Singapore’s policy for multiracialism has shaped many major national policies, from education, to housing, and to politics, among others. It also means that it is crucial to ensure social harmony among the races. To promote cultural empathy and integration, it is important that people of different backgrounds have sufficient opportunities to interact with each other.
The formation of ethnic enclaves, much like those imposed by the British government during the colonial era, therefore pose a serious problem to inclusion and integration.
Has the Ethnic Integration Policy helped with this? Has it created problems of its own? A paper titled The State of Ethnic Congregation in Singapore Today by Dr Leong Chan-Hoong, Eugene Teng and William Weiliang Ko in the recently published Building Resilient Neighbourhoods in Singapore attempts to address these questions.
The history of urban planning in Singapore
Prior to Singapore’s independence in 1959, the British colonial government segregated the various races into specific locations across the island. The Chinese lived in the downtown area, the Malays in Kampong Glam and Geylang Serai, and the Indians in Serangoon and Sembawang.
Separating the races was part of their “divide and rule” strategy that would make the public dependent on the British for all affairs related to race and ethnicity. It also allowed the British government to exert their power over the law.
This segregation was thought to be one of the reasons for the racial riots that occurred in 1964. On 21 July 1964, during a procession to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, a series of clashes between the Malay attendees and Chinese bystanders occurred. As news of the fights spread, communal violence began to ensure elsewhere in Singapore. The occurrence of such rioting is unthinkable today.
With a fast growing population, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) was set up to provide affordable public housing to Singaporeans. With more than 80% of the population living in HDB flats today, HDB housing has become incredibly important in providing an environment where people from diverse racial backgrounds can co-exist harmoniously. Therefore, ensuring a good mix of races and cultures was essential.
However, by the 1980s, it was becoming clear that racial enclaves were forming within the HDB estates. The Ethnic Integration Programme (EIP) was thus introduced in 1989. The EIP requires the ethnic makeup of each block of HDB flats to reflect the national ethnic distribution. This means that there is a quota for the number of people from each racial group who can live in one block of flats. For instance, if a block reaches its maximum quota for Chinese residents, a prospective Chinese buyer will be unable to buy an apartment from a Malay seller, as this would further dilute the minority population of that particular block.
While the EIP seems fair in theory, has it been successful?
Has the EIP merely reinforced racial segregation?
How has the EIP fared 30 years later? Although there is limited empirical data on the spatial distribution of ethnic groups, it has been observed that there are still disproportionately more of certain races concentrated in certain geographical areas. For example, areas such as Bedok and Tampines are anecdotally known by local Singaporeans to have higher concentrations of Malays. Central parts of Singapore like Bishan East and Marymount are “full” for the Chinese, whereas areas such Kampong Java are “full” for Indians.
The existing racial segregations have their own set of implications. According to the 2015 General Household Survey, ethnic group and socio-economic status have a correlation. Malays have a lower median monthly household income than other groups, and are also distinctly overrepresented as residents in 1- and 2-room flats. Conversely, Chinese are overrepresented amongst private property owners.
Looking at the locations of HDB blocks against the demographic makeup of the subzone and household incomes, a pattern emerges. Residential areas with a higher Chinese concentration tend to command higher resale prices for HDB flats, have high household incomes, consist of a lower housing density, and have a larger proportion of residents aged 65 years and older. These are all indicators of socioeconomic status.
Neighbourhoods with higher concentrations of minorities tend to have lower HDB resale prices. The demographic of an area could be partially explained by the proximity of these places to venues such as temples or mosques. However, when one considers the income disparity between races, the confluence of a market pricing mechanism and disparity in purchasing power amongst the races merely reinforces racial segregation.
Additionally, it is worthwhile to note that the government does not buy back flats that house owners cannot sell. This creates additional hurdles for minorities who can only sell to other minorities in order to maintain the quota.
Ensuring integration as a political imperative
Non-residents account for 1.6 million people in Singapore, almost 30% of the population. Among the residents, 15% of the country’s population are Permanent Residents (PRs). In response to growing dissent among locals over the influx of immigrants into Singapore, a new residential quota was imposed on HDB blocks for PRs. This was done to prevent immigrant enclaves, as there have been observations that PRs also tended to congregate in areas where there were more people of their own nationality. Not only does this further racial segregation, but also creates a divide between locals and foreigners.
Class divides add a further layer to race relations in Singapore. 20% of the population lives in private housing, the overwhelming majority of whom are Chinese. The Institute of Policy Studies’ Study on Social Capital in Singapore shows that there is a clear divide between the classes, with Singaporeans living in public housing having fewer than one friend living in private housing.
With rising levels of inequality, what are some ways we can rethink social inclusion in urban planning? Dr Leong Chan Hoong, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, offers his views. He explains that the current strategy of co-location assumes that by sharing amenities and infrastructure, geographic proximity can engender greater social mixing.
Though this may apply to middle income households, it does not seem to hold true for more disadvantaged families. Dr Leong states that perhaps an optimal degree of differentiation should be taken into account during urban planning. This would entail, for example, not clustering rental blocks in one location, akin to a neighbourhood ghetto, but also not to disperse them so thinly that the income disparity between rental and owner’s occupied unit is obvious. He says, “The experience of inclusion and well-being is often influenced by social comparisons – it is not what a person has but what others around them do.”
There have been periodical calls to remove the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) classification in favour of a more inclusive category. This is more relevant now than ever, given the increasing diversity of the Singaporean population. Dr Leong believes that although race should certainly not have any part to play in issues such as the teaching of mother tongue in schools, or the eligibility of electoral candidates, the classification may still serve some purpose.
As Dr Leong states, the CMIO framework is “not entirely irrelevant, for example, in reaching out to at-risk families, youth, or vulnerable communities – it works better with a race-based framework, as the social service agencies operated by the ethnic self-help groups understand the challenges and needs better.” Essentially, instead of being used as a classifier that divides the population, it should be utilised to better address the issues that certain specific groups may face.
As for whether there should be greater integration of immigrants into public housing in Singapore, Dr Leong states that many new immigrants have already resided in Singapore for a while before they apply for permanent residency, some of whom are former students in the city-state. One way of creating a more inclusive society would therefore be to encourage international students to stay in public housing instead of student hostels - which in their own way, function as enclaves - in order to learn more about Singapore culture.
What are your thoughts on the Ethnic Integration Programme in Singapore? Read related content on Singapore here:
If you’re interested in reading such content, subscribe here.