Post on 30-Sep-2015
description
Public Housing in Singapore:Residents Prole, Housing Satisfactionand Preferences
HDB Sample Household Survey 2013
Published by Housing & 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 Clara Wong Lee Hua Lim E-Farn Fiona Lee Yiling Esther Chua Jia Ping Sangeetha d/o Panearselvan Amy Wong Jin Ying Phay Huai Yu Nur Asykin Ramli Wendy Li Xin Yvonne Tan Ci En Choo Kit Hoong Advisor: Dr Chong Fook Loong Raymond Toh Chun Parng Research Advisory Panel: Professor Aline Wong Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser Dr Lai Ah Eng Dr Kang Soon Hock Associate Professor Pow Choon Piew Dr Kevin Tan Siah Yeow Assistant Professor Chang Jiat Hwee Published Dec 2014 All information is correct at the time of printing. 2014 Housing & Development Board. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means. Produced by HDB Research and Planning Group ISBN 978-981-09-3827-7 Printed by Oxford Graphic Printers Pte Ltd 11 Kaki Bukit Road 1 #02-06/07/08 Eunos Technolink Singapore 415939 Tel: 6748 3898 Fax: 6747 5668 www.oxfordgraphic.com.sg
PUBLIC HOUSING IN SINGAPORE: Residents Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences
HDB Sample Household Survey 2013
i
FOREWORD HDB homes have evolved over the years, from basic flats catering to simple, everyday needs, to homes that meet higher aspirational desires for quality living. Over the last 54 years, since its formation, HDB has made the transformation of public housing its key focus. In the process, the changes have impacted on the physical and social landscape of Singapore. More importantly, they have shaped the way residents live, work and play. In our endeavour to positively impact the lives of our residents, we carry out surveys to find out what HDB residents like, or do not like, so that we can make changes and improvements, and plan our future designs and policies around them. The large-scale Sample Household Surveys (SHS) conducted every five years are an important platform for HDB to gather residents views and feedback. HDB has completed ten SHSs, with the first survey carried out in 1968, and the latest in 2013. This latest survey covered 7,800 households living in all 23 HDB towns and three estates. High-rise, high-density living in Singapore is liveable and a way of life. Findings from SHS 2013 survey show that residents are satisfied with their flat and the convenient access to estate facilities within their neighbourhood. Findings also show that family ties remained strong with frequent visits and strong familial support between parents and married children. Residents feel a greater sense of belonging and are proud to be part of their communities. These are just some of the interesting insights from the survey. 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. We deeply appreciate the cooperation, time and feedback given by residents. Their responses, observations and comments will go a long way in helping HDB provide better homes and towns for all. Dr. Cheong Koon Hean Chief Executive Officer Housing & Development Board
ii
iii
Contents Page FOREWORD i
CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF CHARTS ix
KEY INDICATORS xii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS xix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
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
2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident Population 13
2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population 25
2.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population 35
2.4 Summary of Findings 50
Chapter 3 Profile of HDB Households
3.1 Households Living in HDB Towns/Estates 53
3.2 Household Compostition 57
3.3 Economic Characteristics of Households 67
3.4 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households 71
3.5 Summary of Findings 76
PART 1 CONCLUSION 79
iv
Contents Page
PART 2 HOUSING SATISFACTION AND PREFERENCES 83
Chapter 4 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment
4.1 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood 89
4.2 Likes and Dislikes about HDB Living Environment 92
4.3 Perception of Lift Reliability 94
4.4 Value for Money and Sense of Pride towards Flat 95
4.5 Summary of Findings 102
Chapter 5 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities
5.1 Satisfaction with Estate Facilities 105
5.2 Facilities at Mid-Level Deck 110
5.3 Usage of Estate Facilities 112
5.4 Places in Estate where Residents Usually Spent their Time 119
5.5 Summary of Findings 121
Chapter 6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations
6.1 Past Residential Mobility 125
6.2 Intention to Move within Next Five Years 131
6.3 Housing Aspirations 135
6.4 Ageing-in-Place 138
6.5 Summary of Findings 139
PART 2 CONCLUSION 143
v
List of Tables Page
Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population .......................... 14 with Head of Household by Sex
Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Year ..................................... 15
Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type and Year ................................ 15
Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year ........................ 16
Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Year ............................ 17
Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Sex .............................. 18
Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Ethnic Group ....... 18
Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Flat Type ................. 19
Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Town/Estate ......... 20
Table 2.10 Age Dependency Ratio of HDB Resident Population by Year .... 21
Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year ............................................. 22
Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year ........................ 22
Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Ethnic Group and Year ... 23
Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type, Ethnic Group .................... 23 and Year
Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population by Marital Status and Year ..................... 24
Table 2.16 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above ...................... 25 by Marital Status and Age Group
Table 2.17 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above ...................... 25 by Marital Status and Sex
Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years ....................... 30 and Above by Education Level and Year
Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years ....................... 31 and Above by Education Level and Sex
Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years ....................... 31 and Above by Education Level and Age Group
Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years ....................... 32 and Above by Occupation and Year
Table 2.22 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years ....................... 33 and Above by Occupation and Age Group
Table 2.23 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years ....................... 34 by Occupation, Sex and Year
Table 2.24 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years ....................... 35 and Above by Place of Work and Year
Table 2.25 Role and Relationship with Head of Household ................................... 37 of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population
Table 2.26 Average and Median Age of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly ... 38 Resident Population by Year
vi
List of Tables Page
Table 2.27 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 38 by Age Group and Sex
Table 2.28 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 39 by Town/Estate and Year
Table 2.29 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 41 by Tenure and Year
Table 2.30 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 41 by Flat Type and Year
Table 2.31 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Sex .... 42
Table 2.32 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 43 by Ethnic Group and Year
Table 2.33 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 43 by Marital Status, Sex and Year
Table 2.34 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 44 by Ambulant Status and Year
Table 2.35 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 45 by Economic Status and Year
Table 2.36 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 46 by Economic Status, Sex and Year
Table 2.37 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident ....................... 47 by Education Level
Table 2.38 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident ........................ 49 Population by Occupation and Year
Table 2.39 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident ........................ 49 Population by Place of Work and Year
Table 3.1 HDB Resident Population and Households by Year .......................... 53
Table 3.2 HDB Households by Flat Type, Tenure and Year ................................ 54
Table 3.3 HDB Households by Tenure, Ethnic Group of ........................................ 55 Head of Household and Year
Table 3.4 HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of ................................... 55 Head of Household and Year
Table 3.5 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type ................................. 57
Table 3.6 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year ................... 58
Table 3.7 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Tenure ..................... 59 and Year
Table 3.8 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type ............... 60 and Year
Table 3.9 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, ........................................ 60 Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year
Table 3.10 HDB Households by Number of Generations and Year .................. 61
vii
List of Tables Page
Table 3.11 HDB Households by Number of Generations, ........................................ 63 Flat Type and Year
Table 3.12 HDB Households by Number of Generations, ........................................ 63 Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year
Table 3.13 HDB Households by Household Size, Flat Type and Year ............ 65
Table 3.14 HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of ................... 65 Head of Household and Year
Table 3.15 HDB Households by Household Size, Type of ....................................... 66 Family Nucleus and Year
Table 3.16 Average and Median HDB Household Size .............................................. 67 by Town/Estate and Year
Table 3.17 HDB Households by Number of Income Earners, ............................... 70 Flat Type and Year
Table 3.18 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households ........................................... 73 by Tenure and Year
Table 3.19 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households ........................................... 73 by Flat Type and Year
Table 3.20 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households ........................................... 74 by Town/Estate and Year
Table 3.21 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households ........................................... 75 by Type of Family Nucleus and Year
Table 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year ............................................. 90
Table 4.2 Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment ......................... 93
Table 4.3 Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment .................... 94
Table 4.4 Reasons for Buying Current HDB Flat (Sold Flats) ............................ 99
Table 4.5 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important ................................ 100 when Defining a Home
Table 4.6 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important ................................ 100 Defining a Home by Household Life-Cycle Stage
Table 4.7 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important ................................ 101 when Defining a Home by Marital Status
Table 4.8 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important ................................ 101 when Defining a Home by Length of Residence
Table 5.1 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year ........................... 106
Table 5.2 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Flat Type ................. 108
Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities ................................................ 109 by Household Life-Cycle Stage
Table 5.4 Reasons for Liking/Not Liking the Idea of Having Facilities ........... 110 at Mid-Level Deck
Table 5.5 Suggestions for Facilities at Mid-Level Deck ........................................... 111
viii
List of Tables Page
Table 5.6 Preference for Facilities at Mid-Level Deck within the Block ....... 112 by Attributes
Table 5.7 Usage Level of Estate Facilities .......................................................................... 113
Table 5.8 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at ............... 115 Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Flat Type
Table 5.9 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at ............... 117 Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life-Cycle Stage
Table 5.10 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at ............... 119 Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Year
Table 5.11 Places where Residents Usually Spent their Time in Estate ...... 120
Table 6.1 First Housing Type Lived in After Getting Married ............................... 126
Table 6.2 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat by Type of Move ..................... 129
Table 6.3 Types of Move by Age Group of Residents at Point of Move ..... 130
Table 6.4 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Present Flat Type ............ 134
Table 6.5 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Age Group ............................. 135
Table 6.6 Housing Type Residents Content With by Age Group ..................... 138
Table 6.7 Place to Live in when Old by Age Group of .............................................. 139 Head of Household
ix
List of Charts Page
Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year ........................ 13
Chart 2.2 Economic Status of HDB Resident Population ....................................... 26
Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of .................................................................. 27 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year
Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate ............................. 28 of HDB Resident Population by Year
Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population ............... 29 Aged 15 Years and Above by Sex and Year
Chart 2.6 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year .. 36
Chart 3.1 HDB Households by Tenure and Year .......................................................... 54
Chart 3.2 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year .............................................. 56
Chart 3.3 Average HDB Household Size by Year ......................................................... 64
Chart 3.4 HDB Households by Number of Income Earners and Year .......... 68
Chart 3.5 Ownership of Cars of HDB Households by Year .................................... 71
Chart 3.6 Ownership of Cars of HDB Households by Town/Estate ............... 71 and Year
Chart 3.7 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year ...................... 72
Chart 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Year ............................................................................... 90
Chart 4.2 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year ................................................... 91
Chart 4.3 Perception of Lift Reliability by Year ............................................................... 95
Chart 4.4 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Tenure and Year ............................... 96
Chart 4.5 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year .......................... 96
Chart 4.6 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Age of Block ........................................ 97
Chart 4.7 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year .................... 98
Chart 4.8 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year ............... 98
Chart 4.9 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Length of Residence .......... 99
Chart 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Estate Facilities by Year ................................ 105
Chart 6.1 Average Length of Residence in Previous Housing Unit ............... 127 by Year
Chart 6.2 Types of Move by Year .............................................................................................. 128
Chart 6.3 Extent of Geographical Move of HDB Households ............................. 130 by Present Town/Estate
Chart 6.4 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Year ............................... 131
Chart 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Age Group ................ 132
Chart 6.6 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Flat Type .................... 132
Chart 6.7 Type of Potential Move by Year .......................................................................... 132
x
List of Charts Page
Chart 6.8 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year ............................................ 133
Chart 6.9 Housing Aspirations by Year ................................................................................. 136
Chart 6.10 Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year ............................................. 136
Chart 6.11 Housing Type Content With by Year ................................................................ 137
Key Indicators
xii
Key Indicators of HDB Population by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013)
Total Chinese Malay Indian Others
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013
Demographic Characteristics Resident Population (000) (Excluding subtenants) (%)
2,923 100.0
3,058 100.0
2,158 73.8
2,248 73.5
478 16.3
476 15.6
240 8.2
272 8.9
47 1.6
62 2.0
Sex (%) Male Female
49.4 50.6
48.8 51.2
49.7 50.3
49.1 50.9
48.8 51.2
48.0 52.0
49.1 50.9
49.2 50.8
47.8 52.2
42.2 57.8
Average Age (Years) Median Age (Years) Persons Aged Below 15 Years (%) Persons Aged 1564 Years (%) Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%)
Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64
Old-Age Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio
36.9 37 17.7 72.6 9.8
13.5 24.4
37.9 39 16.7 72.3 11.0
15.2 23.1
38.4 39 15.8 73.2 11.0
15.0 21.6
39.5 40 15.1 72.3 12.6
17.4 20.9
32.4 30 23.7 70.2 6.1
8.7 33.8
33.7 31 19.9 73.1 7.0 9.6 27.2
33.7 34 22.3 71.2
6.5
9.1 31.3
33.2 34 23.2 70.9
5.9
8.3 32.7
34.2 35 21.1 72.2 6.7
9.3 29.2
32.5 34 23.0 72.8 4.2
5.8 31.6
Flat Type (%) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive
1.2 2.2 19.6 41.0 26.7 9.3
1.6 2.8 19.3 41.1 26.6 8.6
1.1 1.9 19.7 40.6 27.4 9.4
1.2 1.9 19.3 41.2 27.6 8.8
1.4 3.5
17.8 44.0 24.8
8.6
2.9 6.3
19.8 41.6 22.0
7.4
1.6 3.0
21.0 39.8 24.4 10.3
2.2 3.7
19.1 39.6 25.9
9.5
1.4 1.7
21.7 39.2 27.0
9.0
2.6 2.1
17.4 39.9 28.0 10.0
Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)
Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (000)
2,403
2,543
1,815
1,907
364
380
187
209
37
48
Sex (%) Male Female
49.0 51.0
48.4 51.6
49.2 50.8
48.7 51.3
48.1 51.9
47.8 52.2
48.8 51.2
48.7 51.3
46.4 53.6
41.4 58.6
Economically Active (000)
Employed Unemployed
1,539
1,480 59
1,649
1,583 66
1,183
1,141 42
1,246
1,202 44
214
204 10
236
222 14
118
112 6
133
126 7
24
23 1
33
32 1
Labour Force Participation Rate (%) (LFPR)
Male LFPR Female LFPR
64.0 75.4 53.1
64.9 74.6 55.8
65.2 75.3 55.4
65.5 73.7 57.8
58.8 75.0 43.8
62.4 76.0 50.0
63.2 77.1 49.9
64.0 80.7 48.0
63.8 78.4 51.2
69.5 79.5 62.5
xiii
Key Indicators of HDB Population by Flat Type (2008 & 2013)
Total 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013
Demographic Characteristics
Resident Population (000) (Excluding subtenants) (%)
2,923 100.0
3,058100.0
351.2
481.6
652.2
852.8
572
19.6
592
19.31,199
41.0 1,256
41.1
780
26.7 813
26.62739.3
2648.6
Sex (%) Male Female
49.4 50.6
48.851.2
54.046.0
52.447.6
48.651.4
47.752.3
48.251.8
47.952.1
49.7 50.3
48.9 51.1
50.4 49.6
48.8 51.2
47.952.1
49.8 50.2
Average Age (Years) Median Age (Years) Persons Aged Below 15 years (%) Persons Aged 1564 Years (%) Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%)
Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64
Old-Age Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio
36.9 37
17.7 72.6
9.8
13.5 24.4
37.9 39
16.772.311.0
15.223.1
55.9 58
4.8
56.638.6
68.28.5
49.9 55
9.6
58.631.8
54.316.4
45.3 48
12.165.023.0
35.418.6
40.5 44
18.562.219.3
31.029.7
42.0 44
12.8 71.6
15.6
21.817.9
42.7 45
12.5 70.3
17.2
24.517.8
36.1 36
17.6 74.4
8.1
10.9 23.7
37.2 37
16.4 74.1
9.5
12.8 22.1
34.3 35
20.9 71.7 7.4
10.3 29.1
35.3 36 19.9 72.3 7.8
10.8 27.5
33.2 34 22.5 72.5 5.0
6.9 31.0
35.236
19.073.6
7.4
10.125.8
Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above) Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (000)
2,403 2,543 33 43 57
69
498
518
988
1,050
615
650 211
213
Sex (%) Male Female
49.0 51.0
48.451.6
53.946.1
53.646.4
48.351.7
46.953.1
47.952.1
47.552.5
49.7 50.3
48.6 51.4
49.1 50.9
48.651.4
47.352.7
49.051.0
Economically Active (000)
Employed Unemployed
1,539
1,480 59
1,649
1,58366
18
171
23
212
32
293
41
374
315
30015
332
31814
634
610 24
697
669 28
402
391 12
423
41112
137
1334
133
1285
Labour Force Participation Rate (%) (LFPR)
Male LFPR Female LFPR
64.0 75.4 53.1
64.9 74.655.8
55.7 66.942.6
52.8 63.041.1
55.9 69.543.3
59.7 68.346.3
63.2 75.651.8
64.2 74.055.4
64.2
75.8 52.7
66.6
76.5 57.2
65.4 75.6 55.6
65.3 75.355.9
64.9 75.855.1
62.6 70.954.5
xiv
Key Indicators of HDB Households by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013)
Total Chinese Malay Indian Others
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013
Demographic Characteristics
Total Number of Households 866,026 908,499 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885
Type of Family Nucleus (%)
Nuclear Family Extended Nuclear Family Multi-Nuclear Family Non-Nuclear Family
79.4 7.4 4.1 9.2
76.3 8.3 6.2 9.2
79.9 7.0 3.4 9.8
76.6 7.9 5.4
10.1
75.9 9.4 8.1 6.6
72.5 10.6 11.2 5.7
79.9 8.3 3.8 7.9
79.7 8.3 6.1 5.9
78.1 8.7 3.3 9.9
80.8 7.5 6.4 5.3
Household Size (%)
1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 or More Persons
Average Household Size (Persons) Median Household Size (Persons)
8.0 22.0 22.1 27.2 13.7 7.0
3.4 3
8.4 20.4 23.6 26.7 13.5 7.4
3.4 3
8.5 23.8 22.9 28.1 12.1 4.7
3.3 3
9.3 22.1 24.7 26.9 12.1 4.9
3.3 3
5.9 13.5 17.6 20.6 22.2 20.2
4.1 4
5.3 12.0 18.4 20.4 21.7 22.2
4.2 4
6.8 18.8 22.5 29.5 14.8 7.7
3.5 4
5.0 18.4 21.8 33.4 13.6 7.8
3.6 4
7.9 18.9 25.1 26.3 13.8 8.1
3.4 3
4.8 16.1 25.2 30.7 13.6 9.6
3.7 4
Flat Type (%) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive
2.1 3.3
24.7 38.3 23.9 7.7
2.7 3.8
23.8 39.0 23.6 7.1
2.0 2.9
25.0 37.9 24.5 7.7
2.3 3.0
24.2 39.1 24.2 7.2
2.7 5.1
23.5 41.1 21.0 6.7
5.1 7.8
22.5 38.8 19.4 6.4
2.8 3.9
24.0 38.2 22.5 8.7
3.5 4.5
22.6 38.3 23.2 7.9
2.1 4.3
21.7 36.5 26.1 9.3
2.5 3.5
19.9 38.7 28.0 7.4
Economic Characteristics
Number of Income Earners (%) None 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 or More Persons
7.7 35.4 40.9 11.3 4.8
8.5 32.2 41.2 12.1 6.0
8.0 34.1 42.1 11.0 4.7
9.4 31.3 41.8 11.9 5.6
6.1 37.8 35.7 14.4 6.0
5.7 29.3 38.4 16.4 10.2
7.2 42.8 38.1 8.5 3.4
5.1 43.9 37.5 9.2 4.3
7.2 39.1 41.7 9.8 2.2
6.2 27.0 54.9 9.0 2.9
Average No. of Income Earners (Persons) 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8
xv
Key Indicators of HDB Households by Flat Type (2008 & 2013)
Total 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013
Demographic Characteristics
Total Number of Households
866,026
908,499
18,562
24,573
28,614
34,204
213,857
216,163
331,739
354,526
206,799
214,074
66,455
64,959
Type of Family Nucleus (%)
Nuclear Family Extended Nuclear Family Multi-Nuclear Family Non-Nuclear Family
79.4 7.4 4.1 9.2
76.3 8.3 6.2 9.2
44.8 2.4 0.7
52.1
51.5 3.8 1.9
42.8
69.2 2.4 1.0
27.5
69.4 3.2 1.7
25.7
72.7 5.0 2.1
20.3
69.9 6.0 4.0
20.1
83.1 7.4 5.4 4.1
79.5 9.5 6.7 4.3
83.6 9.5 4.7 2.2
80.8 9.9 7.0 2.3
83.6 11.5 4.1 0.9
79.5 7.8
11.6 1.1
Household Size (%)
1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 or more Persons
8.0 22.0 22.1 27.2 13.7 7.0
8.4 20.4 23.6 26.7 13.5 7.4
33.0 53.0 8.8 3.6 1.1 0.5
29.2 51.1 13.4 3.7 2.1 0.5
22.6 47.2 16.6 6.6 5.0 2.0
23.7 32.5 23.6 11.3 4.5 4.4
19.3 29.5 24.3 17.8 6.8 2.3
19.1 27.8 23.6 18.8 6.9 3.8
3.4 18.3 24.3 31.4 14.1 8.5
3.9 18.3 25.4 29.2 14.9 8.3
1.7 17.6 20.0 33.2 18.2 9.4
2.3 13.8 23.7 32.9 18.0 9.3
0.6 10.8 17.4 33.1 27.1 11.0
1.1 10.6 17.9 36.0 21.8 12.6
Average Household Size (Persons) Median Household Size (Persons)
3.4 3
3.4 3
1.9 2
2.0 2
2.3 2
2.6 2
2.7 3
2.8 3
3.7 4
3.6 4
3.8 4
3.9 4
4.1 4
4.1 4
Economic Characteristics
Number of Income Earners (%)
None 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 or more Persons
7.7 35.4 40.9 11.3 4.8
8.5 32.2 41.2 12.1 6.0
26.5 54.5 18.8 0.3 0.0
30.8 54.9 13.1 1.2 0.0
26.5 48.5 21.3 3.0 0.8
23.1 48.5 23.8 3.8 0.8
13.3 45.1 30.9 8.0 2.7
13.9 41.0 32.4 8.5 4.2
5.2 33.8 40.9 14.3 5.9
5.8 28.5 44.5 13.9 7.3
3.6 27.8 51.9 10.6 6.1
4.1 26.2 49.2 13.9 6.6
1.4 24.6 53.9 15.6 4.6
3.1 26.5 47.0 15.6 7.8
Average No. of Income Earners (Persons) 1.7 1.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0
Glossary of
Terms and Definitions
xix
Glossary of Terms and Definitions
HDB Resident Population
Resident population refers to Singapore citizens and Singapore permanent residents (SPRs) residing in HDB flats, excluding subtenants.
Elderly resident population refers to Singapore citizens and SPRs who are aged 65 years and above.
Future elderly resident population refers to Singapore citizens and SPRs who are aged between 55 and 64 years.
Age Dependency Ratio
(i) Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15 to 64 Years
The old-age dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of the elderly resident population aged 65 years and above to that of the resident
population aged between 15 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:
Years64to15AgedPopulationResidentAboveandYears65AgedPopulationResidentRatioDependencyAgeOld
The child dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of non-working age resident population aged below 15 years to that of the resident
population aged between 15 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:
Years64to15AgedPopulationResidentYears15BelowAgedPopulationResidentRatioDependencyChild
The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows:
Years64to15AgedPopulationResidentYears15BelowAgedAboveandYears65AgedPopulationResident
RatioDependencyChildRatioDependencyAgeOldRatioDependencyTotal
xx
(ii) Based on Per 100 Population Aged 20 to 64 Years
The old-age dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of the elderly resident population aged 65 years and above to that of the resident
population aged between 20 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:
Years64to20AgedPopulationResidentAboveandYears65AgedPopulationResidentRatioDependencyAgeOld
The child dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of non-working age resident population aged below 20 years to that of the resident
population aged between 20 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows:
Years64to20AgedPopulationResidentYears20BelowAgedPopulationResidentRatioDependencyChild
The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows:
Years64to20AgedPopulationResidentYears20BelowAgedAboveandYears65AgedPopulationResident
RatioDependencyChildRatioDependencyAgeOldRatioDependencyTotal
Economic Status
Labour force participation refers to persons who are economically active and aged 15 years and over, either employed or unemployed during the survey
period.
Unemployed persons refer to persons aged 15 years and over who are currently not working but were actively looking 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.
xxi
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. Subtenants or maids dwelling in the same housing unit as the lessee(s) or
registered tenant(s) do not constitute part of the household. This definition is
often known as the household-dwelling unit concept.
An elderly household refers to a household in which the head (i.e. main lessee or registered tenant) is aged 65 years and above.
A future elderly household refers to a household in which the head (i.e. main lessee or registered tenant) is aged between 55 and 64 years.
Type of Family Nucleus
Family-based households refer to nuclear family, extended nuclear family and multi-nuclear family.
Nuclear family refers to either: (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) single-person households (a person living alone who could be single,
widowed or divorced); or
(ii) unrelated or distantly related persons staying together.
xxii
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 generations refers to households where family members are from three different generations, such as grandparents, parents and children all living
together.
Note: Non-family based households are excluded.
Resident or Household Life-Cycle Stage
A family with young children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged 12 years and below.
A family with teenaged children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged between 13 and 20 years.
A family with unmarried grown-up children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged 21 years and above.
An elderly couple living alone refers to a married couple with at least one spouse aged 65 years and above.
A non-family household refers to either: (i) a single-person household (a person living alone who could be single,
widowed or divorced); or
(ii) unrelated, siblings or distantly related persons living together.
xxiii
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 the 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
9. Tampines
Estates : 10. Pasir Ris 1. Marine Parade 11. Woodlands
2. Central Area* 12. Yishun
Estate :
1. Bukit Timah
* Covering areas such as Tanjong Pagar Plaza, Cantoment 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 interval of five years. SHS 2013 is the 10th 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 emphasis of public housing.
From assessing the impact of relocation of residents to public housing,
adaptation to high-rise, high-density living, community formation, to the present
emphasis on social diversity and community cohesion, the research focus of the
SHS reflects the evolving role of HDB and its mission.
The HDB Research Advisory Panel, chaired by Professor Aline Wong,
comprising academics in sociology, geography and architectural, was formed in
2008 and their main role was to provide advice on salient research projects and
socio-economic studies relevant to HDB. The panel was actively involved in SHS
2013, lending their expertise to HDB in the research scope, as well as the
analysis of survey findings to further enhance the utility.
The survey findings serve as important inputs for HDBs policy reviews and help
identify aspects of the HDB environment to improve. Starting from
conceptualisation of the research scope to the analysis of survey findings, HDB
Groups were also consulted so that the survey could cater more specifically to
their operational needs.
4
1.2 Objectives
The two key objectives of the SHS are to:
a) Obtain demographic and socio-economic profile of residents and identify
changing needs and expectations. These information are useful in the
assessment of HDBs operations and policies; and
b) 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.
1.3 Sampling Design
A total of 7,755 households were successfully interviewed, yielding an overall
sampling error of 1.1% at 95% confidence level. A set of weights was used to
generalise the survey data to the population level, so that the findings reported
are representative of all HDB households.
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 August
2013.
A crucial requirement for collecting reliable primary data was to maintain high
quality fieldwork control. This was achieved by adhering to the procedures of the
Survey Fieldwork Management Quality System that has been developed in
accordance with the requirements of SS ISO 9001: 2008.
5
1.4 Outline of Monograph
This monograph will present two parts of the survey:
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 socio-economic 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 tab 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 it.
The other monograph, Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB
Communities, explores the extent of community bonding and family ties of HDB
residents to give an indication on how active and cohesive the HDB community is.
It also examines the well-being of elderly residents, especially in the face of
ageing population in Singapore.
Part 1
Profile of HDB Population and Households
9
Part 1 Profile of HDB Population and Households
Introduction
Socio-economic factors are widely recognised as influencers in shaping the many
aspects of housing expectation and choice. Therefore, changes in the profile of
the population and households would have important implications for housing
policies and development plans in terms of design and provision. A detailed
understanding of the profile of the HDB population and households would enable
HDB to better cater to the changing needs and expectations of residents. The
data also set the context for in-depth insights to specific areas of interest such as
community bonding and housing satisfaction, as well as specific groups like
families and the elderly.
Objectives
The objectives of Part 1 are as follows:
a) To provide updates on trends of socio-demographic 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 SHS.
Framework
The profiles of HDB residents are examined at two broad levels:
a) At the population level (Chapter 2), demographic profile and economic
characteristics of the HDB resident population are examined. Analysis on
demographic profile comprises population size and growth rate; role and
10
relationship with head of households; types of dwelling in terms of tenure
and flat type; geographical distribution by town/estate; age structure and
dependency ratio; ethnic composition, as well as marital status. Analysis
on economic well-being of the resident population includes their economic
status, labour force participation rate and key economic characteristics of
the employed population.
b) At the household level (Chapter 3), analysis of demographic profile includes
property status, geographical distribution by town/estate, flat type and
ethnic group of head of household. On household structures, indicators
such as types of family nucleus, family composition, number of generations
and household size are tracked. Under economic characteristics, the
number of income earners and car ownership rate are examined.
In addition to the analysis on HDB population and households at the broad level,
further analysis on the elderly and the future elderly are included. Detailed
statistics on these groups would provide a more comprehensive picture of the
current situation and a better understanding of the ageing population living in
HDB flats.
Framework for Profile of HDB Population and Households
2 Profile of
HDB Population
13
2,230 2,412
2,703 2,845 2,923 3,058 5.8
1.3 2.3
1.0 0.5
0.9
0
2
4
6
8
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Ann
ualis
ed G
row
th R
ate
(%)
Num
ber (
'000
)
ResidentPopulation(Persons)
AnnualisedGrowth Rate
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 (SPRs) 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 (excluding subtenants) stood at 3.06 million, registering
an annualised growth rate of 0.9% from 2008 to 2013, slightly faster than the
slowest rate of 0.5% recorded in the preceding period from 2003 to 2008 (Chart
2.1).
Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year
14
Role and relationship with head of household
Overall, about three in ten of the resident population (29.5%) were heads of
households, who were either lessees or registered tenants (Table 2.1). Some
22.7% of the resident population were co-lessees and the remaining 47.8% were
occupiers. The majority of the co-lessees comprised spouse, while
children/children-in-law made up the majority of the occupiers.
Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population with Head of Household by Sex
Role & Relationship with Head of Household Male Female All
Head of Household Lessee Registered Tenant
Co-lessee Spouse Children/Children-in-law Parents/Parents-in-law Sibling/Sibling-in-law
Occupier Spouse Children/Children-in-law Parents/Parents-in-law Sibling/Sibling-in-law Other relative (e.g. uncle/aunt, grandparents, cousin, niece/nephew) Unrelated (including friend)
45.3 43.5 1.8
6.5 3.7 2.0 0.4 0.4
48.2 1.1 41.1 2.0 1.5 2.3 0.2
14.5 13.1 1.4
38.1 34.8 1.3 1.2 0.8
47.4 3.1 35.9 4.6 1.4 2.3 0.1
29.5 27.9 1.6
22.7 19.6 1.7 0.8 0.6
47.8 2.1 38.5 3.4 1.4 2.2 0.2
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 1,491,529 1,565,527 3,057,664
* Excluding non-response cases
Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type
The majority of the resident population (96.3%) lived in sold flats, with 41.1%
residing in 4-room flats, followed by 26.6% in 5-room flats and another 19.3% in
3-room flats (Table 2.2 and 2.3). With the increase in the supply of rental and
smaller flat types in recent years, there was a slight increase in the proportion of
residents living in rental flats or 1- and 2-room flats over the last five years.
15
Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Year
Tenure 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Sold Rental
84.5 15.5
93.3 6.7
95.2 4.8
97.1 2.9
97.0 3.0
96.3 3.7
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664
Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type and Year
Flat Type 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
1-Room* 2-Room* 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive HUDC
6.3 7.0
45.4 29.0 9.9 1.6 0.8
2.4 4.2
39.0 36.1 13.3 4.2 0.8
1.8 3.3
27.8 39.0 20.4 7.7 -
1.1 2.2
21.5 41.3 25.2 8.7 -
1.2 2.2
19.6 41.0 26.7 9.3 -
1.6 2.8
19.3 41.1 26.6 8.6 -
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664
* Including Studio Apartments
Geographical distribution
Jurong West, Tampines and Woodlands remained as the three most populous
towns, housing more than 200,000 persons in each town (Table 2.4). These
three towns also contained the largest number of HDB flats ranging from about
59,000 to 68,000 occupied dwelling units (see Chart 3.2 in Chapter 3).
Most towns/estates experienced an increase in population over the last five years,
except Hougang, Jurong East, Bishan, Bukit Timah, Geylang and Clementi.
Punggol and Sengkang experienced the highest population growth, mainly due to
more intensive developments in these two young towns in recent years.
16
Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year
HDB Town/Estate 2003 2008 2013
Persons % Persons % Persons %
Young Towns
Sengkang 123,726 4.3 154,478 5.3 172,748 5.7
Punggol 38,290 1.3 57,767 2.0 94,829 3.1
Sembawang 57,033 2.0 63,125 2.2 68,055 2.2
Middle-Aged Towns/Estate
Jurong West 216,722 7.6 233,920 8.0 242,395 7.9
Tampines 228,722 8.0 227,042 7.8 237,281 7.8
Woodlands 210,723 7.4 225,274 7.7 229,827 7.5
Yishun 158,096 5.5 161,311 5.5 169,351 5.6
Hougang 172,388 6.1 168,601 5.8 165,247 5.4
Choa Chu Kang 143,626 5.0 149,978 5.1 154,915 5.1
Bukit Panjang 106,705 3.8 106,661 3.6 115,993 3.8
Bukit Batok 108,209 3.8 99,491 3.4 108,197 3.5
Pasir Ris 107,506 3.8 105,737 3.6 108,328 3.5
Jurong East 79,217 2.8 76,440 2.6 75,371 2.5
Serangoon 73,853 2.6 71,149 2.4 72,280 2.4
Bishan 66,311 2.3 64,060 2.2 62,456 2.0
Bukit Timah* 8,794 0.3 8,402 0.3 7,830 0.3
Mature Towns/Estates
Bedok 188,909 6.6 183,302 6.3 187,313 6.1
Bukit Merah 123,741 4.3 136,297 4.7 144,714 4.7
Ang Mo Kio 146,680 5.2 144,313 4.9 144,329 4.7
Kallang/Whampoa 94,059 3.3 97,211 3.3 103,767 3.4
Toa Payoh 102,054 3.6 101,107 3.5 102,544 3.4
Geylang 93,545 3.3 90,808 3.1 87,967 2.9
Queenstown 75,427 2.7 78,826 2.7 80,633 2.6
Clementi 71,047 2.5 68,508 2.3 65,397 2.1
Central Area* 27,622 1.0 28,607 1.0 33,396 1.1
Marine Parade* 21,681 0.8 20,809 0.7 22,501 0.7
Total 2,844,686 100.0 2,923,224 100.0 3,057,664 100.0
* Denotes estate
Age structure and age dependency ratio
The median age of the resident population continued to rise, from 30 years in
1993 to 39 years in 2013 (Table 2.5), reflecting an ageing population, increasing
longevity and declining fertility rate.
The proportion of elderly and future elderly population had doubled over the last
two decades. Elderly persons accounted for over one in ten (11.0%) of the
resident population for the first time while the future elderly constituted 13.3%.
17
Both proportions were comparable to the national level1 at 10.5% and 13.1%,
respectively. Correspondingly, the share of the younger cohort of those aged
below 15 years continued to decline, from 24.8% in 1987 to 16.7% in 2013.
Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Year
Age Group (Years) 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Below 5 5 - 9 10 - 14
7.3 8.3 9.2
8.3 7.9 8.0
6.6 8.4 7.8
6.1 7.5 8.0
4.6 6.2 6.9
5.1 5.3 6.3
15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54
9.2 10.5 9.9
10.1 9.0 5.2 5.4 4.3
7.5 8.0 8.9
10.0 10.0 8.4 5.8 4.8
7.1 6.5 7.4 8.7
10.0 9.8 7.6 5.5
7.3 6.1 6.7 8.4 8.7 9.3 8.7 6.8
7.7 6.6 6.6 7.0 7.7 8.3 8.5 8.6
7.2 6.9 6.5 7.0 7.3 7.9 8.4 7.8
55 - 59 60 - 64
3.7 2.6
3.5 3.2
4.0 3.4
4.9 3.8
6.8 4.8
7.2 6.1
65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85 & Above
5.4
5.7
7.2
2.9 2.1 1.3 0.7 0.6
3.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 0.8
4.2 3.1 1.8 1.1 0.8
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,054,854
Average Age (Years) 30.0 30.9 32.9 34.4 36.9 37.9
Median Age (Years) 27 30 33 34 37 39
* Excluding non-response cases
The median age of the female resident population was slightly higher at 39 years,
compared with their male counterparts at 38 years (Table 2.6). This reflected the
longer life expectancy of females. The proportion of elderly and future elderly
population among females was slightly higher at 11.8% and 13.5%, compared
with males at 10.1% and 13.1%, respectively.
1 Singapore Department of Statistics, Population Trends 2013
7.6 9.8 11.0
8.7 11.6 13.3 6.3 6.7 7.4
21.6 17.7 16.7 24.8 24.2 22.8
18
Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Sex
Age Group (Years) Male Female All
Below 15 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above
17.4 15.1 13.2 14.8 16.3 13.1 10.1
16.1 13.2 13.7 15.6 16.1 13.5 11.8
16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 1,490,364 1,564,456 3,054,854
Average Age (Years) 37.2 38.5 37.9
Median Age (Years) 38 39 39
* Excluding non-response cases
Further analysis by ethnic group showed that the resident Chinese population
was much older with a median age of 40 years (Table 2.7). Some 12.6% and
14.5% of the resident Chinese population were elderly and future elderly
residents, respectively. The resident Malay population, on the other hand, was
the youngest with 40.7% aged below 25 years, and a corresponding lower
median age of 31 years.
Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Ethnic Group
Age Group (Years) Chinese Malay Indian Others All
Below 15 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above
15.1 12.8 13.3 15.5 16.2 14.5 12.6
19.9 20.8 13.6 11.2 16.3 11.1 7.0
23.2 14.7 13.8 17.4 15.7 9.3 5.9
23.0 12.0 15.0 24.7 15.3 5.8 4.2
16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 2,246,619 474,602 271,405 62,228 3,054,854
Average Age (Years) 39.5 33.7 33.2 32.5 37.9
Median Age (Years) 40 31 34 34 39
* Excluding non-response cases
19
Proportionately, there were more elderly residents living in smaller flat types. The
highest proportion of elderly residents was living in 1-room flats at 31.8%,
followed by 2- and 3-room flats at 19.3% and 17.2%, respectively, compared with
the overall population at 11.0% (Table 2.8). Together with 18.7% of future elderly
residents, half of the residents living in 1-room flats (50.5%) were aged 55 years
and above.
Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Flat Type
Age Group (Years) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All
Below 15 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above
9.6 10.5 5.4 9.6 14.4 18.7 31.8
18.5 14.7 9.2 8.2 15.1 15.0 19.3
12.5 10.7 12.8 14.0 17.1 15.7 17.2
16.4 14.5 15.4 15.2 15.9 13.1 9.5
19.9 14.9 12.8 17.6 15.6 11.5 7.8
19.0 18.6 10.8 13.8 17.2 13.2 7.4
16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 47,925 85,067 591,524 1,254,922 811,859 263,557 3,054,854
Average Age (Years) 49.9 40.5 42.7 37.2 35.3 35.2 37.9
Median Age (Years) 55 44 45 37 36 36 39
* Excluding non-response cases
The young towns, Punggol, Sengkang and Sembawang, housed higher
proportions of young families and hence, had higher proportions of resident
population aged below 15 years at 25.0%, 24.0% and 21.7%, respectively (Table
2.9). On the contrary, mature towns/estates generally housed more elderly
residents compared with those in the young and middle-aged towns/estate. The
five towns/estates with the highest concentration of elderly persons were
Kallang/Whampoa (23.5%), Central Area (20.4%), Marine Parade (20.3%),
Clementi (19.6%) and Queenstown (19.0%).
20
Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Town/Estate
Age Group (Years) Young Towns Middle-Aged 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 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above
25.0 8.6 19.3 22.1 12.2 8.0 4.8
24.0 11.6 13.4 19.6 16.4 9.9 5.1
21.7 14.0 15.7 19.7 15.8 9.0 4.1
11.5 14.2 12.2 13.2 15.0 17.6 14.3
14.5 16.9 13.7 13.3 18.1 14.1 9.4
16.6 16.4 13.2 14.9 16.2 13.1 9.6
18.9 19.7 11.7 16.2 19.2 9.1 5.2
13.8 15.8 14.2 12.9 17.4 15.6 10.3
15.8 12.3 15.3 14.1 15.4 15.1 12.0
20.2 14.3 15.1 17.4 16.0 11.4 5.6
16.7 21.3 8.9 13.5 21.0 11.7 6.9
13.9 15.3 13.3 14.5 16.6 16.3 10.1
16.4 15.3 14.4 14.9 16.0 12.8 10.2
20.1 18.3 10.2 16.6 17.0 9.8 8.0
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
Persons* 94,788 172,283 68,055 62,456 107,944 115,250 154,738 165,162 75,274 241,827 108,328 72,280 237,281 229,827
Average Age (Years) 31.9 33.5 32.6 41.7 37.9 37.0 34.0 38.7 39.1 34.3 35.9 39.0 37.2 34.6 Median Age (Years) 33 35 33 44 39 37 34 39 40 35 37 40 37 36
Age Group (Years)
Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates
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 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above
17.3 14.6 15.1 13.8 17.3 13.9 8.0
15.7 12.2 11.1 14.1 14.5 15.8 16.6
13.4 13.2 11.7 12.9 16.0 16.0 16.8
14.0 12.0 17.6 14.3 13.8 16.8 11.5
13.0 12.6 13.1 11.6 14.9 17.4 17.4
13.9 7.2 12.9 15.7 14.2 16.5 19.6
14.5 10.6 11.9 14.4 15.4 16.1 17.1
12.1 10.5 12.0 13.4 14.1 14.4 23.5
15.2 11.0 11.7 13.7 15.6 13.8 19.0
14.1 10.8 13.8 14.5 13.8 14.8 18.2
12.5 9.6 10.9 14.4 15.3 16.9 20.4
14.5 11.6 9.9 13.1 17.1 13.5 20.3
16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0
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
Persons* 169,351 7,830 144,329 187,313 144,596 65,172 87,967 103,767 80,633 102,544 33,396 22,462 3,054,854
Average Age (Years) 36.7 41.1 41.7 39.3 42.3 43.9 42.0 44.5 41.9 41.9 44.2 42.9 37.9 Median Age (Years) 36 42 44 39 44 45 43 46 43 41 46 45 39
* Excluding non-response cases
21
Age dependency ratio
The child dependency ratio for the resident population continued to fall, reflecting
a declining fertility rate. The ratio of residents aged under 20 years to residents
aged 20-64 years2 dropped from 39.1 in 2008 to 36.8 in 2013 (Table 2.10).
In contrast, the old-age dependency ratio continued to rise, reaching 16.9 in 2013.
In terms of old-age support ratio3, it means that every elderly resident aged 65
years or older was supported by 5.9 persons in the working-age band of 20-64
years, a sharp decline from 8.3 persons in 2003 and 6.6 persons in 2008.
Table 2.10 Age Dependency Ratio of HDB Resident Population by Year
Dependency Ratio 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Based on Per 100 Population Aged 20-64
Total Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio Old-Age Dependency Ratio
64.9 56.0 8.9
59.7 50.6 9.1
58.9 47.5 11.4
57.6 45.6 12.0
54.2 39.1 15.1
53.7 36.8 16.9
Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64
Total Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio Old-Age Dependency Ratio
43.2 35.5 7.7
42.5 34.4 8.1
42.9 32.6 10.3
41.3 30.5 10.8
37.9 24.4 13.5
38.4 23.1 15.2
Sex composition
Among the HDB resident population, female residents continued to outnumber
their male counterparts. The proportion of female resident population had
increased over the last two decades, from 49.9% in 1993 to 51.2% in 2013 (Table
2.11).
2 Following international practice and United Nations recommendations, it is generally computed based on
persons aged 15-64 years. However, with more persons aged 15-19 years remaining in school, this report also computes the ratio based on 20-64 years.
3 Refers to persons aged 20-64 years per elderly aged 65 years and above.
22
Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year
Sex 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Male
Female
50.1
49.9
49.9
50.1
49.6
50.4
49.5
50.5
48.8
51.2
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 2,409,134 2,703,109 2,844,424 2,921,543 3,057,056
* Excluding non-response cases
Ethnic composition
The ethnic composition of the resident population remained stable over the last
few years. The Chinese continued to form the majority of the resident population
at 73.5%, followed by Malays at 15.6%, Indians at 8.9% and Others at 2.0%
(Table 2.12). Compared with the national ethnic composition4, there was a slight
over-representation of Malays among the HDB resident population.
Analysing the ethnic distribution over a longer period, there had been a gradual
decline in the proportion of the resident Chinese population over the years,
amounting to a drop of 3.7 percentage points since 1987. The proportions of the
resident Indian and Others population rose by 2.5 and 0.6 percentage points,
respectively, over the same period. The resident Malay population, however, had
remained relatively stable, hovering at around 15% to 16% of the resident
population.
Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year
Ethnic Group 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Chinese Malay Indian Others
77.2 15.0 6.4 1.4
76.2 16.0 6.6 1.2
76.5 15.7 7.0 0.8
74.4 16.5 8.0 1.1
73.8 16.3 8.2 1.6
73.5 15.6 8.9 2.0
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535
* Excluding non-response cases
4 Based on Singapore Department of Statistics, Population Trends 2013, the national ethnic composition of
resident population was: 74.2% Chinese, 13.3% Malays, 9.1% Indians and 3.3% Others.
23
Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Ethnic Group and Year
Tenure Chinese Malay Indian Others All
2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013
Sold Rental
97.6 2.4
97.4 2.6
97.6 2.4
96.4 3.6
95.2 4.8
91.6 8.4
94.6 5.4
96.2 3.8
94.4 5.6
97.7 2.3
97.0 3.0
95.7 4.3
97.1 2.9
97.0 3.0
96.3 3.7
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* 2,116,215 2,158,254 2,248,298 468,365 477,527 475,427 228,107 240,193 271,582 31,999 47,250 62,228 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535
* Excluding non-response cases
Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type, Ethnic Group and Year
Flat Type Chinese Malay Indian Others All
2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013
1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive
0.9 1.9
21.5 40.5 26.0 9.2
1.1 1.9
19.7 40.6 27.4 9.4
1.2 1.9
19.3 41.2 27.6 8.8
1.2 2.8
22.2 46.2 21.6 6.1
1.4 3.5
17.8 44.0 24.8 8.6
2.9 6.3
19.8 41.6 22.0 7.4
2.4 3.5
20.4 39.3 24.3 10.1
1.6 3.0
21.0 39.8 24.4 10.3
2.2 3.7
19.1 39.6 25.9 9.5
0.4 2.1
21.1 40.4 27.4 8.7
1.4 1.7
21.7 39.2 27.0 9.0
2.6 2.1
17.4 39.9 28.0 10.0
1.1 2.2 21.5 41.3 25.2 8.7
1.2 2.2 19.6 41.0 26.7 9.3
1.6 2.8 19.3 41.1 26.6 8.6
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* 2,116,215 2,158,254 2,248,298 468,365 477,527 475,427 228,107 240,193 271,582 31,999 47,250 62,228 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535
* Excluding non-response cases
24
Among the resident Chinese population, tenure and flat type distributions had
remained relatively stable over the last ten years (Tables 2.13 and 2.14). On the
other hand, there was a significant increase in the proportion of Malays in rental
flats (from 4.8% to 8.4%), as well as in 3-room or smaller flats (from 22.7% to
29.0%) over the last five years. The proportions of Indians and Others living in
rental flats or in 1- and 2-room flats also rose over the same period, but by a
smaller extent.
Marital status
In 2013, close to half of the resident population (48.7%) were married, 4.4% were
widowed and 2.9% were either divorced or separated (Table 2.15). Singles
accounted for 44.0% of the resident population, a slight decline from 45.1% in
2008.
Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population by Marital Status and Year
Marital Status 2003 2008 2013
Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single
47.5 3.8 2.3
46.4
47.8 4.4 2.7
45.1
48.7 4.4 2.9
44.0
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 2,843,807 2,922,929 3,056,999
* Excluding non-response cases
Excluding those aged below 15 years, the proportion of singles among the
resident population was 32.8%, while the proportion of those who were either
divorced or separated was 3.5% (Table 2.16). Correspondingly, the proportion of
married persons was 58.4% and widowed persons accounted for 5.3% of the
resident population.
With longer life expectancy, a higher proportion of females was widowed (8.6%),
compared with males (1.8%) as shown in Table 2.17. Proportionately, there were
also more females who were divorced/separated (4.8%), compared with males
(2.1%).
25
Table 2.16 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Marital Status and Age Group
Marital Status 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All
Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single
1.8 -
0.1 98.1
48.5 -
2.1 49.4
76.5 0.4 5.0 18.1
80.0 1.8 4.6
13.6
79.9 5.4 5.1 9.6
60.7 30.1 4.1 5.1
58.4 5.3 3.5
32.8
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 432,236 411,781 462,964 493,828 407,259 335,091 2,543,159
* Excluding non-response cases
Table 2.17 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Marital Status and Sex
Marital Status Male Female All
Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single
60.6 1.8 2.1 35.5
56.3 8.6 4.8 30.3
58.4 5.3 3.5 32.8
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 1,231,919 1,311,239 2,543,159
* Excluding non-response cases
2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population
Economic status
Chart 2.2 shows the detailed economic status of the HDB resident population.
More than half of the resident population (54.1%) in 2013 were economically
active, an increase of 1.5 percentage points from 52.6% in 2008. Unemployment
remained low at 2.2%, though the proportion had edged up slightly by 0.2
percentage points over the last five years.
There were about 1.59 million employed residents in 2013, accounting for 51.9%
of the resident population and an increase of 1.3 percentage points over the last
five years. Of the 51.9%, a large majority of them were employees (49.5%),
while the remaining 2.4% were own account workers. The bulk of the employed
residents were working full-time.
26
Out of the 45.9% of the resident population that was economically inactive,
student population made up the majority (21.0%), followed by homemakers
(10.6%) and retirees (7.7%). Compared with 2008, the proportions of students
and homemakers had declined slightly, while the proportion of retirees rose
slightly, reflecting an ageing population.
Chart 2.2 Economic Status of HDB Resident Population
Labour force participation rate
Amid a tight labour market, the overall labour force participation rate (LFPR) of
the resident population rose to a new high, mainly driven by women and older
residents. Overall, 64.9% of the resident population aged 15 and above were
working or actively seeking employment in 2013, up from 62.8% two decades
ago and higher than the prevailing rate of 64.0% recorded in 2008 (Chart 2.3).
The LFPR for females rose significantly from 47.1% in 1993 to 55.8% in 2013,
though this was still below the 74.6% for males. This indicated that men were still
playing the traditional role of the main breadwinner in the family. However, the
LFPR for males did decline slightly from 78.8% to 74.6% over the same period.
* 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 subtenants)
3,057,664 persons (2013) 2,923,224 persons (2008)
Employed 51.9% (2013) 50.6% (2008)
Unemployed 2.2% (2013) 2.0% (2008)
Students 21.0% (2013) 23.3% (2008)
Homemakers 10.6% (2013) 12.0% (2008)
Retirees 7.7% (2013) 6.4% (2008)
Before School-Age 5.1% (2013) 4.1% (2008)
Others** 1.5% (2013) 1.6% (2008)
Others* 0.02% (2013) 0.20% (2008)
Employees 49.5% (2013) 47.4% (2008)
Own Account Workers 2.4% (2013) 3.0% (2008)
Full-time 43.9% (2013) 42.3% (2008)
Part-time 5.6% (2013) 5.1% (2008)
Economically Active 54.1% (2013) 52.6% (2008)
Economically Inactive 45.9% (2013) 47.4% (2008)
27
Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year
Chart 2.4 shows the age-sex specific LFPR of the resident population. Between
the age of 15 and 29 years, the male and female LFPRs moved in tandem, with a
sharp increase among those aged between 15 and 24 years. The male LFPR
peaked at aged 30-34 years, with 98.7% of males in that cohort participating in
the workforce, before declining after the age of 49 years old. Beyond the age of
60 years, the male LFPR started to decline rapidly to the lowest level of 4.7%
among those aged 80 years and above. In contrast, the female LFPR peaked at
aged 25-29 years with 87.6% working, and thereafter, it declined gradually to the
lowest rate of 1.7% among those aged 80 years and above.
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 and above, with the
fastest rate of increase occurring between those aged 35 and 64 years. This
could be a result of a myriad of reasons such as females getting married and/or
bearing children at a later age; more women remaining in the workforce even
after child bearing; or older women returning to the workforce after their children
had grown up. While the male LFPR had remained high up to the age of 50-54
years over the last ten years, increasingly more males aged 55 years and above
had also been joining or remaining in the workforce.
80.1 78.8 78.0 75.8 75.4 74.6
44.7 47.1 50.1 50.0 53.1
55.8
62.4 62.8 63.8 62.7 64.0 64.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
Labo
ur F
orce
Par
ticip
atio
n R
ate
(%)
Male
All
Female
28
Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Year
Age distribution of employed resident population
Chart 2.5(a) shows the age distribution of the employed resident population aged
15 years and above. Overall, 18.6% of the employed persons were aged
between 15 and 29 years, a decline from 23.1% in 1998. Corresponding to the
improved education profile of the residents over the years, younger residents
were likely to delay their employment to a later age so as to pursue higher
education. While two in five (42.5%) residents in the labour force were aged
below 40 years, down from 53.6% in 1998, about one in five (20.0%) were aged
55 years and above, up from just 9.5% in 1998. With proportionally more older
residents and less younger residents participating in the workforce, the resident
labour force was clearly ageing. The median age of residents in the labour force
increased from 38 years in 1998 to 42 years in 2013.
Charts 2.5(b) and 2.5(c) show the age distribution of the male and female
resident labour force, respectively. The proportion of employed females aged
between 15 and 29 years fell more rapidly from 28.0% in 1998 to 20.5% in 2013,
compared with their male counterparts. Close to a quarter of the male labour
force (22.7%) were aged 55 years and above in 2013, compared with 11.5% in
1998. Relative to males, the proportion for females continued to be slightly lower,
though it had also increased from 6.3% to 16.8% over the same period. The
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 &AboveMale (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 15.9 4.7Male (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 11.3 1.9Male (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 10 1.5Female (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 5.2 1.7Female (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 3.6 0.4Female (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 4.4 2.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Labo
ur F
orce
Par
ticip
atio
n R
ate
(%)
Male LFPR
Female LFPR
29
median age of males and females in the labour force also continued to rise,
reaching 44 years and 41 years in 2013, respectively.
Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years 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 60-64 65 &Above1998 1.4 8.4 13.3 14.2 16.3 16.1 12.5 8.3 4.4 2.8 2.32003 1.2 7.9 12.0 14.6 14.6 15.0 14.3 9.9 5.9 2.6 2.02008 0.9 7.0 11.1 11.8 12.8 13.3 13.4 13.0 8.8 5.0 3.12013 1.1 6.9 10.6 12.0 11.9 12.7 13.1 11.7 9.5 6.2 4.3
0
5
10
15
Pop
ulat
ion
(%)
Median Age in 2013 = 42 years
Median Age in 1998 = 38 years
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 &Above1998 1.6 7.2 11.0 13.6 16.5 16.7 12.7 9.2 4.9 3.7 2.92003 1.2 7.1 9.9 13.1 14.9 16.1 15.0 10.8 6.2 3.2 2.52008 1.0 7.0 9.5 10.5 12.3 13.8 13.1 13.6 9.8 5.5 4.02013 1.5 6.3 9.3 11.1 11.4 12.2 12.9 12.5 10.1 7.3 5.3
0
5
10
15
Pop
ulat
ion
(%)
Median Age in 2013 = 44 years
Median Age in 1998 = 39 years
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 &Above1998 1.2 10.2 16.6 15.2 16.0 15.2 12.2 7.1 3.5 1.3 1.52003 1.1 9.2 14.9 16.7 14.3 13.5 13.2 8.6 5.5 1.7 1.32008 0.7 6.9 13.2 13.6 13.5 12.6 13.8 12.2 7.4 4.2 1.82013 0.7 7.6 12.2 13.0 12.6 13.2 13.3 10.7 8.8 4.9 3.1
0
5
10
15
Pop
ulat
ion
(%)
Median Age in 2013 = 41 years
Median Age in 1998 = 37 years
30
Education level of employed resident population
The education profile of the employed residents improved over the decades, as
more residents pursued higher education. Slightly over two in ten (23.7%) of
residents in the labour force were degree holders, up from one in ten (9.2%) in
1998 (Table 2.18). Those with tertiary education, including the ones with diploma
or professional qualifications, constituted close to half of the employed residents
(42.7%) in 2013, more than a two-fold increase from 19.9% in 1998. Only a very
small proportion (1.5%) of the resident labour force did not receive any formal
education.
Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Education Level and Year
Highest Education Level Attained 1998 2003 2008 2013
Never Attended School/No Formal Education Some/Completed Primary Some/Completed Secondary Completed Post-Secondary Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma Completed University/Postgraduate Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools)
11.8 25.9 35.4 6.9
10.7 9.2 0.1
10.2 23.0 33.6 5.1
12.8 14.2 1.1
8.2 22.3 32.9 4.5
15.3 16.1 0.7
1.5 13.8 33.2 8.7
19.0 23.7 0.1
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 1,265,739 1,289,369 1,468,972 1,573,872
* Excluding non-response cases
The female employed residents were better educated than the males, with
slightly more than a quarter (26.2%) of them possessing a university degree
compared with males at 21.8% (Table 2.19). 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 in the future.
Analysing the education profile across age groups showed that the resident
workforce was becoming better qualified as young residents who received higher
education joined the workforce. At least half of the employed residents in the
prime-working age of below 45 years had received tertiary education, compared
with 26.3% for those aged 45-54 years and about less than one in ten among
those aged 55 years and above (Table 2.20).
31
Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Education Level and Sex
Highest Education Level Attained Male Female All
Never Attended School/No Formal Education Some/Completed Primary Some/Completed Secondary Completed Post-Secondary Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma Completed University/Postgraduate Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools)
0.8 14.5 33.9 9.6 19.3 21.8 0.1
2.3 13.0 32.5 7.5 18.5 26.2
-
1.5 13.8 33.2 8.7 19.0 23.7 0.1
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 878,055 695,817 1,573,872
* Excluding non-response cases
Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Education Level and Age Group
Highest Education Level Attained 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All
Never Attended School/ No Formal Education Some/Completed Primary Some/Completed Secondary Completed Post-Secondary Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma Completed University/Postgraduate Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools)
0.1
0.6 26.0 19.6 37.7 15.9 0.1
0.1
1.3 17.9 9.1
27.5 44.0 0.1
0.4
6.2 28.7 8.1
21.7 34.9
-
1.3
20.7 44.0 7.7
12.9 13.4
-
3.2
30.6 49.4 6.3 6.7 3.8 -
12.7
46.2 31.7 4.2 3.4 1.8 -
1.5
13.8 33.2 8.7 19.0 23.7 0.1
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons* 126,225 354,504 386,404 389,264 249,352 67,507 1,573,872
* Excluding non-response cases
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 last one and a half decade.
The share of professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) in the resident
workforce rose from 19.4% in 1998 to 27.8% in 2013 (Table 2.21). If we expand
the PME category to include the associate professionals and technicians, the
proportion of PMETs would climb to slightly more than half of the resident
workforce (50.6%) in 2013, up from 40.4% in 1998.
32
At the same time, the proportion of employed residents in production and plant or
machine operators decreased over the same period. The proportion of employed
residents performing clerical work and services or sales related jobs had
remained relatively stable, hovering between 12% and 14%.
Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Occupation and Year
Occupation* 1998 2003 2008 2013
Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers Professionals Associate Professionals & Technicians Clerical Workers Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers)
10.9 8.5 21.0 13.6 12.7 21.2
8.1 4.0
11.4 11.2 20.8 13.5 12.8 17.8
8.6 3.9
10.7 11.9 22.6 12.8 12.6 15.0
10.7 3.7
13.3 14.5 22.8 12.9 11.8 11.9
9.2 3.6
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons** 1,265,739 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428
* Based on Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2010, Singapore Department of Statistics ** Excluding non-response cases
Reflecting the lower education profile of older workers due to limited opportunities
to pursue higher education in their earlier years, more than four in ten of the older
employed residents aged 55 years and above were employed in lower-skilled
jobs such as cleaners and labourers, production and plant or machine operators
(Table 2.22).
In sharp contrast, among the younger cohort aged 25 to 44 years, the share of
PMETs was larger than the non-PMETs.
PMEs PMETs
33
Table 2.22 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Occupation and Age Group
Occupation* 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All
Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers Professionals Associate Professionals & Technicians Clerical Workers Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers)
4.5 10.6 20.7 13.3 12.7 2.4
2.5
33.3
13.0 24.9 31.8 13.9 8.5 4.6
1.5 1.8
19.6 20.1 24.1 13.2 9.3 8.2
4.7 0.8
14.4 9.2
21.5 14.0 11.8 17.2
11.2 0.7
9.7 4.3
15.8 10.8 16.9 22.9
19.0 0.6
3.6 4.0 7.3 6.7
21.6 17.7
38.7 0.4
13.3 14.5 22.8 12.9 11.8 11.9
9.2 3.6
Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Persons** 124,338 341,517 378,909 383,798 246,201 67,005 1,542,428
* Based on Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2010, Singapore Department of Statistics ** Excluding non-response cases
With improved education attainment of the female workforce, more females were
holding jobs as professionals, managers and executives, resulting in the
narrowing gap between the proportions of males and females in PME jobs (Table
2.23). In 2013, 29.0% of employed male residents were PMEs, just 2.8
percentage points higher than employed female residents. The gap was much
wider, close to 10 percentage points, in 1998.
About half the males (51.8%) and females (49.1%) of the employed residents
were PMETs. Among the non-PMET jobs, a higher proportion of males were in
jobs such as production and plant or machine operators; whereas more females
were in jobs such as clerical works, services and sales.
34
Table 2.23 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Occupation, Sex and Year
Occupation* Male Female All
1998 2003 2008 2013 1998 2003 2008 2013 1998 2003 2008 2013
Legislators, senior officials & managers
Professionals
Associate professionals & technicians
Clerical workers
Service, shop & market sales workers
Production craftsmen & related workers/ Plant & machine operators & assemblers
Cleaners, labourers & related workers
Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers)
14.1
9.3
19.6
4.9
11.2
26.3
8.2
6.5
13.6
10.9
20.3
6.4
11.9
23.4
7.2
6.3
12.5
12.1
21.4
5.7
11.6
21.3
9.2
6.3
15.1
13.9
22.8
6.4
10.1
18.1
7.4
6.2
6.0
7.5
23.2
26.7
14.9
13.4
7.9
0.5
8.2
11.6
21.5
24.0
14.3
9.7
10.5
0.3
8.1
11.5
24.4
22.5
14.0
6.4
12.7
0.3
11.1
15.1
22.9
21.1
13.9
4.1
11.5
0.3
10.9
8.5
21.0
13.6
12.7
21.2
8.1
4.0
11.4
11.2
20.8
13.5
12.8
17.8
8.6
3.9
10.7
11.9
22.6
12.8
12.6
15.0
10.7
3.7
13.3
14.5
22.8
12.9
11.8
11.9
9.2
3.6
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** 762,481 768,850 834,609 860,089 503,258 520,519 613,597 682,339 1,265,739 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428
* Based on Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2010, Singapore Department of Statistics ** Excluding non-response cases
35