Managing Singapore’s residential diversity through Ethnic Integration Policy

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2019-0168
• Date: 10 September 2019
• Published date: 10 September 2019
• Pages: 109-125
• Author: Travis Lim,Chan-Hoong Leong,Farzaana Suliman
• Subject Matter: Hr & organizational behaviour,Employment law

Managing Singapore’s residential

diversity through Ethnic

Integration Policy

Travis Lim, Chan-Hoong Leong and Farzaana Suliman

Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore Singaporeans’view to a multicultural neighbourhood,

specifically, their views on the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), a housing policy that promotes residential

desegregation, and whether this policy has engendered a positive perspective to residential diversity.

Design/methodology/approach –A grounded theory approach is used to answer the follo wing research

questions: how do Singa poreans feel about resi dential diversity? Do es the EIP influence at titudes to

residential segrega tion in Singapore? What do thes e attitudes mean for gov ernments and policyma kers

around the world? The res earch involved focus group dis cussions with 27 Housing and De velopment Board

real estate agents, in order to tap ont o their vast network of clients and better und erstand the prevailing

sentiments on the ground .

Findings –The two major considerations when Singaporeans choose a flat are its price and location. Within

the confines of these two factors, however, other considerations like race, nationality and the socio-economic

makeup of a neighbourhood will influence their decisions.

Social implications –These considerations can be condensed into the factors of constrained choice and

voluntary segregation. By limiting the impact of voluntary segregation, the EIP can be credited with bridging

the racial divide. However, with constrained choice being unaddressed by the policy, the emerging formation

of a class divide is an unintended consequence.

Originality/value –Because almost all developed economies are culturally plural, understanding

Singapore’s approach to residential desegregation offers insights as to how other countries may learn from

the Singapore experience in managing and encouraging multiculturalism, especially since ethnic residential

concentration can reduce the formation of strong social relationships.

Keywords Ethnic minorities, Enclaves, Public housing, Neighbourhoods, Residential segregation,

Ethnic Integration Policy

Paper type Research paper

In a world where communities are increasingly divided among ethnic and socio-economic

lines, Singapore seems to be somewhat of a utopian state. Indeed, in a 2015 interview,

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam suggested that Singapore’s biggest

success was not her economy, but rather, her social harmony (Zakaria, 2015).

Singapore is a small city-state, with a total population of 5.6m individuals. Known for its

diversity, the majority of the 4m residents are Chinese (74.3 per cent), followed by a sizeable

minority of Malays (13.4 per cent), Indians (9.0 per cent) and other minority races such as

Filipinos, Caucasians and Eurasians (3.2 per cent) (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2017). For

Singapore to remain successful and prosperous, it is imperative that Singaporeans of different

ethnicities co-exist, while resisting the temptation to exclude people on the basis of racial identity.

Thus far, Singapore has somehow made multiculturalism work, creating a fairly diverse but

inclusive state even as many in democratic societies have rejected this political ideology

(e.g. Kortweg and Triadafilopoulos, 2015; Ossewaarde, 2014). This paper thus focusses on

Singapore’s ingenious effort to promote residential desegregation. Because almost all developed

economies are culturally plural, understanding Singapore’s approach to residential desegregation

offers insights as to how other countries can manage and encourage multiculturalism. This is

especially important since ethnic residential concentration is known to reduce the formation of

strong social relationships (Vervoort, 2012).

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 39 No. 2, 2020

pp. 109-125

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-05-2019-0168

Received 31 May 2019

Revised 30 July 2019

5 August 2019

Accepted 14 August 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

109

Singapore’s

residential

diversity

through EIP

A history of Singapore’s social fabric

Singapore’s path to becoming the multiracial and multicultural society of today was fraught

with many challenges. Singapore was a British colony from 1819 till 1963. The city-state has

been a magnet for immigrants in the region due to her strategic geographic location as a

trading port for the British (Leong et al., 2014). In order to maintain some form of social order

in the urban development of the growing colony, the British segregated the island state into

four separate residential areas for the European, Chinese, Malay and Indian communities

(Rahmat, 2008).

The division of Singapore into ethnic hierarchies was part of the British’s“divide and

conquer”strategy where racial identity was essentialised to support different economic

imperatives, with the Chinese driving the capitalist sector and ethnic Malay as unwaged,

low cost labour (Leong et al., 2020; Noor and Leong, 2013; Shamsul, 1999). The

pre-independence city had to rely on the British Colonial Government for all ethnic-related

affairs and it helped the British retain their grip on law and order in the colony. Racial

identity and socio-economic status (SES) were conflated as the Chinese not only enjoyed

numerical supremacy but also exerted considerable influence in both the economic and

political spheres. The social climate and geographical segregation meant that residents had

scant opportunities to interact with others of different races, leading to the formation of a

fractured community characterised by prejudice and stereotypes (Noor and Leong, 2013).

Not surprisingly, the mutual distrust among the different races culminated in the

tumultuous race riots of the 1960s which led to the deaths of at least 40 individuals, with 623

others injured (Lee, 1998, 2000).

In post-independence Singapore, policies were meticulously designed to ensure ample

opportunities for social interaction among the races across a wide range of domains. On

the residential front, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) was established by the

government in 1960 to address housing shortages for all Singaporeans. Between the late

1960s to the early 1980s, substantial de-clustering had taken place, the state forcibly

removed residential enclaves and relocated them to new housing estates for all races,

leading to an increase in residential desegregation (Van Grunsven, 2000). However, by the

mid-1980s, it was clear that in-spite of these actions, residential integration remained a

challenge. Then Minister for National Development S. Dhanabalan observed that certain

neighbourhoods remained preferable to the different ethnic groups, and as a result,

ethnic clustering had begun to form again (Dhanabalan, 1989). Alarmingly, there were

neighbourhoods in Bedok and Tampines where Malay households had exceeded 30 per cent

(vs the national proportion of 13 per cent); similarly, there were neighbourhoods in Hougang

where Chinese households had exceeded 90 per cent (Dhanabalan, 1989). Separately, Sin

(2002) noted that the Chinese had a preference for central areas like Hougang and Redhill;

the Malays had a preference for peripheral areas like Bedok and Taman Jurong; while the

Indians had a preference for areas like Yishun and Kampong Java.

Introduction to the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP)

In view of Singapore’s historical social fractures, urban planners in the city-state pay great

attention to the racial dynamics when charting the development of Singapore. The housing

market is tightly regulated by the state –there is a strong political resolute to inject racial

diversity into neighbourhoods in order to encourage social mixing. Over 80 per cent of

housing in Singapore were built by the government for the masses (Housing and

Development Board, 2019c), and a variety of flat types (from one-room flats to five-room

flats) cater to the different income groups. Coupled with the government’s generous housing

grants (Housing and Development Board, 2019a), this means that close to 90 per cent of

Singaporeans are homeowners.

110

EDI

39,2