Monograph+2+(29+Dec+2014)

Public Housing in Singapore:Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

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 978-981-09-3829-1 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: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

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 xiv

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS xxi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 3 1.2 Objectives 4 1.3 Sampling Design 4 1.4 Outline of Monograph 5

SOCIAL WELL-BEING OF HDB COMMUNITIES 9

CHAPTER 2 COMMUNITY BONDING 13

2.1 Neighbourly Relations 14

2.2 Sense of Attachment & National Pride 29

2.3 Community Engagement 35

2.4 Summary of Findings 39

CHAPTER 3 FAMILY TIES 45

3.1 Physical Living Arrangement 47

3.2 Social Living Arrangement 51

3.3 Depth of Interaction 53

3.4 Forms and Extent of Family Support 59

3.5 Well-Being and Family Life 65

3.6 Impact of Proximity on Frequency of Visits, Familial Support 66 and Sense of Closeness

3.7 Ideal Elderly Living Arrangement and Caregiving 71 for Elderly Parents


iv

Contents Page

CHAPTER 4 WELL-BEING OF THE ELDERLY 77

4.1 Personal Aspects 79

4.1.1 Financial Well-Being

4.1.2 Perceived Level of Health

4.2 Social Aspects 91

4.2.1 Family Ties

4.2.2 Community Bonding

4.3 Housing Aspects 114

4.3.1 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

4.3.2 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

4.3.3 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations


CONCLUSION 137

v

List of Tables Page

Table 2.1 Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction ...................................................................16

Table 2.2 Neighbourly Interaction by Ethnic Group ............................................................17

Table 2.3 Neighbourly Interaction by Type of Block ..........................................................18

Table 2.4 Reasons for Not Interacting with Neighbours .................................................19 of Other Ethnic Groups and/or Nationalities

Table 2.5 Types of Help Received/Provided ............................................................................20

Table 2.6 Received Help from/Provided Help to Neighbours ....................................21 by Attributes

Table 2.7 Tolerance Level for Types of Nuisances Faced by Year .....................23

Table 2.8 Whether Residents Did Anything with Nuisances Faced .....................25 by Attributes

Table 2.9 Places where Neighbours Meet for Interaction by Year ........................26

Table 2.10 Types of Shared Experience/Memory ...................................................................27

Table 2.11 Face-to-Face Interaction with Social Network by Age Group ..........29

Table 2.12 Virtual Mode of Interaction with Social Network by Age Group ......29

Table 2.13 Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence ..................................................31

Table 2.14 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Age Group .............................................31

Table 2.15 Sense of Community Score by Year ......................................................................32

Table 2.16 Sense of Community Scores by Attributes .......................................................33

Table 2.17 Sense of Pride towards Community by Attributes ......................................34

Table 2.18 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities ..........................37

Table 2.19 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Attributes ............37

Table 2.20 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community .....................................38 by Age Group

Table 2.21 Whether Contributed Services and Reasons for Not ...............................39 Contributing/Not Willing to Contribute

Table 3.1 Age Distribution of Younger Married Residents ...........................................47 and Older Residents

Table 3.2 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ............................48 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Year

Table 3.3 Present Physical Living Arrangement ...................................................................49 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage

Table 3.4 Preferred Physical Living Arrangement ...............................................................49 of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage

Table 3.5 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements .............................51 of Older Residents with Married Children vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

vi

List of Tables Page

Table 3.6 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...................................52 of Younger Married Residents by Year

Table 3.7 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...................................53 of Older Residents with Married Children by Year

Table 3.8 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ..................54 and their Parents by Year

Table 3.9 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...............................................54 and their Married Children by Year

Table 3.10 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ..................55 and their Parents by Attributes

Table 3.11 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...............................................55 and their Married Children by Flat Type

Table 3.12 Modes of Interaction with Family Members Not Living Together ....57

Table 3.13 Childcare Arrangements of Younger Married Residents ......................58 with Children Aged Twelve Years and Below by Year

Table 3.14 Proximity of Grandparents’ Home to Married Children by Year .....58

Table 3.15 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents ...........60 to Parents by Year

Table 3.16 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents ...........60 to Parents by Attributes

Table 3.17 Amount Contributed to Parents from Younger Married .........................61 Residents by Attributes

Table 3.18 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...................61 with Married Children by Year

Table 3.19 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents ...................62 with Married Children by Attributes

Table 3.20 Amount of Financial Support Received by Older Residents .............62 with Married Children by Attributes

Table 3.21 Person/Source Paying for Medical Bills ...............................................................63

Table 3.22 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Family Members ..............64 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Table 3.23 Older Residents’ Reliance on Family Members ...........................................65 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Table 3.24 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members ............66

Table 3.25 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents ..................67 and their Parents by Proximity

Table 3.26 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents ...............................................68 and their Married Children by Proximity

Table 3.27 Residents’ Preferred Housing Type for Old Age ..........................................71

Table 3.28 Caregiving for Elderly Parents .....................................................................................73

vii

List of Tables Page

Table 4.1 Reasons for Not Having Financial Planning for Old Age .....................81 Needs among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.2 Financial Planning for Retirement Needs among Elderly ....................82 and Future Elderly by Attributes

Table 4.3 Number of Financial Resources of Elderly and Future Elderly .......84 by Attributes

Table 4.4 Reasons for Having Inadequate Sources of Income ...............................85 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.5 Ways for Elderly and Future Elderly to Meet Any Shortfall ................85

Table 4.6 Adequacy of Sources of Income for Elderly and Future .........................86 Elderly by Attributes

Table 4.7 Options among Elderly and Future Elderly Who Had .............................89 No Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years When They Encounter Major Financial Difficulties

Table 4.8 Preferred Monetisation Options among Elderly and .................................89 Future Elderly Who Intended to Monetise in the Next Five Years

Table 4.9 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly ......................91 by Attributes

Table 4.10 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ............................93 of Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

Table 4.11 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements ............................94 of Future Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

Table 4.12 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ...................................95 of Elderly by Year

Table 4.13 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements ..................................95 of Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.14 Frequency of Visits between Elderly and Future Elderly ......................96 with their Married Children by Year

Table 4.15 Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, ...........................98 Emotional and Financial Support

Table 4.16 Future Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, ..........99 Emotional and Financial Support

Table 4.17 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly ........................................ 101 and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Table 4.18 Amount of Financial Support Received by Elderly .................................. 101 and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Table 4.19 Elderly and Future Elderly Residents’ Perceived Ideal Living ..... 104 Arrangement for Elderly Persons Unable to Live on their Own

Table 4.20 Types of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly ..................................... 105 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.21 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction ................................... 106 among Elderly

viii

List of Tables Page

Table 4.22 Places where Neighbours Meet among Elderly ....................................... 108 and Future Elderly

Table 4.23 Common Modes of Interaction among Elderly .......................................... 109 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.24 Sense of Belonging among Elderly and Future Elderly ....................... 109 by Year

Table 4.25 Sense of Community (SOC) Score among Elderly ................................ 110 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.26 Community Participation of Elderly and Future Elderly ..................... 111 in the Last Twelve Months by Year

Table 4.27 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities ...................... 111 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.28 Types of Community Participation among Elderly ................................. 113 and Future Elderly over Past Twelve Months by Year

Table 4.29 Whether Participate in Community Activities .............................................. 113 among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes Table 4.30 Elderly and Future Elderly with No Dislikes about Living in ........... 116 HDB Towns/Estates by Year

Table 4.31 Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment ........................... 117 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.32 Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment ..................... 118 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Table 4.33 Satisfaction with Various Types of Estate Facilities .............................. 121 among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.34 Satisfaction with Elderly-Friendly Facilities by Year ............................. 122

Table 4.35 Proportion who had Utilised Eldercare Services ....................................... 123

Table 4.36 Proportion who Agreed that Eldercare Services were ........................ 124 Essential for Ageing-In-Place

Table 4.37 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Elderly ....................................... 126 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.38 Housing Type Content With among Elderly ................................................. 130 and Future Elderly by Year

Table 4.39 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age among Elderly ............................ 131 and Future Elderly by Year

ix

List of Charts Page

Chart 2.1 Households Engaging in Various Types of Neighbourly ......................15 Interaction by Year

Chart 2.2 Engagement in Inter-Ethnic/Nationality Interaction by Year ..............19

Chart 2.3 Whether Received/Provided Help in Times of Emergencies ............20

Chart 2.4 Nuisances Faced From Neighbours by Year ..................................................22

Chart 2.5 Ways of Resolving Nuisances ......................................................................................24

Chart 2.6 Whether Had Shared Memories/Experiences with Neighbours .....27 by Year

Chart 2.7 Common Modes of Interaction with Social Networks by Year .........28

Chart 2.8 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence .....................30

Chart 2.9 Sense of Belonging by Year ..........................................................................................30

Chart 2.10 Sense of Pride towards Community by Year ..................................................33

Chart 2.11 Households with Positive Sentiments towards Singapore ..................34 by Year

Chart 2.12 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Year ........................35

Chart 2.13 Types and Frequency of Community Activities Participated .............36 over Past 12 Months

Chart 2.14 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Year ..............38

Chart 3.1 Types of Activities Carried Out between Younger Married ................56 Residents and their Parents

Chart 3.2 Types of Activities Carried Out between Older Residents ..................56 and their Married Children

Chart 3.3 Frequency of Keeping in Touch with Family Members Not ...............57 Living Together

Chart 3.4 Whether Faced Problems when Communicating with Children .....59 and Grandchildren

Chart 3.5 Importance of and Satisfaction with Family Life by Year ......................66

Chart 3.6 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Parents .....................................69 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

Chart 3.7 Older Residents’ Reliance on Married Children ...........................................69 for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

Chart 3.8 Younger Married Residents’ Provision of Physical, Emotional .......70 and Financial Support to Parents by Proximity

Chart 3.9 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members ............70 by Proximity

Chart 3.10 Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons .....................72 Unable to Live on their Own

x

List of Charts Page

Chart 4.1 Elderly and Future Elderly who had Undertaken At Least One ......80 Financial Option in Planning for Retirement Needs

Chart 4.2 Financial Options for Retirement Planning among Elderly .................80 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.3 Regular Financial Sources of Elderly and Future Elderly ....................83

Chart 4.4 Number of Regular Financial Sources of Elderly ........................................83 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.5 Adequacy of Sources of Income to Meet Daily Expenses ..................84 for Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 4.6 Monetisation Options Taken after 50 Years Old ..........................................87 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Chart 4.7 Whether Monetised after Turning 50 Years Old for Elderly ...............88 and Future Elderly by Flat Type

Chart 4.8 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly ............88 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.9 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly ............90 and Future Elderly by Flat Type

Chart 4.10 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly ......................90 by Year Chart 4.11 Types of Activities Carried Out between Elderly ..........................................97 and their Married Children

Chart 4.12 Types of Activities Carried Out between Future Elderly .......................97 and their Married Children

Chart 4.13 Person/Source Paying Medical Bills for Elderly ....................................... 102 and Future Elderly

Chart 4.14 Keeping in Touch with Family Members whom Elderly ..................... 103 and Future Elderly Do Not Live with

Chart 4.15 Whether Elderly and Future Elderly Faced Problems .......................... 103 when Communicating with Children and Grandchildren

Chart 4.16 Interaction with Neighbours of Other .................................................................. 107 Ethnic Groups/Nationalities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 4.17 Comparison of Community Participation Rate of Elderly ................. 112 by Year (Include and Exclude Sole Participation in Religious Activities)

Chart 4.18 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood ........................................................... 115 among Elderly by Year

Chart 4.19 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood ........................................................... 115 among Elderly and Future Elderly

Chart 4.20 Perception of Lift Reliability among Elderly and Future Elderly .. 119

xi

List of Charts Page

Chart 4.21 Value for Money of HDB Flat among Elderly .............................................. 119 and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

Chart 4.22 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat among Elderly ................................... 120 and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

Chart 4.23 Awareness of Eldercare Services ......................................................................... 123

Chart 4.24 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among Elderly ................. 127 and Future Elderly by Year

Chart 4.25 Where the Elderly and Future Elderly Intended to Live ..................... 128 in Old Age

Chart 4.26 Housing Type Content With among Elderly ................................................. 129 and Future Elderly by Present Flat Type and Year

Key Indicators

xiv

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 15–64 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

xv

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 15–64 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

xvi

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

xvii

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

xxi

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:

Years 64 to 15 Aged Population Resident

Above and Years 65 Aged Population Resident Ratio Dependency Age‐Old

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



Years 15Below Aged Population Resident Ratio Dependency Child

The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and

child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows:


Years 15Below Aged Above and Years 65 Aged Population Resident

Ratio DependencyChild RatioDependencyAge‐Old Ratio DependencyTotal

xxii

(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



Above and Years 65 Aged Population Resident Ratio Dependency Age‐Old

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



Years 20Below Aged Population Resident Ratio Dependency Child

The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and

child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows:


Years 20Below Aged Above and Years 65 Aged Population Resident

Ratio DependencyChild RatioDependencyAge‐Old Ratio DependencyTotal

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.

xxiii

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.

xxiv

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.

xxv

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 HDB’s 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 HDB’s 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 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.

In the other monograph, Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile,

Housing Satisfaction and Preferences, the findings were presented in two parts.

The first part analyses 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.

Social Well- Being of HDB Communities

9

Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

With majority of the Singapore resident population living in HDB estates and

towns, the HDB living experience continues to play an important role in the lives

of Singaporeans. Public housing policies and schemes are formulated not only

to meet changing needs and aspirations, but also to support national objectives

such as maintaining social harmony and building stronger family ties, and focus

on the needs of the elderly. In the recent years, HDB has proactively organised

various activities to foster community bonding among its residents at precinct

level, such as welcome parties for new residents in newly completed blocks.

Families are the key societal units and strong inter-generational relationships are

important in achieving healthy families and a cohesive society. The strength of

family ties is a key ingredient for a strong inter-generational support especially in

terms of care provisions to ageing parents and other family members. Inter-

generational relationships of residents could be examined by the extent of their

interaction with and support for family members. With the trend of children

setting up their own home after marriage, the geographical proximity between

parents and married children also plays a key role in determining the levels of

mutual care and support they can provide for each other.

With the growing number of elderly residents in HDB communities, it is also

crucial to ensure that the well-being of elderly residents, in terms of their current

financial situation, community involvement and satisfaction with physical living

environment, are being looked after, so as to provide a quality living environment

for them to age comfortably.

2

Community Bonding

13

Chapter 2 Community Bonding

Introduction

A community is usually defined as people living in the same geographical area,

sharing common interests or experiences, and in the process, developing a sense

of shared identity and belonging. In this regard, residents living in HDB towns and

estates, or distinct parts of them, can be viewed as local communities living in

planned residential areas with shared amenities. Community bonding is seen as

a multi-dimensional concept linking people to other people and to the place where

they live.

One of the key priorities of HDB is the building of cohesive communities within its

towns. Living environments are provided with community spaces for residents to

mingle and interact. Activities, be it government-led or resident-led, are organised

to facilitate residents moving beyond their flats to enjoy the company of

neighbours and friends in the community.

Objectives

The objectives of this chapter are:

a) To examine residents’ level of engagement with the community, e.g.

community participation, types and frequency of neighbourly interaction;

b) To assess residents’ tolerance level towards nuisances caused by

neighbours, e.g. noise, littering; and

c) To assess sense of attachment to the town/estate, as well as to Singapore.

14

Framework

This chapter provides insight into trends in community development by

monitoring changes in the indicators of community bonding. These include

neighbourly relations, sense of attachment and national pride, as well as

community engagement.

Framework for Community Bonding

2.1 Neighbourly Relations

Nearly all HDB residents agreed unanimously (97.8%) that maintaining a good

neighbourly relation is important. This is especially so when one needed help in

times of emergency. Neighbours living in close proximity would be able to attend

to crises more promptly compared with family members or friends who live

elsewhere in Singapore. In addition, good neighbourly relations bring about a

harmonious living environment.

Almost all residents engaged in exchanging greetings and casual conversation, less engaged in more intense interactions

Twelve types of neighbourly contacts were used to assess the intensity of

interactions among HDB residents. These ranged from less intense interactions,

such as exchanging greetings to more intense interactions, such as providing or

receiving financial help. Residents who engaged in more intense forms of

interaction, such as keeping house keys for neighbours and providing financial

Community Bonding

Neighbourly Relations

Neighbourly Interactions Inter-Ethnic /Inter-

Nationality Interactions Tolerance towards

Nuisances

Sense of Belonging to Town/Estate Sense of Community Sense of Belonging

and Pride to Singapore

Participation in Community Activities Reason for Non-

Participation

Sense of Attachment & National Pride

Community Engagement

15

help to one another, were assumed to have forged deeper and closer

relationships.

Almost all residents interacted with their neighbours in at least one of the twelve

ways (Chart 2.1). The findings showed that a higher proportion of residents

engaged in neighbourly interactions in general compared with five years ago,

though a lower proportion engaged in more intense forms of interaction such as

borrowing/lending household items and helping to look after children. The latter

could be due to a reduced need to do so as residents become more self-

sufficient, coupled with the availability of retail shops and childcare centres in

residential areas. Chart 2.1 Households Engaging in Various Types of Neighbourly Interaction by Year

* New variable on communication via social media was added in SHS 2013

Less intense forms of neighbourly interaction, such as exchanging greetings and

engaging in casual conversations, occurred more frequently compared with the

more intense forms of interaction (Table 2.1). Nonetheless, HDB residents would

exchange food/gifts on special occasions and keep watch over each other’s flats

4.2

9.5

11.7

22.8

17.9

42.9

40.2

34.7

51.0

94.1

97.1

2.5

4.8

7.5

8.7

17.8

15.2

44.6

36.2

27.5

53.3

97.0

98.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Provide/receive financial help

Communicate via social media*

Keep house keys

Help to look after children

Borrow/lend household items

Help in buying groceries

Keep watch over flat

Visit one another

Exchange suggestions/advice

Exchange food/gifts on special occasions

Casual conversation

Exchange greetings

Households (%)

2013

2008

16

when a family was not at home. Such gestures imply that neighbourly ties are

still alive and strong.

Table 2.1 Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction

Types of Neighbourly Interaction Daily

At Least Once a Week

At Least Once a Month

Occasionally None at All

Total

% N*

Exchange Greetings 57.0 23.0 1.5 17.2 1.3 100.0 908,340

Casual Conversation 40.6 29.6 3.5 23.3 3.0 100.0 908,340

Exchange Food/Gifts on Special Occasions 0.8 2.1 2.9 47.5 46.7 100.0 908,096

Exchange Suggestions/Advice 0.6 1.3 1.2 24.4 72.5 100.0 908,412

Visit One Another 1.0 1.7 2.2 31.3 63.8 100.0 908,330

Keep Watch Over Flat 6.0 1.5 1.2 35.9 55.4 100.0 908,295

Help in Buying Groceries 0.5 0.9 0.7 13.1 84.8 100.0 908,008

Borrow/Lend Household Items 0.1 0.5 0.7 16.5 82.2 100.0 907,898

Help to Look After Children 0.5 0.4 0.3 7.4 91.4 100.0 908,143

Keep House Keys 0.8 0.2 0.2 6.2 92.6 100.0 907,705

Communicate via Social Media 0.5 0.6 0.4 3.4 95.1 100.0 907,342

Provide/Receive Financial Help 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.1 97.5 100.0 907,599

* Excluding non-response cases

Types of neighbourly interaction differed across ethnic groups

While all ethnic groups mostly engaged in exchanging greetings and having

casual conversations, significantly higher proportions of Malays and Indians

engaged in more intense forms of interaction. Due to lifestyle and cultural

influences, proportionately more Malays and Indians tended to engage in social

activities with their neighbours, such as exchanging food or gifts on special

occasions and visiting one another (Table 2.2).

The Chinese and Others appeared less involved in intense forms of interaction

compared with Malays and Indians.

17

Table 2.2 Neighbourly Interaction by Ethnic Group

Types of Neighbourly Interaction Households (%)

Chinese Malay Indian Others

Exchange Greetings 98.5 98.9 98.8 99.3

Casual Conversation 97.0 97.7 96.3 96.0

Exchange Food/Gifts on Special Occasions 49.0 73.4 61.0 59.1

Exchange Suggestions/Advice 27.4 28.8 28.4 16.6

Visit One Another 33.1 52.2 41.8 31.8

Keep Watch Over Flat 42.9 54.7 47.0 38.1

Help in Buying Groceries 14.8 18.1 15.6 9.1

Borrow/Lend Household Items 18.6 15.4 17.1 8.7

Help to Look After Children 8.3 9.7 10.8 5.8

Keep House Keys 7.1 9.7 8.7 3.0

Communicate via Social Media 4.7 5.1 5.8 3.5

Provide/Receive Financial Help 2.4 3.5 2.6 0.9

Hybrid block design equally conducive for interactions

A high proportion of residents in hybrid blocks1 engaged in neighbourly activities,

comparable to other types of block, that is, point blocks, slab blocks and

staggered blocks (Table 2.3). The finding indicates that this relatively new block

design implemented in the 80s, which comes with social spaces such as precinct

pavilions and rooftop gardens, is equally conducive for neighbourly interactions.

1 The early typical HDB slab block was a straight, 10- to 13-storey building with flats that were served by a

single common corridor on each storey. The slab block was the predominant housing block form throughout the 70s. Point blocks were previously built as 20- or 25-storey buildings with a central core that housed the lifts and staircase serving four flats per storey. From the 80s onwards, the precinct concept was implemented, putting greater emphasis on territoriality, scale, and shared facilities together with efforts to vary block design by combining slab blocks and other block configurations, such as “U”-shaped blocks, “pin-wheel” or the atrium block. In the most recent designs, the point block plans have been re-configured into blocks that have six to eight units per storey. These new types of building design are called “Hybrid” blocks. In this section, the extent of neighbourliness was analysed by the four broad categories of block: point blocks, slab blocks, staggered blocks (i.e. combination of point and slab) and hybrid blocks.

18

Table 2.3 Neighbourly Interaction by Type of Block

Types of Neighbourly Interaction Households (%)

Hybrid Block

Point Block Slab Block Staggered

Block

Exchange Greetings 98.7 99.7 98.6 98.6

Casual Conversation 96.7 97.9 97.1 96.6

Exchange Food/Gifts on Special Occasions 56.1 56.6 50.6 57.4

Exchange Suggestions/Advice 30.0 25.3 26.8 27.9

Visit One Another 41.1 40.3 33.1 38.8

Keep Watch Over Flat 47.0 51.2 41.4 51.3

Help in Buying Groceries 14.4 14.7 14.9 15.3

Borrow/Lend Household Items 19.4 20.9 16.6 16.9

Help to Look After Children 10.3 10.6 7.5 9.0

Keep House Keys 7.3 9.0 7.2 7.5

Communicate via Social Media 6.7 6.4 3.8 2.3

Provide/Receive Financial Help 2.4 1.7 2.3 3.4

More residents engaged in inter-ethnic/nationality interactions

HDB put in place the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in 1989 to prevent the

formation of ethnic enclaves and to ensure a balanced mix of the different ethnic

groups in HDB estates. The SPR quota was introduced in 2010 to ensure better

integration of SPR families into the local community for social cohesion and to

prevent enclaves from forming in the public housing estates2. Tolerance and

acceptance of one another’s racial and cultural background are pivotal in a more

diverse society, especially in a high-rise, high-density living environment where

residents share common facilities. Social engagements among the various

ethnic and nationality groups could bring about a better understanding, help

bridge differences and strengthen social cohesion and harmony.

Chart 2.2 showed that over the past five years, the proportion of residents who

had interacted with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities had

increased (85.7% in 2013, 77.0% in 2008).

2 This quota only applies to non-Malaysian SPRs. Malaysian SPRs will not be subjected to the SPR quota, in

view of their close cultural and historical similarities with Singaporeans. When the ethnic group proportion or SPR quota or both have reached the block/neighbourhood limit, a buyer will not be allowed to buy a flat in that block/neighbourhood as it will lead to an increase in that ethnic proportion or SPR quota or both.

19

Chart 2.2 Engagement in Inter-Ethnic/Nationality Interaction by Year

Among residents who interacted solely with neighbours of the same ethnic group

and nationality, the majority (89.4%) said that it was because they only had

neighbours of the same ethnic group and nationality (Table 2.4).

Table 2.4 Reasons for Not Interacting with Neighbours of Other Ethnic Groups and/or Nationalities

Reasons All

Do not have neighbours of other ethnic group and nationality 89.4

Language barrier 7.2

Not comfortable interacting with neighbours in general 2.3

No time/too busy 1.0

Others (e.g. poor health, just moved in, staying on different floors) 0.1

Total % 100.0

N* 125,918


Neighbours provided general help to one another

A new question was introduced in SHS 2013 to find out the types of help

neighbours provide or receive from one another in times of emergency, given that

they are living in close proximity. More than eight in ten had not done so, mainly

because there was no need to do so or that emergencies did not arise (Chart

2.3).

60.3

2.0 14.7

23.0

49.9

3.7

32.1

14.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

With Other EthnicGroups Only

With OtherNationalities Only

With Other EthnicGroups andNationalities

With Same EthnicGroup andNationality

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

2008

2013

85.7% (2013) 77.0% (2008)

20

Chart 2.3 Whether Received/Provided Help in Times of Emergencies

Among the 17.0% who had received or rendered help, more than four in ten

(43.0%) provided general help, such as lending household items (Table 2.5).

Another 15.0% helped to take care of elderly neighbours or neighbour’s

child/parent, while 13.0% overcame occasional inconveniences with their

neighbours, such as lift breakdowns or blackouts. Residents would also render

help during emergencies like sending their neighbour to the hospital/putting out a

fire (11.6%), or helping to inform the authorities (8.3%).

Table 2.5 Types of Help Received/Provided

Types of Help All

Provide general help (e.g. lend household items) 43.0

Help to take care of elderly neighbours/neighbour’s child/parent 15.0

Overcome occasional inconveniences (e.g. blackouts, lift breakdowns) 13.0

Help to send neighbour to hospital/put out fire 11.6

Help to inform authorities in times of emergency 8.3

Help to inform family members of neighbours in times of emergency 3.3

Provide financial help 2.1

Help with funeral preparations 1.7

Others (e.g. help to move into block, provide advice to neighbours on handling sick children) 2.0

Total % 100.0

N* 150,044


Neither received nor provided help

82.9%

Provided help 7.6%

Received help 4.8%

Received & provided help

4.6%

21

Residents more likely to provide or receive help with increased length of residence

Findings showed that the likelihood of providing help to or receiving help from

neighbours increased with age of residents, which could also be largely attributed

to their longer length of residence compared with their younger counterparts.

With a longer length of residence, familiarity and comfort among neighbours

could increase, thus increasing the opportunities and likelihood to help one

another (Table 2.6). On the other hand, incidences of elderly residents providing

help to others were lower, possibly due to their physical limitations.

Table 2.6 Received Help from/Provided Help to Neighbours by Attributes

Attributes Whether Received/

Provided Help Total

Yes No % N*

Age Group (Years) Below 35 14.8 85.2 100.0 83,336

35 - 44 16.7 83.3 100.0 204,499

45 - 54 18.1 81.9 100.0 257,573

55 - 64 18.6 81.4 100.0 206,410

65 & Above 15.2 84.9 100.0 141,540

Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 12.4 87.7 100.0 252,432

6 - 10 18.9 81.1 100.0 139,251

11 - 15 18.2 81.8 100.0 219,404

16 - 20 19.0 81.0 100.0 96,684

21 - 30 20.0 80.0 100.0 130,466

31 & Above 20.0 80.0 100.0 55,554


More faced intolerable nuisances from neighbours

In a high-rise, high-density environment, it can be a challenge to accommodate

more people and at the same time achieve a cohesive living environment. Many

a time, due to diversities in cultural backgrounds and lifestyle patterns, different

behaviours and attitudes would arise, which may be viewed as nuisances for

some. Such incidences could also lead to conflicts and disputes between

neighbours, which may affect the relationships between them, hence bringing

adverse effects on community bonding.

22

About half of the households (48.1%) claimed that they had faced some forms of

nuisance from neighbours, be it minimal, tolerable or intolerable. This proportion

was comparable to 50.4% in 2008 (Chart 2.4). For nuisances that were minimal

or tolerable, it means that the residents did not find such behaviours affecting

their daily lives, neither were they bothered by these nuisances. However, if the

nuisances were deemed intolerable, it means that such behaviours could

possibly have an impact on their daily lives or they were bothered by the

nuisances. Overall, about seven in ten of the households either did not face any

nuisance in their living environment or found the nuisances to be

minimal/tolerable. It was observed that there was an increase in the proportion of

residents facing intolerable nuisances caused by neighbours, from 26.6% in 2008

to 32.1% in 2013.

Chart 2.4 Nuisances Faced From Neighbours by Year

The main types of nuisances were littering, noise from neighbours and water

dripping from wet laundry/air-conditioner compressor (Table 2.7). A higher

proportion of residents faced intolerable nuisances such as littering, noise from

neighbours and urine in public places. Compared with 2008, intolerable

nuisances such as noise from neighbours and urine in public places had

decreased, from 11.2% in 2008 to 7.7% in 2013 for the former and from 8.4% in

2008 to 6.7% in 2013 for the latter.

49.6 51.9

23.8 16.0

26.6 32.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Intolerable nuisances

Minimal/Tolerable nuisances

Did not face nuisances

50.4% 48.1%

23

Table 2.7 Tolerance Level for Types of Nuisances Faced by Year

Types of Nuisances Faced

2008 2013

Tolerance Level Household Encountered Nuisances Tolerance Level Households

Encountered Nuisances

Minimal Tolerable Intolerable % N* Minimal Tolerable Intolerable % N*

Littering 2.4 9.4 10.4 22.2 190,408 3.0 7.6 10.2 20.8 188,245

Noise from Neighbours 2.5 11.1 11.2 24.8 213,199 2.3 7.0 7.7 17.0 153,449

Water Dripping from Wet Laundry/Air-Conditioner Compressor

1.1 3.2 4.5 8.8 76,108 1.8 3.8 6.1 11.7 105,620

Urine in Public Places 1.0 3.0 8.4 12.4 107,281 0.7 1.5 6.7 8.9 80,863

Irresponsible Pet Owner 0.6 1.9 3.8 6.2 53,694 0.5 1.5 4.5 6.5 58,473

Placing Belongings Along Corridor 0.4 1.5 2.2 4.1 43,046 0.9 2.1 2.9 5.9 53,797

Killer Litter 0.4 0.8 2.1 3.3 28,577 0.4 0.7 4.1 5.2 47,209

Theft 1.5 1.5 3.5 6.5 56,416 0.7 1.2 3.3 5.2 47,200

Spitting 0.5 1.2 2.2 3.9 33,089 0.5 1.1 2.8 4.4 40,170

Vandalism 0.7 1.7 2.7 5.1 43,790 0.2 0.5 2.1 2.8 25,545

Illegal Parking - - 0.1 0.1 1,001 0.1 0.7 1.5 2.3 21,063

Cooking Smell - - - - - 0.1 0.9 1.1 2.2 19,422

Smoking in Common Areas - - - - - 1.3 0.3 - 1.6 14,734


24

Few took action to address nuisances

Of the 48.1% of residents who faced nuisances in their neighbourhood, the

majority (29.6%) did not take any action to address these nuisances (Chart 2.5).

It would seem that they were tolerant or that they would rather live with the

nuisances than to resolve them. Only about one in ten (9.1%) resolved

nuisances personally, lower than the proportion of 12.0% in 2008. Another 9.4%

of them took action by reporting the nuisances faced to the authorities.

Chart 2.5 Ways of Resolving Nuisances

Elderly residents and those living in smaller flat types preferred not to deal with

their neighbours for a resolution when faced with nuisances (Table 2.8). This

could be due to factors such as language barrier or that they did not know how to

handle and mediate the situation.

The finding showed that length of residence did not affect whether or not

residents took initiatives to resolve nuisances faced.

12.0 7.4

30.9

49.7

9.1 9.4

29.6

51.9

0

20

40

60

Resolvednuisancespersonally

Referred toauthorities

Did not doanything

Did not faceany nuisances

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

2008

2013

25

Table 2.8 Whether Residents Did Anything with Nuisances Faced by Attributes

Attributes Whether Did Anything

about Nuisances Faced Households Encountered

Nuisances

Yes No % N*

Flat Type 1-Room 11.7 88.3 100.0 14,031

2-Room 17.5 82.5 100.0 21,421

3-Room 21.8 78.2 100.0 107,859

4-Room 25.9 74.1 100.0 155,899

5-Room 25.2 74.8 100.0 103,307

Executive 30.8 69.2 100.0 32,938


35 - 44 27.0 73.0 100.0 108,762

45 - 54 22.4 77.6 100.0 128,690

55 - 64 27.3 72.7 100.0 94,483

65 & Above 19.6 80.4 100.0 59,573


6 - 10 24.6 75.4 100.0 76,723

11 - 15 25.3 74.7 100.0 101,072

16 - 20 28.1 71.9 100.0 46,494

21 - 30 25.4 74.6 100.0 51,751

31 & Above 23.8 76.2 100.0 28,331


Residents tended to meet neighbours within block

HDB has been making conscious efforts to provide facilities and places for

residents to meet and foster neighbourliness. Such places or focal points are

strategically located to provide opportunities for residents to meet, either

incidentally or pre-arranged, for community bonding to take place.

Neighbourly interactions tended to take place at public spaces or places within

the block, followed distantly by facilities within the precinct or neighbourhood.

Within the block, residents tended to meet and interact with their neighbours at

common corridors/areas outside flats, lift lobbies and void decks. Beyond the

block, they would meet and interact at markets or eating places within their

precinct/neighbourhood. At town level, residents tended to meet at transport

nodes such as MRT stations or bus interchanges (Table 2.9).

26

Table 2.9 Places where Neighbours Meet for Interaction by Year

Places Where Neighbours Meet 2008 2013

Within the Block

Common corridor/area outside flat 27.2 30.9

Lift lobby/lift 21.5 68.8 25.8 75.6

Void deck 20.1 18.9

Within the Neighbourhood or Precinct

Market 5.2 4.4

Coffee shop/eating house/food centre 4.8 4.0

Pathways/linkways to blocks 5.4 3.6

Carpark 1.8 1.5

Hawker centre 2.6 2.0

Playground 1.5 1.5

Within the Town

Bus stop/interchange/MRT station 4.2 1.8

Shopping/entertainment area 1.0 1.3

Park/garden 1.0 1.1

Others (e.g. religious institution, library, drop-off porch, sports facility/multi-purpose court) 3.7 3.2

Total % 100.0 100.0

No. of Responses* 2,217,636 2,301,626

* Each respondent was asked to provide up to 3 responses

Adequate places for neighbourly interactions to occur Based on current provision, almost all residents (97.1%) agreed that there were

sufficient places for neighbours to meet and interact. For the small handful of

residents (2.9%) who felt otherwise, they suggested having more recreational

corners at void decks, seats and benches at common places, as well as having

gardens or small parks.

Shared memories and experiences helped promote community bonding

Some 10.3% of the residents had shared memories and common experiences

with their neighbours, comparable to 11.5% in 2008 (Chart 2.6). Having such

experiences could foster closer ties among residents as they would provide

residents with topics for casual conversations, spurring more interactions

between residents.

27

Chart 2.6 Whether Had Shared Memories/Experiences with Neighbours by Year

Some of such common memories/experiences shared were celebrations or get-

together during festivities, experiences with raising children, issues related to re-

settlement/Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), as well as the joy

of doing things together (Table 2.10).

Table 2.10 Types of Shared Experience/Memory

Types of Shared Experience/Memory All

Festival celebrations 16.4

Bringing up children 13.3

Issues on re-settlement/SERS 8.6

Performed chores together 8.1

Renovation experiences 7.7

Rendered help 7.3

Share information on holidays/tours 6.2

Reminiscing yester-year 5.8

Common interests/hobbies 5.7

Go for dining/shopping together 4.7

Share general views 3.2

Share work experiences 2.9

Overcame/shared occasional problems faced with the living environment 2.7

Help take care of neighbour’s child/pet/parent 1.8

Others (e.g. attend funeral of neighbours’ family members, visit one another, experienced similar bad experiences) 5.6

Total % 100.0

N* 89,382


11.5

88.5

10.3

89.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Shared memories/experiences

Did not have sharedmemories/ experiences

Hou

seho

ld (%

)

2008

2013

28

Face-to-face meetings remained as popular mode of interaction

Interactions via face-to-face meetings continued to be the most popular way by

which residents kept in touch with members in their social network (e.g.

neighbours, friends, and family members), followed by telephone calls (Chart 2.7).

Sending text messages and e-mail/internet chat/video conferencing had also

risen over the past five years.

In tandem with improving technology, interactions via social networking sites

such as Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedln, was mentioned as a mode of interaction.

With increased usage of such networking sites, the proportion who engaged in

such interactions with their social network is expected to increase over time.

Chart 2.7 Common Modes of Interaction with Social Networks by Year

While it was found that the majority engaged in face-to-face meetings with those

in their social circle, the proportion of residents who engaged in such mode of

interaction was found to increase with age (Table 2.11).

1.6

19.2

32.3

66.3

88.9

1.3

12.8

25.0

36.5

74.4

91.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Snail mail

Social networking sites(e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn)

E-mail/internet chat/video conferencing

Text messaging (e.g. SMS, Whatsapp)

Telephone calls

Face-to-face meeting

Households (%)

20132008

29

Table 2.11 Face-to-Face Interaction with Social Network by Age Group

Age Group (Years) Whether Engaged in

Face-to-Face Interactions Total

Yes No % N*

Below 35 88.6 11.4 100.0 85,068

35 - 44 90.6 9.4 100.0 207,522

45 - 54 90.4 9.6 100.0 262,984

55 - 64 92.5 7.5 100.0 209,714

65 & Above 92.8 7.2 100.0 143,211


Conversely, residents who engaged in virtual modes of interaction, e.g. text

messaging, internet chat and social media, tended to be younger (Table 2.12).

Table 2.12 Virtual Mode of Interaction with Social Network by Age Group

Age Group (Years) Whether Engaged in

Virtual Mode of Interactions Total

Yes No % N*

Below 35 66.4 33.6 100.0 81,670

35 - 44 57.5 42.5 100.0 202,741

45 - 54 41.3 58.7 100.0 261,732

55 - 64 26.6 73.4 100.0 208,879

65 & Above 9.1 90.9 100.0 143,211


2.2 Sense of Attachment & National Pride

In this study, a sense of attachment refers to how much feelings residents have

towards the place they live in, their community, as well as to the country. It is

often this sense of attachment that brews familiarity, belonging and pride among

residents, making them reluctant to move elsewhere. In addition, it enhances

one’s willingness to do things for the benefit of the community.

Sense of belonging increased over the years and with length of residence

The sense of belonging to one’s town/estate could also be viewed as one’s

familiarity to the people and one’s sense of having a stake in the living

environment. Sense of belonging is often developed over time, increasing with

30

length of residence (Chart 2.8). The chart below showed that on a scale of 0 to 4

(‘0’ means did not have a sense of belonging while ‘4’ means having a very

strong sense of belonging), the intensity increased from 3.0 for those living in

their estates/towns for 10 years or less to 3.4 for those living there for more than

30 years.

Chart 2.8 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence

The proportion of residents who had developed a sense of belonging to their

towns/estates continued to rise, reaching a high of 98.8% (Chart 2.9). This

proportion is expected to grow as length of residence increases. The majority of

residents (78.5%) developed a sense of belonging to both people and place

(Table 2.13). Further analysis showed that in the first five years of residence,

more residents would first develop a sense of belonging to the place. Thereafter,

sense of belonging to both place and people would develop.

Chart 2.9 Sense of Belonging by Year

3.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.4

0

1

2

3

4

Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 30 31 & Above

Inte

nsity

of S

ense

of B

elon

ging

(S

core

of 0

to 4

)

Length of Residence (Years)

79.1 82.3 90.0

98.6 98.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Hou

seho

ld (%

)

31

Table 2.13 Sense of Belonging by Length of Residence

Length of Residence (Years)

Below 6 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 30 31 & Above All

Sense of Belonging to Place 22.7 15.1 18.6 16.4 15.1 15.0 18.2

Sense of Belonging to People 3.3 3.6 4.5 2.7 2.1 2.1 3.3

Sense of Belonging to Place & People 74.0 81.3 78.9 80.9 82.9 82.9 78.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 252,352 139,331 218,758 97,347 130,070 55,761 893,618


Further analysis showed that intensity of belonging increased with age of

residents, and this could also be explained by their longer length of residence

within the town/estate (Table 2.14).

Table 2.14 Intensity of Sense of Belonging by Age Group

Age Group (Years) Average Intensity (0 to 4)

Proportion Who Had Sense of Belonging (%)

Below 35 2.8 97.9 35 - 44 3.0 98.4 45 - 54 3.1 99.0 55 - 64 3.2 99.0 65 & Above 3.3 99.2

32

Strong sense of community among residents

Sense of community (SOC) refers to shared sentiments enabling residents to feel

that they are living among people who are friendly, helpful and tolerant. Based

on six indicators3, sense of community among residents was found to increase

over the past ten years (Table 2.15). However, among the various indicators,

tolerance towards noise still remained a challenge.

Table 2.15 Sense of Community Score by Year

SOC Indicators 2003 2008 2013

a. “It is very easy to talk to people living in my HDB estate.” 75.0 75.0 75.0

b. “Noise from my neighbours is not annoying.” 67.5 65.0 66.0

c. “I can always get help from my neighbours when in need.” 70.0 72.5 74.3

d. “Residents in this block can recognise one another easily.” 72.5 72.5 74.3

e. “Residents here care about the maintenance of their block.” 67.5 70.0 71.8

f. “I feel a sense of belonging to this housing estate/town.” 67.5 72.5 77.5

Overall score (Over maximum of 100) 70.0 71.3 73.2

Sense of community increased with age and length of residence

Similar to sense of belonging, sense of community increased with length of

residence. Residents who lived in a town/estate for a longer period of time, as

well as elderly residents, had developed a stronger sense of community that

made them less willing to uproot from their present living environment (Table

2.16).

3 Based on the dimensions discussed in “Oddvar, S., Garling, T. and Maeland, J.G., “A Multi-dimensional

Measure of Neighbouring”, in American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 24, No.3, (1996), an additional statement was appended to the initial five statements. The respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the following six statements:

a) “It is very easy to talk to people living in my HDB estate.” b) “Noise from my neighbours can be very annoying.” c) “I can always get help from my neighbours when in need.” d) “Residents in this block can recognise one another easily.” e) “Residents here care about the maintenance of their block.” f) “I developed a sense of belonging to the estate/town I am living in.”

The average scores of all five statements together with the question on sense of belonging were summed up and expressed as a percentage of a maximum score of 100. Any score above 50 would indicate that residents had positive and shared community sentiments.

33

Table 2.16 Sense of Community Scores by Attributes

Attributes SOC Score (Over maximum of 100)

Length of Residence (Years) Below 6 71.9

6 - 10 72.7

11 - 15 73.1

16 - 20 73.8

21 - 30 74.9

31 & Above 75.2

Age Group (Years) Below 35 70.9

35 - 44 72.0

45 - 54 73.4

55 - 64 73.8

65 & Above 74.5

Majority proud to be part of the community

Nine in ten of the residents felt proud to be part of the community and this

proportion had risen over the past five years (Chart 2.10).

Chart 2.10 Sense of Pride towards Community by Year

Among the handful of residents who were not proud, they tended to be younger,

with shorter length of residence (Table 2.17). Lower sense of pride to the

community was more apparent among residents living in 1-room flats or rental

flats due to the transient nature of their tenure, which resulted in shorter length of

residence in the rental flats.

89.9

10.1

93.4

6.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Proud Not Proud

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

2008

2013

34

Table 2.17 Sense of Pride towards Community by Attributes

Attributes Proud Not Proud Total

% N*


6 - 10 93.4 6.6 100.0 141,269

11 - 15 92.4 7.6 100.0 221,414

16 - 20 92.8 7.2 100.0 98,105

21 - 30 96.5 3.5 100.0 130,579

31 & Above 96.9 3.1 100.0 56,150


35 - 44 92.0 8.0 100.0 206,761

45 - 54 93.5 6.5 100.0 261,685

55 - 64 94.3 5.7 100.0 208,782

65 & Above 95.7 4.4 100.0 142,148

Flat Type 1-Room 88.7 11.3 100.0 24,261

2-Room 92.0 8.0 100.0 34,040

3-Room 95.1 4.9 100.0 215,603

4-Room 93.9 6.1 100.0 351,847

5-Room 91.4 8.6 100.0 212,928

Executive 93.6 6.4 100.0 64,943

Tenure Sold 93.5 6.5 100.0 854,936

Rental 90.8 9.2 100.0 48,686


Strong sense of belonging and pride to Singapore

Sentiments towards Singapore in terms of belonging and national pride were

generally very high among HDB residents, based on the three statements shown

in Chart 2.11.

Chart 2.11 Households with Positive Sentiments towards Singapore by Year

96.0 96.7 97.1 95.0 94.9 97.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

I feel a strong sense ofbelonging to Singapore

I am proud to be aSingaporean (Excluding

non-citizens)

I will always regardSingapore as my home

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

2008

2013

35

2.3 Community Engagement

Involvement in community-based activities encourages individuals to step out of

their homes and forge associations and friendships with the community. Not only

will it enhance interactions and bonding within the community, it also provides

alternative support in times of emergency and strengthens social trust.

Community agencies such as Community Clubs/Centres (CCs), Residents’

Committees (RCs), Community Development Councils (CDCs) and Voluntary

Welfare Organisations (VWOs) provide HDB residents with a calendar of

activities that include mass events (e.g. festive or commemorative celebrations,

block parties, group tours, interest group activities), as well as education and

enrichment programmes tailored to meet varied interests of the residents. These

activities create opportunities for shared experiences and interactions to take

place.

Increasing participation in community activities over the years

Participation rate in community activities continued to increase (Chart 2.12),

indicating that residents had responded well to the activities put up by the various

agencies/organisations. Even if residents who participated solely in religious

activities were excluded from the analysis, community participation also saw an

increase from 40.0% in 2008 to 45.4% in 2013. Furthermore, in comparison with

2003 and 2008, the gap between participation in community activities with and

without sole participation in religious activities was observed to have become

closer, indicating that more residents were participating in other community

activities, in addition to activities organised by religious institutions.

Chart 2.12 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Year

* Prior to 2003, no differentiation was made between community and religious activities

17.8 13.2

38.0 45.3

48.6

29.4

40.0 45.4

0

20

40

60

1993* 1998* 2003 2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Including soleparticipation in religiousactivitiesExcluding soleparticipation in religiousactivities

36

Chart 2.13 showed that although participation rate had increased, the frequency

of residents participating in these activities remained low. More frequent

participation was found in activities organised by the Community Centres (CCs),

religious organisations and the Residents’ Committees (RCs). Given the wide

variety of activities organised, these organisations have the potential to attract

greater participation, if the activities appeal to the participants.

Chart 2.13 Types and Frequency of Community Activities Participated over Past 12 Months

For those who did not participate in community activities, they cited personal

reasons such as lack of time, lack of interest in the organised activities or

preference to participate in their own activities (Table 2.18). Smaller proportions

claimed that they were not informed of the activities, or the activities organized

were not suitable for or interesting to them.

6.9

0.4

0.2

0.3 2.6

0.3

0.2

1.3 3.7

4.5

0.5

0.8

0.5

1.2

0.5

0.6

2.0

2.5

37.1

5.2

8.3

8.5

11.6

12.4

19.9

20.2

21.8

0 20 40 60

All

Voluntary Welfare Organisations

Town Councils/HDB

Community Development Councils

Religious organisations

Residents

Other organizations/associations

Residents' Committees

Community Clubs

Households (%)

At least once a week At least once a month Occasionally

37

Table 2.18 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities

Reasons Household (%)

No time/busy/always not at home 58.4

Not interested in any activity 13.2

Prefer to participate in own activities 11.2

Not informed of these activities 4.4

Activities organised were not suitable for residents/family 3.7

Activities organised were not interesting 3.2

Health problems 2.9

Others (e.g. old age, just moved in, no companion) 3.0

Total % 100.0

N* 482,022


Children as catalysts for community participation

Participation rate for families with children was higher than that of families without

children (Table 2.19). Activities that appealed to children could indirectly

increase the involvement of parents or even grandparents. This also explained

why participation levels in community activities was higher among residents aged

35 and above, where they were more likely to have children or grandchildren.

Thus, organising more of such activities could help increase community

participation levels, and at the same time, promote stronger family ties.

Table 2.19 Community Participation over Past 12 Months by Attributes

Attributes Community Participation Total

Participated Did Not Participate % N*


35 - 44 51.8 48.2 100.0 207,522

45 - 54 49.2 50.8 100.0 262,984

55 - 64 48.3 51.7 100.0 209,714

65 & Above 47.0 53.0 100.0 143,069

Family Structure Families with Children 50.1 49.9 100.0 730,087

Families without Children 42.2 57.8 100.0 63,534


38

More residents willing to contribute their services for community

Some 27.1% of residents had performed services or contributed towards the

benefit of the community (Chart 2.14). This could be in the form of informing the

Town Council of any external improvements required or helping to raise funds for

the needy living in the vicinity. Over the past five years, there was an increase in

the proportion of residents (34.5%) who had not done so but expressed their

willingness to contribute. This indicates that more residents care for and are

willing to take ownership of their community.

Chart 2.14 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Year

Higher proportions of residents between the age of 35 and 64 years old had

contributed their services for the benefit of the community (Table 2.20). Younger

residents were less likely to do so probably due to their commitment to career

and friends, leaving them less time for the community. Elderly residents aged 65

years and above also tended to contribute less, partly due to health or mobility

issues, limiting their ability to contribute.

Table 2.20 Contribution of Services for Benefit of Community by Age Group

Age Group (Years) Contribution of Services Total

Have Contributed Have Not Contributed % N*

Below 35 21.4 78.6 100.0 84,305

35 - 44 28.7 71.3 100.0 207,522

45 - 54 29.2 70.8 100.0 262,893

55 - 64 27.6 72.4 100.0 209,714

65 & Above 23.7 76.3 100.0 143,069


26.5 31.7

41.8

27.1

34.5 38.4

0

20

40

60

Have contributed Have not contributedbut willing to do so

Have not contributedand not willing to do so

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

2008

2013

39

Lack of time the main factor for not contributing services to community

Of the 38.4% who had not contributed their services and were not willing to do so,

27.0% of them maintained that they did not have the time due to work and/or

family commitments. Other reasons included lack of information on how to

contribute, not interested in contributing, poor health or old age (Table 2.21).

Table 2.21 Whether Contributed Services and Reasons for Not Contributing/Not Willing to Contribute

Reasons All

Have contributed 27.1

Have not contributed but willing to do so 34.5

Have not contributed and not willing to do so

No time/busy 27.0

38.4

Not informed of the activities 3.5

Not interested/did not see the need 2.2

Old age 2.0

Heath issues 2.0

Others (e.g. prefer own activities, keep to oneself,

never thought of it, does not serve any purpose) 1.7

Total % 100.0

N* 908,136


2.4 Summary of Findings

Almost all residents engaged in neighbourly interactions. The different types of

neighbourly activities engaged by residents reflected the depth of relationship

among residents. In 2013, the findings showed that a higher proportion of

residents engaged in neighbourly interactions compared with five years ago,

though a lower proportion engaged in more intense forms of interaction.

Compared with 2008, a higher proportion of residents had interacted with

neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities, from 77.0% in 2008 to

85.7% in 2013. Even among residents who reported interacting with neighbours

of the same ethnic group and nationality only, the majority of them informed that it

was because they only had neighbours of the same ethnic group and nationality.

40

Overall, about seven in ten of the households either did not face any nuisance in

their living environment or found the nuisances to be minimal or tolerable.

Among the remaining 32.1% of them who found the nuisances to be intolerable,

common types of nuisances faced were littering, noise from neighbours and

water dripping from wet laundry/air-conditioner compressor.

Almost all residents (97.1%) agreed that there were adequate places for

interactions in their precincts. They tended to meet and interact with their

neighbours within the block, mainly at common corridors/areas outside flats, lift

lobbies and void decks. Beyond the block, they would meet and interact at

markets or eating places within their precinct/neighbourhood, followed by

incidental meetings along linkways/pathways.

The proportion of residents who had developed a sense of belonging to their

towns/estates continued to climb, reaching a high of 98.8% in 2013. This

proportion continued to grow as length of residence increased. Further analysis

showed that during the first five years of residence, more residents would first

develop a sense of belonging to the place. Thereafter, sense of belonging to

both place and people would develop.

Residents’ sense of community was found to increase over the past ten years.

Similar to sense of belonging, residents’ sense of community increased with their

length of residence. The findings also showed that residents’ tolerance towards

noise remained a challenge over the years.

Sense of pride towards community had risen over the past five years, from 89.9%

in 2008 to 93.4% in 2013. Among the minority who were not proud, they tended

to be younger and having shorter length of residence. Generally, residents had

positive sentiments towards Singapore, in terms of belonging and national pride.

Participation in community activities continued to increase from 38.0% in 2003 to

48.6% in 2013. Higher proportions of them comprised families with younger

children, which showed that children could be catalysts in fostering higher

community participation. For those who did not participate in community

activities, they gave personal reasons such as lack of time, lack of interest in the

organised activities or a preference to participate in their own activities.

41

More residents were willing or had contributed their services (61.6%) for the

benefit of the community, higher than 58.2% in 2008. Among those who did not

contribute and were not willing to do so, apart from lack of time, they also cited

that they were unaware of such activities.

3

Family Ties

45

Chapter 3 Family Ties

Introduction

The family unit plays a vital role in ensuring social cohesion, hence it is important

that family ties are maintained and strengthened. This chapter analyses family

ties of two major groups of residents, younger married residents with parents and

older residents with married children. The well-being and caregiving preferences

for elderly parents are also examined. Over the years, HDB has introduced

various schemes such as the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS) and the

Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS) to encourage married children and

parents to live together or near to each other. These schemes facilitate mutual

care and support between family members. In this chapter, residents’ physical

and social living arrangements, frequency and depth of interaction between

family members, extent of family support, as well as residents’ views on

caregiving for elderly parents are covered.

Objectives

The objectives of the chapter are:

a) To examine residents’ physical and social living arrangements, frequency

and depth of interaction between family members, extent of family support,

and strength of relationships; and

b) To gather residents’ views on caregiving for elderly parents so as to

understand the preferences of HDB residents regarding responsibilities

towards parental care, especially in view of an ageing population.

46

Framework

The framework focuses on inter-generational relationships between children and

parents, familial support and caregiving for elderly parents. The specific aspects

to be examined are listed in the framework. Findings in relation to residents from

both younger and older age groups are analysed separately as views from these

two cohorts might differ.

The details of the two groups of residents covered are as shown:

a) Younger married residents with parents. This group comprises

residents aged 54 years and below who have parents living in Singapore.

There are presently about 272,619 of such households, and they provide a

basis to examine family ties from the viewpoint of younger married

residents with parents.

b) Older residents with married children. This group comprises residents

aged 55 years and above who have married children. There are presently

about 207,620 of such households. The analysis examines family ties from

the viewpoint of older residents with married children.

Framework for Family Ties

Ties between Parents and Children

Younger Married Residents with Parents*

55 Years & Above (N = 207,620)

54 Years & Below (N = 272,619)

Older Residents with Married Children

* This group excludes parents who are not living in Singapore

Living Arrangement

Present and Preferred Physical & Social Living Arrangement

Types & Levels of Interaction Communication

with Children & Grandchildren

Importance & Satisfaction with Family Life Strength of

Family Ties

Depth of Interaction

Well-Being of Family Life

Regular Financial Support Physical,

Emotional & Financial Support

Extent of Support

Preferred Housing Type when Old Ideal Elderly Living

Arrangement & Caregiving of Elderly Parents

Ideal Elderly Living Arrangement

47

The age distribution of the two groups of residents is as shown in Table 3.1. The

majority of the younger married residents were aged between 30 and 49, while

about one-third of older residents were aged 70 years and above.

Table 3.1 Age Distribution of Younger Married Residents and Older Residents

Age Group (Years) Younger Married Residents


21 - 29 4.9 -

30 - 39 31.4 -

40 - 49 44.8 -

50 - 54 18.9 -

55 - 59 - 22.3

60 - 64 - 25.0

65 - 69 - 20.7

70 & Above - 32.0

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 272,619 207,620


3.1 Physical Living Arrangement

Physical living arrangement refers to the geographical proximity between parents’

and children’s residence. The present and preferred living arrangement of

residents vis-à-vis their parents or married children are examined.

More married children living with or within close proximity to parents

Some 36.7% of younger married residents lived in the same flat or within close

proximity4 to their parents (Table 3.2). Comparing with findings from the previous

years, higher proportions of younger married residents were living with or near

their parents in 2013. This could partly be attributed to policies such as the

Married Child Priority Scheme5, Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS)6 and

the CPF Housing Grant for Family, which encourage and provide the opportunity

4 Living “within close proximity” to their parents is defined as living next door, in the same block, in a nearby

block, or in the same estate as their parents. 5 From November 2014 BTO exercise onwards, the Married Child Priority Scheme has been enhanced to set

aside up to 30% of the public flat supply for first-timer families, and up to 15% for second-timer families. Details in http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyingNewFlatPriority?OpenDocument#MCPS

6 The Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS) encourages families to stay close to each other in Build-To-Order (BTO) projects where Studio Apartments (SA) or 2-room flats are integrated with other flat types. From September 2013 BTO exercise onwards, the parents may apply for a 3-room flat and enjoy the priority under the MGPS.

48

for married children and parents to live within close proximity to each other. The

findings also showed that the gap between residents’ present and preferred living

arrangements had narrowed as residents’ preference was increasingly being met.

In contrast, the proportion that lived elsewhere in Singapore had decreased

slightly over the years, from 45.1% in 2008 to 41.5% in 2013.

Table 3.2 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Year

Physical Living Arrangement

2003 2008 2013

Present Preferred Present Preferred Present Preferred

In the Same Flat 11.2 23.1 14.0 18.4 15.7 17.5

Next Door 1.2 7.4 0.6 3.1 0.4 2.4

In the Same Block 2.1 31.4 9.5 73.3 2.1 35.5 4.6 52.8 1.4 36.7 4.1 49.9

In a Nearby Block 6.1 17.2 9.0 13.0 8.4 12.3

In the Same Estate 10.8 16.1 9.8 13.7 10.8 13.6

In a Nearby Estate 21.2 14.1 16.9 16.2 21.8 21.3

Elsewhere in Singapore 44.7 11.4 45.1 29.3 41.5 28.7

Short-Term Stay with Different Children 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 - -

Each Parent Staying at a Different Place 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.5 - -

Overseas - - - - - 0.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 335,129 334,211 303,846 303,647 272,018 271,820


Families with younger children preferred to live closer to parents

Higher proportions of younger married residents with young (42.2%) and

teenaged children (38.0%) were living within close proximity to their parents

compared with 26.1% of families with grown-up children and 33.0% of families

without children (Table 3.3).

The same was observed with their preferred living arrangement, where higher

proportions (ranging from 50.1% to 55.1%) of younger married residents with

eldest child below 21 years old, preferred to live in closer proximity to their

parents, compared with 41.1% of those with grown-up children (Table 3.4).

This suggests that families with younger children may prefer to live closer to their

parents due to their needs for childcare arrangements, as grandparents remained

49

the next source of childcare provider besides mothers (Table 3.13). Nonetheless,

families with older children may still prefer to live closer to their parents whom

they may need to provide care for.

Table 3.3 Present Physical Living Arrangement of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage


Family without Children

Family with Young

Children

Family with Teenaged Children

Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children

All Younger Married

Residents

In the Same Flat 16.0 18.5 15.8 9.3 15.7

Next Door 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.4

In the Same Block 1.2 33.0 0.6 42.2 3.0 38.0 1.1 26.1 1.4 36.7

In a Nearby Block 5.1 9.0 11.8 4.9 8.4

In the Same Estate 10.7 13.9 7.1 10.0 10.8

In a Nearby Estate 22.2 19.4 23.5 24.1 21.8

Elsewhere in Singapore 44.8 38.4 38.5 49.8 41.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 37,683 107,048 74,875 52,076 272,018


Table 3.4 Preferred Physical Living Arrangement of Younger Married Residents vis-à-vis their Parents by Resident Life-Cycle Stage


Family without Children

Family with Young

Children

Family with Teenaged Children

Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children

All Younger Married

Residents

In the Same Flat 15.4 20.3 17.3 13.4 17.5

Next Door 0.3 2.8 1.5 4.5 2.4

In the Same Block 4.1 46.8 3.7 55.1 4.9 50.1 3.5 41.1 4.1 49.9

In a Nearby Block 11.7 12.8 14.6 8.4 12.3

In the Same Estate 15.3 15.5 11.8 11.3 13.6

In a Nearby Estate 20.6 18.4 23.5 24.4 21.3

Elsewhere in Singapore 32.6 26.4 26.2 34.5 28.7

Others 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 37,683 107,112 74,875 51,814 271,820


50

More married children living in parents’ home temporarily while waiting for their flats

Over the years, there was a slight increase in the proportion of married children

living together with older residents, from 14.3% in 2008 to 19.1% in 2013 (Table

3.5). Similarly, there was an increased preference for them to live together, from

14.7% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2013. However, it was noted that the proportion that

preferred to live with married children was lower compared with actual living

arrangement in 2013. Further analysis showed that married children living with

parents could be a temporary arrangement as close to half of the 19.1% (i.e.

8.8%) were waiting for their new flat to be completed or renovated.

On the other hand, the proportion that was living in the same flat or within close

proximity to their married children7 remained constant over the years (42.6%,

42.7% and 40.5% in 2003, 2008 and 2013, respectively). Higher proportion of

older residents would prefer to have such living arrangement even though this

preference was increasingly being met over the years. As shown in Table 3.5,

the gap between older residents’ present and preferred living arrangements had

narrowed.

The findings indicate that there could be increasing acceptance for married

children and parents to live apart from each other due to greater accessibility and

improvements in Singapore’s transport network. Many of the older residents also

preferred to age-in-place. Living in close proximity could be the preferred living

arrangement for many as it provides the physical proximity and at the same time,

privacy for both the younger and older residents.

7 Married child refers to the one who lives nearest to the parents if parents have more than one married child.

51

Table 3.5 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Older Residents with Married Children vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year


2003 2008 2013


In the Same Flat 9.4 15.0 14.3 14.7 19.1 17.3

Next Door 1.9 6.1 1.0 2.6 0.6 1.1

In the Same Block 2.9 42.6 9.0 72.7 2.8 42.7 5.3 54.8 2.0 40.5 3.5 49.1

In a Nearby Block 14.1 21.0 12.5 16.3 8.7 12.5



Elsewhere in Singapore 35.8 12.1 36.7 25.6 39.2 30.3

Short-Term Stay-In with Children 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.6 - -

No Preference - - - 0.2 - -

Overseas - - - - 3.8 2.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 128,845 129,143 166,355 167,278 204,965 204,965


3.2 Social Living Arrangement

Majority currently living with spouse and/or unmarried children

Social living arrangement refers to people with whom the residents live with in the

same flat. The most common form of social living arrangement among HDB

residents includes living with spouse and/or unmarried children.

The findings showed that residents’ present living arrangement mirrored their

preferred living arrangement. The majority 81.7% of younger married residents

with parents were presently living with their spouse and/or unmarried children

(Table 3.6). This trend remained constant when compared with previous years.

Their preferred living arrangement was almost similar to their present living

arrangement, indicating that their desired social living arrangements had been

met.

The proportion of younger married residents who was living with their parents

and/or parents-in-law increased slightly from 14.6% in 2008 to 16.2% in 2013.

52

The introduction of 3Gen flats8 in September 2013 would help facilitate this group

of residents to live with their extended families, as well as promote mutual care

and support.

Table 3.6 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Younger Married Residents by Year

Social Living Arrangement 2003 2008 2013


Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children

82.4 64.3 81.5 78.2 81.7 81.6

Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children and Parents and/or Parents-in-law

15.3 28.1 14.6 17.6 16.2 16.1

Live with Married Children 0.5 1.8 0.8 1.0 1.9 2.2

Live Alone 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1

Other Living Arrangements (e.g. with companion/friends/relatives) 1.5 4.8 3.0 3.0 - -

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 335,680 335,174 304,965 304,455 272,619 272,369


Similar to younger married residents, the majority of older residents with married

children were living with spouse and/or unmarried children. However, this

proportion continued to decline over the years, from 73.3% in 2003 to 68.1% in

2008, and dipping further to 65.8% in 2013. On the other hand, the proportion

with married children living with them increased steadily to 18.5% in 2013, from

5.0% in 2003 and 13.8% in 2008 (Table 3.7). However, in 2013, a lower

proportion of older residents actually preferred such a living arrangement. Hence,

this could be a temporary living arrangement while their married children wait for

their new flats to be completed or renovated.

8 3Gen flats - Introduced in September 2013, flats designed with additional bedroom with attached bathroom, to

facilitate multi-generation families to stay under one roof.

53

Table 3.7 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Older Residents with Married Children by Year



Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children

73.3 61.1 68.1 65.7 65.8 67.5

Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children and Parents and/or Parents-in-law

5.2 4.8 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.0


Live Alone 11.3 13.0 10.3 9.7 11.1 10.7

Other Living Arrangements (e.g. with companion/friends/relatives) 5.2 3.7 6.4 6.0 2.6 2.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 132,094 131,977 172,040 171,790 207, 620 207,620


3.3 Depth of Interaction

Interaction with family members is a crucial part of building and sustaining long

term relationships. Maintaining such ties is not only important for personal well-

being, but also essential for familial support, especially in times of need.

This section examines the frequency and depth of interactions between family

members who are not living together in the same flat. Residents who live in the

same flat as their family members would already have daily contact. Hence, they

are excluded from the analyses in this section. Such interactions include visiting

patterns and frequency of keeping in touch with family members. These will give

insights on residents’ interaction and bonding with family members, as well as

provide a good indication on the strength of family ties.

High frequency of visits between parents and married children indicating strong inter-generational relationships

Visiting patterns refer to the frequency of visits between children and their

parents who are not living together. By looking at how frequently they visit one

another, the strength of inter-generational relationships could be inferred.

54

Comparing with previous years, it was observed that inter-generational ties

between younger married residents and their parents remained strong, with

90.3% visiting one another either daily, at least once a week or a month in 2013

(Table 3.8). It was noted that about half of them visited each other at least once

a week.

Table 3.8 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and their Parents by Year

Frequency of Visits 2003 2008 2013

Daily 12.6 18.2 19.5

At Least Once a Week 50.8 90.6 48.6 90.7 50.3 90.3

At Least Once a Month 27.2 23.9 20.5

Less Than Once a Month 8.4 9.0 9.2

Never 1.0 0.3 0.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 303,084 251,372 231,742

* Excluding those who lived with their parents and non-response cases

Conversely, for older residents with married children, there was a slight drop in

the proportion who visited each other either daily, at least once a week or a

month, although the proportion remained high at 88.6% (Table 3.9). Nonetheless,

the proportion of older residents with married children who visited each other

daily or at least once a week was comparable across the years.

Table 3.9 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and their Married Children by Year

Frequency of Visits 2003 2008 2013

Daily 22.4 23.1 24.3

At Least Once a Week 50.5 90.1 49.6 90.8 49.0 88.6



Never 2.3 1.3 1.9

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 117,392 140,166 181,916

* Excluding those who lived with their children and non-response cases

Looking at frequency of visits by different attributes, it was noted that a higher

proportion of younger married residents and parents who visited each other more

often was living in bigger flat types. They were also likely to be from families

55

without children or with young children (Table 3.10). Residents at their earlier

life-cycle stages had more visits with their parents as they were likely to have

meals at their parents’ home or to pick up their children from their parents’ home

after work.

Table 3.10 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and their Parents by Attributes

Attributes Visited


Visited Less Than

Once a Month or Never

Total

% N*

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room & Bigger

79.5 84.1 90.2 93.0

20.5 15.9 9.8 7.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7,386 29,469 92,637

102,250

Resident Life-Cycle Stage

Family without Children Family with Young Children Family with Teenaged Children Family with Unmarried Grown-Up Children

92.6 93.4 89.8 83.5

7.4 6.6

10.2 16.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

31,663 88,879 63,513 47,549

* Excluding those living with parents and non-response cases

Similar to younger married residents, it was noted that a higher proportion of

older residents and married children who visited each other more regularly was

living in larger flat types (Table 3.11).

Table 3.11 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and their Married Children by Flat Type

Flat Type Visited


Visited Less Than Once a Month

or Never

Total

% N*

1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room & Bigger

75.1 87.7 90.7 92.2

24.9 12.3 9.3 7.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

18,208 58,106 64,249 41,353


The most frequent activities carried out by younger married residents with their

parents when visiting each other were having meals together, exchanging

suggestions and advice about personal problems, going for outings together and

taking care of parents (Chart 3.1). Helping with daily chores such as buying

groceries or doing housework occurred less frequently, suggesting that the

interactions largely centred around leisure activities rather than performing

56

household chores. This scenario was also similar when older residents and their

married children visited one another (Chart 3.2).

Chart 3.1 Types of Activities Carried Out between Younger Married Residents and their Parents

Chart 3.2 Types of Activities Carried Out between Older Residents and their Married Children

Majority kept in frequent contact with family members not living together

The majority of families with married children kept in touch with family members

not living together on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, with more doing it at least

once a week (Chart 3.3). A higher proportion of older residents with married

3.2

9.0

4.9

7.8

2.5

11.6

11.2

15.9

15.6

16.3

27.2

33.1

37.0

52.4

10.0

5.1

8.9

13.1

30.4

17.8

22.8

10.6

6.8

9.2

12.7

25.4

16.7

12.2

60.3

63.5

60.7

39.2

8.6

16.9

1.4

0 20 40 60 80 100


Help in taking careof young children

Help in household chores

Take care of parents

Go on outings

Exchange suggestions/adviceabout personal problems

Share meals

Households (%)

Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Never

3.7

5.0

15.7

8.5

10.5

3.2

16.5

14.0

15.8

15.3

24.3

34.3

35.4

50.3

7.1

5.3

4.4

9.9

14.2

24.1

16.3

8.9

7.0

5.7

15.8

22.0

28.1

13.7

66.3

66.9

58.9

41.5

19.0

9.2

3.2

0 20 40 60 80 100



Help in taking careof young children


Exchange suggestions/adviceabout personal problems

Go on outings

Share Meals

Households (%)

Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Never

57

children kept in touch with family members on a daily basis compared with

younger married residents.

Chart 3.3 Frequency of Keeping in Touch with Family Members Not Living Together

Residents were asked on the modes of interaction they had with family members

they did not live with. The findings showed that majority of them used multiple

modes of communication to interact with family members. About eight in ten

residents preferred to contact family members via telephone calls or face-to-face

meetings (Table 3.12). In particular, a higher proportion of younger married

residents preferred text messaging compared with older residents.

Table 3.12 Modes of Interaction with Family Members Not Living Together

Modes of Interaction Households (%)

Younger Married Residents


Telephone 80.8 80.9

Face-to-Face Meeting 78.1 78.2

Text Messaging 23.4 8.7

Email/Networking Sites 4.7 1.8

Video Conferencing 1.8 1.2


Mothers remained as main childcare provider for younger children

Among younger married residents with children aged twelve years and below, the

proportion with mothers as the main childcare provider remained high at 42.7%.

This was a slight increase from 40.1% in 2008, although it was still lower

compared with 52.6% in 2003 (Table 3.13). Grandparents remained as the next

28.0

24.4

48.5

53.9

12.8

13.3

9.6

8.0

1.1

0.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Older Residents withMarried Children

Younger MarriedResidents

Households (%)

Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month A Few Times a Year Never

58

source of help, followed by childcare centres/baby sitters and maids. Conversely,

there was an increasing trend for childcare centres or baby sitters to be the main

childcare provider, although the proportion remained relatively low at 12.4%.

This shows that there is an increasing demand for professional childcare services,

which is especially desired by households where both parents are working.

Table 3.13 Childcare Arrangements of Younger Married Residents with Children Aged Twelve Years and Below by Year

Main Childcare Provider 2003 2008 2013

Mother** 52.6 40.1 42.7

Father** 2.4 1.4 2.1

Grandparents** 19.7 29.6 27.7

Childcare Centre/Baby Sitter 8.3 11.0 12.4

Maids 10.1 13.9 11.6

Children Themselves 1.6 0.3 0.6

Relatives 2.0 1.4 1.4

Other Arrangements 3.3 2.3 1.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 212,739 166,117 148,484

* Excluding non-response cases ** The relationship is with reference to the children aged twelve years and below

Among the grandparents who were the main childcare provider, 75.5% of them

were living in close proximity to their grandchildren (Table 3.14).

Table 3.14 Proximity of Grandparents’ Home to Married Children by Year

Location of Grandparents’** Home 2003 2008 2013

Same Flat/Next Door 23.9 24.5 31.6

Same/Nearby Block 10.7 17.6 10.6

Same/Nearby Estate 23.2 29.2 33.3

Elsewhere in Singapore 39.1 26.5 24.5

Others 3.1 2.2 -

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 41,968 48,839 40,961

* Excluding non-response cases ** Grandparents who were main childcare provider

75.5 57.8 71.3

59

Majority could communicate well with children and grandchildren

Residents were asked whether they had any problems communicating with their

children and grandchildren. The findings showed that the majority of both

younger and older residents did not encounter any problems most of the time

(Chart 3.4). For the minority who encountered problems communicating with

children and grandchildren, the main reason cited was personality conflict with

children, thus resulting in infrequent interaction with grandchildren as well.

Chart 3.4 Whether Faced Problems when Communicating with Children and Grandchildren

3.4 Forms and Extent of Family Support

A new section was included in SHS 2013 to examine the forms and extent of

support rendered by family members. The types of support covered include

regular financial support and the ability to rely on family members for physical,

emotional and financial support in times of emergency.

Majority of younger married residents provided regular financial support to parents

The level of financial support parents received from their children is one of the

indicators of familial support. The proportion of younger married residents that

provided regular financial support to their parents increased slightly from 70.2%

in 2008 to 74.9% in 2013 (Table 3.15). The average amount they contributed to

their parents increased to $400 per month, compared with about $340 in 2008.

95.0 93.4 95.3

4.2 3.9 2.5 0.8 2.7 2.2

0

20

40

60

80

100



All Older Residentswith Grandchildren

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

No problem most of the time

Faced problems sometimes

Faced problems very often/Did not usually communicatewith them

Communication with Grandchildren

Communication with Children

60

Table 3.15 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents to Parents by Year

Financial Support to Parents 2008 2013

Provided Financial Support to Parents (%) 70.2 74.9

Amount Contributed to Parents per month ($)

Average 336 400 Median 300 300

Younger married residents who provided regular financial support were more

likely to be males or economically active. Higher proportions of younger married

residents without children, as well as younger married residents with young

children were also providing regular financial support (Table 3.16).

Table 3.16 Regular Financial Support from Younger Married Residents to Parents by Attributes

Attributes Supported

Parents Financially

Did Not Support Parents

Financially

Total

% N*

Sex Male Female

77.5 71.8

22.5 28.2

100.0 100.0

147,774 124,845

Economic Status

Economically Active Economically Inactive

77.5 59.2

22.5 40.8

100.0 100.0

234,015 38,237



82.2 78.1

72.2 67.3

17.8 21.9

27.8 32.7

100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0

37,780 107,236

75,121 52,148


The amount of regular financial support given to parents varies. Those who

contributed more generously were likely to be males, economically active, or

families with young children (Table 3.17).

61

Table 3.17 Amount Contributed to Parents from Younger Married Residents by Attributes

Attributes Amount Contributed

to Parents per Month ($)

Average Median

Sex Male Female

441 347

300 250

Economic Status


424 197

300 200



456 497 326 233

400 400 200 200

From the perspective of older residents with married children, the proportion who

received regular financial support from their children (77.7%) was comparable to

2008 (79.4%) as shown in Table 3.18. The average amount received by each

parent from all of their children had increased to $552 per month, compared with

$445 in 2008.

Table 3.18 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Year

Financial Support Received from Children 2003* 2008 2013

Received Financial Support from Children (%)

80.4 79.4 77.7

Amount Received per Month ($)

Average - 445 552 Median - 300 400

* SHS2003 did not cover amount received per month

Older residents with married children who received regular financial support from

their children were more likely to be females, economically inactive or living in 3-

or 4-room flats (Table 3.19). Those who received a higher amount of financial

support were more likely to be females, economically inactive or living in bigger

flat types (Table 3.20).

62

Table 3.19 Regular Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Attributes

Attributes Received Financial Support

Did Not Receive Financial Support

Total

% N*

Sex Male Female

70.8 83.8

29.2 16.2

100.0 100.0

96,549 111,071

Economic Status


65.8 84.5

34.2 15.5

100.0 100.0

75,188 132,206


72.6 83.4 79.8 69.2

27.4 16.6 20.2 30.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

18,553 63,862 75,861 49,345


Table 3.20 Amount of Financial Support Received by Older Residents with Married Children by Attributes

Attributes Amount Received per Month ($)

Average Median

Sex Male Female

490 599

350 500

Economic Status


439 601

300 500


311 504 593 661

300 400 500 500

Majority would pay for own medical bills

The majority of younger and older residents would pay for their own medical bills

when they fell ill (Table 3.21). Those with adult children were able to rely on their

children to pay for medical bills. A higher proportion of younger married residents

would also rely on their employers to pay for their medical bills as they were more

likely to be working compared with older residents.

63

Table 3.21 Person/Source Paying for Medical Bills

Person/Source Households (%)



Self 64.7 66.6

Children 0.3 30.4

Employer 38.7 7.8

Health Insurance 14.8 11.6

Spouse/Ex-Spouse 16.1 8.1

Welfare Assistance 0.2 1.1

Pension 0.1 1.5

Relatives/Friends 0.2 0.4

Majority of younger married residents able to rely on siblings or parents for emotional support

This section examines whether residents are able to rely on family members for

physical, emotional and financial support 9 in times of emergency. Family

members in this analysis refer to parents, siblings, married and unmarried

children.

A larger proportion of younger married residents was able to rely on their siblings

or parents for emotional support compared with physical or financial support

(Table 3.22). It was noted that a proportion of younger married residents

(ranging from 23.3% to 37.0%) did not require physical and financial support from

parents and siblings.

For those who mentioned that they were not able to rely on parents for physical

and financial support, the reason cited was that their parents were old or not in

good health to provide physical support, and their parents were not working,

hence not able to provide financial support. For those who could not rely on

siblings for physical and financial support, the reason mentioned was that their

siblings were too busy to provide physical help and they had insufficient finances

to help financially. Younger married residents were less able to rely on their

9 Physical support refers to helping with buying groceries, transportation, accompany to see doctor,

housework/home maintenance, help in taking care of health (e.g. medicine management, aid in moving around). Emotional support refers to providing information or advice for emotional or moral support. Financial support refers to financial help in times of emergency.

64

unmarried children for all forms of support, as their children were too young and

still dependent on them for support.

Table 3.22 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Types of Support Parents Siblings Unmarried Children

Physical Able to rely Not able to rely Do not require support

55.6 21.1 23.3

57.0 14.8 28.2

53.0 40.4 6.6

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 271,642 256,181 231,535

Emotional Able to rely Not able to rely Do not require support

79.7 6.3

14.0

81.2 2.2

16.6

51.2 40.9 7.9

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 271,642 256,181 231,535

Financial Able to rely Not able to rely Do not require support

44.2 26.1 29.7

55.6 7.4

37.0

17.6 75.2 7.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 271,494 256,050 231,706


Majority of older residents able to rely on children for support

The majority of older residents was able to rely on both their married and

unmarried children for all three forms of support, indicating strong presence of

care and support from children to parents (Table 3.23).

Higher proportion of older residents was not able to rely on parents and

grandchildren for all forms of support. This was mainly due to parents not

working, being too old or not in good health and grandchildren being too young to

provide them with the support required. They could not rely on siblings for

physical and emotional support as well, mainly because their siblings were living

far away from them to render physical help and they were not in close

relationship with their siblings, hence not able to share emotionally. Neither

could they rely on siblings for financial support, as their siblings had insufficient

finances to provide assistance.

65

Table 3.23 Older Residents’ Reliance on Family Members for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Types of Support Parents Siblings Unmarried Children

Married Children

Grand-children

Physical Able to rely Not able to rely Do not require support

11.3 60.7 28.0

31.9 34.8 33.3

84.4 8.6 7.0

76.5 12.5 11.0

21.4 59.5 19.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 37,033 176,418 116,352 205,042 114,678

Emotional Able to rely Not able to rely Do not require support

54.2 28.0 17.8

64.8 10.6 24.6

91.1 3.8 5.1

90.1 2.2 7.7

26.5 51.5 22.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 37,033 176,349 116,386 205,126 114,512

Financial Able to rely Not able to rely Do not require support

18.7 41.9 39.4

34.3 18.0 47.7

83.3 11.2 5.5

86.2 5.1 8.7

10.8 70.1 19.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 37,033 176,349 116,214 205,126 114,678


3.5 Well-Being and Family Life

Importance of and satisfaction with family life remained high

Regarding overall well-being and family life, findings showed that the importance

of and satisfaction with family life for both younger married residents with parents

and older residents with married children continued to increase, indicating the

significance of family life (Chart 3.5).

66

Chart 3.5 Importance of and Satisfaction with Family Life by Year

Strong sense of closeness to family members

Residents were asked to rate how close they felt with their family members in

general, with a score of “0” being not close at all and a score of “10” being very

close. The average scores for sense of closeness to family members were

generally high, with older residents having slightly lower score compared with

younger residents (Table 3.24).

Table 3.24 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members

Sense of Closeness



Average Score (Scale: 0 - 10) 8.9 8.5

3.6 Impact of Proximity on Frequency of Visits, Familial Support and Sense of Closeness

Geographical proximity between parents and married children is an important

determinant for inter-generational support. This section examines whether

proximity affects frequency of visits between parents and children, provision of

physical, emotional and financial support and sense of closeness to family

members.

99.3 97.3 95.0 92.9 98.5 96.4 96.8 92.4

99.9 99.7 97.8 97.0

0

20

40

60

80

100





Hou

seho

lds

(%)

200320082013

Satisfaction Importance

67

Closer proximity encouraged frequent visits between parents and married children

It was found that there was a strong correlation between proximity and frequency

of visits. The nearer the younger married residents lived in relation to their

parents, the higher the proportion visiting one another at least once a week,

especially on a daily basis (Table 3.25). In nearby estates or beyond, frequency

of visits declined as higher proportion of them would tend to visit on a weekly

rather than daily basis.

Table 3.25 Frequency of Visits between Younger Married Residents and their Parents by Proximity

Frequency of Visits Within Close Proximity

In Nearby Estate

Elsewhere in Singapore

Daily 37.2 16.5 11.7

At Least Once a Week 46.7 51.8 51.7



Never 0.1 - 1.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 56,714 58,965 112,606

* Excluding those living with parents and non-response cases

A similar pattern was observed for older residents with married children (Table

3.26). These findings indicated that proximity played an important role in

encouraging frequent visits between parents and married children and in

promoting interactions between them. Nonetheless, it was noted that residents

also made use of other modes of communication to interact with family members

besides face-to-face meeting, as shown in Section 3.3.

83.9 68.3 63.4

68

Table 3.26 Frequency of Visits between Older Residents and their Married Children by Proximity

Frequency of Visits Within Close Proximity

In Nearby Estate


Daily 41.9 25.7 15.1

At Least Once a Week 48.6 55.7 51.2



Never 0.6 0.1 3.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 43,108 33,850 79,754

* Excluding those living with married children and non-response cases

Closer proximity facilitated physical support between parents and married children

Similarly, a strong correlation was found between proximity and physical support.

It was observed that a higher proportion of younger married residents living

nearer to their parents could rely on them for physical support (Chart 3.6). While

the same pattern was observed for emotional and financial support, proximity

played a less significant role as these forms of support would likely not require

the physical presence of family members for help to be rendered.

In comparison, for financial support in times of emergency, the proportion of

younger married residents who could rely on parents for help was lower, as the

parents were likely to be economically inactive. Nonetheless, it was noted that

when parents lived further away, the possibility of younger married residents

relying on their parents for financial support decreased. However, for younger

married residents with parents living with them, a lower proportion could rely on

parents for financial support in times of emergency as these parents would likely

be relying on their married children for financial support instead.

90.5 81.4 66.3

69

Chart 3.6 Younger Married Residents’ Reliance on Parents for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

For older residents with married children, a comparable relationship was

observed between proximity, physical and emotional support. This was also

similar to the case for younger married residents (Chart 3.7). Parents could be

more reliant on married children for all forms of support as they are likely to be

economically inactive or faced health issues.

Chart 3.7 Older Residents’ Reliance on Married Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support by Proximity

However, when younger married residents were asked whether they were able to

provide support to their parents, proximity played a less pronounced role, as

most residents cited that they were able to provide the required forms of support

when needed, regardless of where they were living (Chart 3.8).

40.0

49.6

50.7

39.4

74.8

80.8

82.9

86.8

44.0

57.5

64.0

72.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Elsewhere inSingapore

In Nearby Estate

Within CloseProximity

In Same Flat

Households (%)

PhysicalEmotionalFinancial

82.7

87.8

89.5

93.1

85.9

92.0

93.2

95.6

71.1

80.6

82.5

88.0

0 20 40 60 80 100


In Nearby Estate


In Same Flat

Households (%)


70

Chart 3.8 Younger Married Residents’ Provision of Physical, Emotional and Financial Support to Parents by Proximity

It was found that sense of closeness to family members increased with closer

proximity, especially if parents and married children were living together in the

same flat, within close proximity or in nearby estate (Chart 3.9). However, this

was not the case for younger married residents as findings showed that proximity

had no impact on sense of closeness to family members among them. This

could be due to younger married residents being more mobile and able to rely on

other modes of communication such as social media platforms and text

messaging to keep in touch with family members, compared with older residents.

Hence, they were not affected by physical proximity.

Chart 3.9 Average Score for Sense of Closeness to Family Members by Proximity

91.6

96.1

96.6

99.0

96.8

98.9

98.8

99.3

89.1

95.8

96.0

99.8

0 20 40 60 80 100


In Nearby Estate


In Same Flat

Households (%)


8.9 8.8 9.0 8.7 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.3

0

2

4

6

8

10



Ave

rage

Sco

re

In Same Flat

Within Close Proximity

In Nearby Estate


Proximity to Parents Proximity to Married Children

71

3.7 Ideal Elderly Living Arrangement and Caregiving for Elderly Parents

Preference to live in 3- or 4-room flats when old

The majority of older residents with married children, as well as younger married

residents, preferred to live in 3- or 4-room sold flats in their old age (Table 3.27).

Nonetheless, this proportion had dropped slightly compared with 2008 as there

was an increase in the proportions who preferred 5-room or bigger flats, studio

apartments or private properties. Residents generally preferred to own their

housing when old, with only a small proportion preferring to rent.

Table 3.27 Residents’ Preferred Housing Type for Old Age

Preferred Housing Type for Old Age



2008 2013 2008 2013

Purchased

1-Room 2.1 1.3 2.9 1.5

2-Room 9.6 6.8 6.9 6.3

3-Room 38.0 28.2 40.5 34.4

4-Room 20.6 23.1 24.4 28.4

5-Room or Bigger 13.5 19.1 12.9 16.1

Studio Apartment 3.7 6.9 1.9 4.0

Private Properties 7.4 9.0 0.9 1.5

Rented

1-Room 0.7 0.1 3.4 2.3

2-Room 0.7 0.7 3.7 3.1

3-Room 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4

4-Room 0.1 - - -

5-Room or Bigger - 0.3 - -

Private Properties 1.0 0.8 0.1 -

Others (e.g. old folks’ home, retirement village) 2.2 3.5 1.7 2.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 302,497 261,840 171,486 203,559


51.3 62.8 58.6 64.9

72

Moving in with children the ideal living arrangement when elderly persons unable to live on their own

Residents were asked what they felt would be the ideal elderly living

arrangement when an elderly person was unable to live on his or her own. The

majority of the younger married residents (63.4%) felt that moving in with children,

would be the best option (Chart 3.10). In contrast, although the majority of older

residents (47.0%) also chose to move in with children as the ideal living

arrangement, there were higher proportion of them (35.4%) who felt that living in

their own home with increased care-giving by family members or domestic

helpers, was the ideal arrangement. This reflects a preference to age-in-place.

Chart 3.10 Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons Unable to Live on their Own

Majority would take care of parents in their old age regardless of circumstances

To gain insights into residents’ opinions on caregiving for elderly parents,

residents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed to the three statements

as shown in Table 3.28.

Nine in ten of residents agreed with the first statement “I would take care of my

parents in their old age, regardless of circumstances”, indicating the strong

presence of family values among residents, such as filial piety. The proportion

dropped slightly when the condition “if circumstances allowed” is added to the

statement. Close to nine in ten of residents disagreed with the last statement, “I

would leave matters to my parents or to the government”, which revealed a high

sense of responsibility among children.

47.0

63.4

35.4

22.2

5.6

6.4

10.5

7.3

1.5

0.7

0 20 40 60 80 100



Households (%)

Move in with children (may hire maids)Live in own home with increased care-giving by family members and/or maidsLive in own home with help from professional support services (e.g. daycare centres)Live in institutions (e.g. nursing home, hospital, old folks' home)Others (e.g. retirement village, move in with other relatives)

73

Table 3.28 Caregiving for Elderly Parents

Statements Younger Married Residents


I would take care of my parents in their old age, regardless of circumstances

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

41.2 53.9 4.7 0.2

27.2 64.3 8.3 0.2

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 271,716 36,743

I would take care of my parents in their old age, if my circumstances allowed


35.4 52.5 11.0 1.1

20.1 61.9 16.5 1.5

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 271,652 36,911

I would leave matters to my parents or to the government


2.2 8.8 70.8 18.2

0.3 9.0 79.0 11.7

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 271,245 36,543



Family ties between parents and children remained generally strong for families

with children. Over the years, higher proportions of younger married residents

lived with or near their parents. Similarly, there was a slight increase in the

proportion of older residents living in the same flat with their married children,

although further analysis showed that this could be a temporary arrangement for

married children while waiting for their new flat to be completed or renovated.

For both groups, the gap between residents’ present and preferred living

arrangements had narrowed over the years.

Inter-generational ties between parents and married children remained strong,

with close to nine in ten visiting one another at least once a month. The majority

of families with children also kept in touch with family members at least once a

month. It was found that there was a strong correlation between proximity and

frequency of visits. The frequency of visits between children and parents

increased with closer proximity, especially for daily visits.

95.1 91.5

87.9 82.0

89.0 90.7

74

Similarly, with regard to reliance on family for support, a higher proportion of

older residents was able to rely on their married children living closer to them for

physical support. This trend was also observed among younger married

residents. However, proximity was a less significant factor for the provision of

emotional and financial support in times of emergency, as these two forms of

support could still be rendered without being physically close by.

The proportion of older residents receiving regular financial support from their

children remained high at 77.7%. Compared with 2008, the average monthly

amount received by one parent, from all his/her children, had increased from

$445 to $552.

The average score for sense of closeness to family members was generally high.

Sense of closeness to family members was found to correlate with proximity

among older residents with married children, as the average scores for sense of

closeness to family members were higher when parents and married children live

nearer to each other. However, sense of closeness was not dependent on

proximity among younger married residents, possibly because they were more

mobile and able to rely on other modes of communication (e.g. social media and

text messaging) to keep in touch with family members.

With regard to ideal living arrangement for elderly persons who could no longer

live on their own, a high proportion of younger married residents felt that the ideal

living arrangement was for elderly persons to move in with their children. In

contrast, more older residents with married children felt that living in their own

home with increased caregiving by family members or domestic workers, was the

ideal arrangement. This reflects older residents’ preference to age-in-place as

they are comfortable and familiar with their existing home.

The majority of residents would take care of their parents regardless of

circumstances, reflecting a strong presence of filial responsibility towards ageing

parents.

4

Well-Being of the Elderly

77

Chapter 4 Well-Being of the Elderly

Introduction

Singapore’s population has been experiencing a rapid increase in ageing due to

increasing life expectancy and declining birth rates and it is projected that there

will be 900,000 elderly citizens by 203010. This would have a significant impact

on the old-age support ratio and the economic growth of Singapore due to

manpower inadequacy.

In the past decades, several committees such as the Committee on Ageing

Issues (CAI) and the Ministerial Committee on Ageing (MCA), set up in 2004 and

2007, respectively, have been formed by the Singapore government to prepare

for an ageing society. It coordinates the efforts by various ministries to provide a

holistic approach towards addressing the challenges and opportunities of

Singapore’s ageing population11. Since the formation of MCA, various initiatives

such as the Wellness Programme and the City for All Ages (CFAA) Project have

been rolled out to various constituencies. In addition, more Senior Activity

Centres (SACs) have been set up near rental flats and studio apartments, while

HDB has also introduced the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE)

programme to provide home modification services to flats12.

SHS 2013 findings showed that the proportion of elderly and future elderly

population residing in HDB flats was 11.0% and 13.3%, respectively. Compared

10 January 2013. Population White Paper: A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore. National

Population and Talent Division. Retrieved on 29 September 2014 (http://www.population.sg/whitepaper/downloads/population-white-paper.pdf).

11 Ministerial Committee on Ageing 2007, Ministerial Committee to Spearhead Successful Ageing for Singapore: Committee will build on strong family ties and enable families to support senior members, Retrieved on 13 October 2014 (http://app.msf.gov.sg/portals/0/summary/pressroom/10-2007.pdf)

12 Ministry of Health: Update on Ministerial Committee on Ageing, Oct 2013, Retrieved on 13 October 2014 (http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressRoom/Parliamentary_QA/2013/update-on-ministerial-committee-on-ageing-.html)

78

with national statistics 13 , there were proportionately more elderly and future

elderly residents residing in HDB flats compared with private housing. Hence, it

is important to keep tabs on the well-being of elderly and future elderly residents

living in HDB towns and estates in terms of their financial well-being, community

involvement and satisfaction with the living environment. This would facilitate the

building of a conducive environment where elderly residents can age comfortably

in their later years.

Objectives

The objectives of this chapter are to examine elderly residents in three main

aspects:

a) Personal aspects in terms of their financial well-being, views on

monetisation and perceived health;

b) Social aspects which comprise their family ties and community bonding;

c) Housing aspects with regard to their satisfaction with the living environment,

usage of estate facilities, housing preferences and preference to age-in-

place.

Framework

As shown in the framework, elderly residents’ well-being is examined through

three main aspects, namely, personal, social and housing. Comparison of

findings on elderly residents are made with all HDB households and future elderly

residents, as well as past SHS findings to provide a more comprehensive picture

of the well-being of elderly residents in HDB estates. The two cohorts are

defined as follows:

Elderly household is defined as one where the head of household is aged 65

years and above. There are presently about 113,294 such households.

Future elderly household is defined as one where the head of household is

aged between 55 to 64 years. There are presently about 144,792 such

households. 13 Population Trends 2013, Singapore Department of Statistics. The national data indicated that 10.5% of

resident population were aged 65 years and above, and 13.1% were those aged between 55 and 64 years.

79

Framework for Well-Being of the Elderly

4.1 Personal Aspects

This section examines the personal well-being of elderly residents by looking at

their current financial situation, financial planning for old age and perceived

health. It is important to monitor such aspects to enable elderly residents to live

comfortably in their later years.

4.1.1 Financial Well-Being

As both life expectancy and cost of living rise, it is inevitable that elderly residents

would require more financial resources for old age. Hence, more financially

vulnerable groups such as elderly residents living alone, those without sufficient

financial support from family members or having insufficient income or assets,

would require greater assistance. This section examines whether elderly

residents have planned financially for their retirement needs, their regular

sources of income, adequacy of resources to meet daily expenses and

preference for various monetisation options.

More future elderly had at least one financial option for retirement needs

Four in ten of elderly residents (40.9%) had taken up at least one financial option

in planning for their retirement needs (Chart 4.1). In comparison, a higher

Well-Being of the Elderly

Future Elderly

55 - 64 Years (N = 144,792)*

Elderly

65 Years & Above (N = 113,294)*

* The figures are based on heads of elderly and future elderly households who responded to the survey

Personal Aspects

Financial Well-being Views on Monetisation Perceived Health

Social Aspects

Family Ties Community

Bonding

Housing Aspects

Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment Satisfaction & Usage of Estate Facilities Residential Mobility & Housing Aspirations Perceptions on Ageing-in-Place

80

proportion of future elderly residents (58.0%) had done so, indicating that a

higher proportion of elderly residents in future would be financially more prepared

for their retirement needs. However, it was noted that a substantial four in ten of

future elderly residents did not have any financial option in planning for their

retirement needs, hence the importance of financial planning should still be

emphasised among residents, especially the younger cohorts.

Chart 4.1 Elderly and Future Elderly who had Undertaken At Least One Financial Option in Planning for Retirement Needs

For those who had taken up at least one financial option in planning for their

retirement needs, the more popular options were to have a regular savings plan,

buying medical insurance coverage for illness in old age and non-medical

insurance as a form of savings plan (Chart 4.2). It was observed that a higher

proportion of elderly residents placed their money into a regular savings plan

instead of other financial options compared with future elderly residents. This is

not surprising as the majority of them may not be aware of other financial options

or the options may not be available to them when they are making such plans.

Chart 4.2 Financial Options for Retirement Planning among Elderly and Future Elderly

40.9

58.0

0

20

40

60

80

Elderly Future Elderly

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

3.1

5.7

16.7

33.6

48.1

57.2

51.8

3.0

1.6

18.1

22.9

34.9

43.4

60.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other options (e.g. property investment,monetisation)

Engaging financial advisorto help with retirement planning

Investment in shares

Planned the amount of funds needed for retirement

Buying non-medical insurance as a form ofsavings for retirement needs

Buying medical insurance to protect fromillness in old age

Putting money into a regular savings plan

Households who Had Planned for Retirement (%)

Elderly

FutureElderly

81

Among elderly residents who did not plan financially for retirement, 39.4% of

them cited that they had never thought about it or did not see the need to plan

(Table 4.1). Another 20.5% of elderly residents said that they did not need to

plan as they could rely on their children, spouse or other relatives for financial

needs. Some 16.9% of them also mentioned that they did not know how to plan.

For future elderly residents who did not plan financially, 39.8% of them had not

thought about it or did not see the need to plan, while 25.2% of them cited a lack

of funds to plan for their old age needs.

Table 4.1 Reasons for Not Having Financial Planning for Old Age Needs among Elderly and Future Elderly

Reasons Elderly Future Elderly

Never thought about it/Do not see the need to plan/Too late to plan Depend on children/spouse/other relatives Do not know how to plan Insufficient income to plan Sufficient income at present, no need to plan Rely on pension/government welfare

39.4 20.5 16.9 15.9 6.9 0.4

39.8 7.6 13.2 25.2 12.6 1.6

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 66,699 60,468


Profile analysis showed that higher proportions of elderly and future elderly

residents who did not plan financially were living in rental flats or smaller flat

types. More of them were female or less educated (Table 4.2). This is most

likely due to the fact that residents living in rental flats or smaller flat types have

insufficient income to plan for retirement needs. Elderly females were more likely

to be economically inactive and therefore dependent on their children and spouse

for financial support.

82

Table 4.2 Financial Planning for Retirement Needs among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Attributes


Whether Planned Financially Total Whether Planned

Financially Total

Yes No % N* Yes No % N*

Economic Status


40.5

41.2 59.5

58.8 100.0

100.0 31,870

81,059 58.9

55.4 41.1

44.6 100.0

100.0 105,136

38,920

Tenure Sold Rental

45.5 11.6

54.5 88.4

100.0 100.0

98,024 15,132

61.8 19.0

38.2 81.0

100.0 100.0

131,615 12,691


17.8 36.7 46.7 64.7

82.2 63.3 53.3 35.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19,024 42,107 34,356 17,668

20.5 48.3 64.2 73.4

79.5 51.7 35.8 26.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

14,402 41,198 46,384 42,324

Education Primary & Below** Secondary Post-secondary & Above

29.6

52.0 75.3

70.4

48.0 24.7

100.0

100.0 100.0

66,571

34,407 11,355

40.0

58.6 84.5

60.0

41.4 15.5

100.0

100.0 100.0

45,298

69,723 28,854

Sex Male Female

44.7 35.3

55.3 64.7

100.0 100.0

68,213 44,942

60.5 53.3

39.5 46.7

100.0 100.0

94,025 50,282

* Excluding non-response cases ** Those with no formal education and with primary education are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample

size

Majority of elderly relied on personal savings and financial support from children as regular sources of income

Elderly residents were asked to identify the sources of regular income they

received monthly from a list of possible financial sources. The major sources of

regular income they cited were from their personal savings and financial support

from children (Chart 4.3). Close to seven in ten of future elderly residents had

regular income from employment, higher compared with elderly residents as a

higher proportion of them was economically active. Hence, it was not surprising

that only four in ten of future elderly residents were relying on their children for

regular allowances.

83

Chart 4.3 Regular Financial Sources of Elderly and Future Elderly

The proportion of future elderly residents having two or more regular financial

sources (83.2%) was comparable to elderly residents (81.6%) as shown in Chart

4.4. However, it was noted that a higher proportion of future elderly residents

had three or more regular financial sources (37.0%), compared with elderly

residents (31.3%).

Chart 4.4 Number of Regular Financial Sources of Elderly and Future Elderly

A higher proportion of elderly and future elderly residents living in 4-room or

bigger flats had two or more regular financial sources, compared with those living

in 3-room or smaller flats (Table 4.3). However, there was no significant

difference among genders for both elderly and future elderly residents.

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.1

2.2

2.2

0.7

1.2

3.2

4.3

2.2 9.2

69.6 43.1

78.5

0.9

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.8

1.9

2.0

2.7

2.8

3.1

4.2

17.5

27.7 67.6

79.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other sources (e.g. money from friends)

Rental from private property

Lease Buyback Scheme

Rental from commercial properties

Money from spouse

Money from relatives

Welfare assistance

Pensions

Returns from investments

Rental income from subletting of HDB

Annuity

CPF withdrawals

Income from work

Money from children

Draw down savings

Households (%)

Elderly

Future Elderly

17.3

50.3

24.7

6.6 1.1

16.3

46.2

28.3

8.7 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

One Two Three More thanthree

None

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Elderly

Future Elderly

84

Table 4.3 Number of Financial Resources of Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Attributes


No. of Financial Resources Total No. of Financial

Resources Total

One or None

Two or More % N* One or

None Two or More % N*


32.8 18.2 14.4 11.0

67.2 81.8 85.6 89.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19,048 42,222 34,356 17,668

24.5 20.2 13.9 13.9

75.5 79.8 86.1 86.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

14,401 41,508 46,445 42,437

Sex Male Female

17.5 19.8

82.5 80.2

100.0 100.0

68,328 44,966

17.5 15.3

82.5 84.7

100.0 100.0

94,491 50,301


Majority felt income adequate to meet daily needs albeit declining proportions over past five years

More than seven in ten of elderly and future elderly residents felt that their

sources of income were sufficient to cover their daily expenses (Chart 4.5). This

was a decline from 2008, where eight in ten in both groups felt that their income

was adequate.

Chart 4.5 Adequacy of Sources of Income to Meet Daily Expenses for Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

High cost of living was the main reason cited among elderly residents who felt

that their income was inadequate. Other reasons stated were low income and

high medical costs (Table 4.4). Similar reasons were cited by future elderly

residents.

8.7 4.1 9.1 5.8

71.9 70.8

71.9 67.7

15.4 17.5 13.7 19.6

4.0 7.6 5.3 6.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2013 2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Usually inadequate

Occasionally inadequate

Adequate

More than adequate


80.6 81.0 73.5 74.9

85

Table 4.4 Reasons for Having Inadequate Sources of Income among Elderly and Future Elderly


High cost of living Income too low/Irregular income High medical costs Children did not provide enough financial support Children are still financially dependent

63.5 18.7 10.3 7.0 0.5

62.4 25.7 7.8 1.3 2.8

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 28,254 37,954


Elderly residents would request for more money from their children/spouse or rely

on their personal savings to meet any shortfall. Future elderly residents on the

other hand, would rely more on their personal savings instead of obtaining

financial support from their children (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Ways for Elderly and Future Elderly to Meet Any Shortfall

Ways to Meet Shortfall Elderly Future Elderly

Request more money from children/spouse Personal savings Borrow money from relatives/friends Welfare assistance CPF savings Self-control by eating and spending less Sell assets Earn extra income by working part-time/longer hours Others (e.g. seek help from religious institutions, neighbour)

46.2 28.1 10.2 6.3 4.0 1.8 1.5 0.1 1.8

26.1 49.7 9.8 3.2 3.7 1.3 3.5 1.8 0.9

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 28,136 37,909


Profile analysis showed that a higher proportion of elderly and future elderly

residents who had inadequate income to meet daily expenses lived in rental flats

or smaller flat types (Table 4.6). As these residents were likely to have lower

household income, they would have more difficulties meeting their daily

expenses. Future elderly residents who were not working were also more likely

to face financial challenges compared with those who remained in the workforce.

Higher proportions of elderly males also perceived their income to be inadequate

compared with females. However, the cost concerns faced by the elderly could

be alleviated by the introduction of the Pioneer Generation Package in 2014, as

86

they will now benefit from extra subsidies for Medisheld Life and outpatient

treatment, as well as annual Medisave top-ups.

Table 4.6 Adequacy of Sources of Income for Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Attributes


Adequacy of Income Total Adequacy

of Income Total


Economic Status


76.2

74.3 23.8

25.7 100.0

100.0 31,496

80,717 75.0

69.5 25.0

30.5 100.0

100.0 104,674

38,646

Tenure Sold Rental

77.4 58.9

22.6 41.1

100.0 100.0

97,324 15,116

75.9 48.8

24.1 51.2

100.0 100.0

130,879 12,691


61.2 72.7 77.6 89.5

38.8 27.3 22.4 10.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19,032 41,948 33,905 17,554

51.7 73.4 75.4 79.1

48.3 26.6 24.6 20.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

14,402 41,030 46,278 41,861

Sex Male Female

73.2 77.5

26.8 22.5

100.0 100.0

67,952 44,487

73.1 74.4

26.9 25.6

100.0 100.0

93,270 50,301


Majority of elderly did not take up any monetisation option after turning 50 years old

As the majority of elderly and future elderly residents are homeowners, their HDB

flat is an important monetary asset. To help them unlock the value of their flat,

HDB has in place various monetisation options for elderly residents to

supplement their retirement income if necessary. The different options available

are subletting of whole flat or one or more room(s), right-sizing to HDB Studio

Apartment or a smaller flat, cashing out and living with children or other family

members or renting a flat/room, and applying for the Enhanced Lease Buyback

Scheme (LBS)14.

14 The Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) is an additional monetisation option to help low-income elderly

flat owners living in 3-room and smaller flats to unlock part of their housing equity while continuing to live in their homes, and receive a lifelong income stream to supplement their retirement income. Under the Enhanced LBS, the elderly flat owners sell part of their flat lease to HDB and retain a 30-year lease. Their proceeds from selling part of the flat lease will be used to top up their CPF Retirement Accounts (RAs). Eligible flat owners will use their full CPF RA savings to purchase a CPF LIFE plan to give them a monthly income for life. Each household will receive a LBS cash bonus of up to $20,000. Enhanced LBS is available to those who meet the following criteria: - Age of youngest lessee is CPF Draw-Down Age (currently 63 years) or older; - At least one owner is a Singapore citizen - Household income of $3,000 or less; - No concurrent ownership of second property; - Have lived in existing flat for 5 years or more. From 1 Apr 2015, the LBS will be extended to elderly flat owners living in 4-room flat as well, and the income ceiling will be raised from $3,000 to $10,000. All other eligibility criteria remain the same.

87

A question in SHS 2013 was asked on whether elderly and future elderly

residents had taken any monetisation options after turning 50 years old. Before

turning 50 years old, any transactions made on the flat (e.g. cashing out, right-

sizing, subletting) would not be regarded as monetisation as they could be for

other purposes such as meeting one’s aspirations. Given that the minimum age

criteria for purchasing a studio apartment is 55 years old, a cut-off age of 50

years old was used. This is five years prior to 55 years old and in this timeframe,

residents would have sufficient time to decide whether to exercise any

monetisation options for retirement needs.

It was found that 11.8% of elderly residents and 11.0% of future elderly residents

had taken up at least one monetisation option after turning 50 years old. The

most popular option chosen by those who had opted to monetise was subletting

of rooms. Other popular options included right-sizing to a smaller resale HDB flat

or a smaller new HDB flat (Chart 4.6).

Chart 4.6 Monetisation Options Taken after 50 Years Old among Elderly and Future Elderly

5.8

2.4

0.2

3.0

0.7

0.3

10.5

7.2

24.6

54.3

2.7

0.9

1.2

2.6

3.2

3.8

5.3

11.1

11.9

30.4

37.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Others (e.g. SERS,sublet private property)

Moved from private propertyto Studio Apartment

Moved from private propertyto new HDB flat

Sublet whole flat

Sold HDB/private property andrented whole HDB flat

Sold HDB flat/private property andmoved in with relatives

Lease Buyback Scheme

Moved from HDB flatto Studio Apartment

Moved to smaller new HDB flat

Moved from private propertyto resale HDB flat

Moved to smaller resale HDB flat

Sublet of room(s)

Households who Had Taken At Least One Monetisation Option (%)

Elderly

FutureElderly

88

Analysis by flat type showed that higher proportions of elderly residents living in

3- and 4-room flats had taken at least one monetisation option after turning 50

years old. For future elderly residents, close to one in five living in 3-room flats

had taken at least one monetisation option after turning 50 years old (Chart 4.7).

Chart 4.7 Whether Monetised after Turning 50 Years Old for Elderly and Future Elderly by Flat Type


When asked whether they would consider monetising in the next five years,

82.5% of elderly residents and 76.4% of future elderly residents indicated they

would not do so (Chart 4.8). For those who had no intention to monetise, most

would rely on children or other family members if they were to encounter major

financial difficulties, such as not being able to work or having insufficient savings

(Table 4.7). For those who intended to monetise in the next five years, the most

common option was to sublet rooms (Table 4.8).

Chart 4.8 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly and Future Elderly

* Excluding residents living in rental flats and non-response cases

6.8 15.0 12.2 8.6 1.3 18.9 9.6 8.2

93.2 85.0 87.8 91.4 98.7 81.1 90.4 91.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

1- & 2-Room

3-Room 4-Room 5-Room& Bigger

1- & 2-Room

3-Room 4-Room 5-Room& Bigger

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

No

Yes

17.5 23.6

82.5 76.4

0

20

40

60

80

100


Hou

seho

lds

(%)

No

Yes

Future Elderly Elderly

(N= 97,922) (N= 130,843)

89

Table 4.7 Options among Elderly and Future Elderly Who Had No Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years When They Encounter Major Financial Difficulties

Options in the Event of Major Financial Difficulties Elderly Future Elderly

Rely on children/family members Have sufficient savings/assets in the event of financial difficulties Rely on public assistance Have not thought about it Borrow from friends Others (e.g. move overseas)

90.3 4.1 4.0 1.2 0.3 0.1

82.6 4.8 9.7 1.3 1.1 0.5

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 80,013 97,230


Table 4.8 Preferred Monetisation Options among Elderly and Future Elderly Who Intended to Monetise in the Next Five Years

Monetisation Options Elderly Future Elderly

Sublet room(s) Sell flat and move to smaller flat Sell flat and move to Studio Apartment Sublet whole flat Lease Buyback Scheme Sell flat and move in with children/relatives Sell flat and move to rental flat/rent room(s) Others (e.g. sell flat and move to cheaper flat of same size, SERS/En bloc)

55.0 12.2 8.9 8.2

7.7 4.2 0.6 3.2

43.9 28.0 13.3 5.4 5.0 2.1 1.4 0.9

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 17,099 30,883


Analysis by flat type showed that a higher proportion of elderly residents living in

4-room and smaller flats intended to monetise in the next five years. For future

elderly residents, close to one in three living in 3-room and smaller flats intended

to do so in the next five years (Chart 4.9).

90

Chart 4.9 Intention to Monetise in the Next Five Years among Elderly and Future Elderly by Flat Type

* Excluding residents living in rental flats and non-response cases ** 1- to 3-room flats are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size

4.1.2 Perceived Level of Health

Most elderly and future elderly perceived themselves as healthy Elderly and future elderly residents were asked to rate their general health on a

five-point scale ranging from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Very Poor’. The majority of elderly

and future elderly residents perceived their health to be very good, good or fair

(Chart 4.10). The proportion of future elderly residents who perceived

themselves as being healthy was also slightly higher compared with 2008.

Chart 4.10 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

For elderly and future elderly residents who perceived their health to be poor or

very poor, higher proportions of them were economically inactive, living in rental

flats or smaller flat types or with lower levels of education (Table 4.9). For future

elderly residents, a higher proportion of females perceived their health to be poor

19.0 19.0 10.5 31.4

18.5 21.3

81.0 81.0 89.5 68.6

81.5 78.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

3-Room& Smaller

4-Room 5-Room& Bigger

3-Room& Smaller

4-Room 5-Room& Bigger

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

NoYes

8.9 6.0 13.6 7.7

46.9 48.8 47.7 60.0

33.2 35.4 31.6 26.5

9.9 9.0 6.0 5.3 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2013 2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Very PoorPoorFairGoodVery Good

Future Elderly Elderly

94.2 92.9 90.2 89.0


91

compared with males. There was no difference in perception of their health

between genders among elderly residents.

Table 4.9 Perceived General Health of Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Attributes


Perception of Health Total Perception

of Health Total

Very Good/ Good/ Fair

Poor/ Very Poor

% N* Very

Good/ Good /Fair

Poor/ Very Poor

% N*

Economic Status


94.5

88.4 5.5

11.6 100.0

100.0 31,773

80,836 95.3

91.5 4.7

8.5 100.0

100.0 104,860

38,982

Tenure Sold Rental

91.7 80.1

8.3 19.9

100.0 100.0

97,703 15,132

94.9 87.8

5.1 12.2

100.0 100.0

131,402 12,691

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5- Room & Bigger

80.6 90.5 91.8 96.3

19.4 9.5 8.2 3.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19,048 41,986 34,133 17,668

88.6 92.1 94.9 97.6

11.4 7.9 5.1 2.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

14,402 41,213 46,315 42,163


87.1

92.9 98.7

12.9

7.1 1.3

100.0

100.0 100.0

66,262

34,396 11,355

90.7

94.6 98.8

9.3

5.4 1.2

100.0

100.0 100.0

45,356

69,614 28,691

Sex Male Female

90.8 89.1

9.2 10.9

100.0 100.0

67,869 44,966

96.3 90.5

3.7 9.5

100.0 100.0

93,792 50,301

* Excluding non-response cases ** Those with no formal education and with primary education are grouped together to ensure sufficient

sample size

4.2 Social Aspects

As seen from the findings on family ties, frequent interactions and regular support

from family members are vital in maintaining the positive well-being of elderly

residents. It is also important to examine elderly residents’ interactions with their

neighbours and participation in activities, to ascertain the level of support they

can obtain from the wider community. The following sections examine family ties

and community bonding as indicators of social well-being of elderly residents in

HDB estates.

92

4.2.1 Family Ties

In Chapter 3, the family ties between parents and children are examined. This

section examines more specifically the family ties of elderly residents aged 65

years and above, as well as future elderly residents aged 55 to 64 years old. The

strength of family ties is examined by looking at elderly and future elderly

residents’ living arrangements in relation to their children, depth of interaction and

support, sense of closeness to family members and caregiving for elderly parents.

More elderly preferred to live with or within close proximity to married children

Out of a total of 113,294 elderly households, 76.1% had married children.

Among those with married children, the proportion of elderly residents who lived

in the same flat with their married child had increased from 12.0% in 2008 to

17.3% in 2013 (Table 4.10). However, their preference to do so was lower than

their present living arrangement. As mentioned in the chapter on Family Ties,

the increase could be attributed to the married children living temporarily with

their parents while waiting for their new flat to be ready. The proportion who

were currently living elsewhere in relation to their married children had also

increased from 2008.

Looking at their preferred living arrangement over time, the proportion of elderly

residents who preferred to live in the same flat or within close proximity15 to their

married children continued to decline from 69.1% in 2003 to 53.5% in 2008 and

48.8% in 2013. Correspondingly, there was increasing preference for married

children to live elsewhere (17.2% in 2003 to 23.8% in 2008 and 35.5% in 2013).

The preference to live elsewhere could possibly be attributed to a more

comprehensive transport network, enabling elderly residents and their children to

enjoy greater ease in meeting up.

15 Living “within close proximity” to their married children is defined as living together, next door, in the same

block, in a nearby block, and in the same estate as their married children.

93

Table 4.10 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year


2003 2008 2013


In the Same Flat 7.6 16.2 12.0 13.3 17.3 16.9

Next Door 2.0 3.9 1.5 2.9 1.0 1.4

In the Same Block 5.0 11.0 3.4 7.0 3.0 4.8

In a Nearby Block 16.6 19.6 11.7 14.7 9.4 12.9



Elsewhere (includes overseas)

39.0 17.2 35.2 23.8 45.4 35.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 53,357 53,357 74,593 74,187 84,024 84,024


For future elderly residents, 42.4% of the 144,792 households had married

children. Among those with married children, about 36.7% lived in the same flat

or within close proximity to their nearest married child. This proportion was

comparable to 2008 (Table 4.11). Similar to the trend observed for elderly

residents, the proportion living in the same flat had increased compared with

2008, while the preference to do so was lower than their present living

arrangement. In contrast to elderly residents, a slightly higher proportion of

future elderly residents was living in nearby estates to their married children

compared with 2008.

Looking at preferred living arrangement of future elderly residents, those who

preferred to live in the same flat or within close proximity to their married children

had decreased from 52.2% in 2008 to 46.3% in 2013. These findings were

similar to those of elderly residents.

However, it was also observed that among both elderly and future elderly

residents, a much higher proportion would still prefer their married children to live

in closer proximity, compared with their present living arrangement. Hence, more

housing schemes are now available16 to encourage married children and parents

to live nearer to one another for mutual care and support.

16 The existing schemes to encourage parents and children to live near each other include the Multi-Generation

Priority Scheme (MGPS), Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS), Studio Apartment Priority Scheme (SAPS) and CPF Housing Grant for Family. In September 2013, 3-Generation Family Flats (3GEN) were also introduced to enable multi-generation families to live under one roof.

43.2 69.1 40.2 53.5 40.8 48.8

94

Table 4.11 Present and Preferred Physical Living Arrangements of Future Elderly vis-à-vis their Married Children by Year

Physical Living Arrangement 2008 2013

Present Preferred Present Preferred

In the Same Flat 15.5 14.1 19.5 16.2

Next Door 0.0 2.1 0.2 1.2

In the Same Block 1.1 3.4 0.8 2.2

In a Nearby Block 9.9 16.8 5.9 10.0

In the Same Estate 10.8 15.8 10.3 16.7

In a Nearby Estate 17.3 16.9 20.2 20.7

Elsewhere (includes overseas) 45.4 30.9 43.1 33.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 56,884 56,870 58,819 58,819


Preference to live with spouse and/or unmarried children among elderly mirrored current living arrangement

Close to six in ten (58.3%) of elderly residents lived with their spouse and/or

unmarried children, which was comparable to previous years (Table 4.12).

Another 12.7% of them lived with their married children and close to one in four

were living alone (23.1%).

The proportion of elderly residents who lived alone had increased from 19.3% in

2008 to 23.1% in 2013. Their preference to do so had also increased from

18.0% in 2008 to 22.5% in 2013. Further analysis on the profile of elderly

residents living alone showed that most of them were female (68.0%) or widowed

(53.4%). Their socio-economic profiles revealed that 77.4% of them were

economically inactive, 76.9% lived in 3-room or smaller flats, and 67.9% had

primary or lower levels of education.

The present and preferred social living arrangement of elderly residents matched

quite closely. Close to six in ten of elderly residents (59.8%) also preferred to live

with their spouse and/or unmarried children, comparable to 59.6% in 2008. With

regard to living with married children, the gap had narrowed as increasing

proportions were living with married children while preference to do so continued

to decline to 12.3% in 2013, from 14.6% in 2008. The proportion that was living

37.3 52.2 36.7 46.3

95

with unrelated persons had decreased, from 9.3% in 2008 to 2.2% in 2013, which

mirrored their preference.

Table 4.12 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Elderly by Year



Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children 63.8 52.6 60.3 59.6 58.3 59.8


Live with Siblings/Relatives 3.8 5.4 0.2 0.3 3.7 3.8

Live Alone 21.1 24.3 19.3 18.0 23.1 22.5

Live with Unrelated Persons 4.1 1.2 9.3 7.5 2.2 1.6

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 66,722 66,722 92,817 92,760 113,294 113,075


In comparison with elderly residents, there was a higher proportion of future

elderly residents who lived with their spouse and/or unmarried children as their

children were likely to be younger (Table 4.13). The proportion living with

married children and preferred to do so was lower compared with elderly

residents. There was also a lower proportion of future elderly residents who lived

alone, possibly because fewer were widowed compared with elderly residents.

However, similar to the trends observed for elderly residents, the proportion of

future elderly residents living alone had increased from 8.6% in 2008 to 14.5% in

2013. The proportion of those living with unrelated persons had also decreased

from 7.2% in 2008 to 1.9% in 2013. Hence, future elderly residents’ preferred

living arrangement mirrored their present living arrangement.

Table 4.13 Present and Preferred Social Living Arrangements of Future Elderly by Year

Social Living Arrangement 2008 2013

Present Preferred Present Preferred

Live with Spouse and/or Unmarried Children 77.1 75.5 73.1 73.7

Live with Married Children 6.5 7.4 7.2 7.1

Live with Siblings/Relatives 0.6 0.7 3.3 3.5

Live Alone 8.6 9.0 14.5 14.3

Live with Unrelated Persons 7.2 7.4 1.9 1.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 129,397 129,331 144,792 144,534


96

Most had meals or went on outings together with married children when they visited each other

This section analyses the visiting patterns between elderly and future elderly

residents with respect to their married children as well as types of activities

carried out together. The analyses exclude those who lived in the same flat as

their married children. The findings showed that only 1.8% of elderly residents

did not exchange visits with their married children, comparable to 1.5% in 2008.

Among those who exchanged visits, close to nine in ten (87.3%) did so at least

once a month, comparable to 88.5% in 2008 (Table 4.14). Among future elderly

residents who exchanged visits with their married children, 92.7% of them did so

at least once a month, also comparable to 92.2% in 2008.

Table 4.14 Frequency of Visits between Elderly and Future Elderly with their Married Children by Year

Frequency of Visits Elderly Future Elderly

2003 2008 2013 2008 2013

Daily 23.0 21.8 24.9 23.6 22.5

At Least Once a Week 53.4 92.1 50.4 88.5 45.7 87.3 48.8 92.2 51.1 92.7

At Least Once a Month 15.7 16.3 16.7 19.8 19.1

Less Than Once a Month 7.9 11.5 12.7 7.8 7.3

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 47,039 67,283 76,226 48,462 48,946

* Excluding those who never visit, living together and non-response cases

Chart 4.11 shows the types and frequency of activities carried out by elderly

residents with their married children. Having meals together (81.7%), going on

outings (58.9%), and exchanging suggestions and advice about personal

problems (52.9%) were the most common activities carried out at least once a

month. In terms of daily visits, having meals together was the most common

activity carried out, followed by helping in childcare.

97

Chart 4.11 Types of Activities Carried Out between Elderly and their Married Children

In comparison with elderly residents, future elderly residents had nearly the same

extent of contact with their married children for each of the activities discussed

(Chart 4.12). However, in terms of daily visits, helping in childcare was the most

common activity, followed by having meals together.

Chart 4.12 Types of Activities Carried Out between Future Elderly and their Married Children

3.1

3.7

5.8

9.3

10.1

14.0

18.0

34.2

15.1

16.3

25.0

30.7

11.9

46.7

21.6

6.2

4.1

9.0

12.1

3.5

17.0

30.7

7.6

4.9

14.7

24.9

3.9

14.9

10.4

67.4

68.9

42.0

22.2

66.7

3.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Go on outings

Help in marketing




Help in taking care of children

Share meals

Elderly Households (%)

Daily At least once a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never

2.6

2.7

4.2

5.8

8.8

12.0

13.2

12.6

35.0

14.8

26.0

35.6

51.9

20.8

8.7

25.2

6.6

10.3

16.0

18.8

6.0

9.2

27.2

9.7

13.3

19.2

12.7

7.6

66.9

9.9

64.7

44.6

20.4

4.6

52.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Help in marketing

Go on outings




Share meals

Help in taking care of children

Future Elderly Households (%)

Daily At least once a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never

98

Majority could rely on children for physical, emotional and financial support

This section looks at the extent of support between children and older residents.

As mentioned in the chapter on Family Ties, in addition to assessing whether

elderly residents receive regular financial contributions from their children, it also

examines for the first time whether family members provide physical, emotional

and financial support17 to one another.

About three in four of both elderly and future elderly residents could rely on their

married children for physical support, and about nine in ten could rely on both

married and unmarried children for emotional support (Tables 4.15 and 4.16). As

higher proportions of elderly and future elderly residents were living with their

unmarried children, slightly higher proportions mentioned that they could rely on

them for physical support compared with married children.

Table 4.15 Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Types of Support Married Children

Unmarried Children

Physical Support

Able to rely Not able to rely Do not require support

76.4 12.6 11.0

81.5 11.4 7.1

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 84,034 51,320

Emotional Support


87.1 3.2 9.7

88.8 5.5 5.7

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 84,118 51,320

Financial Support in Times of Emergency


86.8 4.6 8.6

86.7 8.1 5.2

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 84,118 51,320


17 Physical support refers to helping with buying groceries, transportation, escorting to see doctor,

housework/home maintenance, helping in taking care of health (e.g. medicine management, aid in moving around).

Emotional support refers to providing information/advice or moral support. Financial support refers to financial help in times of emergency.

99

Table 4.16 Future Elderly Residents’ Reliance on Children for Physical, Emotional and Financial Support

Types of Support Married Children

Unmarried Children

Physical Support


73.6 13.7 12.7

84.4 6.8 8.8

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 58,773 91,917

Emotional Support


90.6 2.6 6.8

88.3 4.2 7.5

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 58,773 91,952

Financial Support in Times of Emergency


80.0 8.2 11.8

71.0 19.3 9.7

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 58,773 91,779


A lower proportion of future elderly residents would rely on married children and

unmarried children for financial support in times of emergency compared with

elderly residents (Tables 4.15 and 4.16). This is because a higher proportion of

future elderly residents is still economically active and therefore may not require

financial support from their children. Many of their unmarried children are also

likely to be younger and may not be economically active.

For elderly residents who did not receive physical support from their married or

unmarried children, the main reason given was that the children were too busy to

do so. For the small proportion who was not receiving emotional support from

married children, they mentioned that they were not close to their married

children. Elderly residents who could not rely on their children for financial

support during emergencies cited reason such as children not having sufficient

finances or they were not working. Similar reasons were also given by future

elderly residents.

100

Majority of elderly received regular financial allowances from children

The level of financial support received from children is another indicator of inter-

generational support. Among elderly residents with children (87.2%), 77.5% of

them received regular financial support from their children. This proportion was

lower compared with 85.6% in 2008. However, the average amount received by

one parent from all their children was $535 per month, higher compared with

$461 per month in 2008. The decline in the proportion of elderly residents

receiving regular financial support could be due to a higher proportion of them

being economically active (16.4% in 2008 and 20.6% in 2013) and hence not

requiring financial support from children.

Among future elderly residents with children (77.6%), 55.6% of them were

financially supported by their children. This proportion was also lower compared

with 62.3% in 2008. The average amount received by future elderly residents

was slightly higher compared with elderly residents, at $553 per month. Similar

to elderly residents, the decline in proportion of future elderly residents receiving

financial support compared with 2008 could be due to a slightly higher proportion

of them being economically active (62.7% in 2008 and 63.2% in 2013).

Further analysis showed that a higher proportion of elderly and future elderly who

received financial support from their children was females or economically

inactive (Table 4.17). In terms of flat type, both elderly and future elderly

residents living in 1- and 2-room flats, as well as those in 5-room and bigger flats

were less likely to receive regular financial support from their children. The

children of the elderly and future elderly residents living in smaller flats were likely

to be earning lower household incomes and hence might not be able to provide

regular financial support. For elderly and future elderly residents living in 5-room

and bigger flats, they could possibly draw upon their savings, thus did not require

financial support from their children.

Economically inactive or female elderly and future elderly residents also received

a higher amount compared with the economically active or male residents (Table

4.18). Those living in 5-room and bigger flats who received financial support also

received a higher amount.

101

Table 4.17 Regular Financial Support Received by Elderly and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Attributes


Financial Support Received Total Financial Support

Received Total


Economic Status


63.4

82.7 36.6

17.3 100.0

100.0 26,882

71,676 47.1

77.4 52.9

22.6 100.0

100.0 80,483

31,571


75.3 79.3 78.5 73.3

24.7 20.7 21.5 26.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

12,915 37,670 31,080 17,120

52.2 61.0 60.2 48.1

47.8 39.0 39.8 51.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7,677 25,343 40,032 39,254

Sex Male Female

71.3 87.6

28.7 12.4

100.0 100.0

61,212 37,573

47.7 72.5

52.3 27.5

100.0 100.0

76,597 35,708


Table 4.18 Amount of Financial Support Received by Elderly and Future Elderly from All Children by Attributes

Attributes Average Amount

Received per Month ($)


Economic Status Economically Active Economically Inactive

474 554

493 644


336 524 571 671

234 433 526 762

Sex Male Female

511 568

536 575

Overall 535 553

* Excluding non-response cases and those without children

Elderly would rely on themselves or children to pay for their medical bills

A question was also asked on who would pay for the medical bills of elderly

residents when they needed to seek medical treatments. It was found that the

majority of elderly (67.0%) and future elderly (78.0%) residents would usually pay

for their own medical bills, higher compared with 42.0% and 56.3% respectively,

in 2008. A higher proportion of future elderly residents (22.7%), who were more

likely to be economically active, would also rely on their employers to pay for their

102

medical bills than elderly residents. For elderly residents, about one in three

would rely on children to pay for their medical bills (Chart 4.13).

Chart 4.13 Person/Source Paying Medical Bills for Elderly and Future Elderly

Both elderly and future elderly had strong sense of closeness to family members

Elderly residents were asked to give a score on a scale of “0” to “10”, to indicate

how close they were to their family members. A response of “0” means “not

close at all” and “10” means “very close”. Both elderly and future elderly

residents expressed comparably high scores for sense of closeness to family

members, with an average score of 8.2 and 8.6, respectively.

Majority of elderly and future elderly kept in touch regularly with family members not living with them

In addition to having strong bonds between elderly residents and their children,

about eight in ten of both elderly and future elderly residents kept in touch with

family members who were not living with them on a daily, weekly or monthly

basis (Chart 4.14).

0.7

0.6

3.1

1.1

22.7

13.3

9.5

78.0

2.4

0.9

1.1

2.8

4.0

11.0

33.1

67.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pension

Relatives/Friends

Spouse

Welfare Assistance

Employer

Health Insurance

Children

Myself

Households (%)

ElderlyFuture Elderly

103

Chart 4.14 Keeping in Touch with Family Members whom Elderly and Future Elderly Do Not Live With

Most elderly and future elderly had no problems communicating with children and grandchildren

Among those with children and grandchildren, the majority of elderly and future

elderly residents had no problems communicating with their children and

grandchildren most of the time. This finding coupled with the earlier findings,

suggest that family ties are both strong and harmonious (Chart 4.15).

Chart 4.15 Whether Elderly and Future Elderly Faced Problems when Communicating with Children and Grandchildren

Moving in with children or remaining in their own home with caregiving by family members an ideal arrangement for elderly persons who could not live on their own

Residents were asked to select the living arrangement that they felt was the most

ideal for elderly persons who could no longer live on their own. About equal

proportions of elderly residents felt that moving in with children or remaining at

25.0 19.2

40.9 43.2

15.3 17.5

12.9 17.2

5.9 2.9

0

20

40

60

80

100


Hou

seho

lds

(%)

NeverA few times a yearAt least once a monthAt least once a weekDaily

92.0 93.5 93.6 96.0

4.5 3.5 3.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.1 3.4 2.9 1.9 3.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Children Grandchildren Children Grandchildren

Hou

seho

lds

(%) Do not communicate with them

Faced Problems most of the time

Faced Problems sometimes

Faced no problems most of the time

81.2 79.9


104

their current home with family members as caregivers would be the ideal living

arrangement (Table 4.19). Less than one in ten felt that remaining in their home

with professional caregivers was the ideal living arrangement, while 14.1% of

elderly residents felt that elderly persons should move into an institution if they

could no longer take care of themselves. For future elderly residents, similar

trends were observed except a higher proportion of them felt that moving in with

children would be the ideal living arrangement compared with remaining at their

current home.

Table 4.19 Elderly and Future Elderly Residents’ Perceived Ideal Living Arrangement for Elderly Persons Unable to Live on their Own

Ideal Living Arrangement Elderly Future Elderly

Move in with children 37.8 45.7

Remain at home and rely on family members for caregiving 38.2 30.8

Remain at home and rely on professional caregiver 8.2 6.6

Move into an institution 14.1 15.2

Others (e.g. move in with siblings, friends) 1.7 1.7

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 112,702 143,819


4.2.2 Community Bonding

This section on community bonding analyses aspects such as elderly residents’

social interactions with neighbours, sense of attachment to the living environment

and their involvement in community activities.

Almost all elderly and future elderly had casual interactions with neighbours

Table 4.20 shows the types of neighbourly interactions among elderly and future

elderly residents. Almost all elderly residents exchanged greetings and had

casual conversations with their neighbours. However, the other more intense

forms of neighbourly interactions such as visiting each other and exchanging

suggestions/advice declined from 2008.

105

Both elderly and future elderly residents showed broadly similar trends and

patterns of neighbourly interactions. These trends could be explained by an

increase in the proportion of elderly and future elderly residents having

interactions with neighbours of other ethnicities/nationalities compared with 2008

(Chart 4.16). This could have contributed to neighbourly interactions being more

extensive but less intense since they were likely to be newer neighbours with not

so well-developed social bonds.

Table 4.20 Types of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Types of Neighbourly Interaction

Households (%)

2008 2013

Elderly Future Elderly All Elderly Future

Elderly All

Exchange greetings Casual conversations Exchange food/gifts on special occasions Visit one another Keep watch over flat Buying of groceries Borrow/lend household items Help to look after children Keep house keys for them Provide/receive financial help Exchange suggestions/advice about personal problems Communicate via social media*

96.3 94.5 44.8 38.3 38.5 18.8 19.5 5.8 9.5 4.5 33.4

-

97.6 95.2 47.6 40.4 42.9 17.8 20.7 9.5 10.6 6.4 34.5

-

97.1 94.1 51.0 40.2 42.9 17.9 22.8 11.7 9.5 4.2 34.7

-

98.8 97.7 41.3 28.4 36.1 16.4 13.6 4.1 5.3 2.1 21.5

0.9

98.2 96.6 50.1 32.6 43.0 14.9 15.6 5.0 8.5 2.9

24.6

2.7

98.6 97.0 53.3 36.2 44.6 15.2 17.8 8.7 7.5 2.5 27.5

4.8

* New variable on communication via social media was added in SHS 2013

In terms of frequency of neighbourly interactions, close to six in ten of elderly

residents exchanged greetings and close to half of them engaged in casual

conversations with their neighbours on a daily basis. While a lower proportion of

elderly residents had engaged in more intense forms of neighbourly interactions,

about four in ten would exchange food/gifts on special occasions and keep watch

over each other’s flat on a regular or occasional basis (Table 4.21).

106

Table 4.21 Types and Frequency of Neighbourly Interaction among Elderly

Types of Neighbourly Interaction Daily At Least Once a Week


Occa-sionally

None at All

Total

% N*

Exchange greetings Casual conversations Exchange food/gifts on special occasions Visit one another Keep watch over flat Buying of groceries Borrow/lend household items Help to look after children Keep house keys for them Provide/receive financial help Exchange suggestions/advice about personal problems Communicate via social media

59.5 45.2 0.8 0.6 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5

0.1

22.8 28.7 1.7 1.4 1.0 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9

0.2

0.8 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.4 -

0.1 -

0.6 -

15.7 22.0 37.3 24.7 32.0 13.9 12.6 3.7 4.6 1.7

19.5

0.6

1.2 2.3

58.7 71.6 63.9 83.6 86.4 95.9 94.7 97.9 78.5

99.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

113,135 113,135 113,023 113,222 113,222 113,222 113,108 113,125 113,125 113,222 113,222 112,657


More elderly and future elderly interacted with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or nationalities

Apart from interacting with neighbours of their own ethnic group, 84.5% of elderly

residents also interacted with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or

nationalities, an increase from 72.3% in 2008 (Chart 4.16). As mentioned earlier,

elderly residents could have more new neighbours from other ethnic groups

and/or nationalities. A similar increase was also seen in the proportion of future

elderly residents interacting with neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or

nationalities.

For elderly residents who did not interact with other ethnic groups or nationalities,

this was mainly because they did not know neighbours of other ethnic groups or

nationalities, or due to language barriers.

107

Chart 4.16 Interaction with Neighbours of Other Ethnic Groups/Nationalities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Close to one in ten (9.2%) of elderly residents had shared memories with their

neighbours such as raising their families or celebrating festivities together, a

decline from 15.1% in 2008. Similarly, 9.8% of future elderly residents also had

such experiences, lower compared with 12.7% in 2008. This could be due to

elderly residents having more new neighbours of other ethnic groups and/or

nationalities, resulting in the decline in more intense forms of neighbourly

interactions as well as shared memories with their neighbours.

Although the proportion of elderly and future elderly residents having shared

memories with neighbours had declined, almost all (97.2% of elderly residents

and 96.4% of future elderly residents) felt that it was important to maintain a good

relationship with neighbours in order to provide and receive support in times of

need and also to foster neighbourliness and harmonious living.

Elderly residents usually interacted with their neighbours within the block (74.9%),

at places such as common corridors (29.5%), lift lobbies (24.6%) or void decks

(20.5%) as shown in Table 4.22. Within the precinct, they would usually meet

their neighbours at the market or eating places such as the coffee shop or eating

house. Thus, places within the block such as common corridors, lift lobbies and

void decks can be improved to make them more conducive for neighbourly

interactions to take place.

59.7 57.3 61.8 51.7

60.3 49.9

11.8 25.3 12.6 31.0 14.7 32.1

0.8

1.9 1.6

3.8 2.0

3.7 27.7 15.5

24.0 13.5

23.0 14.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%) With own ethnic group only

With own ethnic group andother nationalitiesWith own, other ethnic groupsand other nationalitiesWith own and other ethnicgroups

Future Elderly Elderly All

72.3 76.0 77.0 85.7 84.5 86.5

108

Table 4.22 Places where Neighbours Meet among Elderly and Future Elderly

Places where Neighbours Meet Elderly Future Elderly All

Within the Block Common corridor Lift lobby/Within lift Void deck Others (e.g. drop-off porch, neighbour’s flat)

Within Neighbourhood/Precinct Market Coffee shop/Eating house/Food court Pathway/Linkway Hawker centre Fitness Corner Playground Carpark Others (e.g. multi-purpose court, precinct pavilion)

Within Town Bus stop/Bus interchange Park/Garden MRT station Shopping/Entertainment area Community club/centre Others (e.g. religious institution)

74.9 29.5 24.6 20.5 0.3

20.1 5.2 5.2 3.7 3.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8

5.0 2.3 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6

77.1 30.8 25.4 20.5 0.4

17.8 3.3 5.3 3.5 2.5 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.4

5.1 1.3 1.1 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.6

76.2 30.9 25.8 18.9 0.6

18.1 4.4 4.0 3.6 2.0 0.4 1.5 1.5 0.7

5.7 1.8 1.1 0.7 1.3 0.3 0.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

No. of Responses* 293,715 365,115 2,301,626

* Excluding non-response cases and each respondent was asked to provide up to 3 responses

Elderly residents were more likely to keep in touch with their social networks

through face-to-face meetings and communicating via the telephone. A higher

proportion of them was also using these modes compared with 2008 (Table 4.23).

There was also an increase in the proportion of elderly residents using non-

traditional modes of communication such as Short Message Services (SMS) and

other online communication channels, although lower compared with future

elderly residents. The usage of SMS and online communication channels among

future elderly residents had also increased from 2008. Hence, it can be seen that

both elderly and future elderly residents are adapting well to newer forms of

communication, albeit at a slower pace for elderly residents.

109

Table 4.23 Common Modes of Interaction among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Modes of Interaction

Household (%)

Elderly Future Elderly All

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Face-to-Face Meeting Telephone Text Messaging (e.g. SMS, Whatsapp) Email/Internet Chat/Video Conferencing Social Networking Sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIN) Snail Mail

88.8 54.4 3.3 2.2

-

0.8

93.6 70.0 8.7 6.9

1.2

0.5

87.6 63.6 18.9 9.9

-

2.2

93.1 71.7 27.1 16.4

5.0

1.3

88.9 66.3 32.3 19.2

-

1.6

91.1 74.4 36.5 25.0

12.8

1.3

Sense of belonging to towns/estates remained high among elderly and future elderly

As shown in the section on housing aspects, elderly residents showed a strong

preference to age-in-place. Hence, it was not surprising that almost all elderly

residents (99.1%) felt a sense of belonging to their towns/estates, comparable to

the proportion in 2008 (Table 4.24). A similar trend was observed for future

elderly residents.

Table 4.24 Sense of Belonging among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Sense of Belonging

2003 2008 2013

Elderly All Elderly Future Elderly All Elderly Future

Elderly All

Yes No

96.4 3.6

90.0 10.0

99.5 0.5

98.7 1.3

98.6 1.4

99.1 0.9

98.9 1.1

98.8 1.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 66,722 821,126 92,764 129,660 864,246 112,724 144,704 906,831


More than eight in ten of elderly residents attributed their sense of belonging

mainly to both place and people (81.6%), an increase from 75.7% in 2008 while

another 16.4% attributed it to the place itself. A similar trend was also noted for

future elderly residents. However, the proportion who attributed their sense of

belonging to both place and people for future elderly residents was slightly lower

(77.6%) compared with elderly residents, while a higher proportion (19.9%)

attributed it to the place itself.

110

Sense of community among elderly and future elderly increased over past five years

Sense of Community (SOC) score is also used as an indicator to gauge the

degree of neighbourliness. The indicators that comprise the Sense of

Community score are listed in Table 4.25. For both elderly and future elderly

residents, their sense of community had increased to a score of 73.2 and 72.8,

from 72.5 and 71.3 in 2008, respectively. The increase in SOC could be

attributed to higher average scores pertaining to ease of communicating with

neighbours, tolerance towards noise from neighbours, being able to get help from

neighbours when in need and care about maintenance of their block.

Table 4.25 Sense of Community (SOC) Score among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

SOC Indicators

Average Score (Over maximum of 100)

2008 2013


Elderly All

a. “It is very easy to talk to people living in my HDB estate.”

75.0 72.5 75.0 76.1 74.6 75.0

b. “I can tolerate noise created by my neighbours.” 65.0 65.0 65.0 67.7 66.3 66.0

c. “I can always get help from my neighbours when in need.” 72.5 70.0 72.5 73.9 73.5 74.3

d. “Residents in this block can recognise one another easily.” 75.0 72.5 72.5 74.5 75.1 74.3

e. “Residents here care about the maintenance of their block.” 70.0 70.0 70.0 71.7 72.1 71.8

f. “I feel a sense of belonging to this housing estate.” 77.5 77.5 72.5 75.2 75.4 77.5

Overall Score (Over maximum of 100) 72.5 71.3 71.3 73.2 72.8 73.2

Elderly and future elderly remained active in the community

This section analyses elderly residents’ social ties with the wider community,

through their participation in community activities and willingness to contribute

services for the benefits of the community. The proportion of elderly residents

who participated in community activities (47.1%) was comparable to 2008

(46.9%). This proportion was also comparable to that of future elderly residents

but slightly lower compared with all households (Table 4.26).

111

Table 4.26 Community Participation of Elderly and Future Elderly in the Last Twelve Months by Year

Community Participation

2003 2008 2013

Elderly All Elderly Future Elderly All Elderly Future

Elderly All

Yes No

40.7 59.3

38.0 62.0

46.9 53.1

45.0 55.0

45.3 54.7

47.1 52.9

46.9 53.1

48.6 51.4

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 66,503 817,530 92,870 129,660 866,026 113,294 144,792 908,499


For the 52.9% of elderly residents who did not participate in community activities,

the main reason cited was that the activities were not interesting/suitable (Table

4.27). For the 53.1% of future elderly residents who did not participate in

community activities at all, the main reason cited was a lack of time, as a higher

proportion of them was still working.

Table 4.27 Reasons for Not Participating in Community Activities among Elderly and Future Elderly


Activities organised are not interesting/suitable No time/Too busy to participate Do not participate due to old age/poor health Not informed of any activities Prefer not to socialise/keep to myself Others (e.g. activities are too far, cannot afford to participate)

49.4 25.9 18.7 3.4 0.2 2.4

30.1 60.2 3.0 4.1 0.8 1.8

Total % 100.0 100.0

N* 59,495 76,584


It was observed that the participation rate of elderly residents increased from

31.5% in 2008 to 42.8% in 2013 if the proportion of elderly residents who

participated solely in religious activities was excluded (Chart 4.17). The findings

show that efforts put in by agencies in organising activities for elderly residents

have been fruitful. Moving forward, more active engagement with the seniors to

encourage them to participate in a variety of activities would enhance their ties

with the wider community.

112

Chart 4.17 Comparison of Community Participation Rate of Elderly by Year (Include and Exclude Sole Participation in Religious Activities)

Analysis by types of community participation showed that participation rate for

activities organised by some agencies had decreased. The proportion of elderly

residents (27.2%) participating in activities organised by Community Clubs (CCs)

on an occasional basis had decreased slightly from 28.7% in 2008 (Table 4.28).

There was a more significant decrease in the proportion of elderly residents

participating in activities organised by Residents’ Committees (RCs) and religious

organisations, from 26.8% to 22.6% and 21.6% to 17.6% respectively, over the

past five years. Participation in activities organised by Community Development

Councils (CDCs) and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) had also

increased slightly, albeit the proportions were still low. This further explains why

the overall community participation has remained about the same for elderly

residents.

40.7

30.6

46.9

31.5

47.1 42.8

0

20

40

60

80

Participate in religiousand non-religious activities

Exclude those who participatein religious activities only

Eld

erly

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

200320082013

113

Table 4.28 Types of Community Participation among Elderly and Future Elderly over Past Twelve Months by Year

Types of Community Participation

Households who Participated At Least Occasionally (%)

2008 2013


Elderly All

Community Clubs Residents’ Committees Other Organisations/Associations Religious Organisations Residents’ Own Activities Town Councils/HDB* Community Development Councils Voluntary Welfare Organisations

28.7 26.8 18.4 21.6 14.3

- 7.0 5.9

21.5 19.7 18.9 22.2 15.9

- 9.3 6.8

22.9 21.5 20.0 20.7 14.5

- 10.0 6.6

27.2 22.6 19.8 17.6 13.9 8.2 7.4 7.6

25.4 20.9 17.8 16.8 12.8 8.5 8.0 7.1

28.0 23.5 20.7 15.4 13.2 9.3 9.3 6.1

* Town Councils/HDB was added in SHS 2013

A higher proportion of elderly residents who participated in community activities

was living in 3-room or bigger flat types or better educated (Table 4.29). Both the

elderly and future elderly females were also more likely to participate in

community activities.

Table 4.29 Whether Participate in Community Activities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Attributes

Attributes


Whether Participated in

Community Activities

Total Whether

Participated in Community Activities

Total


Economic Status


45.9

47.7 54.1

52.3 100.0

100.0 31,870

81,198 46.6

47.5 53.4

52.5 100.0

100.0 105,559

38,982

Flat Type 1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5- Room & Bigger

40.6 49.1 45.9 51.7

59.4 50.9 54.1 48.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19,048 42,222 34,356 17,668

37.9 46.1 49.0 48.4

62.1 53.9 51.0 51.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

14,402 41,508 46,445 42,437


46.5

46.7 51.3

53.5

53.3 48.7

100.0

100.0 100.0

66,696

34,420 11,355

41.8

47.0 55.1

58.2

53.0 44.9

100.0

100.0 100.0

45,765

69,742 28,854

Sex Male Female

45.4 49.7

54.6 50.3

100.0 100.0

68,328 44,966

44.0 52.3

56.0 47.7

100.0 100.0

94,491 50,301

* Excluding non-response cases ** Those with no formal education and with primary education are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample

size

114

4.3 Housing Aspects

Elderly residents have consistently shown a strong preference to live in

communities they have resided in for many years, where they can rely on the

long-term relationships they have cultivated in the community for support. To

enable elderly residents to age-in-place, it is vital that the flats where they reside

as well as the estate amenities they utilise are made accessible and barrier-free.

A Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA) Masterplan was announced in 200618, and

HDB had worked with the Town Councils to ensure that all towns and estates are

barrier-free by 2012. HDB has also implemented programmes such as Lift

Upgrading Programme (LUP) 19 and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme

(NRP)20, to ensure that elderly residents would have access to lifts on every floor

and possible neighbourhood improvements such as residents’ corners, seating

areas at void decks and covered linkways. In addition, HDB has also stepped up

efforts to install elderly-friendly fittings/fixtures in flats of elderly residents through

its Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) 21 programme and Home

Improvement Programme (HIP). As the proportion of elderly residents in HDB

communities increases, the key challenge will be to facilitate the building of a

conducive environment where they can enjoy quality of life in their later years.

Hence, it is important to examine their satisfaction with the living environment,

usage of estate facilities and housing aspirations.

The analysis concerning housing aspects focuses on three main areas:

• Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

• Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

• Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

18 BCA's Masterplan key to accessibility improvements in Singapore. Retrieved on 13 October 2014

(http://www.bca.gov.sg/Newsroom/pr29032012_UD.html) 19 Under the Lift Upgrading Programme, lift services in old apartment blocks will be upgraded to achieve direct

lift access for all flats, where feasible. This would benefit the elderly, families with very young children and the disabled. It is heavily subsidised, making it very affordable for citizens.

20 The Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) was introduced in Aug 2007 in response to feedback received from residents for more active consultation on the improvements to be provided in their precincts. Blocks built up to 1989 and have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) or IUP Plus are eligible for NRP. This programme is fully funded by the Government and implemented by the Town Councils.

21 Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) was introduced under the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) from July 2012. Under EASE, elderly and vulnerable residents can apply for the following improvements to their flats at a subsidised rate: - Slip-resistant treatment to bathroom/ toilet floor tiles - Grab bars within the flat (where technically feasible) - Ramp(s) to negotiate level differences in the flat at the main entrance (where technically feasible)

115

4.3.1 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment

This section examines elderly residents’ satisfaction with their living environment

in terms of their overall satisfaction with flat and neighbourhood, the aspects they

liked and disliked about living in HDB estates, whether they faced any

maintenance issues within the flat and the reliability of lifts in the blocks. In

addition, elderly residents’ sense of pride with their homes, whether they found

their flats to be of value for money and the aspects which they viewed as

important when it comes to making a flat feel like a home are also discussed.

Most elderly and future elderly satisfied with their flat and neighbourhood

Almost all elderly and future elderly residents were satisfied with both their flat

and neighbourhood (Chart 4.18, Chart 4.19). While there was a slight decrease

in satisfaction with flat among elderly residents compared with five years ago, the

proportion was still higher (95.1%) compared with future elderly residents and all

households.

Chart 4.18 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood among Elderly by Year

Chart 4.19 Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood among Elderly and Future Elderly

97.9 94.7 98.5 97.0 95.1 96.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Satisfaction withFlat

Satisfaction withNeighbourhood

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

2003

2008

2013

95.1 96.4 92.4 92.0 91.6 92.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Satisfaction withFlat

Satisfaction withNeighbourhood

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

ElderlyFuture ElderlyAll

116

For those satisfied with their flat, the main reason was that it was spacious and

comfortable, or there were no major issues with the flat and the flat was in good

condition. Poor condition of the flat surfaced as the main concern among the

small proportion who was dissatisfied with their flat.

For those satisfied with their neighbourhood, the main reason was that the

neighbours were friendly or there was good provision of facilities. For those who

were dissatisfied, the main reason cited was that the neighbours were unfriendly

and noisy, or the neighbourhood was dirty.

Location and transportation network most-liked aspects of HDB living environment among elderly and future elderly

Residents were asked to indicate whether they liked or disliked the various

aspects from a list of external and internal aspects pertaining to their HDB living

environment.

About one-third (35.0%) of elderly residents expressed that there was no aspect

that they disliked about living in HDB towns/estates, comparable to the 36.4%

registered in 2008 (Table 4.30). For future elderly residents, this proportion was

lower at 25.0%.

Table 4.30 Elderly and Future Elderly with No Dislikes about Living in HDB Towns/Estates by Year

Whether Any Dislikes about Living in HDB Towns/Estates

2008 2013


Elderly All

No Yes

36.4 63.6

29.5 70.5

26.8 73.2

35.0 65.0

25.0 75.0

22.0 78.0

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 91,469 127,570 855,918 113,014 144,723 907,250


Location, Transportation Network and Provision of Estate Facilities surfaced as

the top three aspects that elderly residents liked most about living in HDB estates

(Table 4.31). For future elderly residents and all households, their top three

aspects were Location, Transportation Network and Size of Flat.

117

The main reason given by elderly residents for liking Location was that it was

close to transportation networks and estates facilities, while they liked the aspect

of Transportation Network as it was convenient to travel to most places. Elderly

residents also found the Provision of Estate Facilities to be sufficient in general.

For future elderly residents, they also gave similar reasons for liking Location and

Transportation Network.

Table 4.31 Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment among Elderly and Future Elderly

Aspects Elderly Future Elderly All

1. Location 42.4 40.3 39.5

2. Transportation Network 16.1 16.6 14.7

3. Provision of Estate Facilities 7.0 4.6 5.6

4. Upgrading Programmes 5.1 5.2 3.6

5. Size of Flat 4.4 6.4 7.2

6. Safety/Security 4.2 3.7 4.0

7. View from Flat 3.3 2.3 2.7

8. Neighbours 3.2 2.4 3.5

9. Ventilation (Flat) 2.6 2.8 2.5

10. Adequacy of Open/Green Spaces 2.3 2.4 3.2

11. Walkability 1.8 0.8 1.3

12. Purchase Price of Flat 1.4 2.3 1.9

13. Cleanliness & Maintenance 1.3 2.9 2.6

14. Flat Design/Layout 1.1 2.5 2.6

15. Privacy 0.9 2.0 1.6

16. Protection from Weather 0.9 0.6 0.9

17. Provision of Carpark 0.6 0.8 0.9

18. Safety from Traffic 0.4 0.4 0.4

19. Seats/Benches 0.4 0.2 0.2

20. Block Design 0.3 0.3 0.6

21. Choice of Flat Types 0.3 0.5 0.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 111,453 142,301 890,260


The aspects that elderly residents disliked the most were Cleanliness and

Maintenance and Noise (Table 4.32). Similar aspects were also mentioned by

future elderly residents and all households.

118

The main reason given by elderly residents for their dislikes in the area of

Cleanliness and Maintenance was the irregular cleaning schedule or prevalence

of littering. For Noise, the main reason cited was noise from neighbours and the

external environment, e.g. from vehicles, precinct pavilions and void decks.

Table 4.32 Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment among Elderly and Future Elderly

Aspects Elderly Future Elderly All

1. Cleanliness & Maintenance 26.8 20.7 19.1

2. Noise 18.5 20.7 19.2

3. Protection from Weather 5.5 5.3 5.8

4. Transportation Network 5.1 7.4 8.2

5. Upgrading Programmes 4.7 5.2 3.5

6. Provision of Carpark 3.9 6.5 7.1

7. Provision of Estate Facilities 3.9 2.9 3.6

8. Seats/Benches 3.9 3.2 2.5

9. Neighbours 3.6 3.5 2.6

10. Safety/Security 3.4 4.2 4.3

11. Safety from Traffic 3.3 5.2 4.4

12. View from Flat 3.0 2.0 2.1

13. Ventilation (Flat) 3.0 1.9 2.2

14. Flat Design/Layout 2.8 1.9 2.9

15. Purchase Price of Flat 1.8 2.4 4.1

16. Block Design 1.4 1.6 1.3

17. Adequacy of Open/Green Spaces 1.0 1.3 1.3

18. Size of Flat 0.9 1.3 1.8

19. Location 0.8 0.4 0.9

20. Privacy 0.8 1.0 1.1

21. Walkability 0.3 0.6 0.7

22. Choice of Flat Types 0.2 - 0.1

23. Others (e.g. pests, workmanship of flat) 1.4 0.8 1.2

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 73,525 108,530 707,799


Majority of elderly and future elderly found lifts to be reliable

Regarding the lifts, close to nine in ten elderly residents agreed that the lifts were

reliable (Chart 4.20). This proportion was higher compared with future elderly

residents and all households. For those who disagreed, the main reason

mentioned was that they experienced frequent lift breakdowns.

119

Chart 4.20 Perception of Lift Reliability among Elderly and Future Elderly

Majority of elderly and future elderly perceived their flat to be value for money

A high 95.9% of elderly residents agreed that their flats were value for money

(Chart 4.21), higher than the 93.0% in 2008. Compared with future elderly

residents and all households, a higher proportion of elderly residents found their

flats to be value for money.

About half of elderly and future elderly residents who felt that their flats were

value for money attributed it to the appreciation in the value of the flat, followed

by affordable flat prices at the time of purchase. Some also mentioned that the

flat was in a good location and close to facilities. The minority who felt otherwise

attributed it to the high purchase price.

Chart 4.21 Value for Money of HDB Flat among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

89.6 83.8 85.6

0

20

40

60

80

100


Hou

seho

lds

(%)

93.0 90.2 85.8 95.9 93.1 90.3

0

20

40

60

80

100


Hou

seho

lds

(%)

2008

2013

120

Majority of elderly and future elderly proud of their flat

Compared with 2008, a slightly lower proportion of elderly residents was proud of

their flat (Chart 4.22). In comparison, the decline for future elderly residents was

more significant, with a higher proportion feeling neutral towards their flat.

Chart 4.22 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year (Sold and Rental Flats)

Those who were proud attributed it mainly to the good and convenient location of

their flat or benefits derived from sense of ownership such as sense of

achievement and having a comfortable home to live in. For the minority who was

not proud of their flat, the key reason given was that the HDB flat was merely a

basic housing necessity and there was nothing special about living in one.

4.3.2 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities

HDB residents rely extensively on estate facilities to meet their daily needs, such

as shopping for groceries and spending time at eating and recreational facilities.

They also use these facilities as meeting places for interaction and bonding with

family members, friends and neighbours. It is therefore important to monitor the

trend in their usage pattern as well as satisfaction with the provision of estate

facilities.

81.5 77.0 81.7 71.9 80.7

70.4

15.7 18.8 13.4 24.1 15.2 25.5

2.8 4.2 4.9 4.0 4.1 4.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Not Proud

Neutral

Proud


121

Overall satisfaction with provision of estate facilities remained high among elderly and future elderly

The overall satisfaction level with the provision of estate facilities among elderly

(98.4%) and future elderly (96.9%) residents remained high. These proportions

were comparable to five years ago and were higher compared with all

households (Table 4.33).

More than 80% of elderly and future elderly residents were satisfied with the

specific categories of estate facilities. For every facility, elderly users were

proportionately more satisfied than their younger counterparts.

Table 4.33 Satisfaction with Various Types of Estate Facilities among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Types of Estate Facilities

Households Satisfied (%)

2008 2013


Elderly All

Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shopping

- HDB shop/neighbourhood centre - Shopping centre/shopping mall

(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls (iii) Eating Facilities Transportation Facilities Sports Facilities Recreational & Leisure Facilities Precinct Facilities Community Facilities Educational Facilities Health/Medical Facilities Financial Facilities

96.9 94.3 93.2 92.5 94.5 91.4 92.4 94.6 92.1 97.5 98.6 92.3 89.0

94.5 90.8 91.1 90.1 90.9 84.6 89.7 90.9 88.2 96.8 97.1 91.1 88.7

93.3 89.1 89.9 87.5 89.0 84.1 85.2 89.1 88.7 94.3 96.5 90.1 85.5

97.0 95.8 94.9 96.6 96.0 90.2 95.2 96.6 90.4 97.0 97.6 90.6 90.0

93.2 90.0 91.4 95.6 92.8 81.1 90.8 93.2 87.4 94.7 97.1 86.1 86.8

93.4 89.9 90.8 94.7 92.4 80.4 88.9 91.7 86.7 94.6 95.0 85.7 86.7

Overall Satisfaction 97.5 96.9 94.4 98.4 96.9 96.1


Most satisfied with provision of elderly-friendly facilities

With the increasing proportion of elderly residents living in HDB towns and

estates, more elderly-friendly facilities have been built to facilitate their movement

around the precinct and beyond. Examples of such facilities are ramps, lift

landings on every level and support handbars in the lifts or along corridors.

Other facilities such as senior citizens’ corner/centre, pebble walks, fitness

122

stations and benches/seats/tables serve as places where elderly residents could

interact with neighbours and friends. These provisions facilitate ageing-in-place.

The majority of elderly and future elderly residents was satisfied with the list of

common facilities provided around their living environment, comparable to that of

2008 (Table 4.34).

Table 4.34 Satisfaction with Elderly-Friendly Facilities by Year

Facilities for Elderly

Households Satisfied (%)

2008 2013

Elderly Future Elderly Elderly Future Elderly

Bird singing corner Support handbars in lifts/along corridor Pebble walk Fitness station for elderly Ramp Lift landing on every level Senior citizens’ corner/centre Benches/Seats/Tables

98.6 98.2 97.7 97.0 96.9 96.5 95.3 93.4

97.5 97.4 97.1 96.4 97.7 96.0 94.9 91.2

94.4 97.9 96.4 96.2 97.2 95.5 97.7 91.0

89.0 96.7 95.9 94.8 97.5 94.4 96.0 86.4

More future elderly aware of social support services and facilities than elderly

In SHS 2013, elderly residents were asked if they were aware of the common

eldercare services22 available to them (Chart 4.23). More than seven in ten were

aware of Senior Activity Centres/Neighbourhood Link and Social

Daycare/Rehabilitation centres, while less than six in ten were aware of the

emotional and social support services.

22 Common eldercare services covered in the survey are:

a. Emotional/Social Support Services (e.g. Self-help/support groups, Social visits/befriending, Counselling from a social worker/psychologist, telephone helplines)

b. Home-based Services (e.g. Home medical care, Home nursing care, Home therapy care, Home hospice care, Home modification)

c. Senior Activity Centres, Neighbourhood Links, Seniors Service Centres (e.g. VWOs organise free or subsidised programmes, social activities, home visitations for elderly residents in surrounding areas, private operators provide both chargeable and non-chargeable support services for elderly residents living in the vicinity)

d. Social Day Care Centres/Day Rehabilitation Centres for Elderly (e.g. Full day activity programme for elderly who requires supervision during the day when family members are at work)

e. Home Help Services (e.g. Hired personal care services to elderly’s own home, includes housekeeping, preparing meals, escorts to medical appointments)

123

Chart 4.23 Awareness of Eldercare Services

However, the majority of elderly residents had not used these services. Among

those who were aware of such services, only 6.6% of them utilised the Senior

Activity Centres (Table 4.35). This could be due to the limited availability of such

centres as they are mostly located near rental flats and Studio Apartments.

Utilisation rates could increase when more of these centres are available in more

locations in the future. Other services garnered lower usage levels as the

majority of elderly residents surveyed was ambulant, hence they did not require

such services at the moment.

Table 4.35 Proportion who had Utilised Eldercare Services

Eldercare Services Households (%)


Senior Activity Centre/Neighbourhood Link Emotional/Social Support Services Home-help Services Social Daycare/Rehabilitation Centres Home-based Services

6.6 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.7

3.0 3.0 2.2 1.7 2.0

Although usage levels for support services were low, close to nine in ten agreed

that these services would be essential to facilitate ageing-in-place for elderly

residents (Table 4.36). These proportions were even higher among future elderly

residents, indicating the importance of such facilities to meet the needs of an

ageing population.

67.4

68.1

72.2

77.2

74.5

57.9

63.3

63.5

70.9

71.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Emotional/SocialSupport Services

Home-Help Services

Home-Based Services

Social Daycare/Rehabilitation Centre

Senior Activity Centre/Neighbourhood Link

Households (%)

Elderly

Future Elderly

124

Table 4.36 Proportion who Agreed that Eldercare Services were Essential for Ageing-In-Place

Eldercare Services Households (%)


Social Daycare/Rehabilitation Centres Home-help Services Home-based Services Senior Activity Centre/Neighbourhood Link Emotional/Social Support Services

89.6 89.3 89.1 88.3 87.8

93.8 92.0 93.4 93.7 91.5

Weekly patronage of commercial facilities increased among elderly and future elderly households

The usage levels for all the commercial facilities had increased, especially for

supermarkets and hawker centres, which had risen significantly over the past five

years. A high proportion of elderly households patronised commercial facilities

like wet/dry market, supermarkets and hawker centres on a weekly basis (Table

4.37). However, a lower proportion of elderly households patronised food courts

and less than one in ten visited fast-food outlets weekly. This could be due to

hawker centres and eating houses/coffee shops being more affordable than food

courts. As for the lower patronage of fast-food outlets, it could be attributed to

the suitability and preferences of food served.

Weekly usage of most sports and recreational facilities increased among elderly and future elderly households

Among elderly households, usage levels for most of the sports and recreational

facilities had risen compared with five years ago, except for hard courts/multi-

purpose courts. Similarly, usage levels among future elderly households had

also increased, except for playgrounds/3G playgrounds and hard courts/multi-

purpose courts. However, usage levels of sports and recreational facilities were

generally lower among these two groups of elderly households, compared with all

households (Table 4.37). Fitness corners/jogging tracks and neighbourhood

park/common green were the two most popular facilities under this category, with

25.3% and 18.2% of elderly households frequenting these facilities at least once

a week, respectively. The usage level for playgrounds/3G playgrounds, roof

125

gardens at multi-storey carpark (MSCP) and hard courts/multi-purpose courts

were relatively low among elderly and future elderly households.

Covered linkway most well-utilised by elderly and future elderly households

The usage level of covered linkways on a weekly basis among both elderly and

future elderly households remained high (Table 4.37). This proportion had also

increased compared with five years ago, which could be due to the completion of

more linkways under upgrading programmes such as Neighbourhood Renewal

Programme (NRP).

Besides covered linkways, void deck areas and drop-off porches also saw higher

usage levels for both elderly and future elderly households, compared with other

precinct and community facilities. On the other hand, facilities such as

community clubs/centres and libraries were relatively less popular. The usage

levels for most of these facilities had also declined compared with five years ago,

especially for precinct pavilions.

126

Table 4.37 Usage Level of Estate Facilities among Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year

Type of Facilities

Households Using Facilities At Least Once a Week (%)*

2003 2008 2013

Elderly All Elderly Future Elderly All Elderly Future Elderly All

Commercial Facilities Dry market 60.6 62.1 61.3 Wet market 85.5 85.7 72.6 68.9 66.4 Supermarket 57.0 70.3 72.6 67.5 77.0 80.0 Shop 56.2 63.6 48.4 52.8 59.3 54.2 57.4 63.5 Hawker centre 56.6 60.6 48.3 58.3 57.7 61.3 66.0 64.4 Eating house/coffee shop

50.0 59.1 59.5 54.8 62.6 61.6 Food court 23.6 40.3 44.4 29.3 40.6 45.3 Fast food outlet - - - - - 6.9 17.6 22.7

Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/jogging track 14.7 18.8 21.2 23.2 24.6 25.3 25.3 27.4 Playground 4.7 17.9 7.0 8.4 16.3 8.9 6.6 16.5 Regional/town park

8.9 11.4 11.3 13.4 14.5 16.9

Neighbourhood park/common green 15.3 17.5 18.3 18.2 18.8 19.8 Hard/multi-purpose court 0.9 5.3 3.0 6.0 5.9 2.5 3.2 4.7 Roof garden at top level of MSCP - - - - - 3.6 6.8 8.4

Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway 57.3 69.1 69.8 78.6 77.3 78.4 82.1 82.3 Drop-off porch 13.4 20.5 25.6 32.5 35.7 23.8 31.4 36.2 Precinct pavilion 29.0 23.7 39.1 42.6 42.6 18.2 14.8 16.6 Pavilion shelter 16.9 12.3 20.6 18.7 20.6 18.0 15.3 16.4 Trellis - - 16.6 11.9 13.8 13.4 12.6 13.6 Void deck 27.4 20.3 35.7 34.3 32.3 30.9 25.8 25.6 Regional/community library 5.2 20.1 5.1 9.9 17.7 6.2 9.9 15.4 Community club 5.6 7.1 6.1 8.2 8.9 8.8 6.0 9.0

* Analysis is based on responses of households who were aware of such a facility in their estate/neighbourhood/town. Excluding non-response cases. ^ Items mentioned were grouped for the purpose of trend analysis

49.9

15.7

57.3

16.1

83.2^ 75.6^

16.3^

50.8^

86.8^ 73.2^

19.4^

62.3^

87.1^ 70.9^

20.7^

62.8^

84.6^ 76.8

19.6^

58.9^

87.7^ 72.4

20.3^

66.6^

89.2^ 72.0

22.4^

66.3^

127

4.3.3 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations

This section examines elderly residents’ preference to age-in-place, by analysing

their intention to move within the next five years, whether they wanted to age in

the same flat or town and the housing type that they would be contented with in

old age.

Most elderly had no intention to move, majority intended to age in existing flat

The majority of both elderly and future elderly residents had no intention to move

within the next five years (Chart 4.24). The proportion of elderly residents with

the intention to move declined from 7.8% in 2003 to 4.2% in 2013.

Chart 4.24 Intention to Move within Next Five Years among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

For those with the intention to move, the main reason given by elderly residents

was to right-size to a smaller flat or to move in with their children. For future

elderly residents, they mainly wanted to right-size to a smaller flat, upgrade or

move to a better environment.

Elderly residents were asked where they intended to live in old age, in terms of

living in the same flat, moving to a different flat in the same town or moving to a

different town. The majority of elderly residents (80.9%) intended to age in the

same flat, with only 6.4% planning to live in a different flat but same or different

town. For future elderly residents, a lower proportion (61.7%) intended to age in

existing flat, while a higher proportion (15.2%) intended to live in a different flat

79.4 85.0 85.3 73.5 75.0 81.4

68.6 69.7

12.8 7.7 10.5 17.7 16.8

19.9 17.9

7.8 7.3 4.2 8.8 8.2 18.6 11.5 12.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2008 2013 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Moving

Unsure

Not Moving

Future Elderly All Elderly

128

but same or different town (Chart 4.25). Another 10.1% of elderly residents and

18.1% of future elderly residents had not thought about where they would want to

live in old age.

Chart 4.25 Where the Elderly and Future Elderly Intended to Live in Old Age

The main reason given by elderly residents who wanted to live in the same flat

was that the present flat was comfortable, they had an emotional attachment to

the flat or they wanted their children to inherit the flat. Similar reasons were cited

by future elderly residents. Hence, these findings indicate elderly residents’

preference to age-in-place.

Elderly residents who did not mind living in a different flat but same town cited

reasons such as wanting to cash out on their flat, moving into a smaller home for

easier maintenance, health reasons or due to decrease in household size.

However, they did not want to move away from their town due to centralised

location, good transportation network, familiar environment or sense of

attachment to their town. Similar reasons were given by future elderly residents.

For elderly residents who intended to move away from the town, they planned to

move in with children, move to a smaller flat for easier maintenance or health

reasons, or cash out on their flat for additional income. They did not mind moving

to another town with good transportation network, nearer to facilities or children’s

place. For future elderly residents, they intended to cash out on their flats, move

in with children or move to a smaller flat as household size had decreased.

Similar to elderly residents, they would move to another town with good

transportation networks and facilities or to be nearer to their children.

80.9 61.7

3.3 7.3

3.1 7.9

10.1 18.1

1.8 2.4 0.8 2.6

0

20

40

60

80

100


Hou

seho

lds

(%)

Same Flat

Different Flat and Same Town

Different Town

Never Thought About It

Not Sure

Others (e.g. old folks' home, migrate)

129

Majority of elderly content with present flat

Overall, the majority of elderly (77.5%) and future elderly (65.2%) residents was

content with the flat types that they were currently residing in, similar to that of

2008 (Chart 4.26). These proportions were higher compared with that of all

households (57.5%), showing the stronger preference among elderly and future

elderly residents to age-in-place. Some 15.6% of elderly residents and 24.7% of

future elderly residents aspired to upgrade to better housing while lower

proportions (6.9% for elderly residents and 10.1% for future elderly residents)

were content with smaller flat types. The proportion that aspired for better

housing was also higher for both elderly and future elderly residents, compared

with 2008.

Chart 4.26 Housing Type Content With among Elderly and Future Elderly by Present Flat Type and Year

The most common housing type that elderly residents were content with

continued to be 3-room, followed by 4-room flats (Table 4.38). For future elderly

residents, 4-room and 3-room flats were the most popular, followed by 5-room

flats. The proportions who aspired to upgrade to private properties had increased

since 2008 for both elderly and future elderly residents.

12.1 6.9 14.7 10.1 12.7 7.5

77.4 77.5 65.6

65.2 58.7 57.5

10.5 15.6 19.7 24.7 28.6 35.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013

Hou

seho

lds

(%) Content with

Better Housing or Flat Type

Content withPresent Flat Type

Content withSmaller Flat Type

Elderly All Future Elderly

130

Table 4.38 Housing Type Content With among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Housing Type Content With

2008 2013


Elderly All

HDB 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Apartment/ HUDC (Non-privatised) Studio Apartment

Private Property **

8.6 10.7 39.6 24.1 11.0 2.5

0.9

2.6

3.0 6.6 27.0 34.4 16.4 5.1

1.2

6.3

1.9 3.5 21.4 34.0 19.8 6.1

0.7

12.6

7.8 8.5 33.6 27.6 12.0 3.8

1.1

5.6

2.1 5.8 26.0 28.5 17.4 8.0

2.1

10.1

1.6 3.2 18.3 30.9 20.4 8.8

0.9

15.9

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 91,493 128,179 858,316 112,712 144,442 905,882

* Excluding non-response cases ** Includes private apartment, private/executive condominium, terrace house, semi-detached

house, bungalow, private studio apartment, retirement village and overseas property

Elderly and future elderly preferred to live in 3- or 4-room flats when old

For both elderly and future elderly residents, 3- or 4-room flats were the preferred

type of housing for old age, similar to 2008. As the majority of elderly and future

elderly residents was currently residing in these flat types, it reinforced earlier

findings that showed older residents were strongly inclined to age-in-place (Table

4.39). The proportions who preferred to live in 5-room and bigger flat type and

Studio Apartment for old age had increased slightly from 2008 for both elderly

and future elderly residents, while those who preferred smaller flat types had

decreased slightly. This could be due to a higher proportion of elderly and future

elderly residents currently living in 5-room or bigger flat types compared with

2008 and wanting to age in their existing flat.

131

Table 4.39 Preferred Housing Type for Old Age among Elderly and Future Elderly by Year

Preferred Housing Type 2008 2013

Elderly Future Elderly Elderly Future Elderly

Purchased 1-Room 3.2 3.4 2.2 1.6 2-Room 9.5 7.3 8.2 5.9 3-Room 39.8 38.9 35.8 31.9 4-Room 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.9 5-Room & Bigger 10.0 13.1 13.5 16.4 Studio Apartment 1.8 3.2 2.7 6.7 Private Properties 0.4 1.3 0.7 2.1

Rented 1-Room 5.4 2.6 6.1 1.9 2-Room 4.8 3.6 4.5 3.6 3-Room 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 Private Properties - 0.1 0.3 -

Others (e.g. old folks’ home, retirement village) 2.5 3.3 2.4 4.5

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N* 92,428 129,094 112,104 141,580



Personal Aspects

In terms of their financial well-being, the regular sources of income that elderly

residents relied on were financial support from children, personal savings and

income from work. A higher proportion of future elderly residents would rely on

their personal savings and income from work, with fewer relying on their children

for financial support. Less than half of all elderly residents (40.9%) had

undertaken at least one financial option in planning for their retirement needs. In

comparison, a higher proportion of future elderly residents (58.0%) had done so,

indicating that they would be better prepared financially for retirement.

Compared with elderly and future elderly males, lower proportions of both elderly

and future elderly females had planned financially for retirement. However,

slightly higher proportions of both elderly and future elderly females had more

financial sources compared with males, as they were more likely to receive

financial support from children. They also received a higher average monthly

amount of financial support compared with male residents.

56.8 59.2 61.7 61.9

132

The majority of elderly (74.9%) and future elderly (73.5%) residents felt that their

sources of income were sufficient to cover their daily expenses. However, this

was lower compared with 2008, where eight in ten in both groups felt that their

income was adequate. A higher proportion of elderly residents who encountered

financial difficulties was living in smaller flat types. Despite being concerned

about rising cost of living and not having planned for retirement, only 11.8% of

elderly residents and 11.0% of future elderly residents had taken up at least one

monetisation option after turning 50 years old. The more popular options were

subletting a room in the flat for income, moving to a smaller resale HDB flat and

moving to a smaller new HDB flat. The majority of elderly residents (82.5%) also

had no intention to monetise in the next five years. They would rely on their

children or family members for financial support in the event that they

encountered major financial difficulties.

Social Aspects

Ties between elderly residents and their children remained strong. About nine in

ten of elderly residents with married children not living with them visited each

other at least once a month. About three in four of both elderly and future elderly

residents could also rely on their married children for physical support, and about

nine in ten could rely on married children for emotional support.

Elderly residents were engaging in less intensive neighbourly interactions

compared with 2008. Almost all elderly residents had casual interactions with

their neighbours through exchanging of greetings and casual conversations.

However, the proportions having more intense forms of interaction such as

visiting each other and exchanging food and gifts on festive occasions were lower.

Around half of elderly residents interacted with neighbours beyond their own

ethnic group. One in four (25.3%) of elderly residents also had interactions with

neighbours of different ethnic groups and nationalities, a significant increase from

2008 (11.8%). This could be due to elderly residents having more new

neighbours who would have resided in HDB estates for a shorter duration of time,

which might be a reason that neighbourly interactions were less intense as social

bonds would require time to develop. Common interaction places for both elderly

and future elderly residents with neighbours were along common corridors, lift

lobbies or void decks.

133

Community participation rate among elderly residents (47.1%) remained the

same compared with five years ago. Those who participated in community

activities were more likely to be living in bigger flat types and better educated.

Both elderly and future elderly residents also had a strong sense of community

and almost all of them felt a sense of belonging to their towns/estates.

Housing Aspects

Elderly residents were highly satisfied with their living environment. Overall, the

majority of elderly residents was satisfied with both their flat and neighbourhood,

citing the spaciousness of their flats or the friendly living environment as main

reason for their satisfaction. Most of them also viewed their flat to be value for

money and were proud of their home. Compared with 2008, they were more

satisfied with most aspects of the HDB living environment and were also satisfied

with the provision of estate facilities as well as elderly-friendly facilities.

Commercial facilities were popular among elderly residents as more than half of

elderly households patronised most of the commercial facilities in their

estates/neighbourhoods at least once a week. The usage levels of all

commercial facilities had increased compared with five years ago. The wet/dry

market and supermarket also garnered higher patronage levels compared with

the other commercial facilities. Higher weekly usage levels were also observed

for most sports and recreational facilities compared with five years ago. Elderly

residents also showed a strong preference to age-in-place as most had no

intention to move and were content with their current flat.

Conclusion

Social Well- Being of HDB Communities

137

Social Well-Being of HDB Communities

Conclusion

The SHS 2013 findings revealed that the overall social well-being of HDB

communities is high. Among a confluence of factors, this promising level of

social health could be attributed to the continual efforts of various agencies –

private and government, in keeping families together and engaging HDB

residents. These efforts ranged from pro-family policies, organised activities to

the provision of adequate spaces for residents to meet and interact. In this

respect, HDB is taking on an expanded role, going beyond being a provider of

public housing and facilities, to being a cultivator of community and family

relations, so as to help realise active and harmonious living in its towns/estates.

At the community level, while it was found that almost all HDB residents engaged

in some forms of neighbourly interactions, these interactions could be further

enhanced beyond the casual greetings of “hi” and “bye”. Residents could be

encouraged to engage in more intense forms of neighbourly interactions, such as

visiting one another, exchanging food and gifts during special occasions, hence

increasing familiarity among neighbours, strengthening their relationships. With

stronger bonds and accumulated wealth of goodwill, residents would be more

able to empathise with one another and display greater tolerance towards

neighbourly nuisances that might inevitable arise in today’s high-rise, high-

density living environment. Recognising this, HDB has initiated the Good

Neighbour Project, which encourages students and members in the community to

propose projects that could promote neighbourliness and bonding in HDB

neighbourhoods. Some of these programmes include helping residents with

writing their resumes, teaching fellow residents to check blood pressure and

drawing residents together to create art pieces.

138

Community activities are effective means to bring residents in the different

precincts or neighbourhoods together and for them to get to know one

another. While it was observed that participation level has increased over the

years, more efforts on finding out residents’ interests for specific courses or

activities can be made to increase participation further. Increasing participation

rate can also be achieved with greater awareness of activities being

organised. One of the ways is through the use of social media. In addition,

activities can be designed to cater for families with young children as children are

often catalysts for community participation among caregivers, e.g. parents and

grandparents. Activities could also be tailored to better suit the needs of elderly

residents to increase their participation rate.

Family ties have remained strong among HDB residents, with an increasing

proportion of married children living together or near their parents. For those not

living together, high proportions of married children and parents visited each

other at least once a month, engaging in activities such as sharing meals and

going on outings together. In terms of mutual care and support, a high proportion

of parents was able to rely on married children for physical, emotional and

financial support, and this increased with closer proximity. Frequency of visits

and sense of closeness to family members also increased with closer

proximity. Hence, the Married Child Priority Scheme and CPF Housing Grant for

Family are important HDB schemes and policies to encourage parents and

married children to live closer to one another for the provision of mutual care and

support.

On elderly residents’ financial well-being, the majority felt that their sources of

income were sufficient to cover their daily expenses, although this proportion was

lower than that of five years ago. While the majority could rely on their children

or other family members for financial assistance in the event that they encounter

financial difficulties, there were monetisation options that could be utilised by

elderly residents as potential sources of income should they wish to do so.

These included subletting of whole flat or one or more room(s), right-sizing to an

HDB Studio Apartment or a smaller flat, and applying for the Enhanced Lease

Buyback Scheme (LBS).

139

With regard to the built environment, most elderly residents were satisfied with

their flat and neighbourhood, as well as the provision of estate facilities. They

also intended to age in the same community, as only a small proportion intended

to move in the next five years and the majority intended to continue living in their

existing flat. With a strong preference to age-in-place, it is important to provide

more social support services and facilities for the growing proportion of elderly

residents in HDB estates. Hence, HDB initiatives and schemes such as

Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) and Home Improvement Programme

(HIP) would facilitate them to age-in-place.

TOA PAYOH

BUKIT PANJANG

CHOA CHU KANG

FARRER ROAD

BUKIT MERAH

CENTRAL AREA

PUNGGOL

HOUGANG ANG MO KIO

BISHAN

KALLANG WHAMPOA

GEYLANG

BEDOK

TAMPINES

PASIR RIS

CHANGI VILLAGE

YISHUN

SEMBAWANG WOODLANDS

BUKIT BATOK

JURONG EAST

JURONG WEST

CLEMENTI

QUEENSTOWN

MARINE PARADE ESTATE

BUKIT TIMAH ESTATE

CHANGI AIRPORT

SERANGOON

SENGKANG

HDB DEVELOPMENT AREAS

EXPRESSWAY

0 2000 4000

1000 3000 5000 Metres

HDB TOWNS AND ESTATES

HDB Hub 480 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh Singapore 310480HDB InfoWEB: www.hdb.gov.sg

ISBN 978-981-09-3829-1

Monograph+2+(29+Dec+2014)

Documents

Transcript of Monograph+2+(29+Dec+2014)