Smaller HDB flats: 10 years on……”Think small and put the buzz into Singapore”

Today’s article in the Straits Times, Shrinking HDB flats due to need to maximise land and to adapt http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_738271.html got me wondering. Almost exactly 10 years ago, the same argument was employed by the government to justify smaller flats (see article below by Lydia Lim – “Think small and put the buzz into Singapore“). Back then, Singaporeans responded unambigiously – NO to smaller HDB flats.

There is little reason to believe Singaporeans feel any differently today.

All sorts of reasons were peddled by the government to justify smaller flats then and now – the most consistent one being smaller families. But 10 years ago, even more doubtful arguments were pursued – smaller flats would encourage people to go out more (not beyond their means I hope), we would be encouraged to “socialise” (that seems to have been a rip-roaring success), more land could be set aside for parks with smaller flats (building upwards anyone?) etc. None of the HDB’s reasons measured up. But this year, the reasons for smaller HDB flats, most recently revisited by the HDB CEO, appear to focus squarely on smaller families. The other reasons are largely absent the public discussion, as evinced from the mainstream media at least. Perhaps we really live in politically different times from 10 years ago. Or perhaps the HDB’s reasons just do not make sense to discerning Singaporeans.

By the HDB’s own admission, new HDB flats are only “slightly smaller” than older ones. But if this is so, why would any government withstand a barrage of public criticism just for a few square metres of space? Are Singaporeans really asking for an arm and leg? Are our requests a bridge too far for the HDB? If they are, I have yet to hear from anyone in the HDB or government why this is so.

Perhaps the government can be nudged to think counter-intuitively on this one. Whichever way one looks at it, making HDB flats smaller, no matter what the reason, takes away choices from millions of HDB-dwelling Singaporeans. While families may have grown smaller, the longstanding HDB policy of building smaller HDB flats will ensure Singaporean families remain small.

In real terms, what additional costs are incurred if a “slightly larger” (as opposed to “slightly smaller”) flat is offered to Singaporeans?  The costs of construction, when split among new HDB buyers ought to be very little when compared with the cost price of their flat. The construction challenge of a 35-storey flat instead of a 30-storey flat does not seem insurmountable. Parks will be spared for sure with taller flats. Perhaps most importantly, in the Singapore context at least, the prospects of an extra study table for the second child ought to jolt urban planners into designing policies that work for Singaporeans. Such a policy would make more sense rather a justification of HDB policy through the logic of similiar housing policies pursued London, San Francisco or Paris. Perhaps we really should not ape the West blindly!

The HDB has done a phenomenal job of housing Singaporeans. Its ability to influence the real estate marketplace in Singapore is equally phenomenal. With one change of policy, it can affect the lives (positively or negatively) of 80% of Singaporeans who live in public housing. Singaporeans want those extra few metres of space in their HDB flats. Our country is small enough as it is.  And there is nothing populist about giving Singaporeans more choices.

_____________

Think small and put the buzz into Singapore

17 May 2001

Lydia Lim / The Straits Times

HE SPOKE with passion — and at length — about how to make Singapore one of the great cities in the world to live in, comparable to places like San Francisco and Vancouver.

Mr Jonathon Sze, an engineer, was one of 13 people to speak at a public forum held to discuss the draft of the 2001 Concept Plan, which will guide Singapore’s physical development in the next decade.

He was brimming with ideas on how to make this country more vibrant, more attractive to foreign talent and, therefore, more competitive.

Why not have jetties along the Singapore River so that people can travel to and from their waterfront homes in boats, creating a new kind of “high society living”, he asked.

Why does Hongkong have a buzz but not Singapore? Well, because Hongkongers live close to their places of work, leisure and learning, he said, answering his own question. So after work, they head home for a shower, then head out again.

They are “motivated to socialise”, he said.

In contrast, Singaporeans spend up to an hour commuting and are so knackered by the time they reach their doorsteps, they don’t want to step out again, he added, concluding that this is where Hongkong has a competitive advantage.

At the end of his extended presentation, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who was chairing the forum, said with a smile: “I can’t disagree with any of the points you’ve made.

“I just want to add one point though. Maybe it’s because Hongkongers’ flats are smaller than Singaporeans’ that they spend more time outdoors,” he said, to much laughter from the 300-strong crowd.

Of all the points raised at last Friday’s dialogue, I found this last comment by the minister the most telling.

It said to me that flat size is an issue that is still on the minds of Singapore’s leaders and urban planners. And rightly so.

With so little land to be shared among so many competing uses, housing density — that is the number of housing units on a given piece of land — is a key issue in urban planning.

In September last year, The Straits Times published a front-page article that was headlined “Get set for smaller homes in future”.

It quoted Mr Mah as saying that with shrinking family sizes, it was “only logical” to build smaller homes. However, it would be difficult to get people to accept the idea.

“Human nature being such, I think we still want to have same-size houses even though the sizes of households are getting smaller,” he said in last year’s interview.

“So it does not follow that we will be able to reduce the house sizes too much, but I think over time, this has got to be the trend,” he added.

The article was reprinted in the Chinese and Malay newspapers and set off a feedback frenzy.

Many people called the Housing Board and the URA to register their unhappiness with any plans to reduce flat sizes.

Smaller flats emerged as the top housing issue last year, prompting the most number of responses to the Feedback Unit.

The issue also sparked a heated exchange on the Straits Times Interactive (STI) website, where 200 people posted their views.

Most who called or wrote to the various government departments and the STI were strongly opposed to the idea. Some felt it contradicted the Government’s push to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies. Others railed against the unfairness of shrinking HDB flats that kept ballooning in price.

Much of the unhappiness was due to a misunderstanding of what the minister had in mind.

Mr Mah was not announcing HDB’s plans to shrink flats.

He was merely pointing out that if the average size of a Singapore household falls from four to three, which it is expected to do with rising affluence, then it only makes sense to build smaller homes so that more land can be set aside for parks and other uses.

I agree.

I am not suggesting that in the future, all families — regardless of size — be squeezed into the equivalent of a three-room flat. Neither was the minister.

What I am suggesting is that both public and private sectors build smaller homes to cater to the growing number of couples with no children, and singles. This will allow us to house a bigger population, yet preserve the greenery, old buildings and neighbourhoods precious to so many Singaporeans.

To make the idea more palatable, I suggest a name change for HDB homes.

Instead of labelling flats as either five- or four-room, thus bringing with it the attendant associations of first and second class, why not market public housing like private condominiums?

Flats could be named after the precinct they are in, such as Sengkang Cove or Punggol Point. This would go hand-in-hand with the HDB’s pilot build-to-order scheme, which invites flat-buyers to choose flats in specific locations.

The price, of course, would still depend on the size of the individual unit.

I think this would go a long way to assuage the angst against smaller flats, which I believe is due more to material aspirations than any crying need for bigger living spaces.

After all, the average working adult spends very little time at home, as work is likely to swallow up two-thirds of his day.

I think the minister may be right to suggest that if homes become smaller, Singaporeans will change their lifestyles accordingly.

In a recent article, architect and planning consultant Robert Powell argued that old Chinatown enjoyed a vibrant street life because people’s homes were smaller, and so they tended to go out more, transforming the street into “a communal living room”.

My memory does not stretch that far back, but I do recall visiting a friend, a Japanese girl, who lived in the heart of Paris with her family.

Their flat was tiny, her bedroom so cramped that she had no space for a bed. She slept on the floor on a mattress, which she pushed against the wall during the day so that she would have more room to move around.

Yet, I don’t think the size of her flat compromised her quality of life in any way.

On the contrary, she thrived in Paris, a city she knew as well as the back of her hand.

She showed me where to get a top-class panorama of the city, not the Eiffel Tower, but the roof of a shopping centre called the Samaritaine; where to head for the definitive display of Monet’s water lilies, and what to look out for when visiting Notre Dame Cathedral, whose facade she described as “perfect”.

From her, I learnt that it’s not the size of one’s flat that matters but the broadness of one’s mind.

Smaller flats will take some getting used to. But, instead of bemoaning the lack of space, which good design and clever layout can go a long way to compensate, why not look forward to less time spent cleaning up at home, and more time spent meeting and mingling with others, or indulging in a whole range of sports and other leisure activities?

Let’s not close our minds to the idea that smaller flats may mean bigger buzz and broader horizons.

Ends.

Useful link

BBC: Architects say new houses are ‘shameful shoebox homes’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14909066

Straits Times: A tale of two countries and the public’s right to know

Friday Insight

4 November 2011

The Straits Times (c) 2011 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

A call for Singapore to consider a Freedom of Information law was issued in Parliament two weeks ago by Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh. More than 80 countries have such laws, including Asian ones like South Korea, China and India. Insight looks at the experience of two countries in implementing such legislation: the United States and Britain.

THE UK: TONY BLAIR’S BITTER REGRET

“FREEDOM of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop.’

Such was former British prime minister Tony Blair’s bitter regret – expressed in his memoirs – over introducing the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to the United Kingdom.

In opposition, his party had called for precisely that. ‘Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions,’ said the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto.

But a decade later, Mr Blair bemoaned the Act’s undermining of the government’s ability to have ‘frank conversations’, and the media’s wielding of it as a weapon.

‘For political leaders, it’s like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, ‘Hey, try this instead’, and handing them a mallet,’ he wrote in his memoirs, published last year.

Given the scandals uncovered in the mere six years since the Act’s passage, Mr Blair’s regret seems understandable.

From commercial lobbying to MPs’ expenses, scoops acquired under the FOI Act have not painted a flattering portrait of government.

THE FACTS

It began with…

THE Labour Party’s 1974 election manifesto, which included a commitment to introduce an FOI Act.

Labour won the election, but changed its mind about the Act the next year. Instead, it tried other ways of increasing government openness, such as reducing the scope of the Official Secrets Acts and encouraging voluntary releases of information.

Still, the commitment remained in every Labour manifesto during its years in opposition, from 1979 to 1997. In 1997, Labour returned to government and made good on its promise.

The Freedom of Information Act was passed in 2000 under Prime Minister Tony Blair. It came into force in phases, with individual right of access granted only in January 2005.

How it works

ANYONE – regardless of age, location, or even nationality – can request information from Britain’s public authorities.

These include government departments; Parliament; the local authorities; the police; the armed forces; the National Health Service; government-owned companies; and publicly funded organisations, including schools and universities.

After receiving the request in writing, these organisations must provide the information within 20 working days.

The price of information

REQUESTS are free, unless it costs more than &pound450 (S$920) to get the information, or &pound600 for requests made to the central government or Parliament.

If those limits are reached, the body can refuse the request. But if it costs less to fulfil, requesters will be charged only for services such as photocopying and postage, not for the information itself.

Refusals

THERE are two types of exemptions under which requests can be refused.

One type is absolute exemptions.  They include information that:
• can be obtained by other means; and relates to security matters.

With the other type – qualified exemptions – the body receiving the request must decide whether the public interest is benefited more by the information being withheld or released.

This includes information that:
• relates to the formulation of government policy;
• might prejudice international relations;
• might compromise law enforcement.

If an authority decides the information cannot be released, it must tell the requester, explaining which exemptions were applied and why.

A requester can ask the body to review its decision. Requesters who disagree with the result can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), an independent body that can order wrongfully withheld information to be released.

Those who disagree with the ICO’s decision can in turn appeal to the Information Rights Tribunal.

Annual requests and refusals

CENTRAL government bodies have received 33,000 to 44,000 requests each year since 2005. The population of the UK is more than 61 million.

Figures for all the public authorities do not exist. A 2006 independent report estimated the public sector receives at least 87,000 requests each year, in addition to those received by government. But the report’s methodology has been criticised.

Every year, about 60 per cent of requests are granted in full. For another 15 per cent, information is partially withheld. In about a fifth of cases, the information requested was completely withheld.

Who asks?

MOST requesters are individuals. Businesses account for about a fifth of requests, and journalists for between 10 and 20 per cent. But media requests tend to be the most complicated and costly.

Taxpayers’ money

THERE are no regular estimates of how much FOI compliance costs the government – and by extension, taxpayers.

The same 2006 report estimates that dealing with FOI requests costs 24.4 million pounds a year to the central government, and 11.1 million pounds a year to other bodies.

The total, 35.5 million pounds, is 0.007 per cent of government expenditure in 2005, which was 524.6 billion pounds.

IN PRACTICE

Revelations and scandals

INFORMATION obtained under the Act has made headlines – from how much public funds rich landowners receive in farming subsidies, to the number of patients who died in operations performed by every heart surgeon in the UK.

But perhaps the biggest revelations came in 2009, when a scandal erupted over MPs’ expenses claims.

MPs in the UK can claim expenses and be reimbursed from public funds.

Under the FOI Act, the parliamentary authorities had been ordered to publish details of such claims.

A heavily edited document was being prepared for public release – but an uncensored copy was leaked to British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, which began publishing details of the claims.

Some MPs were found to be abusing the system. For instance, MPs can claim expenses for the cost of having a second home, such as renovation and furnishing.

However, some would switch which home was listed as their ‘main home’ and which was their ‘second home’, allowing them to claim for both properties.

There were also some eyebrow-raising items among the claims, from thousands of pounds spent on gardening to petty purchases such as a trouser press.

The revelations sparked public outrage – and a wave of MP resignations, both from the then-ruling Labour Party and the opposition Conservative Party.

Chequered history

THE Act has been dogged by controversy.

From the start, it was criticised for lacking teeth, and giving too much leeway to public bodies to refuse requests.

There have since been several failed attempts to weaken its power.

In 2005, then-lord chancellor (a senior government position) Lord Falconer suggested changing how costs are calculated.

This would make more requests fall over the cost limit, meaning that they could be refused. The proposal was meant to curb frivolous requests, but met with resistance from MPs and the public, and was not introduced to Parliament.

In 2006, Conservative MP David Maclean tabled a Bill to remove MPs from the Act’s scrutiny. It did not become law.

But things have since taken a different turn. In January this year, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg suggested that hundreds more organisations could be covered under the Act.

In August, a public consultation was launched to improve FOI. The consultation document called for changes such as raising the cost limit to 1,000 pounds and setting time limits on internal review of requests for data.

THE US: FEW CARED….UNTIL WATERGATE

WHEN the United States first gained a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), few paid attention.

President Lyndon B.Johnson quietly signed the Act into law in 1966. It was the fulfilment of a decade-long struggle by journalists and a handful of Democrat congressmen.

But just a few years later, things would change.

In the early 1970s, public discontent was brewing against the backdrop of the prolonged Vietnam War. Many citizens felt the government had embroiled the nation in a needless conflict.

With revelations in the early 1970s that the administration of then-President Richard Nixon had engaged in political spying, public distrust grew.

In this climate of disillusionment, the government started to be seen not as a force protecting citizens, but one against which citizens had to be protected.

Things came to a head with the 1972 Watergate scandal.

A botched burglary at the Watergate office complex led to revelations of extensive cover-ups and abuses of power by the government.

Matters were not helped by the discovery of a secret taping system in the White House – and President Nixon’s  refusal to release the tapes.

As the scandal dre to a close two years later with President Nixon’ resignation, freedom of information took on a new and urgent importance.

THE FACTS

It began with…

THE formation of a special sub-committee in Congress, when the Democratic Party gained control of the House in 1955.

Headed by congressman John Moss, the committee aimed to pass a law allowing public access to government records.

Then, the movement was supported mainly by the press, with little public pressure and a Republican government hostile to the idea.

Eventually, in 1966, the FOIA was signed into law. It came into force the next year.

However, the law lacked teeth. There was no time limit for agency responses, no penalties if agencies did not comply with requests, and no limits on how much they could charge.

It was only in the mid-1970s that the Act came to resemble its current form.

How it works

ANYONE, whether or not he or she is a US citizen, can file an FOIA request. After receiving the request in writing, the agency must respond within 20 working days.

The Act covers the executive branch of government: government departments, agencies and offices; federal regulatory agencies; and federal corporations.

But it covers neither the legislature, that is Congress, nor the judiciary. Nor does it apply to parts of government whose sole function is to advise and assist the president.

The Act applies only to the federal, or central, government. But individual US states have similar legislation.

The price of information

THERE is no initial fee for requests.

Agencies can charge for search time and duplication, though the first two hours and first hundred pages are usually free.

Certain fees are waived for news organisations and educational institutions.

And fees may be fully waived if the requested information will contribute significantly to public understanding of government, and is not chiefly in the requester’s commercial interest.

Exemptions

THERE are nine exemptions under which agencies can refuse to release information. They include exemptions for:
• classified national security information;
• confidential business information;
• information that, if released, would be an invasion of someone’s privacy;
• law enforcement information that, if released, might hamper enforcement, reveal confidential sources, and so on.</ul>

If a request is denied, the requester can appeal for the decision to be reconsidered. If this appeal is denied, the requester can seek judicial review.

Annual requests and refusals

DATA is collected on the number of requests, but agencies used to report combined figures for FOIA and Privacy Act requests. FOIA figures alone were released only from 2008.

The number of requests has ranged from 557,825 in 2009 to 605,491 in 2008.

To put that into context, the population of the US is more than 312 million.

Since 2008, about half of requests were granted in full. A fifth of requests were partially fulfilled in 2008, rising to almost two-fifths in 2009 and last year. Information was completely withheld for 4 to 7 per cent of requests.

Who asks?

THE US government does not release data regularly on who uses the FOIA.

A 2006 report by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, which surveyed 17 bodies, found that more than 60 per cent of FOIA requests were made by commercial interests. Of these, a quarter were filed by professional ‘data brokers’ on behalf of clients.

Requests from individuals formed about a third of the total, while only 6 per cent came from the media.

But requester profiles might differ by agency. Between 1995 and 2000, the vast majority of FOIA requests to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were from private citizens.

Taxpayers’ money

THE annual cost of FOIA-related activities ranges from US$338 million (S$431 million) in 2008 to US$416 million last year. Only about 3 per cent is recouped in fees.

This is about 0.01 per cent of total government spending, which was US$3.5 trillion last year.

IN PRACTICE

Growth spurt

THE FOIA gained importance in the mid-1970s as the political climate changed.

By dealing a death blow to public trust in the government, the Watergate scandal was instrumental in stirring up support for freedom of information.

In 1974, President Nixon resigned in the face of possible impeachment. That same year, Congress moved to strengthen the FOIA, by means of several amendments.

These narrowed the scope of the national security and law enforcement exemptions, allowing much more information to be released.

In 1976, the Act was amended again to clarify – and limit – what information was exempt from disclosure.

The Privacy Act was also enacted in 1974. It restricts the government’s ability to collect and disclose information about individuals. The Act also allows individuals to request government-held information about themselves.

Since the 1970s, health and safety issues have been a major theme of FOIA requests. These have resulted in cars being recalled, chemical substances being banned, and mandatory warning labels for certain types of medication.

The media has used the FOIA to reveal wasteful public spending and unethical government conduct, such as torture.

And in a reflection of the political cynicism dating back to the 1970s, the FOIA has been heavily used to scrutinise the conduct of US intelligence agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI – particularly with regard to their surveillance of citizens.

But it has not been a straightforward march towards transparency. Over the decades, the Act has been both expanded and restricted, by legislation and through ‘executive orders’ passed by the government without the assent of Congress.

Some shrinkage

IN THE 1980s, agencies’ ability to withhold information under certain exemptions was increased. The 1990s saw the expansion of the FOIA instead, while the past decade has seen movement in both directions.

And each new government has had its own attitude towards FOIA compliance, with some administrations being more secretive than others.

______

INSIGHT on Friday is where you will find analysis and fresh perspectives on the big political issues of the day.

We would like to hear your views on these issues and invite you to write to us at stinsight@sph.com.sg

This week, we seek your views on a recent call to consider a Freedom of Information Act for Singapore.

Do you agree with this call?

Do you think it would serve the public interest to have such a law? If so, how? If not, why not’

If such a law were passed, would you use it to request information from the Government? What kind of information would you ask for?

We look forward to hearing from you.

Ends.

Useful Links:

1. The Guardian: Mixed results since Blair’s “dangerous” Freedom of Information Act launched – http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/20/mixed-results-blairs-dangerous-act

The most thought-provoking paragraph contained in the article above is as follows:

“But they concluded that while the act has achieved its core objectives of greater transparency and accountability, it has done nothing to achieve three of its four secondary objectives (improved decision-making and better public understanding and participation in government) and has hindered progress towards its fourth (increased trust).”

It is for this very reason that any government which seeks to implement an FOI act today cannot see this legislation in isolation. It must include other enabling legislation for a citizen to understand the value and importance of transparency and accountability and to give effect to a two-way system of trust between citizen and state. It is for this reason also, I called for not just a freedom of information regime, but also the establishment of an Ombudsman, periodic release of official documents and critically, a whistle-blowing law one of the reasons of which is to prevent anyone from destroying, hiding or manipulating government documents.

Singapore is a privileged position to enact such legislation especially because the government already ranks so highly on indicia collated by Transparency International, amongst others. The positive spin-offs and ramifications of FOI legislation are mind-boggling, even more so since we are relatively corruption-free already. For one, Singapore is in an eviable position to raise the bar on standards of governance and in doing so, to buttress the economic argument of doing business and living in Singapore, to say nothing of setting a marker for other countries on what it means to be transparent and accountable. In one fall swoop, the familiar contemptuous references of our country as a nanny state, ‘disneyland with a death penalty’ may well become anachronisms since these legislations proposed really reflect a new confidence all elected leaders have of voters.

Unlike the US and UK, which to some extent or another, introduced FOI legislation after being coerced by the voting public, Singapore can steal a march and institutionalise such trust-building legislation between citizen and state. With the advent of the online media which has taken alot of mindshare away from the government-managed mainstream media, a fresh approach of nurturing and building bonds of trust between the state and Singaporeans is in order. The FOI act , the office of the Ombudsman, the release of official information and whistleblower legislation can only be positive for Singaporeans. It is not a magic bullet or a panacea to all pressing issues of the day, but if the government can introduce an FOI act that suits our purposes, it would have succeeded unlocking the social capital that will nourish and nurture positive citizen-state relations in Singapore for the forseeable future.

2. Freedominfo.org: freedominfo.org is a one-stop portal that describes best practices, consolidates lessons learned, explains campaign strategies and tactics, and links the efforts of freedom of information advocates around the world. It contains crucial information on freedom of information laws and how they were drafted and implemented, including how various provisions have worked in practice. http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/10/opposition-parliamentarian-calls-for-foi-law-in-singapore/

3. New York Times: Right-to-Know Law gives India’s poor a lever – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/world/asia/29india.html

4. Commonwealth recognition for Selangor’s FOI law – http://moonlightchest.com/selangor_times_2011/commonwealth_recognition_selangor.asp

5. Malaysiakini TV – http://malaysiakini.tv/video/22599/freedom-of-information—part-1.html

6. Useful wikipedia entries – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation

Ends.