4.7 54.7 14.3 5.5 21.5 7.7 3.1 15.2

Regional/Town park 11.1 14.7 10.6 9.2 9.7 10.4 7.7 10.2

Hard/Multi-purpose court 4.5 14.4 10.9 4.8 6.6 4.4 1.5 6.5

Community garden 5.1 10.8 5.5 5.9 5.1 7.5 4.3 6.3

Roof/Sky garden 3.0 6.7 3.6 2.3 2.1 5.4 1.7 3.4


137

Table 5.6 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life Cycle Stage (Continued)


Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)


Family with Young

Children


Family with Unmarried

Grown-up Children



Alone Others* All


Covered linkway 80.8 86.2 85.4 84.5 85.8 83.0 82.1 84.2

Drop-off porch 35.0 51.2 35.2 28.0 33.4 17.9 15.4 30.3

Void deck/Community living room 29.1 24.2 24.4 27.9 33.5 33.3 25.0 27.7

Shelter 25.3 26.8 23.5 19.5 23.4 21.4 20.3 22.1

Precinct pavilion 8.3 12.1 8.2 7.3 8.8 6.6 4.9 7.9

Trellis 8.3 12.3 5.4 6.0 7.3 6.2 4.8 7.0

Regional/Community library 4.3 26.0 20.2 7.8 10.7 4.6 4.5 11.1

Community club 4.6 10.2 9.5 7.1 9.2 6.6 6.4 7.7


138

Usage levels reflected in changing lifestyle of residents

In general, usage levels for commercial facilities, except supermarkets, had

decreased over the past five years (Table 5.7). The usage level for wet/dry

markets had declined in the last five years, likely due to competition from

supermarkets which sell similar products in a more conducive environment and

operate longer hours compared with wet/dry markets. Similarly, there was a

decrease in the patronage of eating establishments such as hawker centres, eating

houses/coffee shops, food courts and HDB shops/neighbourhood centres. This

could be a consequence of the increasing prevalence of online shopping and food

delivery services.

Over the past five years, the usage of sports and recreational facilities had dropped

slightly. Among the sports and recreational facilities, fitness stations/jogging tracks

and parks continued to be the most well-utilised facilities.

Over the years, the usage level of covered linkways had continued to increase.

Other precinct and community facilities that had also seen an increase in usage

levels over the last five years included shelters and void decks/community living

rooms. Conversely, the usage levels of other precinct facilities such as precinct

pavilions had decreased over the past five years.

In addition to void deck spaces, precinct pavilions also provide a place for social

functions and informal gatherings for HDB residents. It is also meant for residents

to hold functions such as weddings and funerals. The drop in usage of precinct

pavilions could be due to availability of alternative venues for such functions.

139

Table 5.7 Usage of Estate Facilities of At Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Year

Types of Estate Facilities Households who Used Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)

1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018


Market/Supermarket* 89.2 89.6 85.7 87.1 89.2 88.3

Supermarket N.A. N.A. N.A. 72.6 80.0 81.4

Wet/Dry market N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 72.0 63.9

HDB shop/Neighbourhood centre 77.1 78.4 63.6 59.3 63.5 50.7

Hawker centre 59.0 67.7 60.6 57.7 64.4 56.5

Eating house/Coffee shop/Food court** 47.6 61.9 57.3 62.8 66.3 64.5

Eating house/Coffee shop N.A. N.A. N.A. 59.5 61.6 59.9

Food court N.A. N.A. N.A. 44.4 45.3 38.1

Fast food outlet N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 22.7 N.A.


N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 23.1


Fitness station/Jogging track N.A. 10.2 18.8 24.6 27.4 25.5

Playground N.A. 23.2 17.9 16.3 16.5 15.2

Park*** 16.8 23.3 16.1 20.7 22.4 20.3

Regional/Town park N.A. N.A. N.A. 11.3 16.9 10.2

Neighbourhood park/Common green

N.A. N.A. N.A. 18.3 19.8 17.8

Hard/Multi-purpose court N.A. 8.3 5.3 5.9 4.7 6.5

Community garden N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 6.3

Roof/sky garden N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 8.4 3.4


Covered linkway N.A. N.A. 69.1 77.3 82.3 84.2

Drop-off porch N.A. N.A. 20.5 35.7 36.2 30.3

Void deck/Community living room N.A. N.A. 20.3 32.3 25.6 27.7

Shelter N.A. N.A. 12.3 20.6 16.4 22.1

Precinct pavilion N.A. N.A. 23.7 42.6 16.6 7.9

Trellis N.A. N.A. N.A. 13.8 13.6 7.0

Regional/Community library N.A. N.A. 20.1 17.7 15.4 11.1

Community club N.A. N.A. 7.1 8.9 9.0 7.7

* Supermarket and wet/dry market were grouped as a category under Market/Supermarket in SHSs carried out before 2013.

** Eating house/coffee shop and food court were grouped as a category under Eating house/Coffee shop/Food court in SHSs carried out before 2008

*** Regional/town park and neighbourhood park/common green were grouped as a category under Park in SHSs carried out before 2008.

140

5.3 Online Purchase

In an annual survey on Infocomm usage in households and by individuals

conducted by IMDA12, internet usage rates were found to have risen significantly

from 2017. In 2019, about 89% of residents used the internet and almost all

residents aged 7 to 49 years old were internet users. In addition, with the growth

of e-commerce and the expansion of digital services such as Redmart, Zalora and

Lazada, more households are turning to online purchases and transactions. In

light of this trend, it is necessary to understand the prevalence of online shopping

among HDB residents, the type of goods or services purchased online, and

whether residents patronised HDB shops less frequently as a result. These

findings would help to gauge the impact of online shopping on HDB shops.

Online purchases on the rise

About 38.1% of HDB residents made online purchases through websites or mobile

applications in the past twelve months (Table 5.8). The DOS’ Household

Expenditure Survey 2017/18 showed that there was a growing trend for online

purchases, with about 60.0% of households (private property and HDB households

included) reported making purchases online, up from 31.3% in 2012/2013.

Table 5.8 Proportion of HDB Households who Made Online Purchase through Websites or Mobile Applications over Past Twelve Months

Proportion who Made Online Purchase All

Yes 38.1

No 61.9

Total % 100.0

N 1,013,542

12 Infocomm Media Development Authority: Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage in Households and by Individuals

for 2019. Retrieved on 12 June 2020. (https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/Imda/Files/Infocomm-Media-Landscape/Research-and-Statistics/Survey-Report/2019-HH-Public-Report_09032020.pdf)

https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/Imda/Files/Infocomm-Media-Landscape/Research-and-Statistics/Survey-Report/2019-HH-Public-Report_09032020.pdf

https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/Imda/Files/Infocomm-Media-Landscape/Research-and-Statistics/Survey-Report/2019-HH-Public-Report_09032020.pdf

141

Younger residents and those living in bigger flat types more likely to make online purchases

A higher proportion of online shoppers lived in 4-room or bigger flat types. The

majority of them were younger (aged 45 years old and below) and likely to be from

families with young children (Table 5.9).

Table 5.9 HDB Households who Made Online Purchase through Websites or Mobile Applications by Attributes

Attributes

Whether Made Online Purchase

Total

Yes No % N*

Flat Type 1-Room 9.4 90.6 100.0 30,369

2-Room 18.9 81.1 100.0 44,351

3-Room 25.3 74.7 100.0 232,351

4-Room 41.3 58.7 100.0 405,163

5-Room 49.0 51.0 100.0 236,324

Executive 50.9 49.1 100.0 64,984

Age Group (Years) Below 35 84.2 15.8 100.0 68,440

35 – 44 73.4 26.6 100.0 189,296

45 – 54 49.3 50.7 100.0 235,708

55 – 64 23.1 76.9 100.0 260,815

65 & Above 5.2 94.8 100.0 259,283


Family without Children 48.0 52.0 100.0 67,587

Family with Young Children 74.6 25.4 100.0 146,059


54.0 46.0 100.0 115,202

Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children

29.7 70.3 100.0 315,449

Family with Married Children 40.7 59.3 100.0 116,538

Elderly Couples Living Alone 4.0 96.0 100.0 82,868

Others** 22.5 77.5 100.0 169,839

* Excluding non-response cases ** Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

142

The most common products bought online were clothing/footwear (24.2%) as

shown in Table 5.10. Of those who bought clothing/footwear via online platforms,

close to half reported that they had shopped less at HDB shops while close to

another half continued to shop at HDB shops. These findings indicated that certain

retail trades would be affected by the emergence of e-commerce.

Table 5.10 Types of Products Bought Online and Whether Patronise HDB Shop Less Often Due to Online Shopping

Types of Purchases Households

who Shopped Online (%)

Whether Patronise HDB Shops Less Often Due to Online Shopping (%)

Yes No Never Made

Purchases from HDB Shops

Clothing/Footwear 24.2 10.9 10.4 2.9

Mobile Phone/Computer & Electronic Products

13.2 5.7 5.7 1.8

General Household Goods 12.5 6.1 5.7 0.7

Household Appliances/Furniture 12.0 5.3 5.3 1.4

Cosmetics/Toiletries 11.7 5.7 5.1 0.9

Groceries/Market Produce 10.8 4.9 5.3 0.6

Cooked Food 10.7 4.5 5.8 0.3

Books & Stationery/CDs & DVD/Toys

9.4 3.8 4.2 1.4

Sports Equipment/Sports Wear 8.9 3.9 3.7 1.3

Specialised Goods (e.g., jewellery, watch, luggage)

4.4 1.7 1.9 0.8

143

5.4 Places in Estate where Residents Usually Spend Their Time

It is of interest to HDB to find out the common places within the estate where

residents usually spend their time and the main activities carried out at these

places. The purpose is to understand where residents would likely interact, mingle

and bond in the community, which will aid in planning and design, and thereby the

rejuvenation and provision of estate facilities in HDB towns.

Residents usually spent their time at commercial facilities

The general trend has not changed over the last five years (Table 5.11). Overall,

close to seven in ten residents (68.4%) usually spent their time at commercial

facilities such as shopping centres/complexes (36.1%) and eating houses/coffee

shops (9.4%). While some residents patronised the shopping centres/complexes

for dining as well as general and grocery shopping, others spent their time at the

nearby coffee shops for the variety of food available. The coffee shops also served

as a good social setting for residents, especially for the elderly, to mingle and bond

with their friends and family members over meals. Another 16.5% of them spent

their time mostly at recreational/leisure facilities such as parks/gardens (8.9%).

Residents could enjoy the nature/greenery while exercising or walking/strolling.

144

Table 5.11 Places where HDB Households Usually Spend Their Time in Estate by Year

Facilities 2013 2018

Commercial Facilities 68.5 68.4

Shopping centre/complex 34.0 36.1

Eating house/Coffee shop 10.5 9.4

Supermarket 6.4 6.1

Market/Stall 5.5 5.5

Hawker Centre 4.4 5.3

Shops at town centre 3.4 1.9

Downtown East Resort/Kampong Admiralty/Bedok Hub/Our Tampines Hub

- 1.4

HDB neighbourhood centre 0.8 1.0

Food court 1.4 0.8

Provision shop/Convenience store/Minimart/Kiosk 0.9 0.4

Others (e.g., fast food/café/restaurant) 1.2 0.5

Recreational/Leisure Facilities 16.1 16.5

Park/Garden 8.8 8.9

Playground 3.3 3.3

Library 1.9 1.6

Park connector/Walking path 0.8 1.1

Others (e.g., SAFRA club house/civil service club) 1.3 1.6

Precinct Facilities 5.8 5.9

Void deck/Community living room 4.0 3.8

Corridor 0.3 0.8

Resident/Senior citizen corner 0.4 0.5

Precinct pavilion 0.4 0.4

Others (e.g., shelter) 0.7 0.4

Sports Facilities 4.1 3.7

Fitness corner/station 1.6 1.3

Jogging track 0.9 1.0

Sports complex/stadium 0.6 0.7

Swimming pool/complex 0.5 0.4

Others (e.g., gym) 0.5 0.3


145

Table 5.11 Places where HDB Households Usually Spend Their Time in Estate by Year (Continued)

Facilities 2013 2018

Community Facilities 3.8 4.4

Community centre 1.9 1.7

Religious institution 1.6 1.2

SAC/Day care centre - 0.5

Others (e.g., RC) 0.3 1.0

Others (e.g., family/relative’s/sibling’s home) 1.7 1.1

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 846,712 886,455



HDB towns are planned to be self-sufficient, offering a wide-range of facilities at

the precinct, neighbourhood and town levels. Over the years, HDB has been

providing various estate facilities--commercial, recreational, and social amenities-

- in towns/estates to cater to residents’ changing needs. Such efforts have seen

positive results, reflected in the latest SHS findings where the overall satisfaction

with the provision of estate facilities had inched up higher to 98.6%, an increase of

2.5 percentage points from 96.1% in 2013.

With changing lifestyles among residents, competition among the various

commercial operators and the prevalence of online services, usage levels for

commercial facilities had generally decreased over the past five years. About four

in ten (38.1%) of residents made online purchases in the past twelve months, and

this would likely be a growing trend. The most common products bought online

were clothing/footwear. Overall, about half who made online purchases shopped

less at HDB shops. These findings suggested that retailers that have no online

presence may be negatively impacted especially post COVID-19 pandemic.

Compared with commercial facilities, usage levels for sports and recreational as

well as precinct and community facilities were generally lower as some of these

facilities catered to the needs of specific groups of residents. Fitness

station/jogging track, parks and linkways continued to be the most well-utilised

146

facilities. Linkways, which were extensively provided within precincts, were the

most well-utilised among all precinct and community facilities.

Shopping centres/complexes, eating houses/coffee shops and parks/gardens

were the top three places within the town/estate where residents spent most of

their time. While some residents patronised shopping centres/complexes for

dining as well as for general and grocery shopping, others spent their time at

nearby coffee shops for the variety of food available. Coffee shops also served as

a good social setting for residents, especially the elderly, to mingle and bond with

their friends and family members over meals. Residents also liked to spend time

at the nearby parks/gardens to enjoy nature/greenery while exercising or

walking/strolling.

6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

151

Chapter 6

Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

Housing purchase, being a big-ticket item, is an important decision for many and a

multiplicity of factors come into play when people purchase or sell their homes.

The volume of residential movement by HDB households over the past five years

had been considerable. These could have been due to a combination of factors,

of which the more significant ones included recovery from an economic downturn,

increased availability of flats and stronger housing support from government that

have helped different segments of HDB residents to fulfil their housing needs and

aspirations.

As HDB continues to strive towards fulfilling people’s aspirations for having a place

to live in or even a home to call their own, it is important to examine how residential

mobility and housing aspirations of residents have changed over the years.

Specifically, tracing the patterns of residential movements provides HDB with a

better understanding of the residents’ motivation to move, as well as their preferred

towns and housing types. These would be useful information for HDB’s planning

and policy reviews on housing provision.

6.1 Past Residential Mobility

This section tracks the residential movement of households from the time a couple

commences married life and sets up a family nucleus. It presents the findings on

the type of housing that couples used as their first marital home; the length of

residence in their previous housing unit, if they had subsequently moved house;

and the type of move they made from their previous housing unit to the current one.

152

Almost four in ten younger married couples lived in parents’ place upon marriage

Among the 1,013,542 resident households living in HDB flats, 87.4% or 885,818

were either married or had ever been married13. Overall, two in ten (20.8%) of the

married/ever-married households lived in their parents’ home upon marriage, as

shown in Table 6.1. The proportion was higher among younger residents aged

below 35 years old (37.2%). Other common housing arrangements include living

in HDB sold 4-room (20.1%) and 3-room flats (16.0%) that were either bought

directly from HDB or from the resale market.

Table 6.1 First Housing Type Lived in since Marriage among Married/Ever-Married Households by Age

First Housing Type

Age Group (Years)

Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 &

Above All

Parents’/Relatives’ Place 37.2 23.2 21.4 20.8 12.7 20.8

HDB Rental 4.4 2.7 4.6 9.2 16.2 8.5

Open Market Rental 12.7 18.0 9.0 6.0 11.6 10.9

1- & 2-Room -** -** 0.6 1.3 1.1 0.8

3-Room 6.2 11.1 17.1 22.3 15.0 16.0

4-Room 24.3 26.9 26.9 20.8 8.1 20.1

5-Room 12.7 14.5 13.9 7.4 2.4 9.2

Executive 1.9 1.6 3.4 2.2 -** 1.8

Private Housing* -** 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.6

Attap House/Staff Quarter - -** 1.6 8.1 31.1 10.3

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N*** 55,879 161,224 189,815 219,017 228,973 854,908

* Refers to private condominiums, apartments, terrace houses, detached houses, etc. ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Excluding non-response cases

Residential mobility increased over past five years

Among the married/ever-married households, 20.0% indicated that they had not

moved since marriage, that is, they had lived in their current flat since they got

married (Chart 6.1). Among the remaining 80.0% who had moved at least once,

43.6% had moved once, 28.2% had moved twice and 8.2% had moved three or

13 Refers to residents who were previously married, but separated, divorced or widowed at the time of survey.

153

more times. The proportion that had moved at least once increased from 72.6%

in 2013 to 80.0% in 2018. The higher levels of residential mobility observed could

be due to an increase in households purchasing Built-to-Order (BTO) flats between

2013 and 2018, when HDB ramped up the flat supply. It could also be due to the

increase in the proportion of older residents and their propensity to right-size into

smaller flats when their household size shrunk after their grown-up children had

gotten married and moved out.

Chart 6.1 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among Married/Ever-Married Households

Families with children tended to make more residential moves than families without children

The number of residential moves made varied with one’s life cycle stage. In

general, families with children made more residential moves compared with

married couples without children or divorced/widowed residents without children

(Table 6.2).

Among families with children, the proportion who had moved at least once was

63.4% for families with young children, 75.9% for families with teenaged children,

85.5% for families with unmarried grown-up children, and 92.4% for families with

married children. In general, residential mobility is dependent on residents’ life

cycle stage, which is in turn associated with household size, and thereby the

amount of space, whether larger or smaller, deemed necessary. Table 6.4 shows

that family life events, including increase or decrease in household size, were cited

as the main reasons for residential movement.

24.3

46.4

20.7

8.6

27.4

44.0

21.1

7.5

20.0

43.6

28.2

8.2

0

20

40

60

None One Two Three or More

Ho

use

hold

s (

%)

2008

2013

2018

154

Table 6.2 Number of Residential Moves since Marriage among Married/Ever-Married Households by Resident Life Cycle Stage

Resident Life Cycle Stage

Number of Residential Moves since Marriage

Total

None One Two Three

or More

% N*

Family without Children 48.1 37.3 12.5 2.1 100.0 61,012

Non-Elderly Couple without Children 55.1 34.9 8.9 1.1 100.0 41,908

Elderly/Future Elderly Couple without Children 32.6 42.7 20.5 4.2 100.0 19,104

Family with Children 17.9 44.0 29.5 8.6 100.0 802,722

Family with Young Children 36.6 48.1 10.9 4.4 100.0 169,363

Family with Teenaged Children 24.1 45.9 24.2 5.8 100.0 124,036

Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children 14.5 46.6 31.0 7.9 100.0 185,529

Family with Married Children 7.6 39.7 40.3 12.4 100.0 323,794

Non-Family Based Household 18.7 44.7 25.3 11.3 100.0 20,646

All 20.0 43.6 28.2 8.2 100.0 884,380


Length of residence in previous housing remained largely unchanged over past five years

Households’ average length of residence in their previous housing unit remained

largely unchanged since a decade ago (Chart 6.2). This trend suggests that there

were no significant changes to residents’ desire to change residence over the

years.

Chart 6.2 Average Length of Residence in Previous Housing Unit among Married/Ever-Married Households by Year

10.2 10.2 10.4

0

4

8

12

2008 2013 2018

Length

of R

esid

ence (

Years

)

155

Majority upgraded from previous housing, mainly due to family life events

This section looks at the types of move14 residents made when they moved from

their previous housing unit to the current flat.

Among households who indicated at least one change in residence since their

marriage (80.0%), the majority had upgraded from their previous residence to the

current flat (69.4%), as shown in Chart 6.3. Compared with 2013, the proportion

of households who upgraded had increased slightly. While the proportion who

downgraded remained relatively constant, the proportion that moved laterally had

decreased. These changes in mobility pattern could be due to several factors. The

continual support provided to rental households to enable homeownership, greater

availability of new flats, and stabilised property prices over the past five years could

have encouraged more upgrading moves. It was also observed that as the

government continued to improve the provision of facilities, as well as connectivity

and accessibility of public transport, fewer households had chosen to move

laterally to the same flat type. Moving to locations with better/more facilities was

one of the main reasons given by households who had made lateral moves over

the past SHSs.

Chart 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households by Year

14 The terms “Upgrade”, “Lateral Move” and “Downgrade” are used to categorise the type of residential movement.

Residents have upgraded when they moved from a smaller to a bigger flat type, or from a rental housing unit to a sold flat. Residents who made lateral moves are those who moved across similar flat types, with tenure remaining the same. Residents have downgraded when they moved from a bigger to a smaller flat type or from private housing to current flat or from sold housing unit to an HDB rental flat. As residents may move for various reasons, the terms should not be interpreted as positive when residents upgrade and negative when residents downgrade e.g., a resident could have downgraded due to a decrease in household size instead of financial difficulty.

70.1

14.4 15.5

67.5

16.9 15.6

69.4

14.016.6

0

20

40

60

80

Upgrade Lateral Move Downgrade

Household

s (

%)

2008

2013

2018

156

A higher proportion of younger residents upgraded compared with older residents.

Among residents aged below 45 years old, more than seven in ten had upgraded,

compared with less than half of those aged 55 years old and above who did so

(Table 6.3). Younger residents had upgraded when they formed their own families

or when their household size increased upon the arrival of children. They were

also likely to have higher housing aspiration and financial ability to upgrade as

many of them were gainfully employed in PMET jobs and had many working years

ahead. Older residents, on the other hand, might have chosen to right-size and

move into a smaller flat as their household size decreased after their children had

gotten married and moved out. Some would also have monetised their flat to meet

retirement needs.

Table 6.3 Type of Move among Married/Ever-Married Households by Age at Point of Move

Age Group at Point of Move (Years)

Type of Move Total

Upgrade Lateral Move Downgrade % N*

Below 35 85.0 9.3 5.7 100.0 227,354

35 – 44 70.9 14.8 14.3 100.0 261,727

45 – 54 57.3 17.1 25.6 100.0 137,045

55 – 64 43.6 16.3 40.1 100.0 52,933

65 & Above 29.8 27.1 43.1 100.0 23,890

All 69.4 14.0 16.6 100.0 702,949


Households move for various reasons. In this survey, households were asked to

provide up to three reasons for moving to their present flat. Analysis was done to

understand the reasons according to whether the household had upgraded, moved

laterally or downgraded.

Among the responses, about 39.9% of the reasons given were related to family life

events (Table 6.4), such as an increase in household size (14.9%), and starting

one’s own family (14.9%). Reasons for moving relating to provision of

facilities/location and flat design/living environment accounted for 23.0% and

19.1%, respectively. Another 12.0% of the responses were related to financial

considerations, such as being able to afford the current flat (6.0%) and deriving

capital gain through the sale of the previous flat (2.5%). A small proportion (3.9%)

of the total responses mentioned that the move was due to the Selective En bloc

Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) or resettlement.

157

For those who upgraded from their previous housing units, a higher proportion

attributed their decision to move to family life events such as an increase in

household size (21.4%) or to move out of their parents’/relatives’ home to start their

own family (19.1%). Other common reasons cited by upgraders included a desire

for flats with more attractive design/layout (9.5%), better provision of facilities

(8.3%), and conducive environment (7.7%).

For those who made lateral moves, the main reasons for moving were related to

availability of more facilities (14.2%), attractive flat design/layout (12.1%), and

conducive living environment (11.5%). Other commonly cited reasons included

moving closer to parents/children/relatives/friends (9.0%), housing affordability

(8.3%), and better accessibility to place of work (7.1%).

For households who downgraded, most of the reasons were finance-related

(31.1%), better location/provision of facilities (27.6%), and family life events

(22.7%). Specifically, the most common reasons included preference for smaller

flat (12.7%), wanting more facilities (10.1%), and housing affordability (9.6%).

Table 6.4 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat among Married/Ever-Married Households by Type of Move

Reasons for Moving to Present Flat

Type of Move

All Upgrade

Lateral Move

Downgrade

Family Life Events 49.7 11.1 22.7 39.9

Needed bigger flat as household size increased 21.4 - - 14.9

Moved out from parents’/relatives’ place/started own family

19.1 6.8 4.4 14.9

To own a flat/have own space for privacy 5.5 -* 0.6 4.0

To have more space for family activity/upgrade 3.2 - - 2.2

Preferred smaller flat as household size decreased/preferred smaller flat

- - 12.7 2.2

Divorced/remarried 0.5 3.7 5.0 1.7

Location/Provision of Facilities 19.4 35.3 27.6 23.0

More facilities 8.3 14.2 10.1 9.4

To move closer to parents/children/relatives/ Friends

4.4 9.0 8.4 5.7

Accessibility to place of work 4.9 7.1 6.5 5.5

Near school/childcare 0.9 3.5 1.7 1.4

Good transportation network/centralised location 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.7

Attracted by future development/availability of flats in new town

0.4 -* - 0.3


158

Table 6.4 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat among Married/Ever-Married Households by Type of Move (Continued)

Reasons for Moving to Present Flat

Type of Move

All Upgrade

Lateral Move

Downgrade

Flat Design/Living Environment 18.6 28.2 14.2 19.1

More attractive flat design/layout 9.5 12.1 5.8 9.2

Conducive/pleasant/cleaner/safer environment 7.7 11.5 6.6 8.0

To move to newer flat/newer estate/experience new location

0.8 2.4 -* 0.9

To move out from previous neighbourhood (due to e.g., difficult neighbours, bad memories)

-* 1.0 -* 0.4

To move to a flat that is more suitable for old age(e.g., without staircase, easier to maintain)

-* -* 0.8 0.3

Familiar with the neighbourhood 0.2 0.8 -* 0.3

Financial 6.6 15.8 31.1 12.0

Able to afford the flat 4.7 8.3 9.6 6.0

Capital gain through sale of previous flat 0.8 3.4 8.7 2.5

To settle financial difficulty (e.g., medical bills, debts, housing loan )

0.2 3.3 7.6 1.9

Financially sound to move to current flat (e.g., potential for capital appreciation, save rental cost, rent out private property)

0.9 -* -* 0.7

To monetise previous flat for retirement - -* 3.7 0.7

Downgrade due to reduced income/unstable income

- - 1.2 0.2

Others 5.7 9.6 4.4 6.0

Previous flat was affected by housing programmes (e.g., SERS, resettlement, demolishment)

3.9 6.5 2.1 3.9

Renting temporarily/Prefer renting instead of buying

0.8 2.3 1.3 1.1

Had to move out from previous housing (e.g., due to conflicts with family members, evicted by housing provider, expiry of tenancy)/need a place and no other housing choice

0.7 0.8 -* 0.7

Took over ownership/inherit flat from families/followed family members’ decision

0.3 - -* 0.3

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No. of Responses** 715,611 135,955 176,356 1,027,922

* Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped ** Excluding non-response cases

159

Among all households who had moved at least once, 34.0% were previously living

in the same town/estate (Chart 6.4). It was observed that middle-aged (36.8%)

and mature (39.3%) towns/estates had higher proportions of households who

moved within the same towns/estates, compared with that of young towns (10.3%).

Chart 6.4 Extent of Geographical Move of Married/Ever-Married Households by Present Town/Estate

6.2 Intention to Move within Next Five Years

Majority had no intention to move, slight increase in those who intended to move in the next five years

Compared to 2013, the proportion of households who had no intention to move

and intended to remain in their current flat increased from 69.8% in 2013 to 76.8%

in 2018 (Chart 6.5). This could be due to higher proportions of households being

satisfied with their flat, neighbourhood and estate facilities compared with five

years ago. A higher proportion of households were also proud of their flats.

12

.6

12

.8 5.6

56

.7

41

.9

37

.4

36

.7

36

.0

34

.7

33

.8

29

.1

28

.5

28

.0

28

.0

25.2

18

.1

52

.8

50

.6

39

.1

37

.9

37

.7

36

.2

34

.6

33

.7

33

.6

29

.0

34.0

87

.4

87

.2

94.4

43

.3

58

.1

62

.6

63

.3

64

.0

65

.3

66

.2

70

.9

71

.5

72

.0

72

.0

74.8

81

.9

47

.2

49

.4

60

.9

62

.1

62

.3

63

.8

65

.4

66

.3

66

.4

71

.0

66.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Seng

kang

Sem

baw

ang

Pung

gol

Juro

ng W

est

Tam

pin

es

Bukit B

ato

k

Pasir R

is

Woodla

nds

Houga

ng

Yis

hun

Choa C

hu K

ang

Juro

ng E

ast

Sera

ng

oon

Bukit P

an

jang

Bukit T

imah

Bis

han

Queensto

wn

Bukit M

era

h

Toa

Payoh

Bedo

k

Geyla

ng

Centr

al A

rea

Kalla

ng/W

ham

po

a

Ang M

o K

io

Mari

ne P

ara

de

Cle

menti

All

Household

s (

%)

Same town/estate Other town/estate

Young Towns (10.3%)*

Middle-Aged Towns/Estate (36.8%)*

Mature Towns/Estates (39.3%)*

* Overall proportion of households who moved within same town in the specific town category

160

Chart 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Year

The proportion of households who intended to move within the next five years had

shown a gradual increase. About 13.3% of all households expressed that they

intend to move within the next five years, out of which 12.4% indicated that they

would be moving with their whole household while the remaining 0.9% would not

be doing so. The increase could be facilitated by an ample supply of new and

resale flats in the primary and secondary market, and more importantly,

enhancement to the various housing policies. These include the CPF Housing

Grant and Priority Schemes and the policy to raise the income ceiling that would

render more Singaporeans eligible for new HDB flats and Executive

Condominiums (ECs) in August 2015 15 . Compared with five years ago, the

proportion who were unsure of moving decreased from 17.8% to 9.9%.

Households living in 1- and 2-room flats, younger households or families with young children had greater intention to move

Households living in smaller flat types were more inclined to move (Table 6.5).

More than one in five households living in 1- and 2-room flats expressed their

intention to move, compared to between 12.4% and 13.2% of households in the

other flat types.

15 With effect from 24 Aug 2015, the income ceiling for buying new HDB flats increased from $10,000 to $12,000,

while that for ECs increased from $12,000 to $14,000. After the survey period and on 11 Sep 2019, the income ceilings increased further to $14,000 for new HDB flats and $16,000 for ECs.

11.5

19.9

68.6

12.417.8

69.8

13.39.9

76.8

0

20

40

60

80

Yes Unsure No

Household

s (

%)

2008

2013

2018

161

Table 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB Households by Flat Type

Present Flat Type Intention to Move within Next Five Years Total

Yes Unsure No % N

1- & 2-Room 21.4 8.8 69.8 100.0 74,720

3-Room 12.4 8.9 78.7 100.0 232,351

4-Room 12.7 10.4 76.9 100.0 405,163

5-Room 12.4 10.0 77.6 100.0 236,324

Executive 13.2 12.8 74.0 100.0 64,984

All 13.3 9.9 76.8 100.0 1,013,542

The intention to move was more prevalent among younger residents aged below

45 years old, with 29.7% of those aged below 35 years old, and 23.8% of those

aged between 35 and 44 years old intending to do so in the next five years (Table

6.6). A higher proportion of younger residents were also unsure of moving. In

contrast, intention to move was lower among older residents. This could be

attributed to older residents having a greater sense of attachment to their place of

residence, and in turn a stronger desire to age-in-place.

Table 6.6 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB Households by Age

Age Group (Years) Intention to Move within Next Five Years Total

Yes Unsure No % N

Below 35 29.7 20.2 50.1 100.0 68,440

35 – 44 23.8 14.8 61.4 100.0 189,296

45 – 54 14.7 10.4 74.9 100.0 235,708

55 – 64 8.6 7.3 84.1 100.0 260,815

65 & Above 4.6 6.1 89.3 100.0 259,283

All 13.3 9.9 76.8 100.0 1,013,542

Almost three in ten (29.9%) families with young children (eldest child aged 12 years

old and below) expressed their intention to move in the next five years, compared

with only 5.3% of those elderly couples living alone (Table 6.7). A higher proportion

of families with young children also intended to move to a bigger flat.

162

Table 6.7 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among HDB Households by Household Life Cycle Stage


Intention to Move within Next Five Years

Total

Yes Unsure No % N

Family without Children 16.0 11.7 72.3 100.0 67,587

Family with Young Children 29.9 13.9 56.2 100.0 146,059

Family with Teenaged Children 16.1 12.3 71.6 100.0 115,202

Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children 7.9 8.4 83.7 100.0 315,449

Family with Married Children 13.6 9.2 77.2 100.0 116,538

Elderly Couple Living Alone 5.3 4.0 90.7 100.0 82,868

Others* 9.6 10.8 79.6 100.0 169,839

All 13.3 9.9 76.8 100.0 1,013,542


Higher preference for smaller flat types compared with five years ago

Overall, 28.5% of households who intended to move indicated their preference for

4-room flats (Chart 6.6). This was followed by 18.5% who preferred 5-room flats

and 15.8% who preferred 3-room flats.

Among those intending to move, there was a higher preference for smaller flat

types compared with five years ago, especially among the older residents. The

proportion of households who preferred 1- or 2-room flats, including 2-room Flexi

flats, had increased from 5.9% in 2013 to 10.7% in 2018. The 2-room Flexi scheme,

introduced in August 2015, allows eligible citizens aged 55 years old and above to

buy a flat on short lease, based on their age, needs and preferences. With the 2-

room Flexi option, older residents would be able to buy a new home while

monetising their existing property for retirement needs. In comparison, the

proportion of households in 2018 opting to move to 5-room, Executive flats and

private housing had decreased compared to 2013.

163

Chart 6.6 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year

* Excluding non-response cases ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live in

family members’/friends’ place and buy next housing overseas

The desire to upgrade was prevalent among households living in smaller flat types

(Table 6.8). Among those living in HDB rental and 1- and 2-room flats, while a

higher proportion would like to move to 3-room flats (37.7%), about 21.0% would

choose to move to sold 1- and 2-room flats. Among those living in 3-room flats,

the predominant choice (41.5%) was a 4-room flat. Among households who were

currently living in 4-room flats, 30.7% had expressed an intention to move to 5-

room and bigger flats. A higher proportion of households in the bigger flat types

also had intention to move to private housing. This suggests that households do

consider the question of affordability when selecting their next housing type.

4.2

20

.5

30

.8

16

.0

6.5

13

.3

8.7

5.9

14

.4

26

.9

22

.1

5.9

16

.1

8.71

0.7

15

.8

28

.5

18

.5

4.7

11

.8

10

.0

0

10

20

30

40

1- /2-Room/2-Room Flexi

3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Flat PrivateHousing

Others**

Household

s Inte

ndin

g t

o M

ove (

%) 2008 (N*=96,492)

2013 (N*=110,530)

2018 (N*=132,769)

164

Table 6.8 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended to Move by Present Flat Type

Preferred Housing Type to Move to

Present Flat Type

All HDB Rental & 1- & 2-

Room 3-Room 4-Room

5-Room & Bigger

HDB

1- & 2-Room 21.0 15.3 9.9 3.8 10.7

3-Room 37.7 16.8 8.8 15.3 15.8

4-Room 22.1 41.5 29.2 20.6 28.5

5-Room & Bigger 1.4 15.4 30.7 28.0 23.2

Private Housing* -*** -*** 11.9 22.1 11.8

Others** 16.8 6.8 9.5 10.2 10.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N**** 15,991 28,277 51,095 37,406 132,769

* Including Executive Condominium, private condominium/apartment and landed properties ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live

in family members’/friends’ place or buy next housing overseas *** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped **** Excluding non-response cases

Housing choice varied with age and life cycle stage

Residents’ choice of housing and flat type differed by age. Generally, the intention

to move to bigger flats or private housing decreased with age. Compared with

residents aged 55 years old and above, more than six in ten of the households

aged below 55 years old intended to move to 4-room or bigger flats or private

properties (Table 6.9). Younger residents were likely to choose bigger flat types

as they anticipated a growing household size and a need for more space to meet

future family needs. Considering their longer expected employment period and

higher income earning capacity, they would likely have the ability to afford bigger

flats. On the contrary, older residents would find smaller flats more suitable in their

retirement years. A higher proportion of older households aged 65 years old and

above planned to either live in 3-room (32.0%) or smaller flats (35.4%) or rent a

room/housing unit, live in family members’/friends’ place or move overseas (20.6%)

in the next five years.

165

Table 6.9 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended to Move by Age


Age Group (Years)

All Below 35 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64

65 & Above

HDB

1- & 2-Room 2.0 2.9 6.3 27.8 35.4 10.7

3-Room 7.6 6.1 22.2 24.3 32.0 15.8

4-Room 32.8 29.5 35.5 20.9 11.7 28.5

5-Room & Bigger 31.7 35.9 16.6 12.3 - 23.2

Private Housing* 14.0 16.6 11.3 7.1 0.3 11.8

Others** 11.9 9.0 8.1 7.6 20.6 10.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N*** 19,692 44,767 34,565 21,905 11,840 132,769

* Including Executive Condominium, private condominium/apartment and landed properties ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live

in family members’/friends’ place or buy next housing overseas *** Excluding non-response cases

Besides age, households’ preferred housing type for their intended move was also

dependent on the households’ life cycle stages. Generally, 4-room flats were most

preferred across the different life cycle stages, except for those families with young

children, elderly couples living alone, and other households (Table 6.10). A higher

proportion of families with young children preferred to move to 5-room and bigger

flats (41.3%), suggesting their perceived need for a larger space for their growing

children. Elderly couples living alone preferred 3-room flats (40.2%), probably due

to their size and easier maintenance. For other households, preference for 1- and

2-room flats was higher, at 42.3%, as most of these households consisted of only

one or two persons. A higher proportion of these households also planned to rent

a room/housing unit, live in friends’/relatives’ place, or move overseas in the near

future (17.3%).

166

Table 6.10 Preferred Housing Type among Households who Intended to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage



All Family without Children

Family with Young

Children





Alone Others***

HDB

1- & 2-Room -**** -**** -**** 12.6 7.7 23.1 42.3 10.7

3-Room 19.3 7.9 16.0 21.8 12.9 40.2 22.1 15.8

4-Room 23.7 29.5 39.0 32.6 29.4 24.2 11.1 28.5

5-Room & Bigger 20.2 41.3 20.2 14.2 20.4 - -**** 23.2

Private Housing* 17.8 15.3 12.6 6.4 14.5 -**** -**** 11.8

Others** -**** 5.2 9.1 12.4 15.1 -**** 17.3 10.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N***** 10,787 43,234 18,201 24,621 15,798 4,182 15,946 132,769

* Including Executive Condominium, private condominium/apartment and landed properties ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live in family members’/friends’ place or buy next housing overseas *** Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together **** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped ***** Excluding non-response cases

167

About half intended to upgrade

Among households who planned to move within the next five years, potential

moves were classified into four broad categories 16 : downgrade, lateral move,

upgrade to another HDB flat, and upgrade to private residential property. The

categorisation was based on the present flat type that households were living in

and their desired housing type to move to in the next five years.

Overall, about half (53.0%) intended to upgrade, either to a bigger HDB flat (40.2%)

or a private property (12.8%), as shown in Chart 6.7. Compared with 2013,

households who intended to upgrade had shrunk in proportion. Correspondingly,

the proportion of households that intended to move laterally or downgrade to a

smaller flat type had increased over the past five years.

Chart 6.7 Type of Potential Move by Year


Intention to upgrade was higher among younger residents or families with young or teenaged children

Among residents aged below 35 years old who intended to move, eight in ten

intended to upgrade to either another HDB flat or a private property (Table 6.11).

The proportion who intended to upgrade decreased with age. At least half of those

16 Potential moves are classified as “downgrade” if households intend to move from a bigger to a smaller flat type

or from sold flat to a rental housing. Potential moves made by households who intend to move across similar flat types, with tenure remaining the same, are classified as “lateral move”. Potential moves from a smaller to bigger HDB flat or from a rental housing to a sold HDB flat are classified as “upgrade to another HDB flat”. Those potential moves from current HDB flat to a private housing are classified as “upgrade to private residential property”.

29.5

19.4

37.9

13.2

19.2 17.7

48.5

14.6

27.7

19.3

40.2

12.8

0

20

40

60

Downgrade Lateral Move Upgrade (HDB) Upgrade(Private Properties)

Household

s Inte

ndin

g t

o M

ove

(%)

Type of Potential Move

2008 (N* = 96,492)

2013 (N* = 109,870)

2018 (N* = 132,815)

168

aged between 55 and 64 years old (56.1%) and seven in ten of those aged 65

years old and above (73.5%) intended to downgrade.

Table 6.11 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended to Move by Age

Age Group (Years)

Type of Potential Move Total

Downgrade Lateral Move Upgrade

(HDB/Private) % N*

Below 35 7.9 12.4 79.7 100.0 19,601

35 – 44 11.6 20.9 67.5 100.0 44,767

45 – 54 25.7 24.7 49.6 100.0 34,508

55 – 64 56.1 14.7 29.2 100.0 21,883

65 & Above 73.5 17.2 9.3 100.0 12,056

All 27.7 19.3 53.0 100.0 132,815


The majority of families with young children (76.8%) and families with teenaged

children (63.6%) expressed an intent to upgrade to either a bigger HDB flat, mainly

due to their need for more space, or upgrade to a private property. In contrast, the

majority of elderly couples living alone (70.3%) and other households (60.9%)

planned to downgrade.

Table 6.12 Type of Potential Move among Households who Intended to Move by Household Life Cycle Stage


Type of Potential Move Total

Downgrade Lateral Move Upgrade

(HDB/Private) % N***

Family without Children 23.8 22.7 53.5 100.0 10,788

Family with Young Children 10.1 13.1 76.8 100.0 43,219

Family with Teenaged Children 17.5 18.9 63.6 100.0 18,200


39.6 27.8 32.6 100.0 24,607

Family with Married Children 26.4 25.0 48.6 100.0 15,776

Elderly Couple Living Alone 70.3 -** -** 100.0 4,369

Others* 60.9 17.3 21.8 100.0 15,856

All 27.7 19.3 53.0 100.0 132,815

* Including non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Excluding non-response cases

169

6.3 Housing Aspirations

Households’ housing aspiration is dependent on several factors, among which

economic situation could be one of the major determinants. For instance, housing

aspiration was moderated amidst an economic downturn in 2008; it rose

subsequently as the economy recovered, and stayed at the same higher level

between 2013 and 2018, reflecting an overall stable property market in which

residents remained cautious and prudent so as not to over-stretch themselves

financially. In addition, policies such as lowering the cap on Mortgage Servicing

Ratio (MSR) and reducing the maximum tenure of housing loans were effective in

preventing overleveraging on housing purchases. Another determinant of housing

aspiration is age, as evident in the fact that younger households were more likely

to aspire for a larger flat, whereas older households would likely remain content

with their present flat types.

Majority of households content with present flat type, higher among the older households

Households’ housing aspirations were moderated during the economic downturn

as seen in 2008 when the proportion of households who aspired for better housing

dropped to 28.6% (Chart 6.8). With improvements in the economy and the property

market, the proportion of households who aspired for better housing had increased

to 35.0% in 2013 and stabilised at 35.2% in 2018.

Regardless of economic situation over the years, it was observed that the majority

of households were satisfied with where they were living. The proportion of

households who were content with their current flat type remained relatively

constant at 57.9%. With the gradual increase in proportions who aspired for better

housing, the proportion who were content with smaller flat type had

correspondingly shrunk from 15.1% in 2003 to 6.9% in 2018.

170

Chart 6.8 Housing Aspirations by Year

Housing aspirations differed by residents’ age. In 2018, 73.4% of those aged

below 35 years old aspired for better housing, while this proportion dropped to only

14.2% among those aged 65 years old and above (Chart 6.9). In contrast, the

proportion who were content with present flat increased with age, from 23.4%

among those aged below 35 years old to 77.7% among those aged 65 years old

and above.

Chart 6.9 Housing Aspirations by Age

Rising housing aspiration among residents living in smaller flat types

In 2018, among households living in 3-room and bigger flats, at least half of them

were content with their present flat. The housing aspiration of households living in

1- and 2-room flats had risen over the years, with a continuous increase in the

proportion who aspired for better housing, from 37.3% in 2008 to 51.9% in 2018

(Chart 6.10). The proportion who were content with their present flat decreased

29.9 28.635.0 35.2

55.058.7 57.5 57.9

15.1 12.87.5 6.9

0

20

40

60

80

2003 2008 2013 2018

Household

s (

%)

Aspire for Better Housing

Content with Present Flat Type

Content with Smaller Flat Type

73.461.5

39.423.1

14.2

35.2

23.435.1

53.5

67.777.7

57.9

3.2 3.4 7.1 9.2 8.1 6.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 &Above

All

Household

s (

%)

Age Group (Years)

Content with Smaller Flat Type

Content with Present Flat Type

Aspire for Better Housing

171

from 58.4% in 2008 to 47.9% in 2018. On the other hand, the proportion of

households living in 5-room or Executive flats who were content with their present

flat had increased compared to a decade ago. These larger flats with their bigger

floor areas were able to serve residents throughout their life cycle stages as there

was ample space for the family. The proportion who did not mind a smaller flat

increased with flat type, from 4.2% among those living in 3-room flats to 18.8%

among those living in Executive flats.

Chart 6.10 Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year

* Proportion of households who were living in 1- & 2-room flats and content with smaller flat type was dropped due to high coefficient of variation (CV)

Higher proportion content with 5-room flats and private properties compared with ten years ago

Over the past decade, the flat type with the highest proportion of households

indicating they were content with remained the 4-room flats (Chart 6.11), though

there was a slight decline from 34.0% in 2008 to 30.3% in 2018. Similarly, the

proportion of households who were content with 3-room flats had also seen a

decline from 21.4% in 2008 to 17.1% in 2018. Conversely, the proportion of

households who were content with 5-room or bigger flats had increased during the

same period, just as the proportion of households who were content with private

properties had increased from 11.3% in 2008 to 15.9% in 2018. These findings

point towards an upward trend in housing aspirations among HDB households.

37

.3

47

.1

51

.9

33

.7

39

.3

39

.7

24

.8

33

.3

35

.6

27

.8

32

.2

27

.3

27

.1

28

.0

25

.7

28

.6

35

.0

35

.2

58

.4 50

.6

47

.9

60

.8

56

.7

56

.1

63

.4 59

.3

58

.4

54

.1 57

.1

62

.6

42

.5 57

.6

55

.5

58

.7 57

.5

57

.9

4.3 2.3 5.5 4.0 4.2 11.8 7.4 6.0 18.1 10.7 10.1 30.4 14.4 18.8 12.7 7.5 6.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2013 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Household

s (

%)

Aspire for Better Housing Content with Present Flat Type Content with Smaller Flat Type

2008 2013 2018* 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018

-*

1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All

172

Chart 6.11 Housing Type Content with by Year

*

Including retirement villages, kampong houses, shop houses and overseas properties

Younger residents, with more working years ahead and higher income earning

potential, tended to have higher housing aspirations. While a higher proportion of

residents aged below 45 years old were content with 5-room flats, more of those

aged 45 years old and above were content with 4-room flats (Table 6.13). About

three in ten younger residents aged below 45 years old also aspired to live in

private housing, compared with those who were older.

Table 6.13 Housing Type Content with by Age

Housing Type Content with

Age Group (Years)

All Below 35 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64

65 & Above

HDB

1- & 2-Room 1.3 1.5 3.0 8.8 12.9 6.6

3-Room 5.2 7.6 13.3 18.5 29.2 17.1

4-Room 24.8 23.9 31.6 34.6 31.0 30.3

5-Room 31.5 27.3 26.0 21.2 16.4 22.9

Executive 7.9 9.0 7.2 6.3 4.2 6.6

Private

Executive Condominium 7.3 6.8 2.0 1.2 -** 2.6

Condominium/Apartment 12.6 15.4 8.5 4.3 1.9 7.3

Landed Properties 8.9 8.0 7.9 4.4 3.8 6.0

Others* -** -** -** 0.7 -** 0.6

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N** 68,440 188,990 235,548 260,607 259,199 1,012,784

* Including retirement villages, shop houses, kampong houses and overseas properties ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Excluding non-response cases

6.1

21.4

34.0

19.8

6.1

11.3

1.3

5.7

18.3

30.9

20.4

8.8

15.6

0.3

6.6

17.1

30.3

22.9

6.6

15.9

0.6

0

10

20

30

40

1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive PrivateProperties

Others*

Household

s (

%)

2008 2013 2018

18.4 9.9 5.8 30.2 28.8

173

6.4 Preferred Housing Type when Old

With the rapidly ageing population in HDB towns/estates, it is important to

understand the housing needs and preferences of residents in old age. While the

housing aspirations of younger households differed from the older households,

their preferred housing type to live in when they grow old was found to be similar.

Higher proportion of households preferred to live in 3-room flat in their old age

About 92.3% of HDB households would like to live in HDB flats in their old age

(Chart 6.12). Three in ten households (29.7%) would like to live in 3-room flats

during old age. This was followed by 4-room flats (25.7%) and 1- and 2-room flats

(19.6%). The proportion of households who preferred to live in 5-room and

Executive flats in their old age was lower, at 13.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The

preference for smaller flats reflects residents’ needs for less space as their

household size would likely decrease towards the later part of their life cycle. The

majority of households who preferred 3- and 4-room flats for their old age were

also currently living in these flat types.

Chart 6.12 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age

* Including retirement villages, overseas properties, old folks’ homes, temple/religious institutions etc.

Households tended to choose the most suitable flat size according to what was

important to them in their old age. For households who preferred 1-, 2- and 3-room

flats, the most commonly cited reason was ease of maintenance. Among those

who preferred 5-room and Executive flats, their main reason was to have more

space so that family members could live together or hold gatherings.

19.6

29.7

25.7

13.9

3.4 3.6 4.1

0

10

20

30

40

1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive PrivateHousing

Others*

Household

s (

%)

174

Besides easy maintenance and having sufficient space for the family, a sense of

attachment/familiarity with the present living arrangement was another main

reason for their preferred flat type to live in when old. Further analysis showed that

households who gave this reason were already living in the flat type that they

preferred for old age. For the small proportion of households who preferred to age

in private housing, the reason they gave was that they would like to age in an

environment which they felt was more comfortable, safer and equipped with more

facilities.

Majority of older residents preferred to live in their current flat type for old age

Among those aged 65 years old and above, 81.5% indicated a preference to live

in their current flat type for their old age (Chart 6.13). Similarly, for those aged

between 55 and 64 years old, the majority of households preferred their current flat

type for their old age. In contrast, for younger households aged below 45 years

old, a higher proportion of them would prefer to right-size from their current bigger

flat type to a smaller flat type in old age.

Chart 6.13 Housing Preference for Old Age by Age

37.7 40.4 40.027.5

15.730.3

27.0

37.146.9 66.3

81.5 57.9

35.322.5

13.1

6.2 2.8

11.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 &Above

All

Household

s (

%)

Age Group (Years)

Larger Compared to Present Housing

Same as Current Housing

Smaller Compared to Present Housing

175


Among the 1,013,542 HDB resident households, 87.4% of them were either

married or had ever been married. About eight in ten married/ever-married

households made at least one residential move after marriage. The proportion had

increased from 72.6% in 2013, probably due to the increase in the stock of

completed flats over the past five years and married couples moving to their new

flats after moving out of their parents’ home or housing units they rented from the

open market. The number of residential moves varied by one’s life cycle stage.

Families with children were found to have more residential moves compared with

married couples without children or divorced/widowed residents without children.

The average length of residence in their previous housing unit had remained

largely unchanged, at 10.4 years in 2018, compared to 10.2 years in 2013. This

trend suggests that there were no significant changes to residents’ desire to

change residence over the years.

Among the households that indicated at least one change in residence since their

marriage, 69.4% had upgraded, either from rental housing to sold flats, or from

smaller to bigger flats. About 14.0% of households had made lateral moves, i.e.,

across similar flat types or from one rental unit to another; while the remaining

16.6% had downgraded to smaller flats or moved from sold to rental flats.

Compared with 2013, the proportion of households who moved laterally had

decreased from 16.9% to 14.0% in 2018. The proportion who upgraded had

slightly increased, while those who downgraded remained relatively constant.

Among those who upgraded from their previous housing, the reason for their move

was an increase in household size or that they had moved out of their

parents’/relatives’ home to start their own family. Those who had made lateral

moves did so for more facilities, better flat design/layout or a more conducive living

environment. Households that had downgraded did so for financial reasons, better

location/provision of facilities, or family life events.

Compared with 2013, the proportion of households who intended to move within

the next five years had increased slightly from 12.4% in 2013 to 13.3% in 2018.

The inclination to move was higher among younger households, families with

young children or households living in 1- and 2-room flats.

176

Among households that intended to move in the next five years, about 53.0% in

2018 intended to upgrade, compared with six in ten in 2013. In terms of preferred

housing type to move to, while 4-room flats remained the most preferred flat type,

there was a higher preference for smaller flat types, with an increase in the

proportion who intended to move to 1- and 2-room flats from 5.9% in 2013 to 10.7%

in 2018.

Close to six in ten of the households (57.9%) were content with their current flat.

This was comparable to the proportion of 57.5% in 2013. Those who were content

with better housing also remained stable at 35.2% in 2018 compared to 35.0% in

2013. About three in ten households (30.3%) were content with 4-room flats.

However, compared with past years, lower proportions were content with 4-room

flats. The aspiration for bigger flat types such as 5-room flats and private properties

had risen.

Compared with the other housing types, it was observed that a higher proportion

of households would like to live in 3-room (29.7%), 4-room (25.7%) and 1- and 2-

room flats (19.6%) in their old age. Ease of maintenance was the main reason for

those who preferred 3-room and smaller flats for old age, while a sense of

attachment/familiarity with their present living arrangement was another key

reason among those who preferred to age in 3-room and bigger flats.

At least six in ten residents aged 55 years old and above would like to live in their

present flat type in old age. In contrast, the majority of households aged below 45

years old would not mind living in a different flat type in old age. Older residents

preferred to age in the same flat type mainly because they were familiar with the

living environment.

7

Transport and Travel

Patterns

181

Chapter 7

Transport and Travel Patterns

Studying how people travel within and beyond HDB towns provides the data with

which to gauge the extent to which HDB towns are self-sufficient in terms of job

and school provision, as well as transport connectivity to work and school. Such a

study could also garner a nuanced understanding of the needs of the various

segments of the population. Moreover, with the move towards car-lite towns and

the proliferation of alternative travel options, the study could examine the car-lite

readiness of HDB towns through an exploration of the key drivers for and against

car ownership, as well as an assessment of first-and-last-mile connections within

the towns.

The analysis in this chapter could therefore be used to infer the travel patterns of

the HDB working and schooling resident population and throw some light on

possible gaps that need to be addressed to improve transport connectivity. The

chapter will also attempt to derive some insights on the factors influencing car-lite

readiness in HDB towns.

7.1 Place of Work

About 52.5% of the resident population or 1.59 million residents were employed

(Table 7.1). The resident population refers to those aged 15 years old and above

who were either working full-time, part-time or self-employed. This section will

focus on the HDB working population and the location of their place of work.

182

Table 7.1 Proportion of Employed HDB Resident Population

Employment Status Resident Population (%) Persons

Employed 52.5 1,592,000

Not Employed 47.5 1,443,400

All* 100.0 3,035,500

* Excluding non-response cases Note: a) The category ‘Employed’ refers to the resident population aged 15 years old and above who were

employees working full-time, part-time, holding two or more jobs as well as own account workers, employers and unpaid family workers.

b) The category ‘Not Employed’ refers to the resident population who are not working such as students, retirees, homemakers as well as residents who are actively looking for work.

Higher proportion work in the Central, West and East regions

More than four in ten of the employed resident population were working in the

Central region (43.5%), followed by the West (16.4%) and East region (13.4%)

(Table 7.2). While most still travel to the Central region, specifically the Central

Business District (CBD) for work, there was also a higher proportion of residents

working in towns outside of the Central region, where existing regional centres

were located such as Tampines, Woodlands and Jurong East.

Analysis by region showed that while a high proportion of the employed resident

population were working in the Central region, the proportion who were living and

working in the same region was higher compared with those who worked in a

different region from their place of residence. For instance, the proportion of the

employed resident population who were working and living in the North region

(28.3%) was higher compared with those living in the North region and working in

other regions (Table 7.2). For the employed resident population residing in the

East and West, the proportion working and living in the same region was higher

compared with those residing in the other regions. This was likely an indication of

the presence of more jobs in these areas. The upcoming hubs such as the Jurong

Lake District (JLD), Jurong Innovation District (JID), Woodlands North Coast (WNC)

and Punggol Digital District (PDD) may further alter the proportion of residents who

work in the same region they live in, as they may not have to travel to the CBD.

183

Table 7.2 Location of Work Place of Employed HDB Resident Population by Place of Residence (Region)

Location of Work Place (Region)

Place of Residence (Region)

North North-East

East West Central All

North 28.3 5.4 2.8 6.2 2.7 8.3

North-East 8.2 20.5 6.6 2.9 4.7 8.9

East 8.4 13.4 38.6 3.9 7.3 13.4

West 11.2 6.0 5.5 41.7 10.4 16.4

Central** 33.3 47.0 35.9 36.4 64.4 43.5

Offshore Islands*** 2.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3

No Fixed Place Of Work

8.4 6.7 9.4 7.5 9.2 8.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 244,400 362,400 264,300 381,800 284,200 1,537,100

Note: Figures in table may not add up to 100.0% due to rounding * Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Includes Bishan, Bukit Merah, Geylang, Kallang/Whampoa, Queenstown, Toa Payoh, Bukit Timah, Marine

Parade, Central Area, Tanglin, Novena, Downtown core, Marina South, Newton, Orchard, Outram, River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Marina East, Straits view, Museum

*** Includes those who work in the Southern, Western, North-Eastern islands or on the open sea

More travel beyond the region they live in for work

The place of work of the employed resident population is explored in this section

vis-à-vis their place of residence. About one in ten of the employed population

either had no fixed place of work (8.1%) or worked offshore (1.3%). About four in

ten (38.7%) were working beyond the region, 19.5% worked in a different town but

in the same region, 18.3% worked in the central area and 14.0% worked in the

same town that they live in (Table 7.3). Generally, residents made residential

movements due to life events and life cycle changes (39.9%), such as an increase

in household size, rather than for better accessibility to place of work (5.5%) (Refer

to Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Table 6.4 for more details). This may explain why

residents generally tend not to live near their place of work.

184

Table 7.3 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Place of Work All

Same Town 14.0

Different Town, Same Region 19.5

Beyond Region 38.7

Central Area** 18.3

No Fixed Place 8.1

Offshore Islands*** 1.3

Total % 100.0

N* 1,537,100

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram,

River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang *** Includes those who work in the Southern, Western, North-Eastern islands or on the open sea

Note: a) The category ‘Same Town’ refers to when an employed resident’s place of work falls within the

same town (URA & HDB Town boundaries) as their town of residence. This includes residents working from home.

b) The category ‘Different Town, Same Region’ refers to when an employed residents’ place of work falls outside of their town of residence (URA & HDB Town boundaries) but still within the same region.

c) The category ‘Beyond Region’ refers to when an employed residents’ place of work falls beyond the region.

Older residents, residents living in smaller flat types, or working in blue-collar jobs tended to work closer to home

Table 7.4 shows the breakdown of the place of work of the employed HDB resident

population in relation to attributes. There was a difference in the profile of the

employed resident population who worked closer to home compared with those

who travelled further for work. A higher proportion of younger employed residents

aged below 45 years old, residents living in 5-room and bigger flats (19.1%) and

residents working as PMETs (21.6%) or clerks (25.0%) work in the central area,

likely due to the concentration of such jobs in this area. However, in light of the

COVID-19 pandemic, travel patterns to work may change in the future with more

PMETs likely to be telecommuting.

Conversely, the employed resident population who worked closer to their homes,

especially in the same town tended to be older (24.5% of those aged 65 years old

and above), residing in smaller flat types (1- and 2- room flats at 16.0% and 17.1%,

respectively), and working as cleaners (25.8%) and shop or sales workers (21.1%).

The proportion of residents with below secondary education (20.2%) and who were

working in the same town was also higher compared with those with university

185

degrees, who were likely to travel beyond the region (42.0%) or to the central area

(25.7%) for work (Table 7.4). A higher proportion of those living in smaller flats

had no fixed place of work compared with residents living in bigger flats.

186

Table 7.4 Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population by Attributes

Attributes

Place of Work Total

Same Town

Different Town, Same

Region

Beyond Region

Central Area**

No Fixed Place/

Offshore Islands

% N*

Flat Type

1-Room 16.0 16.3 27.3 21.1 19.3 100.0 21,200

2-Room 17.1 18.3 31.2 16.0 17.5 100.0 42,100

3-Room 15.3 21.3 33.6 18.5 11.4 100.0 282,500

4-Room 14.4 19.6 39.4 17.7 8.8 100.0 665,900

5-Room & Bigger

12.6 18.7 41.5 19.1 8.1 100.0 525,400

Age Group (Years)

Below 35 9.0 18.5 44.1 22.9 5.6 100.0 417,600

35 – 44 13.0 18.4 41.2 20.9 6.5 100.0 337,100

45 – 54 15.3 20.6 37.3 15.3 11.4 100.0 349,600

55 – 64 16.4 21.3 33.4 14.5 14.4 100.0 307,200

65 & Above 24.5 18.6 30.4 14.3 12.4 100.0 125,300

Education Level

Below Secondary

20.2 22.2 29.0 13.6 14.9 100.0 333,800

Secondary/Post-Secondary

15.1 19.2 37.9 15.3 12.6 100.0 480,600


10.4 19.1 46.1 18.5 5.9 100.0 311,200

Degree 10.6 18.0 42.0 25.7 3.7 100.0 406,700

Occupation***

PMETs**** 11.5 18.9 43.2 21.6 4.9 100.0 787,400

Clerical Workers 13.1 20.1 40.9 25.0 0.9 100.0 153,000


21.1 19.7 31.1 20.5 7.7 100.0 199,700


9.7 19.1 30.3 4.2 36.7 100.0 182,600


25.8 22.6 26.6 14.3 10.7 100.0 149,400


9.9 23.2 53.6 1.8 11.4 100.0 50,000

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram, River

Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang *** Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series.

Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively.

**** PMETs include Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers, Professionals, and Associate Professionals & Technicians

187

7.2 Travel Modes to Work

Over the last decade, major improvements have been made to the transport

infrastructure and various measures have been implemented such as the Land

Transport Authority’s (LTA) Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP)17.

Rail reliability was enhanced with the expansion of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)

network and improvement of rail lines resulting in shorter waiting time and more

comfortable journeys18. Disruptive technologies have also paved the way for

more point-to-point travel options with the introduction of private-hire cars and

ride/bicycle/car sharing services.

This section explores the travel modes of the HDB employed resident population

to understand how they commute to work.

More than half used only one mode of transport to work

In their daily commute to work, the employed resident population have utilised

various transport modes, including transfers between modes. Transfers between

different transport modes would be registered as an additional mode, while

transfers between similar modes would not be categorized as a different mode.

For example, taking more than one bus service consecutively would be defined as

constituting one mode of transport, while transferring from a bus to a MRT train,

then to a bus again, constituted three modes of transport. Walking was also listed

as a transport mode when the walk took ten minutes or longer.

More than half (56.8%) of the employed resident population required only one

mode of transport in their commute to work (Table 7.5). About 5.9% of the

employed resident population had no fixed transport mode or did not require one.

Among those who did not require a transport mode to work were residents working

as taxi/private-hire car drivers or working from home. About 14.1% of the

17 Goh, Cheryl. 2017. “5-Year, S$1.1b Bus Service Enhancement Programme complete” Channel News Asia

December 09. 18 Ministry of Transport.2015. Fact Sheet – Public Transport Improvements and Future Household Interview

Travel Survey (HITS). Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.mot.gov.sg/news-centre/news/Detail/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Public%20Transport%20Improvements%20and%20Future%20Plans/).

188

employed resident population, however, had utilised three or more modes in their

daily commute to work.

Table 7.5 Number of Transport Modes to Work among Employed HDB Resident Population

Number of Transport Modes All

None**/Not Fixed 5.9

One 56.8

Two 23.3

Three 11.8

Four/Five 2.3

Total % 100.0

N* 1,537,000

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Those who did not require a transport mode to work were residents working as taxi/private hire car

drivers or working from home.

Majority commuted to work by public transport

Close to six in ten (58.6%) of the employed HDB resident population commuted to

work solely via public transport modes (Table 7.6), while about 18.3% travelled via

car-based transport modes. This included private cars as well as private-hire

rides/taxis and getting a ride from others. The findings showed the important role

played by the public transport network, especially bus services, in residents’ daily

commute to work. From LTA’s Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS), it was

found that proximity to a train station resulted in people being more likely to use

public transport, and correspondingly the likelihood of car-ownership among

households living near MRT stations was observed to be lower19.

19 The HITS was conducted by LTA between May 2012 and May 2013. The study found that about 71.0% of

those who lived within 400m of a station would take public transport as their primary commuting option, compared with 67.0% for those staying about 800m from an MRT station and 55.0% for those staying more than 2km away. 67.0% of all peak-period journeys were undertaken on public transport. Land Transport Authority.2013. Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS). Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2013/10/2/household-interview-travel-survey-2012-public-transport-mode-share-rises-to-63.html ).

189

Table 7.6 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among Employed HDB Resident Population

Type of Transport Mode All

Public Modes Only 58.6

Car Based Travel Only (e.g., private car, private hire etc.) 18.3

Other Private Modes Only (e.g., motor, lorry) 9.2

Others (e.g., walk, private and public combinations etc.) 14.0

Total % 100.0

N* 1,537,000

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases

Table 7.7 shows the breakdown of the transport modes utilised by employed

resident population in their daily commute to work. About 18.0% of residents

travelled to work via public bus, while another 16.5% travelled via private car.

These two options therefore rank high on the list of transport modes utilised by

residents in their daily commute to work (Table 7.7). Another 12.2% of residents

travelled to work using a combination of public bus, followed by a MRT train. About

8.3% of residents travelled to work via the MRT system only, which means that

these residents were likely to be residing less than a ten-minute walk from a train

station. Only a small proportion (1.6%) travelled to work solely via personal

mobility devices/bicycles.

Table 7.7 Transport Mode to Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Transport Mode to Work (Combinations) All

Public Bus Only 18.0

Private Car Only 16.5

Public Bus Followed by MRT 12.2

MRT Only 8.3

Walk** Followed by MRT 5.9

Private Chartered Bus/Van Only 4.0

Walk** Followed by Public Bus 3.8

MRT Followed by Public Bus 2.7

Bicycle/PMDs Only 1.6

Others (e.g., no fixed transport, walk followed by public bus then MRT) 27.0

Total % 100.0

N* 1,537,000

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks that are ten minutes or longer

190

Majority relied on ‘Walk-Cycle-Ride’ modes for first-mile transport to work

As part of the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) 2040, Walk-Cycle-Ride (WCR)

modes of transport are encouraged as these are considered more efficient and

sustainable. WCR includes active mobility modes like walking, cycling and using

personal mobility devices such as electric scooters; mass public transport such as

buses and trains; and shared transport such as taxis, private hire cars and car-

sharing20. The LTA aims to see WCR modes account for nine in ten of all peak

period journeys by 2040. Noting the broader objective of improving first-and-last-

mile connections for people, the WCR mode share of the HDB employed resident

population was assessed by analysing residents’ first-and-last-mile transport

modes. Overall, about seven in ten of the HDB employed resident population

utilised a WCR mode as their first-and-last-mile transport mode, where about

32.8% utilised the public bus mode and another 13.1% used the MRT/LRT as their

first-mile transport mode (Table 7.8). However, about 25.4% of the employed

resident population still relied on private cars for their first-mile transport mode.

Table 7.8 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Transport Mode First-Mile Last-Mile

Public Bus 32.8 24.6

MRT/LRT 13.1 24.0

Walk** -*** -***

Active Mobility (PMDs, Bicycles) 1.8 1.6

Taxi/Private Hire/Car Sharing -*** -***

Private Vehicle 25.4 26.3

No Fixed Mode/No Travel Required -*** -***

Total % 100.0

N* 1,537,000

* Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks 10 minutes or longer *** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

20 Land Transport Authority. 2020. Land Transport Master Plan 2040 Public Consultation: Digital Report.

Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/our_work/land_transport_master_plan_2040.html )

68.7% 67.8%

191

7.3 Travel Time to Work

Shorter travel time for residents working closer to home or residing in the East and Central regions

The median travel time to work was longer where the employed resident population

worked further from home (Table 7.9). While those who worked in the same town

they live in had a median travel time of 14.3 minutes, those who worked further

from home, beyond the region (44.4 minutes) or in the central area (42.9 minutes)

were found to have a longer median travel time to work (Table 7.9). The longest

median travel time was observed among those who worked at offshore islands

(52.7 minutes).

Table 7.9 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Work of Employed HDB Resident Population

Place of Work Median Travel Time* (Minutes)

Same Town 14.3

Different Town, Same Region 28.2

Beyond Region 44.4

Central Area** 42.9

No Fixed Place 29.7

Offshore Islands*** 52.7

All 39.6

* Median travel time excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases

** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram, River Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang

*** Includes those who work in the Southern, Western, North-Eastern islands or on the open sea

The overall median travelling time to work was 39.6 minutes for the employed

resident population (Table 7.10). Generally, those living nearer to the Central

Business District (CBD) tended to have a shorter travelling time to work than those

living further away, especially residents living in the West (40.2 minutes), North

(42.4 minutes) and North-East (41.4 minutes) regions. With more jobs made

available outside of the CBD, such as the development of Singapore’s second CBD

at Jurong Lake District, travel time to work across the regions will likely be

significantly shortened in the future.

192

Table 7.10 Median Travel Time to Work by Place of Residence of Employed HDB Resident Population

Place of Residence (by Region & Town/Estate) Median Travel Time* (Minutes)

North Region 42.4

North-East Region 41.4

East Region 38.2

West Region 40.2

Central Region 28.2

All 39.6

* Excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases

Longer travel time to work for residents who relied solely on public transport

The employed resident population who relied solely on public transport modes to

commute to work had a much longer travel time (44.3 minutes), compared to those

who used the other modes shown in Table 7.11.

Table 7.11 Median Travel Time to Work of Employed HDB Resident Population by Type of Transport Mode to Work


Transport Mode to Work Median Travel Time* (Minutes)


Car Based Travel Only (e.g., private car, private hire) 27.7


Others (e.g., walk, private and public combinations) 14.2

All 39.6

193

7.4 Departure Time to Work

About three in ten of the employed resident population (29.0% or 442,300

employed persons) departed for work between 7.00am and 7.59am, while another

21.7% (331,200 persons) left home for work between 8.00am and 8.59am. About

17.2% left for work slightly earlier, between 6.00am and 6.59am (Chart 7.1).

Chart 7.1 Departure Time to Work

* Excludes persons working abroad and non-response cases

7.5 Place of School

About 18.3% of the HDB resident population or 555,800 persons were schooling

either on a full-time or part-time basis, and not in employment (Table 7.12). Those

studying overseas were excluded from the analysis.

Table 7.12 Proportion of HDB Resident Population in School

Schooling Status Resident Population (%) N

Schooling 18.3 555,800

Non-Schooling 81.7 2,479,700

All 100.0 3,035,500

N = 1,525,602 5.8

17.2

29.0

21.7

6.3

3.2

5.7

11.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

00:00 - 05:59

06:00 - 06:59

07:00 - 07:59

08:00 - 08:59

09:00 - 09:59

10:00 - 10:59

11:00 - 23:59

No Fixed Timing

Employed HDB Resident Population* (%)

194

Most pre-primary and primary school students attended schools in the same town they live in and more than half walked to school

Overall, almost half (46.0%) of the schooling population were attending school in

the same town they resided in, while 18.0% had to travel to school located in

another town, but within the same region. About 31.5% were travelling beyond the

region to attend school (Table 7.13).

Generally, the proportion of the schooling population attending schools in the same

town was higher among pre-primary (77.1%) and primary school students (81.1%)

(Table 7.13). The higher proportions were the result of ensuring primary schools

are sited in close proximity to residential areas to cater to the needs of children in

the town, thereby reducing their travelling time to school. More than half of primary

school students could even walk to their schools located near where they live in

the town.

Table 7.13 Place of School of HDB Resident Population in School by Education Level

Education Level***

Place of School Total

Same Town

Different Town Same

Region

Beyond Region

Central Area**

% N*

Pre-Primary 77.1 10.3 8.3 4.2 100.0 37,600

Primary 81.1 9.3 7.9 1.7 100.0 184,900

Secondary 42.0 31.1 24.3 2.7 100.0 147,400

Post-Secondary 8.6 24.1 60.5 6.8 100.0 32,800


6.2 16.9 69.4 7.4 100.0 72,200

University 1.2 14.7 72.3 11.8 100.0 63,600

All 46.0 18.0 31.5 4.4 100.0 542, 000

* Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Includes Downtown Core, Marina South, Marina East, Museum, Newton, Novena, Orchard, Outram, River

Valley, Rochor, Singapore River, Straits View, Tanglin, Central Area, Kallang *** Figures for students in Special Schools were excluded due to high coefficient of variation (CV).

Note: a) The category ‘Same Town’ refers to when the schooling population’s place of school falls within the

same town (URA & HDB Town boundaries) as their town of residence b) The category ‘Different Town, Same Region’ refers to when the schooling population’s’ place of school

falls outside of their town of residence (URA & HDB Town boundaries) but still within the same region. c) The category ‘Beyond Region’ refers to when the schooling population’s place of school falls beyond the

region

195

7.6 Travel Modes to School

Majority of students used only one mode of transport to school

In their daily commute to school, the schooling population would likely have utilised

various transport modes. Almost seven in ten (68.8%) of the schooling population

used just one mode of transport (Table 7.14). About 18.3% utilised two modes,

while another 12.7% utilised three or more modes in their daily commute to school.

Table 7.14 Number of Transport Modes to School among HDB Resident Population in School

Number of Transport Modes All

One 68.8

Two 18.3

Three/Four 12.7

None***/Not Fixed -**

Total % 100.0

N* 533,500

* Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Those who did not require a transport mode to school were students schooling at home.

Majority of the schooling population commute to school by public transport

Slightly more than half (54.9%) of the schooling population used only public

transport modes in their daily commute to school, while about 11.9% used car-

based transport modes (Table 7.15). This included private car as well as private-

hire rides/taxis and hitching a ride from others.

Table 7.15 Type of Transport Mode Utilised among HDB Resident Population in School

Type of Transport Mode All


Car Based Travel Only (e.g., private car, private hire) 11.9


Others (e.g., walk, private and public combinations) 27.8

Total % 100.0

N* 533,500

* Excluding non-response cases and persons studying overseas

196

Walking (26.0%) and public bus (20.8%) were the most common modes of

transport utilised by the schooling population to commute to school (Table 7.16).

It was noted earlier that generally where schools were located nearer to place of

residence, the proportion who walked to school was much higher. Private car

(11.8%) also emerged as one of the more common modes. It involved parents

sending their children to school.

Table 7.16 Transport Mode to School of HDB Resident Population in School

Modes of Transport All (%)*

Walk** Only 26.0

Public Bus Only 20.8

Private Car Only 11.8

Public Bus Followed by MRT 8.2

Walk Followed by Public bus** 5.4

MRT Only 5.0

Private Chartered Bus/Van Only 4.8

Walk** Followed by MRT 3.8

MRT Followed by Public Bus 3.1

Public Bus Followed by MRT Followed by Public Bus 2.5

Motorcycle Only 0.4

Bicycle/PMDs Only 1.1

Others (e.g., no fixed transport, walk to bus then MRT and other combinations)

7.1

* Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks that are ten minutes or longer

Majority relied on ‘Walk-Cycle-Ride’ modes as first-mile transport to school

In section 7.2, Walk-Cycle-Ride (WCR) share was discussed in relation to the

broader objective of improving first-and-last-mile connections for residents. The

WCR mode share of the HDB schooling population was also assessed by

analysing students’ first-and-last-mile transport modes. Overall, about eight in ten

of the schooling population had a WCR mode as their first-and-last-mile transport

mode. In regard to their first-mile mode, about 39.1% of students started off their

commute by walking to school, followed by 31.9% who utilised public bus, and

about 17.4% relied on private cars (Table 7.17).

197

Table 7.17 First-and-Last-Mile Transport Mode to School of HDB Resident Population in School

Transport Mode First Mile Last Mile

Walk** 39.1 35.3

Public Bus 31.9 29.7

MRT/LRT 10.4 16.4

Active Mobility (PMDs, Bicycles)/Taxi/Private Hire/Car Sharing

1.1 1.9

Private Vehicle 17.4 16.5

No Fixed Mode/No Travel Required -*** -****

Total % 100.0

N* 533,500

* Excluding non-response cases and persons schooling overseas ** Walking is registered as a travel mode for walks that are ten minutes or longer *** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

7.7 Travel Time to School

Travel time to school shorter for primary and pre-primary school students

Overall, the median travel time to school was 23.3 minutes for the schooling

population (Table 7.18). Close to seven in ten (66.8%) took 30 minutes or less to

travel to school. More specifically, about four in ten took 15 minutes or less, while

another 26.8% took 16 to 30 minutes.

By education level, the proportion of the schooling population who took up to 15

minutes to travel to school was highest among those in primary (74.5%) and pre-

primary (70.9%). The median travel time was also shortest for pre-primary

students (9.8 minutes) and primary school students (25.9 minutes) as their schools

were mainly located within the town they lived in with childcare centres and

kindergartens located in closer proximity, within HDB precincts. This reflects the

conscious efforts to locate pre-school and primary schools close to where students

live.

Conversely, the proportion of the schooling population who took more than 45

minutes to travel to school was much higher among university students (68.2%).

The median travel time was significantly longer for students in polytechnics and

universities at 54.2 minutes and 50.1 minutes respectively. With the opening of

more universities in Singapore and with new campuses such as the Singapore

83.3% 82.5%

198

Institute of Technology (SIT) being located in the North-East region, where there

are also more Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, travel time to universities is expected to

decrease over time for some students.

Table 7.18 Travel Time to School of HDB Resident Population in School by Education level

Duration of Travel Time to School (Minutes)

Education Level

Pre-Primary Primary Secondary Post-

Secondary


University All

Up to 15 70.9 74.5 29.5 5.9 4.2 -** 40.0

16 - 30 21.6 21.2 39.9 30.4 27.4 11.4 26.8

31 - 45 -** 2.5 16.8 31.5 25.1 19.6 13.2

46 - 60 -** 1.5 9.5 27.4 27.7 38.0 13.0

More than 60/No Fixed Time

-** -** 4.3 4.9 15.7 30.2 7.0

Total* % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons 37,500 184,200 146,000 32,400 72,300 56,400 532,200

Median Travel Time (Minutes)

9.8 25.9 39.5 42.9 54.2 50.1 23.3

* Excluding non-response cases, persons schooling overseas and students in special schools ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped

7.8 Departure Time to School

Most of the schooling population (43.9% or 233,400 students) departed for school

between 7.00am and 7.59am, while another 32.6% (173,300 students) left home

for school earlier, before 7.00am (Chart 7.2). About 8.2% had no fixed time of

departure, mainly due to the flexible curriculum in tertiary educational institutions.

The peak departure time for school was similar to the departure time for work at

between 7.00am and 7.59am. A higher proportion of the schooling population

(32.6%) also left for school before 7.00am compared with the employed resident

population (23.0%).

199

Chart 7.2 Departure Time to School of HDB Resident Population in School

* Excluding non-response cases and persons studying overseas

7.9 Maximum Time Willing to Travel

Most residents were willing to travel between 46 to 60 minutes for work

The various aspects pertaining to the transport patterns of HDB households will be

explored from this section onwards. Besides observing how travel times varied by

place of work and type of transport modes utilised, it is important to understand

residents’ threshold for travel time so as to determine the gap between actual travel

time and the duration of travel time that residents consider acceptable.

The analysis for this section is based on the 65.8% of households who were

employed. Overall, the maximum median time employed residents were willing to

travel for work was 43.1 minutes. About 31.1% were willing to travel for 16 to 30

minutes for work, while another 19.2% were willing to travel for 31 to 45 minutes.

About a third of employed residents (32.8%) were willing to travel for 46 to 60

minutes, while another 11.8% were willing to travel for more than an hour for work

(Table 7.19).

N = 531,690 32.6

43.9

9.8

3.3

2.2

8.2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Before 07:00

07:00 - 07:59

08:00 - 08:59

09:00 - 09:59

10:00 - 23:59

No Fixed time

Resident Population in School* (%)

200

Table 7.19 Maximum Time Employed HDB Households were Willing to Travel to Work

Maximum Time Willing to Travel (Minutes) All

Up to 15 5.1

16 - 30 31.1

31 - 45 19.2

46 - 60 32.8

More than 60 11.8

Total % 100.0

N* 655,501

* Excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases

Most residents were satisfied with their current travelling time to work

When actual travel time was compared with the maximum time residents were

willing to travel for work, it was observed that more than eight in ten (84.1%)

residents had a travel time that either met their expectations or was shorter.

However, about 15.9% travelled longer than they were willing to (Table 7.20).

Table 7.20 Actual Travel Time Compared with Maximum Time Employed HDB Households were Willing to Travel

Comparison of Travel Time All

Travel Time Longer than time Wiling to Travel 15.9

Travel Time Meets Expectation 40.2

Travel Time Shorter than Time Wiling to Travel 43.9

Total % 100.0

N* 594, 114


Residents residing in the North and West regions, or those in PMET jobs travelled longer than they were willing to for work

About 18.0% of employed residents working as PMETs and 17.4% working in

clerical jobs were travelling longer than they were willing to; higher compared with

those in other professions (Table 7.21). This was likely due to provision of jobs

relevant to these professions in the central area.

201

Among employed residents who were travelling longer than they were willing to, a

higher proportion were residing in the North (20.4%), West (18.7%) and North-East

(17.6%) regions compared with those residing elsewhere (Table 7.21). Their

journeys also tended to involve more than one transport mode and took about 46

minutes or longer, compared with those who only required one mode to commute

to work. Additionally, those who travelled beyond the region for work (19.7%) and

those who relied solely on public transport modes (18.7%) were found to be

travelling longer than they were willing to.

202

Table 7.21 Actual Travel Time of Employed Households Compared with Maximum Time Willing to Travel by Attributes

Attributes

Actual Versus Maximum Time Willing to Travel

Total

Travel Time Longer

Travel Time Meets

Expectation

Travel Time Shorter

% N

Type of Transport Mode to Work

Public Modes Only 18.7 44.5 36.8 100.0 348,081

Car Based Travel Only 13.1 38.2 48.8 100.0 123,643

Other Private Modes Only 9.3 32.1 58.6 100.0 57,350

Others (e.g., walk) 12.3 27.8 60.0 100.0 64,447

Region of Residence

Central 9.0 47.6 43.4 100.0 116,308

East 12.8 44.7 42.5 100.0 89,254

Northeast 17.6 41.1 41.2 100.0 152,355

North 20.4 32.8 46.9 100.0 95,929

West 18.7 35.3 46.0 100.0 140,267

Place of Work

Same Town 5.7 27.0 67.3 100.0 89,052

Different Town, Same Region

11.1 40.3 48.6 100.0 130,307

Beyond Region 19.7 42.7 37.6 100.0 251,676

Central Area 20.7 45.1 34.2 100.0 104,868

No Fixed Place/Offshore islands

19.3 43.3 37.4 100.0 14,477

Number of Transport Modes

One 12.3 37.3 50.4 100.0 361,906

Two 21.5 41.5 37.0 100.0 137,312

Three & Above 21.6 49.5 29.0 100.0 93,434

Travel Duration to Work (Minutes)

Up to 15 -*** 24.0 74.6 100.0 81,959

16 - 30 3.8 40.3 55.9 100.0 193,179

31 - 45 18.5 34.4 47.0 100.0 129,151

46 - 60 27.3 56.4 16.4 100.0 129,281

More than 60 44.7 39.3 16.0 100.0 60,543

Occupation***

PMETs**** 18.0 40.2 41.8 100.0 320,009

Clerical Workers 17.4 44.8 37.8 100.0 62,115


14.6 38.0 47.4 100.0 75,682


11.6 39.8 48.6 100.0 59,124


10.2 39.3 50.5 100.0 69,848


-*** 36.4 52.6 100.0 4,794

* Excludes those with no fixed travel time, persons working abroad and non-response cases ** Values with high coefficient of variation (CV) were dropped *** Please note changes to Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) across the series.

Occupation captured was based on the prevailing SSOC at the point of survey, i.e., SSOC2000, SSOC2005, SSOC2010 and SSOC 2015 for SHS2003, SHS2008, SHS2013 and SHS2018 respectively.

**** PMETs include Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers, Professionals, and Associate Professionals & Technicians

203

7.10 Ownership of Motor Vehicles

Decline in car ownership among HDB households

Overall, there was a decline in the proportion of households owning cars21 from

32.8% in 2013 to 23.4% in 201822 (Chart 7.3). While this could be a result of the

LTA’s move to cut vehicle growth rate to zero in 2017, it also points to a possible

shift among residents who may have opted to use public transport, given the

improvement in the transport networks over the last five years. The proportion of

households owning motorcycles however, saw an increase from 4.7% in 2013 to

6.8% in 2013. Ownership of light-goods vehicles continued to decline in 2018 with

only 1.1% of households owning them.

Chart 7.3 Motor Vehicle Ownership by Year

Car ownership higher among households living in bigger flat types or those with specific family needs

Car ownership was likely related to the financial ability of the household. It was

found to be higher among households living in bigger flat types such as 5-room

(39.8%) or Executive flats (53.7%) compared with households in the other flat

types (Table 7.22). Car owners were also generally younger with 35.4% of

households aged 35 to 44 years old and 30.0% aged below 35 years old. Car

21 In LTA’s Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS), conducted from 2016 to 2017, car ownership was noted

to have declined among all households from 46.0% in 2012 to 39.0% in 2016, Land Transport Authority 2013, Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS). Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2013/10/2/household-interview-travel-survey-2012-public-transport-mode-share-rises-to-63.html ).

22 Car ownership among HDB dwellers was 26.0% with motorcycle ownership at 8.5%. Department of Statistics Singapore. 2020., Report on Household Expenditure Survey 2017/18. Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/household-expenditure/latest-data)

24.5

9.4

2.4

31.8

6.32.9

32.8

4.71.4

23.4

6.8

1.1

0

10

20

30

40

Car Motorcycle Light-goods Vehicle

Household

s (

%)

2003

2008

2013

2018

204

ownership was also higher among households with a university degree with 42.1%

owning cars compared with the other households. Apart from financial ability, car

ownership may also be related to specific family needs, as seen in a higher

proportion of households with young and teenaged children owning cars.

Table 7.22 Car Ownership among HDB Households by Attributes

Attributes Car Ownership Total

Own Do Not Own % N*

Flat Type

1- & 2-Room 1.3 98.7 100.0 74,720

3-Room 7.6 92.4 100.0 232,351

4-Room 22.1 77.9 100.0 405,104

5-Room 39.8 60.2 100.0 236,324

Executive 53.7 46.3 100.0 64,984

Age Group** (Years)

Below 35 30.0 70.0 100.0 57,740

35 - 44 35.4 64.6 100.0 172,758

45 - 54 29.1 70.9 100.0 229,681

55 - 64 22.4 77.6 100.0 274,161

65 & Above 10.8 89.2 100.0 279,144

Education Level**

Below Secondary 10.7 89.3 100.0 370,437

Secondary/Post-Secondary 22.4 77.6 100.0 312,497

Diploma & Professional Qualification 34.2 65.8 100.0 141,480

Degree 42.1 57.9 100.0 185,448


Family without Children 27.8 72.2 100.0 67,587

Family with Young Children 37.6 62.4 100.0 146,059

Family with Teenaged Children 30.8 69.2 100.0 115,202

Family with Unmarried Grown-up Children

23.7 76.3 100.0 315,390

Family with Married Children 29.5 70.5 100.0 116,538

Elderly Couple living Alone 9.6 90.4 100.0 82,868

Others*** 6.2 93.8 100.0 169,839

* Excluding non-response cases ** Refers to profile of owner *** Includes non-family based households and siblings/other family members living together

Majority did not intend to own a car in the next five years

The majority of residents (77.0%) did not own a car and had no intention to own

one in the next five years (Table 7.23). About 2.3% of residents expressed an

intention to give up their cars over the next five years, with most indicating that they

would opt for public transport or would walk as an alternative transport mode.

205

However, about 20.7% of residents expressed their intention to own a new car or

to continue owning a car in the next five years.

Table 7.23 Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five Years among HDB Households

Whether Intend to Own a Car All

Intend to Own a Car/Continue to Own in Next Five Years 20.7

Currently a Non-owner and do not Intend to Own a Car in Next Five Years 77.0

Currently Own, but do not Intend to Continue to Own in Next Five Years 2.3

Total % 100.0

N* 1,013,542


Convenience a key consideration for intention to own cars; High cost and good public transport discourage car ownership

Among those who intended to own a new car or to continue owning their car over

the next five years, convenience was cited as a main reason. Specifically, for about

11.8% of residents, car ownership would provide the convenience to move around

with ease, particularly if households had larger families or if they needed to send

their children to school (Table 7.24). About 5.0% cited the convenience a car could

provide in terms of shorter travelling time. Conversely, a good public transport

system, one that is cheap/sufficient/efficient/convenient (20.0%), and the high

costs of owning and maintaining a car (19.6%) were cited as main reasons for their

not intending to own or continue to own a car in the next five years. About 14.2%

of residents were also not able to afford the high costs of owning a car. While high

costs continue to be a deterrence to owning cars, having an efficient public

transport network was a pull factor towards less reliance on private cars.

206

Table 7.24 Reasons for Intention to Own a Car in the Next Five Years among HDB Households

Reasons All

Intend to Own/Continue Owning 20.7

Convenient to move around due to family needs (e.g., taxi cannot accommodate big family/provide children a ride to school)

11.8

Convenient (e.g., shorter travelling time) 5.0

Nature of work (e.g., frequent travelling/requires transportation/work timing) 2.6

Unreliable public transport 0.2

Others (e.g., have relatives in Malaysia, location of flat not convenient) 1.0

Do not Intend to Own/Continue Owning 79.3

Public transport is cheap/sufficient/efficient/convenient 20.0

High cost of owning/maintaining car 19.6

Unable to afford 14.2

Unable to drive (e.g., no license, have not driven in a while, fear of driving) 8.4

Old age/Mobility issues 7.4

Alternative travel modes (e.g., company van, motorcycle) 5.8

Others (e.g., do not require a car, hassle of owning a car) 4.0

Total % 100.0

N* 1,010,295


7.11 Ownership of Mobility Devices

About a third of households owned bicycles; ownership of PMDs & PABs comparatively lower

As part of ensuring better first-and-last-mile connections, active mobility transport

modes were encouraged as an alternative means of getting around. Active

mobility includes the usage of conventional bicycles, Power-Assisted Bicycles

(PABs), Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Personal Mobility Aids23 (PMAs).

In SHS 2018, in addition to seeking information on ownership of motor vehicles, it

also gathered data on the ownership of active mobility.

Overall, ownership of PABs and PMDs among HDB households was low with only

1.6% of households owning at least one PAB and 3.6% of households owning at

least one PMD (Chart 7.4). Ownership of bicycles however was higher with 31.5%

23 Personal Mobility Aids refer to motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters designed for the elderly and

handicapped.

207

of households owning at least one bicycle, about 17.4% of households owning one

bicycle, and another 14.1% owning two or more bicycles (Table 7.25).

Chart 7.4 Ownership of Mobility Devices

Table 7.25 Number of Bicycles Owned among HDB Households

Ownership of Bicycles All

Own 31.5

One 17.4

Two or more 14.1

Do Not Own 68.5

Total % 100.0

N* 1,013,542


High ownership of PMAs among households with at least one non-ambulant member

In 2018, about 38,000 households or 7.6% of all households had at least one non-

ambulant member in the household. Of these households, ownership of PMAs

was high with almost 80.1% owning a PMA (Table 7.26). The proportion of

households who owned a PMA was higher among elderly households aged 65

years old and above (86.9%). With an ageing population, the proportion of

households with non-ambulant members is likely to increase, which may lead to

an increase in the ownership of PMAs. A closer examination may be required to

understand how and where households utilising such PMAs store their devices as

well as their first-and-last mile experience.

31.53.6 1.6

68.5

96.4 98.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Conventional Bicycle Personal MobilityDevice (PMD)

Power-Assisted Bicycle(PAB)

Household

s (

%)

Do not Own

Own

208

Table 7.26 Ownership of Personal Mobility Aids in Households with At Least One Non-Ambulant Member

Ownership of Personal Mobility Aids All

Yes 80.1

No 19.9

Total % 100.0

N* 38,608



Almost 40.0% of the employed HDB resident population were travelling beyond the

region they lived in for work. About 14.0% were working in the same town as their

place of residence; 20.0% were working in a different town but within the same

region, and about 18.3% commuted to the Central Area for work. Higher

proportions of younger residents, residents in PMET jobs, and residents residing

in bigger flat types were travelling farther for work. The availability and distribution

of type of jobs in specific areas in Singapore may have prompted such traveling

patterns. Conversely, those who worked in the same town tended to be older

workers aged 55 years old and above, living in smaller flat types and residents

working in blue-collar jobs such as cleaners and sales workers.

The shortest median travel time of 14.3 minutes was registered for residents

working in the same town compared with those travelling 44.4 minutes to their

place of work beyond the region. Most residents were satisfied with their current

travelling time where their actual travel time met their expectations (40.2%) or was

shorter (43.9%) than what they were willing to accept. However, about 15.9% were

travelling longer to work than they were willing to. They tended to be residents in

PMET jobs, younger residents aged 25 to 44 years old, residents who mainly

utilised public transport or made mode transfers or who were travelling from the

North and West regions.

Overall, close to half (46.0%) of the HDB schooling population attended schools in

the same town as their homes. Most pre-primary (77.1%) and primary school

(81.1%) students attended schools in the town they lived in, and most walked to

school or took the bus.

209

As car-lite towns are promoted, public transport adequacy and high costs of owning

a car are key factors leading to less reliance on cars. While car ownership

decreased from 32.8% in 2013 to 23.4% in 2018, the proportion of residents

utilising private vehicles for travel to work or school remained higher compared with

other modes. For households who could afford to own a car, the convenience of

travelling by car is still a pull factor despite the high costs involved.

Part 2 - Conclusion


213

Part 2


Conclusion

HDB towns are planned to be self-sufficient, offering a wide-range of facilities at

the precinct, neighbourhood and town levels. Part 2 of SHS 2018 shows the

continuous efforts put in by HDB and other agencies to improve the physical living

environment of HDB residents over the years.


Over the years, survey findings showed that residents remained highly satisfied

with most aspects of the HDB physical living environment. This was evident in the

high satisfaction levels achieved in residents’ assessment of their flat,

neighbourhood and various aspects of the HDB physical living environment. In

addition, residents were also proud of their flat and felt that their flat was value for

money.

The aspects that required further improvement were noise reduction (i.e., to

mitigate noise generation) and cleanliness. In high-rise living, lift reliability is critical

to enhancing residents’ living experience and also catering to Singapore’s ageing

population. The proportion of residents who felt that lifts were reliable remained

high.

Satisfaction and Usage Levels of Estate Facilities

Over the years, HDB has been providing various estate facilities, commercial,

recreational, and social amenities in towns/estates to cater to residents’ changing

214

needs. Such efforts have seen positive results, as reflected in the increase in the

overall satisfaction with the provision of estate facilities. This reflects the efforts of

various agencies in catering to residents’ needs. Besides serving the needs of

residents, estate facilities also played a social role in promoting social interactions

and forging community bonds among residents, more so among older residents.

In terms of facilities usage, commercial facilities remained the most frequently used,

with most facilities being used at least once a week by more than half of the HDB

households. Usage levels of commercial facilities varied across household life

cycles and may also continue to shift as lifestyles change alongside the rise of

more convenient alternatives and online options. With the prevalence of online

services, the trend of online shopping is likely to increase especially post COVID-

19 pandemic.

As needs and lifestyles of residents evolve, satisfaction and usage of facilities need

to be monitored by gathering feedback from residents. Embracing digitalisation

initiatives and digital tools can bring about greater opportunities for HDB shops to

better capture the online shopping market.

Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

Similar to 2013, at least half of the households were content with their current flats.

The proportion of households who intended to move within the next five years

increased slightly compared to 2013. The inclination to move was higher among

households living in 1- and 2-room flats, and younger households or families with

young children. Older residents would prefer to live in their present flat type mainly

because they were familiar with the living environment.

While 4-room flats and new flats remained the most preferred housing type to move

to, there was also a notable increase in preference for 1- and 2-room flats in 2018

compared to 2013.

Families with children were more likely to make residential moves than those

without children, and were just as likely to make more moves as their children grow

up, likely due to life cycle changes (e.g., moving into a larger flat as household size

increases, right-sizing after children move out). This would be useful information

215

for HDB’s planning and policy reviews on housing provision to meet the varied

needs of families.

Transport and Travel Patterns

Most employed residents were satisfied with their current travelling time to work as

their actual travel time met their expectations or was shorter than they were willing

to accept.

As car-lite towns are promoted, public transport adequacy and high costs of owning

a car are key factors contributing to less reliance on cars. Although car ownership

had decreased over the past five years and despite the high costs, the proportion

of residents utilising private vehicles for travel to work and school was still higher

compared with other modes for reasons of convenience. Alternative travel options

such as bicycles may not be suitable for daily travel to work, even as first-mile

transport modes. This could be due to the existing road infrastructure and the

tropical climate that may not encourage people to consider these as viable

alternatives.

Close to half of the HDB schooling population attended schools in the same town

as their homes, with more primary and pre-primary school students in this category.

Due to the close proximity to home, most of these students could walk to school or

use the bus. Provision of facilities and schools, is a crucial consideration in

ensuring that towns are planned and built to be self-sufficient.

As a public housing provider, HDB will continue to enhance the public housing’s

built environment to meet residents’ needs comprehensively. This will be done

through continuous monitoring of residents’ sentiments to better understand the

changing needs and lifestyle patterns of residents across the different

demographic segments.

216

218

Documents

Published by...2021/02/10 · Amy Wong Jin Ying Esther Chua Jia Ping Phay Huai Yu Ian Lim Wei Wendy Li Xin Quek Xin Ping Cherie Lin Xinyi Max Chan Weng Kin Goh Pei Xuan Alysia Wee