Integration

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 following research questions: how do Singaporeans feel about residential diversity? Does the EIP influence attitudes to residential segregation in Singapore? What do these attitudes mean for governments and policymakers around the world? The research involved focus group discussions with 27 Housing and Development Board real estate agents, in order to tap onto their vast network of clients and better understand 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

© Emerald Publishing Limited 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

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.

EDI

How does Singapore encourage diversity and inclusion in the neighbourhood? The major state-driven attempt to inject diversity into the neighbourhoods was through the introduction of the EIP in 1989. The EIP’s role was to manage the residential quota according to ethnic composites to prevent the reformation of ethnic enclaves. Officially:

The EIP is in place to preserve Singapore’s multicultural identity and promote racial integration and harmony. It ensures that there is a balanced mix of the various ethnic communities in HDB towns. The EIP proportion set for a block/neighbourhood is based on the ethnic makeup of Singapore. (Housing and Development Board, 2017)

At present, the EIP quota is set such that each block of flats cannot have more than 87, 25 and 15 per cent of households that are Chinese, Malay and Indian/Other, respectively[1]. In addition to the block limit, there is a neighbourhood limit, which is set at 3 per cent lower. Once this quota is reached for a particular ethnic category, a prospective buyer from that ethnic group can only purchase a flat from a seller of the same ethnic group. For example, if a block has reached the quota for theMalay ethnicity, a prospective Malay buyer would not be allowed to purchase a flat in the block from a Chinese or Indian/Other seller, because this would increase the proportion of Malay households past the limit. However, the prospective Malay buyer could still purchase a unit from a Malay seller, because this would not change the existing ethnic makeup of the block. At this point, it is worth noting that the EIP is targeted at the resale market. In contrast, the sale of new flats has its ethnic proportion directly regulated by the HDB to ensure that the overall profile of home buyers complies with the ethnic quota. This two-pronged approach ensures that the ethnic mix in all public housing estates reflect the ethnic mix of Singapore.

With this mechanism in place, no single-race block can exist in Singapore. Ideally, this means that Singaporeans from the different ethnic groups will have ample opportunities to mingle with each other on a daily basis. This promotes racial integration and harmony, thus strengthening Singapore’s multicultural identity, whilst preventing racial tensions from building up. After all, as Wise and Velayutham (2014) have noted, racial tensions are seen as a potential threat to Singapore’s nationhood and national security, and if left on its own, social cohesion will be eroded.

Taking stock on the Ethnic Integration Policy Singapore, like other advanced economies, is not immune to challenges on identity politics. For starters, race is increasingly being conflated with one’s SES. According to data collected from the Singapore Census, the average monthly income from work in 2010 was S$7,326, S$4,575 and S$7,664 for the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities, respectively, which was an increase from the 1990 figures of S$3,213, S$2,246 and S$2,859, respectively (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2000, 2010). While the average monthly income from work has increased across the three communities, the income gap has widened. For every dollar a Singaporean Malay earned in 1990, his Chinese counterpart earned S$1.44 while his Indian counterpart earned S$1.27. By 2010, this figure had increased to S$1.60 and S$1.68, respectively. Despite the best efforts of the Singapore Government, the Malay community appears to be severely lagging behind the other two ethnic groups. Such a growing class divide could potentially undermine Singapore’s harmonious multicultural society.

Using a geographic information system (GIS) framework, Leong et al. (2020) found significant ethnic clustering effects for the three ethnic categories. HDB flats that have exceeded the Chinese quota are significantly concentrated in the central regions such as Bishan, Cheng San, Serangoon Central, Redhill, Ang Mo Kio and Upper Paya Lebar (see Figure 1). For example, in 2016, 89.87 per cent of all flats in Bishan were Chinese-constrained, which echoes the demographic profile of the neighbourhood – 85.14 per cent of residents were Chinese, significantly higher than the national average of 74.31 per cent (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2016). For the ethnic Malays, HDB flats that exceeded their ethnic quota are concentrated in Woodlands and Pasir Ris

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

East (see Figure 2). Similarly, in 2016, 26.54 per cent of all flats in Woodlands were Malay-constrained, which echoes the demographic profile of the neighbourhood – 24.90 per cent of all residents were Malay, significantly higher than the national average of 13.33 per cent (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2016). Finally, for the ethnic Indians, HDB flats that exceeded their ethnic quota are concentrated in Jurong West, Sembawang, Sengkang and Kampong Java (see Figure 3). In 2016, 9.97 per cent of all flats in Jurong West were Indian-constrained, which echoes the demographic profile of the neighbourhood – 9.94 per cent of all residents were Indians, higher than the national average of 9.10 per cent (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2016). More crucially, there is a strong correlation (r¼ 0.60, po0.001) between Chinese EIP constrained blocks and resale prices – neighbourhoods with a larger concentration of Chinese households attract higher resale prices but estates with more Malay households attract moderately lower resale prices (r¼−0.21, po0.05; Leong et al., 2020). This can be explained by market forces – there are fewer Malay buyers who are able to pay the higher price that the Chinese majority are able to. Although once seen as a small cost to achieve the overarching goal of inter-racial mixing (Lee, 2000), the growing class divide could complicate race relations.

In total, 30 years have passed since the EIP was implemented in public housing estates, but beyond demographic profiles and the resale prices of HDB flats, what do we know about Singaporean’s attitudes towards housing diversity and the experience of multicultural living in an HDB flat? Today, the HDB estate is a microcosm of modern Singapore, where people from different racial, religious and socio-economic backgrounds meet and socialise. Less certain, however, is how Singaporeans perceive and are impacted by the EIP. At present, we do not know how the policy influences decisions to relocate, if any, and how this is shaped by the ethnic demographic distribution of HDB households as demonstrated in the GIS study.

This exploratory research paper asks three questions:

RQ1. How do Singaporeans feel about residential diversity?

RQ2. Does the EIP influence attitudes to residential segregation in Singapore?

Bishan

Ang Mo Kio

Hougang

Redhill

N

EW

S

Legend Chinese EIP constrained HDB blocks

Planning Area (2014)

18 Kilometers94.50

Source: Adapted from Leong et al. (2020)

Figure 1. Chinese EIP constrained HDB blocks

EDI

Kampong Java

Jurong West

Legend Indian EIP constrained HDB blocks Planning Area (2014)

18 Kilometers94.50

N

W E

S

Seng Kang

Sembawang

Source: Adapted from Leong et al. (2020)

Figure 3. Indian EIP constrained HDB blocks

Pasir Ris

Legend Malay EIP constrained HDB blocks

Planning Area (2014)

18 Kilometers94.50

N

E

S

W

Marsiling and Woodlands

Source: Adapted from Leong et al. (2020)

Figure 2. Malay EIP constrained HDB blocks

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

RQ3. What do these attitudes mean for governments and policymakers around the world?

These questions are answered in the results, discussion and social impact and policy implication sections, respectively.

Method In order to understand how Singaporeans feel about residential diversity, focus group sessions with HDB real estate agents were conducted. The real estate agents deal with Singaporeans from all walks of life spanning multiple residential locations, and are thus an excellent repository for understanding how Singaporeans feel about residential diversity. In addition, their third-party point of view will help advance our understanding of the racial and socio-economic dynamics on the ground, and the role and impact of the EIP, and less compunction to provide socially desirable answers. The HDB real estate agents were asked questions including:

(1) “What are the key considerations for Singaporeans when they choose a resale flat?”

(2) “Does the race, nationality, and class makeup of a neighbourhood influence a purchase decision?”

(3) “How does Ethnic Integration Policy shape the experience of prospective buyers and sellers?”

(4) “In which estates are HDB flats harder to sell, and why?”

In addition, since discussing about race is sometimes seen as a taboo subject in Singapore, respondents may be defensive and reluctant to share their views. In order to attempt to elicit genuine responses, questions about residential diversity were introduced later in the focus group discussion, after rapport had been established with the focus group moderator.

A total of 27 agents were recruited for six separate focus group sessions. They were recruited from real estate advertisements in the newspapers that put up the name and contact number of our focus group participants. To ensure that we did not obtain outdated information, we only recruited real estate agents with active listings. The sample composed 17 Chinese, 4 Malay and 6 Indian agents; 23 were male, with work experience in this industry ranging from 2 months to more than 20 years, across a variety of real estate agencies.

The real estate agents were grouped on the basis of their ethnicity, and the moderators for the respective sessions were likewise of the same ethnicity. All sessions were conducted in English and each lasted approximately 90 min. All sessions were audio-recorded, and the perspectives raised in the focus group sessions were then transcribed and coded for analysis. As a token of appreciation for their participation in the focus group, all participants received a limited edition EZ-link card with a stored value of S$10. The names of all participants have been changed to preserve anonymity. The study was approved by the university’s ethics board.

Results The analysis uses a grounded theory approach to collate, classify and analyse data inductively. The responses to the open-ended questions are coded, categorised according to themes, and eventually form the basis of a new concept, or to advance existing theoretical understanding on ethnic residential segregation (Martin and Turner, 1986; Strauss and Juliet, 1994). In this study, descriptive coding was used to identify the key themes. Coding of the responses was conducted by the first and third author, and disagreements were settled through discussion. Saturation point was reached when subsequent focus group participants produced responses that were no different from those already coded.

EDI

The results suggest that there are many factors to consider when choosing a new home. Of the factors listed in Table I, our focus group participants explicitly noted that two major and consistent considerations were the price and location of a flat. For the majority of home buyers, these two variables limited their range of residential estates prior to their engagement with the real estate agents; the budget they have and other conditions such as the need to live close to their parents or desired schools pre-determine the extent or radius of house hunting. But within the confines of these two factors, however, other considerations like race, nationality and SES influence their decisions:

They tell me exactly the place they want, and when it comes to spending, they are very well-versed in a lot of the prices. (Aiden)

Neighbours may be one of the factors but it is not one of the main factors. I think price and the house [location] itself are the main factors. (Benjamin)

The price of a flat An individual’s income and affordability is the single most important consideration when it comes to buying a new home – it determines where and which flat one can buy. Due to the vast pricing differentials across neighbourhoods in Singapore, this means that low-income Singaporeans are priced out of some highly desirable estates (see Table II). A participant effectively summed up the situation:

Let’s say they want to upgrade [due to life circumstances], so they will probably look at what is within their affordability. If they have no choice but to live in Jurong West, then they will. (Carter)

The location of a flat Other than the price of a flat, the location of a home is also a crucial determinant. All prospective home buyers have different needs and there is no one single “ideal” location. Some Singaporeans prioritise convenience and prefer to live near a train station (i.e. Mass Rapid Transit), while others desire to be near a prestigious school for their children’s education.

Singapore’s state-of-the-art public transport network made a whopping 7.2m daily rides in 2016 (Land Transport Authority, 2018), suggesting that the average Singaporean relies

Themes Number of times raised

Location of a flat 306 Neighbour’s race 109 Price of a flat 103 Neighbour’s SES 79 Neighbour’s nationality 59

Table I. A summary of the

themes most frequently raised during the focus

group discussions

Planning area 4-room median HDB resale price (2019 Q1) % of households earning more than S$20,000

Bishan S$549,000 19.78 Jurong West S$355,000 7.35 Woodlands S$323,000 5.40 Note: A 4-room HDB flat is the most common apartment size among all public housing estates Sources: Adapted from Housing and Development Board (2019b) and Department of Statistics Singapore (2016)

Table II. A comparison of some

neighbourhoods in Singapore

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

extensively on public transportation. This was duly factored in when Singaporeans chose new homes:

[A 10-minute walk] is considered too far [these days], the trend is a 5-minute walk. (Danielle)

For some Chinese families with young school-going children, owning a flat in the vicinity of a prestigious primary school can take priority over other considerations like the age of a flat:

For example, Farrer Road has a few blocks built in the 70s. But it is near Nanyang [a prestigious primary school], so the moment they want to place their kids in Nanyang, they don’t mind living in an old flat. They just want the address. (Ethan)

The role of race, nationality and socio-economic status When home affordability and locations are considered, other factors play an influential role in shaping the buyer’s decision, namely, the racial identity, nationality and socio-economic profiles among the shortlisted flats and neighbourhoods. This is seemingly in line with existing research by Ibraimovic and Masiero (2014), who found that the “ethnic description of a neighbourhood matters”, and that people tended to choose neighbourhoods populated with individuals hailing from similar ethnocultural backgrounds. The motivation to do so could stem from a desire to preserve group solidarity (Zhou and Logan, 1991) or avoid discrimination and hostility due to their cultural status (Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007).

Race. Notwithstanding Singapore’s multiracial social fabric, racial identity remains a psychological barrier that buyers consider as it functions as a proxy for potential differences and frictions. This is seemingly more common among the ethnic Chinese, who are the majority race in Singapore; it constitutes part of the equation in evaluating the flat. Our participants noted some of the common stereotypes among the Chinese:

Indian cooking smells, and when they pray, they use the stick and the smell comes in. (Faith)

The [problem with the] Malays is not so much of the cooking, Malay is the whole family come together and make it a party, that’s a problem. And they have too many people in the house, so the laundry is all outside, and it chokes up the whole place [corridor]. (Grayson)

The discomfort is not confined to culinary or social habits. For some Chinese home buyers, the different races may have vastly different approaches to parenting and it engenders a less than positive learning environment for their children. For Chinese parents, these different approaches may be less than acceptable. A participant summarised this point:

Maybe it’s their way of upbringing, but their [Malay and Indian] kids are just running around the corridor, playing football. You don’t want your children to be brought up this way, like not so disciplined, not so cultured. (Henry)

That said, not all respondents feel the same way. The emphasis on multiracial mixing and socialisation has at least made some respondents view neighbourhood diversity or the EIP with a nuanced perspective, separating the personal views of Singaporeans from that of the policy. This is especially true for the younger generation, who are more open to others of a different race. One participant ironically noted that:

There is no discrimination among them [Singaporeans], it’s just HDB discrimination [referring to the EIP]. (Isaac)

Nationality. Like racial identity, the neighbours’ nationality of origin is a factor that buyers consider as it is a proxy of cultural differences, and a sign of the neighbourhood’s standard of living. Singapore’s population figures reported a seismic uplift from 2006 to 2012 due to the liberal immigrant policies implemented during this

EDI

period (Leong et al., 2014). Even though many new immigrants come from the same countries as the forefathers of Singaporeans, their social norms and behaviours are dissimilar to the ones currently practised by Singaporeans (Leong et al., 2014). One example is the differing standards for cleanliness and neatness:

I would say that the acceptance of Singaporeans is basically the culture that they [the foreigners] bring. Because we’ve all grown up in cleanliness, then when you come up with those Indians or even Chinese from mainland China, they come from a different culture where it is very messy. So then it becomes a concern, because when I come to my block I’m like, “Wah, so dirty!” If everyone is keeping it clean then I think that barrier [to acceptance] is a lot lower. ( James)

When I went to his place, there was a lot of ropes that they hung at the corridor. And on the ropes they hung all their clothes. So I asked, “Is there a lot of foreign workers staying here?” But he said, “No, these are all my clothes”. So he took up his neighbours walls, about two units [to hang his clothes]. (Kai)

The immigrants bring with them social norms that may not be aligned with that of Singaporeans, and as such they may be perceived as a threat to the Singaporean way of life (Lim and Leong, 2017). As a result, neighbourhoods with a high concentration of immigrant households are not always welcome among buyers. People of different nationalities also appear to have different approaches to parenting:

Their way of living back in their home country is not what we are accustomed to here, so we cannot accept [them]. They let their children run wild along the whole corridor with their scooters, and they don’t really bother. To them, having one child less is okay. They have the mind-set that they can give birth to another, but to us it is, “Wow, very noisy ah!” (Liam)

Socio-economic status. Of the three factors, a neighbour’s socio-economic background appears to be the most influential. Buyers take into account the SES of their immediate neighbours and the neighbourhood in proximity in anticipation of behaviours and experiences linked to people from varying income groups. In general, prospective home buyers prefer to stay away from rental apartments and small dwelling types (e.g. one to three room types) as they are usually built for lower income families and a sign of lower SES. Some anecdotes about life in or near these residential flats:

When you walk down the staircase, you will find dark stains. Although your void deck may be clean in the morning, when you come back from work you will find garbage littered in the common corridors. (Mason)

So they can throw the curry packet […] cigarettes, even condoms they also throw outside [referring to high-rise littering]. (Nora)

I once brought a buyer to Marsiling to view a 3-room flat and I was asked, “Eh, how come there are discarded syringes on the grass?” (Oliver)

These anecdotes are in stark contrast to blocks with larger, executive flats, which are often very well-maintained.

Unfortunately, the negative perception only worsens when it comes to the rental blocks:

I’ve got one [family] staying beside a rental flat, and they cannot take it because it is very noisy […] So the parent has to work, and then the kids just walk around in the void deck. Especially when young they become a couple in the staircase. (Penelope)

It appears that the lack of parental supervision results in rowdy children roaming the neighbourhood, which, in turn, translates to a less conducive neighbourhood.

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

Discussion While our focus groups have helped to enlighten the factors that Singaporeans consider when choosing a house, they also highlight why ethnic clustering in neighbourhoods will always occur. Recent research has found that 30.0 per cent of all HDB blocks have reached at least one ethnic quota limit in 2018 – an increase from 24.4 per cent in 1989 (Leong et al., 2020; Wee, 1989). More importantly, the residential concentration reveals a systemic preference for selected locations among each of the three racial groups, and our focus group discussions have reinforced what the quota limits show: the Chinese prefer central areas like Bishan; the Malays opt for peripheral areas like Pasir Ris and Marsiling; and the Indians gravitate towards areas like JurongWest and Kampong Java. This shows that the decision-making process is still influenced by our primordial instincts regarding race and class distinctions.

These ethnic clusters can generally be attributed to two factors: voluntary segregation and constrained choice (Søholt and Lynnebakke, 2015). In this section, we will use the theoretical framework posited in Figure 4 to explain why ethnic residential segregation takes place.

Voluntary segregation Because people are free to choose where they want to live, ethnic clustering can occur as a result of voluntary segregation. This segregation is often done unintentionally, as a result of the factors of price and location as mentioned by the participants. There are three main reasons why voluntary segregation takes place in Singapore: government-backed segregation, ethnic segregation and personal preferences.

Government-backed segregation. For much of Singapore’s history, residents from similar ethnic backgrounds tended to live together in certain areas of the island. Prior to the implementation of the EIP in 1989, government statistics showed that the Chinese were overrepresented in the central areas while the Malay community was overrepresented in the peripheral areas (Sin, 2002). Despite the implementation of the EIP, this overrepresentation has yet to be corrected. In recent years, however, the government has introduced measures that may unintentionally entrench this overrepresentation.

The Proximity Housing Grant (PHG), introduced in 2015, encourages extended families to live together. Young couples who live within 4 kilometres of their parents may receive up to S$30,000 in housing subsidy (Housing and Development Board, 2018b). As resale home prices tend to be higher than new homes, this grant is attractive to young families who are financially cash-strapped but wish to live in a familiar neighbourhood. In addition, by living near to their parents, young Singaporean families have potential caregivers ready to look after their children.

Low Income Singaporeans

Government-backed Segregation

Ethnic Segregation

Personal Preferences

Voluntary Segregation

Constrained Choice Price of a Flat

Location of a Flat

Neighbour’s Race

Neighbour’s Nationality

Neighbour’s SES

Figure 4. Theoretical framework explaining ethnic residential segregation

EDI

The PHG has been an overwhelming success thus far, with S$211m being distributed in the two years since it was introduced (Chia, 2018). This suggests that young Singaporeans are moving into the same areas where their parents have lived, making it hard to reverse the trend of ethnic clustering for selected neighbourhoods.

Personal preferences. Voluntary segregation can take place due to the sense of place identity and attachment. Many focus group participants highlighted that the majority of resale transactions were intra-region, meaning that most people move within a geographic space:

Some of them [Singaporeans] have stayed in the west from the day [that] they were born. You can introduce them [to] places in the east and they will still reject you as they feel like an alien in the east. They will still buy something back in the west due to the familiarization of the area. They have gotten used to it when they were young until they started working, so they won’t go to the east. Similarly, [those from the] north won’t go to the south. (Quinn)

The theory of place attachment suggests that emotional connections to a spatial location – in this case the neighbourhood – would encourage individuals to stay in the location that they feel bonded affectionately to relive their positive memories (Clarke et al., 2018). Singaporeans who grew up in one part of the island (e.g. east or west) will be more familiar with the neighbouring amenities such as the hawker centres and the transportation network, leading to a preference for this region in their adult life. Their ties to the environment compels them to choose a home that is not just familiar but one that also evokes a sense of identity, shared experiences and belongingness. The theory also explains the disproportionate numbers of new Indian immigrants in the Sengkang and Punggol regions:

For a start, when they [the foreign Indians] first come in as a Work Permit holder[2], I somehow feel that Indian tenants prefer newer flats. [At that time, the] Punggol and Sengkang flats were generally newer, so they moved there to stay. After a while they become familiar with the place, and once they obtain PR [i.e. permanent residency], chances are that they will just stick to that place. (Ryan)

Ethnic segregation. According to Clark (2002), ethnocentrism is a compelling factor that advances voluntary segregation. Indeed, our participants suggested that some Chinese buyers practice voluntary segregation. Advertisements for flats in Marsiling tend to receive fewer enquiries from Chinese buyers because the area is known to have a higher concentration of Malays. One participant even suggested that a Chinese buyer might reconsider buying a flat if he realises that he would be the only Chinese household on his floor. Without the EIP, it is possible for certain areas to become an ethnic enclave. As another participant noted:

Sometimes, when you serve a buyer, the buyer will tell you, “Eh, this side I don’t want. That side I also don’t want. I want here only.” Sometimes we don’t know why, so we ask why. Then he will tell you, “Oh, because this area has too many Indians”. (Sebastian, emphasis by participant)

Notwithstanding the overt prejudices of some Singaporeans in their choice of residential home, it is possible that different ethnic groups have varying housing preferences that is not driven by outgroup bias, e.g., a desire to live closer to certain built features closely associated with an ethnic community and for the transmission of their cultural values and heritage. As a result, the different races naturally gravitate towards neighbourhoods with these amenities in place, inadvertently resulting the formation of ethnic clusters. Our participants were aware of this as well:

Some [Chinese buyers] want [to be beside good primary] schools, meaning that they can walk to the school. But they don’t want across the street, but rather just beside the street, for safety reasons. (Thomas)

Malay buyers go for size […] size because of Hari Raya [a Muslim festive holiday]. (Umar)

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

Let’s say if I’m a Malay and I want to move into Bishan. A 4-room flat is S$600,000. [But for that price], I’d rather move to Woodlands, where I can get a jumbo or executive flat [i.e. a larger flat] for S$500,000 to S$600,000. So this is a concern especially for Malays as they look at for the same amount of money they can get a bigger space. Especially since Malays have quite big families, and sometimes extended families stay together too. (Vincent)

These preferences partially explain why certain neighbourhoods have more EIP ethnic-constrained blocks. For instance, Chinese Singaporeans are known to place greater emphasis on academic achievements, and are overrepresented in the central areas which appear to have a higher concentration of good schools[3] (Leong and Yap, forthcoming). In addition, as our participants have noted, the Singaporean Malay expresses a stronger inclination for communal living with their extended families, and the peripheral houses offer better value in terms of sizes. Woodlands is known for their large, jumbo flats, and 86.38 per cent of all flats in Woodlands are four-room or larger flats. Similarly, 96.76 per cent of all flats in Pasir Ris are four-room or larger flats (Housing and Development Board, 2018a). Likewise, Indian Singaporeans are overrepresented in the Kampong Java area due to its proximity to Little India, an old neighbourhood with traditional Indian shophouses and prominent places of worship like the Sri Veeramakaliamman Temple.

Constrained choice Not all home buyers have a choice over their residential neighbourhood. Constrained choice occurs in Singapore because of the huge variation in the prices of resale flats across Singapore. While higher income Singaporeans have a wider selection and can contemplate if a neighbourhood is to their liking, lower income Singaporeans often have no choice but to accept a “less than desirable” neighbourhood due to limited budgets. Constrained choice thus poses a challenge for the lower income Singaporeans but seemingly more so for ethnic minorities due to the conflation of race and income.

Low-income Singaporeans. Low-income minorities are sometimes faced with a double whammy – they cannot afford the more pricy housing types and neighbourhoods but at the same time are constrained by the EIP quotas from purchasing flats in less expensive neighbourhoods in which their ethnic classification is overrepresented in the estate. Because there is more demand than supply, many low-income minorities compete for the few, if any, available flats in these less expensive neighbourhoods.

Consider the example of Marsiling, a suburb of Woodlands in the north. Here, prices for a the-room flat can be as low as S$210,000. Unsurprisingly, this area is in high demand among the Malay community due to the affordability of the flats. Ironically, this also makes it harder for Malay home buyers to purchase affordable flats in Marsiling because the Malay quota has mostly been reached. One participant highlighted this problem:

But when they want to buy, it is very hard for them to get the house, because they [the flats have exceeded] the quota […] [On the other hand, they may] want to move out of Marsiling but nobody wants to buy their house, even though the Chinese can. (Willow)

Social impact and policy implications Constrained choice and voluntary segregation can be seen as push and pull factors when individuals decide to move. By limiting the impact of the pull factors, the EIP has been credited for bridging the racial divide. Moreover, not having the EIP could have a far more serious impact on racial segregation as some neighbourhoods could have entire blocks composed of single-race tenants. Beyond racial dynamics, there are signs that a class divide is simmering at the geographic level.

Because the location of a flat can affect its price, and with Singaporeans viewing price (and location) as one of the primary determining factors in choosing a flat, flats in certain

EDI

neighbourhoods can be very expensive and are thus out of reach for low-income Singaporeans. It is thus plausible that the apparent preference for flats on the periphery of Singapore is due to constrained choice. To exacerbate matters, minorities are also overrepresented in certain peripheral parts of the city-state.

In other words, while the EIP has prevented voluntary segregation from taking place in Singapore, it has led to some minorities making their housing decisions as a result of constrained choice. With race being increasingly conflated with SES, it is imperative that EIP constrained choice is managed carefully to prevent any negative repercussions for Singapore.

While more in-depth studies are warranted to ascertain the role and impact of ethnic preferences in the choice of residential relocation, the responses from our participants about voluntary segregation also suggest another approach to manage residential desegregation. One option is to make all neighbourhoods equally desirable. This means that existing “less desirable” neighbourhoods could be redeveloped with more common areas, attractions and amenities. For instance, the HDB could possibly increase the diversity of flat types in the different neighbourhoods while the Ministry of Education may consider relocating some of the schools under the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) to the north-eastern, north-western and eastern fringe locations where there are fewer Chinese households.

In Singapore, SAP schools cater to students who excel in the learning of Chinese language, and are popular among Chinese families. As seen from Figure 5, these schools are predominantly clustered in areas that are relatively affluent and dominated by Chinese neighbourhoods, including condominiums and landed properties which have a disproportionate number of Chinese residents (Leong et al., 2020).

By geographically dispersing the SAP schools, we may attract Chinese residents away from the central areas of the island, resulting in further desegregation, and ensure that bright students residing the presently “undesirable” neighbourhoods have convenient access to these institutions.

There are a few lessons that can be drawn from Singapore’s attempt to manage racial desegregation. For starters, the use of a quota system has been effective in preventing the

N

E

S

W

0 2.5 5 1510 20 Kilometers

Legend Secondary Schools Primary Schools

HDB Blocks (max. Chinese Quota) Locations of Condominiums

Locations of Landed Housing

URA 2014 Planning Area

Figure 5. Location of SAP

schools in relation to Singaporean homes

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

formation of ethnic enclaves. Furthermore, by forcing individuals of different races to live together, racial integration can happen – indeed, the percentage of inter-ethnic marriages has risen to 22.4 per cent in 2018 from a measly 7.6 per cent in 1990 (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2019).

However, Singapore’s partial success with the EIP is a reminder that there are limits to the “brute-force” approach of state intervention in the creation of an ideal society. Social policy is never implemented in a vacuum, and other forces like socio-economic factors and culture cannot be ignored. The EIP had partial success because it was effective in targeting voluntary segregation. Policymakers around the world attempting to craft a similar policy would do well to ensure that individuals do not have constrained choice by ensuring adequate options for other forms of affordable housing.

It is also worth noting that the implementation of such an intrusive policy is likely to be unpopular and may face significant resistance from the masses. Policymakers could follow the lead of the Singapore Government by implementing the policy only towards new neighbourhoods – by ensuring that no one would be evicted, the impact on the masses is minimised, thus hopefully resulting in less resistance.

Conclusion Singapore’s harmonious multiracial and multicultural society did not come about by chance. As Lim et al. (2014) noted, “tolerance and respect for racial and cultural diversity are critical if Singapore is to avoid the pitfalls of the past”. The Singapore Government has taken many different approaches to preserve and promote acceptance of racial and cultural diversity, and the EIP is a cornerstone of this principle. As a result of the ethnic residential quota in public housing, people of all races work, study, play and live side by side, encouraging the formation of a racially inclusive society.

In recent years, however, some Singaporeans have questioned if the EIP is really necessary in modern Singapore, highlighting the benefits of racial concentration (or segregation) – indeed, research by Hong et al. (2014) has shown that ethnic enclaves may be linked to positive well-being. Despite this, the EIP nevertheless has an important role to play in Singapore society today – we only need to consider the situation in some private condominiums in order to understand why. Because condominiums are not regulated under the EIP, ethnic enclaves have sprouted in some condominiums. As one participant noted:

It’s not racist but normal human thinking […] you are just not comfortable and you’ll prefer all of [your neighbours to be] the same race. (Xavier)

Consider the case of Melville Park, a condominium in the east which is regarded as the “Little India of Simei”. A 2012 report indicated that “almost 60% of the residents are Indian” (Vallikappen, 2012). Anecdotally, some participants from the focus groups have said that the number has in recent years risen to “as much as 90 per cent”. Regardless of the veracity, numerous threads about Melville Park have sprouted up online, and a sizeable number lament the lack of ethnic interaction and integration. Without the EIP to address the issue of ethnic congregation and the lack of social mixing, it is likely that more of such enclaves will be formed all across our little island. Interactions with others will become rare chance events, and this provides the fertile ground for misunderstandings. With the EIP in place, Singaporeans have the opportunity to interact with others from the different ethnic groups.

However, it is clear that we cannot solely rely on the EIP to foster racial integration and harmony. As our participants highlighted:

Chinese tend to go for higher floors […] the second floor [and other lower floors] are most likely to be occupied by Indians and Malays. (Yusef )

EDI

Given that the EIP only enforces quotas on neighbourhoods and blocks of flats, it is very possible for one to not have immediate neighbours of different cultural backgrounds.

In addition, our participants also noted that few Singaporeans actually take the time to know their immediate neighbours. If one does not even take the initiative to know their immediate neighbours, what is the likelihood of them interacting with others living in the same block or neighbourhood? While it is obvious that the EIP can prevent ethnic enclaves from forming, it is unlikely to be able to foster racial integration and harmony. The lack of racial integration is then manifested in the form of everyday racial discrimination (see Velayutham, 2017), undermining the multiracial and multicultural image of Singapore.

In summary, the EIP is not perfect but without the policy, inter-racial relations would be unquestionably worse off. While this paper has shed some light about the reasons for ethnic clustering, more research needs to be conducted in order to determine the policy gaps, and how that can be bridged. As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the last race riots in Singapore, we must remember that a cohesive Singapore society cannot be built by the urban planners and policymakers. Individuals of all races, citizenship, and income groups, must take the initiative to learn more about one another, regardless of their ethnocultural and economic background, in order to foster greater social integration and harmony. It is time to bring back the kindred spirit as we look to integrate, and not alienate.

Notes

1. This is based on the revised EIP quota. Prior to the 2010 revision, each block of flats could not have more than 87, 25 and 13 per cent of households that are Chinese, Malay and Indian/Other, respectively.

2. Transient workers, some of which may obtain permanent residency.

3. The term “good schools” are defined by their popularity at the Primary One Registration Exercise. These schools tend to be highly oversubscribed due to the perception that they have better teachers and facilities.

References

Chia, L. (2018), “Budget 2018: proximity housing grant enhanced, more singles eligible”, CNA, 19 February, available at: www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/budget-2018-proximity- housing-grant-enhanced-more-singles-9970762 (accessed May 31, 2019).

Clark, W.A.V. (2002), “Ethnic preferences and ethnic perceptions in multi-ethnic settings”, Urban Geography, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-256, available at: https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.23.3.237

Clarke, D., Murphy, C. and Lorenzoni, I. (2018), “Place attachment, disruption and transformative adaptation”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 81-89, available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.006

Department of Statistics Singapore (2000), “Singapore census of population 2000, advanced data release No. 7”, Department of Statistics Singapore, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/ 20110822074736/http://mms.elibraryhub.com/SHC/Govt/MTI/SingStat/c2000adr-hhinc.pdf (accessed May 31, 2019).

Department of Statistics Singapore (2010), “Singapore census of population 2010, statistical release 2: households and housing”, Department of Statistics Singapore, available at: www.singstat.gov.sg/-/ media/files/publications/cop2010/census_2010_release2/indicators.pdf (accessed May 31, 2019).

Department of Statistics Singapore (2016), “General household survey 2015”, Department of Statistics Singapore, available at: www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/ghs/ghs2015/ghs2015.pdf (accessed May 31, 2019).

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

Department of Statistics Singapore (2017), “Population trends”, Department of Statistics Singapore, available at: www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2017.pdf (accessed May 31, 2019).

Department of Statistics Singapore (2019), “Statistics on marriages and divorces reference year 2018”, Department of Statistics Singapore, available at: www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/ publications/population/smd2018.pdf (accessed May 31, 2019).

Dhanabalan, S. (1989), “New Year’s message”, National Archives of Singapore, available at: www.nas. gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/SD19890106.pdf (accessed May 31, 2019).

Hong, S., Zhang, W. and Walton, E. (2014), “Neighborhoods and mental health: exploring ethnic density, poverty, and social cohesion among Asian Americans and Latinos”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 111, pp. 117-124, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.014

Housing and Development Board (2017), “Ethnic Integration Policy and SPR quota”, Housing and Development Board, available at: www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/buying-a-flat/resale/ ethnic-integration-policy-and-spr-quota (accessed May 31, 2019).

Housing and Development Board (2018a), “Key statistics, 2017/2018 annual report”, Housing and Development Board, available at: www10.hdb.gov.sg/ebook/AR2018/key-statistics.html (accessed May 31, 2019).

Housing and Development Board (2018b), “Living with/near parents or married child”, Housing and Development Board, available at: www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/buying-a-flat/resale/ living-with-near-parents-or-married-child (accessed May 31, 2019).

Housing and Development Board (2019a), “Public housing – a Singapore icon”, Housing and Development Board, available at: www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/about-us/our-role/public- housing–a-singapore-icon (accessed May 31, 2019).

Housing and Development Board (2019b), “Resale statistics”, Housing and Development Board, available at: www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/buying-a-flat/resale/resale-statistics (accessed May 31, 2019).

Housing and Development Board (2019c), “Schemes and grants”, Housing and Development Board, available at: www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/buying-a-flat/new/schemes-and-grants (accessed May 31, 2019).

Ibraimovic, T. and Masiero, L. (2014), “Do birds of a feather flock together? The impact of ethnic segregation preferences on neighbourhood choice”, Urban Studies, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 693-711, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013493026

Kortweg, A.C. and Triadafilopoulos, T. (2015), “Is multiculturalism dead? Groups, governments, and the ‘real work of integration’”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 663-680, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2014.907925

Land Transport Authority (2018), “Public transport utilization – average daily public transport ridership”, Land Transport Authority, available at: https://data.gov.sg/dataset/public-transport- utilisation-average-public-transport-ridership?view_id=3619b55d-d1c2-4891-8b43-97b192bcb0 c4&resource_id=552b8662-3cbc-48c0-9fbb-abdc07fb377a (accessed May 31, 2019).

Lee, K.Y. (1998), The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Press Holdings, Singapore.

Lee, K.Y. (2000), From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, 1965-2000, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY.

Leong, C.H. and Yap, Y. (forthcoming), “Geographic segregation in Singapore: the emerging schism in our social contour”, in Chong, T. (Ed.), Singapore as Nation and Global City: Essays in Integration, ISEAS, Singapore.

Leong, C.H., Rueppel, P. and Hong, D. (2014), “Managing immigration and integration in Singapore”, in Hofmeister, W., Rueppel, P., Pascouau, I. and Frontini, A. (Eds), Migration and Integration: Common Challenges and Response from Europe and Asia, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Singapore, pp. 51-72.

EDI

Leong, C.H., Teng, E. and Ko, W. (2020), “The state of ethnic congregation in Singapore today”, in Leong, C.H. and Malone-Lee, L.C. (Eds), Building Resilient Neighbourhoods: Convergence of Policies, Research, and Practice, Springer, Singapore, pp. 29-49, available at: https://link-springer- com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-7048-9_3#citeas

Lim, C. and Leong, C.H. (2017), “Content analysis on Singapore’s immigration rhetoric in the media”, International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 179-193, available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000073

Lim, S., Yang, W.W., Leong, C.H. and Hong, J. (2014), “Reconfiguring the Singapore identity space: beyond racial harmony and survivalism”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 43, pp. 13-21, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.08.011

Martin, P.Y. and Turner, B.A. (1986), “Grounded theory and organizational research”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 141-157.

Noor, N.M. and Leong, C.H. (2013), “Multiculturalism in Malaysia and Singapore: contesting models”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 714-726, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.009

Ossewaarde, M. (2014), “The national identities of the ‘death of multiculturalism’ discourse in Western Europe”, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 173-189, available at: https://doi.org/1080/17447143.2014.912655

Rahmat, H. (2008), “Portraits of a nation: the British legacy for Malay settlements in Singapore”, Indonesia and the Malay World, Vol. 36 No. 106, pp. 359-374, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13639810802513634

Shamsul, A.B. (1999), “Consuming Islam and containing the crisis: religion, ethnicity and the economy in Malaysia”, in Hoadley, M. (Ed.), Economies or Economics?, Nordic Institute of Social Studies, Copenhagen, pp. 43-61.

Sin, C.H. (2002), “The quest for a balanced ethnic mix: Singapore’s ethnic quota policy examined”, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1347-1374, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00420980220142673

Søholt, S. and Lynnebakke, B. (2015), “Do immigrants’ preferences for neighbourhood qualities contribute to segregation? The case of Oslo”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 41 No. 14, pp. 2314-2335, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1054795

Strauss, A. and Juliet, C. (1994), “Grounded theory methodology: an overview”, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, CA, pp. 273-284.

Vallikappen, A.P. (2012), “Simei’s Little India”, AsiaOne, 2 March, available at: www.asiaone.com/News/ Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120302-331197.html (accessed May 31, 2019).

Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, W. (2007), “Involuntary isolation: ethnic preferences and residential segregation”, Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 289-309, available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00344.x

Van Grunsven, L. (2000), “Singapore: the changing residential landscape in a winner city”, in Marcuse, P. and van Kempen, R. (Eds), Globalising Cities: A New Spatial Order, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 95-126.

Velayutham, S. (2017), “Races without racism?: everyday race relations in Singapore”, Identities, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 455-473, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2016.1200050

Vervoort, M. (2012), “Ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social integration: weak and strong social ties examined”, Urban Studies, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 897-915, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004209801148141

Wee, A. (1989), “Policy won’t hit deals approved before March 1”, The Straits Times, 19 February, p. 11, available at: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19890219-1.2.21.1 (accessed May 31, 2019).

Wise, A. and Velayutham, S. (2014), “Conviviality in everyday multiculturalism: some brief comparisons between Singapore and Sydney”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 406-430, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549413510419

Singapore’s residential diversity

through EIP

Zakaria, F. (2015), “What America can learn from Singapore about racial integration”,TheWashington Post, 25 June, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/from-singapore-lessons-in-harmony-and- diversity/2015/06/25/86fcbfa2-1b72-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_ term=.5f242a12e180 (accessed May 31, 2019).

Zhou, M. and Logan, J.R. (1991), “In and out of Chinatown: residential mobility and segregation of New York City’s Chinese”, Social Forces, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 387-407, available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/70.2.387

Further reading

The Straits Times (1964), “The hidden foe – by Dr. Toh”,The Straits Times, 5 September, p. 1, available at: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19640905-1.2.5 (accessed May 31, 2019).

Corresponding author Chan-Hoong Leong can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

EDI