United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

The Ministry of National Development (MND) envisions Singapore to be “An Endearing Home and a Distinctive Global City”. One of MND’s main responsibilities is to deliver affordable and quality public housing. MND works with its statutory board, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), to achieve this.

In the early 1960s Singapore’s public housing programme needed to overcome the daunting problem of acute housing shortage. Many Singaporeans then lived in squatters. Today, more than 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing flats built by HDB. Affordable public housing has allowed the vast majority of Singapore households to own their homes, and the HDB constantly upgrades its flats and estates to maintain high standards of living.

MND and the HDB also work with other agencies to help nurture cohesive communities in our public housing estates. Our estates are a melting pot where Singaporeans of different races, backgrounds and age live together. Closely-knit public housing communities form the basis of a cohesive and inclusive nation.

To foster the community spirit, we have built common spaces and facilities such as playgrounds and fitness corners to create the physical space for HDB residents to interact. Our ongoing efforts in making our estates barrier-free help ensure that the elderly and physically challenged can remain involved in community activities. Each public housing estate has a mix of flat types to bring households of different social profiles together.

These measures have helped to build cohesive and inclusive HDB communities. However, moving forward major trends will impact our social fabric:

Firstly, Singaporeans are becoming increasingly mobile in the globalised economy. More are working overseas, and for longer stretches of time. Simultaneously, many will arrive from overseas to find opportunities in Singapore, with a good number staying in our HDB estates. Our HDB communities therefore not only serve as an emotional reference point for Singapore even as they travel, they must also make new immigrants feel at home.

Secondly, more women are now pursuing careers. This was unlike the past, where the housewives in the estate tended to be the ones creating and maintaining ties among neighbours. With more women in the workplace, there is a decline in the everyday interactions between neighbouring families.

With an ageing population, we also need to ensure that the increasing numbers of elderly in our public housing estates remain meaningfully engaged in their local communities.

Finally, HDB residents are becoming increasingly educated and technology-savvy. They have higher expectations, and they want their views on their living environment heard. For the youth, many activities compete for their free time, and it is increasingly challenging to draw their attention to local community participation.

Given these trends, we needed a rethink of how we can strengthen communities in our HDB estates, and to shift the emphasis of public housing from hardware-building to community-building. MND spear-headed and launched the Forum on HDB Heartware in Nov 2006 as a public consultation exercise, to solicit fresh views and new ideas on how stronger HDB communities can be built.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Arising from extensive public consultation, the Forum put forth a comprehensive suite of recommendations to help build stronger HDB communities. The key ones are highlighted below. Sustained public engagement To build community ownership, the Forum was conscious of the need to nurture and sustain residents’ involvement in local decision-making. One key outcome was a review of the HDB’s approach to estate improvement or “upgrading”. Arising from this, 2 new nationwide upgrading programmes have been introduced – the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). The NRP moves away from past practice of using a “cookie-cutter” template to design the public housing precinct, and puts residents in the role of designers for their own neighbourhood. Consultation mechanisms, such as Town Hall meetings and dialogues with government agencies and architects, will be in place to actively engage residents and solicit ideas on how they want their neighbourhood improved. Similarly, the HIP gives flat owners more choice in how the HDB should upgrade their flats. The HIP will include a menu of works that residents can choose to include or exclude for their own flat. This will ensure that the HDB carries out only those flat improvements that are highly valued by residents. These new programmes will have a national impact on HDB living. They will enhance the living environment of residents, and create opportunities for them to come together and be actively engaged in shaping their neighbourhood. There are 300,000 flats eligible for HIP, while 200,000 flats are in precincts eligible for NRP. Proposals targeted at specific groups Responding to public feedback, the Forum reviewed various policies to better meet the needs of different demographic groups. The key proposals are: (a) The HDB had previously discontinued building traditional “wet markets” and “hawker centres” as most Singaporeans preferred to shop in modern supermarkets. Recognising that the elderly are more used to these traditional establishments, the Forum proposed to selectively bring them back to estates where their business could be viable. For a start, the HDB has tendered out one pilot site for a wet market/hawker centre. This will bring back a familiar social landmark for the older generation. (b) The HDB provides car parks in its estates primarily to meet the needs of the local residents. However, more young families are shuttling frequently between different housing estates to visit their parents. Thus, the Forum proposed a special car-parking scheme for such families, so as to support inter-generational bonding. The scheme was implemented in July 2007 and has received very positive feedback, with more than 2,800 motorists having already signed up. (c) Community Centres (CCs) located in public housing estates today act as a focal point for community activities. They are generally standalone buildings, well equipped with facilities. To better engage and serve the youths, the Forum has proposed for some CCs to be co-located in places more frequented by youths, such as shopping and entertainment malls. This idea, which will change the approach of community youth outreach, is currently being actively studied.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The recommendations of the Forum were based on feedback from hundreds of participants in its extensive public consultations, including leaders of grassroots organisations, teachers, NGO leaders, and members of the public. The Forum was led by Ms Grace Fu, Minister of State for National Development, and involved a number of Members of Parliament (MPs). A cross-agency Government panel was also formed to support the work of the Forum, and to help turn ideas into feasible public policy plans for implementation. The agencies involved included Housing Development Board (HDB), Land Transport Authority (LTA), Ministry of Community Development, Youth, and Sports (MCYS), National Environment Agency (NEA), National Parks Board (NParks), People’s Association (PA), Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore (URA), the National Heritage Board (NHB), the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and the Ministry of Education (MOE). One of the key stakeholders is the HDB who will be involved in the implementation of most of the Forum’s recommendations. Other agencies such as the PA, URA and MOE will also study specific proposals by the Forum.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The main objective of the Forum was to engage the public through consultations to find out how HDB communities could be strengthened. As such, the MND’s Housing Policy Division adopted two strategies to address the objective; Consultation strategy and a Whole-of-Government approach.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
The Heartware Forum was launched in Nov 2006 and completed in July 2007 with a public report, after some eight months of intense public consultation. Most of the proposals have been implemented while various working groups are actively studying the rest of the proposals.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
The key challenges of the Heartware Forum are: (a) To have an open yet meaningful public dialogue that will lead to concrete policy proposals; (b) To address the complex issue of community building in a holistic manner, that transcends the boundaries and concerns of different Government agencies. The Forum adopted a 2-stage consultation process, and a whole-of-government approach to address these challenges. (i) Consultation strategy The public’s views on community bonding were sought through various channels such as Focus Group discussions, public dialogues, radio talk shows, and the Internet. A two-stage consultation process was adopted. In the first stage, five Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) of 20-30 participants each from different age groups were conducted, to brainstorm ideas and air views. Various Government agencies then worked through the inputs that surfaced, to develop more specific preliminary policy proposals. The Forum then “market-tested” these proposals by canvassing responses from a larger representation of Singaporeans through the Public Dialogues, which involved about 200 – 300 participants per session. This two-stage approach allowed the public to participate in both the initial conceptualisation of ideas, and the eventual crystallisation of specific policy proposals. Government agencies were involved at the onset so that two-way communication was achieved, i.e. the public is also educated about the constraints and considerations of Government agencies, which need to balance the interests and needs of different parties. (ii) Whole-of-Government approach A whole-of-Government approach was adopted at the onset to address the issue of community building holistically and comprehensively. The involvement of different agencies in a cross-agency panel allowed the Forum to work towards six key thrusts that were identified to address the different ingredients that define the local community, viz: (a) Enrich the Town; (b) Enhance the precinct; (c) Involve the schools; (d) Support the family; (e) Engage the resident; and (f) Encourage the volunteer.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The Forum tapped on existing logistical resources within HDB to organise the various public consultations. A third party facilitator from the private sector was invited to facilitate the public dialogues.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
Sustainability Community building needs to be a continuous and sustained effort. Notwithstanding the Forum’s comprehensive recommendations, the key to successful community building lies in residents themselves. Whether the various initiatives can be sustained for the long term will depend on the following: (a) The active participation of residents, and their willingness to take collective ownership of their community. While the Forum has set up the mechanisms to better engage HDB residents, ultimately, the residents need to put in their time and energy to participate. (b) The presence of energetic and innovative ground-up community leadership from NGOs, local schools, grassroots and youth organisations to mobilise and engage residents. (c) The willingness of all parties, including Government agencies, to live with a certain degree of “messiness” and trade-offs when implementing new and untested ideas in community building. These are to be expected as we experiment with new initiatives to foster greater community distinctiveness and ownership. At the ground level, residents will need to compromise among themselves as they make collective decisions. Transferability In the Singapore context, the Heartware Forum reflects the shift in focus from hardware-building in public housing development, to nurture the “heart and soul” of our housing estates. While the idea of the Forum in community engagement is transferable, the approach would need to be suitably adjusted for different local context. For example, it would be pertinent to highlight the prevalence of public housing in Singapore, which provides homes for more than 80% of the population. While there is therefore an easily identifiable audience for engagement, there will also be diverse views on issues to reconcile.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The issue of community building is a complex and multi-faceted one. One of the key lessons drawn was to avoid the futile search for a simplistic one-size-fits-all solution. The local community is shaped by different influences and it will be simplistic to focus on any one aspect of the community while ignoring the others. With this in mind, the Forum has developed a broad and holistic suite of recommendations targeted at the Town, the local precinct, the school, the family and the resident. Secondly, the usual number-based performance targets or policy directives may not be applicable or meaningful. For community building, there is often a need for the stakeholders to interact and work out solutions, rather than for the local authority to mandate policy changes. As a case in point, there were suggestions for local schools to play a larger role in the community life of HDB estates. But, after dialogues with various parties, the Forum realised that the key was to nurture closer ties between school leaders and community leaders, rather than set artificial targets of collaboration. Hence, the Forum introduced a mechanism for facility sharing between schools and community, as a catalyst to encourage them to work closer. It will take some time to see if such a strategy will indeed bear fruit. Finally, there is a need for continual experimentation and readiness to draw lessons and make improvements. As such, it would be prudent to pilot concepts at a local level and to address teething problems, before expanding their application at a national level. For this reason, a number of the Forum’s proposals are in the form of pilot projects, for example the reintroduction of wet markets and hawker centres, and the expansion of scope for residents to be involved in local decision-making.


Institution Name:		Ministry of National Development
Institution Type:		Government Agency
Contact Person:		Chng Ho Kiat
Title:		Director, Corporate Development
Telephone/ Fax:		+6563257219
Institution's / Project's Website:		+6563257254
E-mail:		chng_ho_kiat@mnd.gov.sg
Address:		5 Maxwell Road #19-00 Tower Block MND Complex
Postal Code:		069110
City:
State/Province:
Country:		Singapore

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information