Monograph+1+(29+Dec+2014)

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

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


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


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


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


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 (%)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 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


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


Table 2.17 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Marital Status and Sex

Marital Status Male Female All


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


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


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

(%)



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

(%)



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


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


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


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


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


Monograph+1+(29+Dec+2014)

Documents

Transcript of Monograph+1+(29+Dec+2014)