In Singapore’s densely populated public housing estates, every day is a live social experiment in multiculturalism. Eight in 10 Singapore residents live in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, Singapore’s public housing, with neighbours of different ethnicities living door to door. This harmony has been built through deliberate public policy and years of effort to improve communal cohesion.
A policy at a crossroads
For over three decades, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) has enforced quotas to prevent any single ethnic group from dominating an HDB block or neighbourhood.
It was introduced in 1989 following observations of ethnic clustering in certain estates, such as higher than national-level proportion of Malays in towns like Bedok and Tampines who comprised 30 percent of the residents despite being about 15 percent of the population.Source Meanwhile Chinese residents concentrated in Ang Mo Kio and Hougang, making up 90 percent of the residents while only representing about 76 percent of the population.
However, because the policy limits the resale of flats once an ethnic quota is reached, ethnic minority homeowners sometimes find themselves with a smaller pool of eligible buyers, potentially depressing their flat’s resale price.
The media has highlighted the difficulties faced by minority group homeowners when they try to sell their housing units in the resale market. In response, the authorities have quite recently introduced a "buy-back by HDB" option for those who encounter this problem.
“Some may suggest the idea of doing away with EIP, along with Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others system of ethnic classification. However, the fact is that we are not a post-racial country, and race still matters in Singapore,” explains Dr Tan Ern Ser, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow and Academic Adviser for Social Lab at the Institute of Policy Studies.
“Such in-group preferences certainly exist in many cities. However, and unlike Singapore, there are no policies that target social integration and inter-ethnic mixing in many of these cities. This means that ethnic enclaves can emerge, such as an African and South Asian enclave in Hong Kong’s Yuen Long or the Chinatowns of many American cities,” offers Dr Woo Jun Jie, Senior Lecturer at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
A matter of ethnicity or socioeconomic status?
“But while market dynamics do have an impact on resale prices, these affect the overall population relatively uniformly. Furthermore, these impacts are shorter term in nature. The government has sought to address these impacts through housing grants and by raising supply availability by constructing more Build-To-Order (BTO) estates,” adds Dr Woo.
The BTO scheme is a ballot-based system where eligible citizens can secure subsidised new HDB flats that begin construction only after demand is confirmed. As a result, buyers wait a few years for completion, and they must also meet certain occupancy and resale rules.
Dr Tan provides more context into the ethnic and socioeconomic balance: “The EIP quota for each minority ethnic group is set higher than its actual proportion in the population. Should a particular neighbourhood or town be more popular with a specific minority group, it would result in applicants experiencing a lower probability of being allocated a public housing unit in a location they desire. So, if there is an overlap between class and ethnicity, it is entirely possible that a particular ethnic group may end up exceeding its quota in those neighbourhoods with smaller or rental flats. "
“In short, statistical probability related to supply and demand and/or social class and affordability, rather than ethnic discrimination, could determine access or perceived lack of access to public housing,” says Dr Tan.
Other observers suggest that multiple axes need to be considered to bolster the unique role — and mitigate the downside risks — of ethnic integration policies. Social mixing they say, should include also an income mix that prevents the longer-term dangers of segregation, mistrust or ghettoisation that could tear at the fabric of a multi-ethnic nation.Source
The price of a cohesive social fabric
Today, the concept of ‘community’ transcends co-location. While neighbours may share an elevator, there are no guarantees that they will interact beyond pleasantries.
Moreover, higher education and the internet have provided people with the means to form virtual enclaves of their choosing.
“The internet certainly adds another layer to community and social circles, with people identifying with a wide diversity of social groups online. There is therefore a risk of echo chambers or tribes forming in the online space,” says Dr Woo.
In these online communities, misinformation can spread rapidly and unchecked. In one incident, a property agent’s TikTok video falsely claimed the EIP offered “no benefit” to minorities, prompting authorities to issue a correction directive under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.
“The lived experience of most individuals will continue to involve physical interactions in their neighbourhoods and estates. This means that social integration in our physical spaces will be even more important for overcoming biases and misunderstandings,” Dr Woo adds.
Policymakers have introduced several grassroots level initiatives to introduce and encourage more opportunities for mixing over the years, such as hosting block parties during festive occasions, have excursions or workshops for residents at common spaces, or even promoting activities at community centres.
On their own, some residents have also started social media groups comprising their neighbours, such as chatgroups on WhatsApp, Facebook or Telegram.
Still, navigating the delicate balance of social integration requires constant effort, and the EIP will need constant review.
While the EIP can be seen as a preventive measure, where relaxing the EIP too quickly could engender segregation, keeping it inflexible and not in step with evolving population trends could breed cynicism and ethnic grievances.