How should housing policies in Singapore evolve with rising singlehood and childlessness?

I would like to share some preliminary thoughts I’ve been mulling over the recent changes in singles’ eligibility for BTO housing and the debate over lowering the eligibility age with the PAS community, and hope to get your reactions and insights on this policy issue.

Access to subsidised BTO housing is part of the marriage and parenthood package, which makes sense because a) marriage is a prerequisite to childbearing and married couples require physical privacy, and b) having children increases need for more indoor space.

By contrast, unmarried individuals are eligible for BTO housing or HDB resale flats only after they reach the age of 35, and are eligible only for smaller 2-room BTO flats at that point.

In a land-scarce country like Singapore, allocating larger homes to larger families may make sense. But as demographics and culture shift, the underlying motivations for the policies may become more questionable.

The first change of note is the de-coupling between marriage and childbearing, with more couples choosing not to have children. Current policies do not (and indeed, cannot easily) distinguish between couples based on fertility intentions, and yet it makes sense to reserve the largest units for families with children, which is also the key justification for why singles are offered smaller BTO flats than married couples.  As of now, couples who plan to stay childless still have an incentive to apply for biggest flats for greater resale value or for maximizing their own personal space, which is understandable but not necessarily reflective of public policy objectives.

Since Singaporeans tend to view first housing purchases as transferable assets and not necessarily permanent homes, it may make more sense to allocate smaller 3-room flats to engaged/newlyweds initially, and then accommodate a subsidised upgrade to the largest flats once children are born, without MOP restrictions for this class.

A second change of note is that as the non-marriage rates increases, Singaporeans in their 20s-30s are increasingly having to live with their parents. This represents a burden to both the parents in their 50s-60s who may also have to look to their own retirement needs and those of elderly parents. Academic research from Japan and Taiwan also suggests that co-residence with parents may negatively impact transition to marriage.

To this end, the view that unmarried individuals’ transition to independent living can be put off should be revisited. Instead, it may make sense for unmarried individuals to receive relatively similar housing privileges as childless married couples, except for housing subsidies (which would be halved), with a path towards larger homes without MOP restrictions upon marriage and parenthood.

In short, I wonder if housing policies should flatten the distinction between non-married/childless married couples, and sharpen it between those with and without children, in response to demographic trends. (This needs-based perspective can be expanded to benefit other classes such as those living with elderly parents.)

Housing is a basic need and offers a sense of stability and belonging. In Singapore, it is also a scarce resource. It should be offered liberally and yet benefit most those who have most need, including families caring for the next generation.