ETHNIC INTEGRATION POLICY (EIP)

Ananya Achaya,

Amity University, Noida

Introduction

On 16th February 1989, the then Singaporean Minister for National Development, S. Dhanabalan officially introduced the Ethnic Integration Policy (hereafter referred to as EIP) in parliament. In January of the same year, he emphasised the emergence of ethnic enclaves in Housing and Development Board (hereafter referred to as HDB) estates in his speech to community leaders.[1] 

To highlight this via examples, he referred to neighbourhoods in Bedok and Tampines housing estates where Malay households constituted more than 30% of the total estate population. He also drew on Hougang, where more than 90% of households comprised the Chinese community. As a means to address communal clustering, S. Dhanabalan stated that the government must adopt policies to maintain ethnic equilibrium, simultaneously fostering social and racial synchronisation.

Under the EIP, the government set down ethnic quotas for HDB neighbourhoods and blocks. For the Malay community, the permitted ratio was 22% of flats in each neighbourhood, and the permitted ratio of flats in each block was 25%. For the Chinese community, the permitted ratio was 84% for neighbourhoods and 87% for blocks. For the remaining ethnic groups, the ratios were diminished to 10% and 13% respectively.[2] 

On 1st March 1989, the EIP was implemented with a view to ensure racial integration and harmony in HDB estates.

Objective

The goal of the EIP was to prevent ethnic enclaves from forming in HDB estates. This was to be done by limiting the number of households of each community within each neighbourhood and block, via the above-mentioned permissible proportions. It was implemented given the socio-political scenario at the time i.e. when communal clustering was becoming a prevalent phenomenon. Moreover, the HDB resale market became more active in the 1980s.[3

If this phenomenon was left unreviewed, the social climate of Singapore would revert to how it was before independence, when the country was fraught with communal violence and segregation. While prior methods of the government like resettlement and a public housing programme had aided this issue, trends where a strong inclination towards communal enclaves were starting to show around the time of this policy.

Implementation Strategies

Fundamentally, the EIP set racial quotas on ownership of flats in every block and neighbourhood. This was premised on Singapore’s ethnic makeup and the permitted ratios were proportionate to the population of each ethnic community. If one is to look solely at neighbourhoods, the quotas were 84% for the Chinese, 22% for the Malays and 12% for Indians and other ethnic minorities. Looking at the block level, the same is 87% for the Chinese, 25% for the Malays and 15% for Indians and other ethnic minorities.

These statistics were part of the 2010 revision, which was the last such revision under this policy and was made to accommodate Singapore’s changing demographics. As of August 2024, EIP quotas were not listed on the HDB website.

Contrarily, buyers and sellers need to use an e-service to check the requirements of their respective quotas according to this policy, and whether they meet them or not. This applies to both buying and renting, as well as reselling flats. Once the prescribed limit is reached, further allocation of flats to their particular ethnic group will not be allowed. This means that for transactions involving reselling, the sale can only be valid if both the buyer and seller belong to the same ethnic group.

Since the implementation of EIP in the late 1980s, measures have been put in place to provide flat owners with more time to sell their flats if they have purchased another. Additionally, EIP limits have been waived in exceptional circumstances.

In 2022, the EIP Buyback Assistance Scheme was implemented by the HDB. This scheme allowed flat owners to sell their flats to HDB at a nominal price as a last resort, subject to the nature of market conditions at the time. It is necessary that these flats have to have been owned for a minimum of ten years, and that they should have been on the market for a minimum of six months to qualify for this scheme.

Analysis

In July of 2021, the Leader of the Opposition Party, Pritam Singh highlighted the frustration of the ethnic minorities who were unable to sell their flats due to hitting the quotas mandated by the EIP.[4] He called for the policy to be revisited and reviewed given that it has been almost three decades since its implementation, and it needs to be altered to fit the modern context.

In recent years, there has been an influx of immigration in Singapore, indicating a group of families in HDBs that only account for the traditional Chinese, Malay, Indian and other classifications of ethnic groups. Furthermore, there has been a rise in the number of mixed marriages. These are all questions that need to be answered and incorporated into the EIP since the current model does not contain sufficient provisions for them.

While considering these arguments, it is also necessary to note that historically, the EIP was a policy that was implemented so that the country would not have to see a repeat of the communal riots and unrest of the 1960s and to ensure harmony and trust among all. It is vital to maintain the country’s ethnic mix and resolve ethnic issues; in the national interest. Policies like the EIP are thus crucial.

Looking at this policy from an economic angle, there are differences in resale prices for flats falling under the EIP between what a Chinese buyer and what a buyer from a minority community might be willing to pay. In addition to this, some landlords have found it hard to sell their flats and houses owing to the limited group of eligible buyers, as constrained by the EIP.

In terms of relevance, the policy remains a facet of ethnic integration in the country, as without the EIP, ethnic concentrations will increase, as has happened in many heterogeneous countries around the world. Without diversity in HDB estates, which is where the majority of the Singaporean population is concentrated, it will be difficult to encourage multicultural harmony and integration.

While the policy aims to prevent the formation of racial enclaves in public housing estates, homeowners from the main ethnic groups have been found to favour certain parts of the island, based on a study led by Associate Professor Leong Chan-Hoong, a psychologist and statistician from the Singapore University of Social Sciences.[5]

Recommendations

To deal with the issue of “clusters” forming, institutions like well-known schools, workplaces and leisure areas (malls, parks, etc.) should be relocated from central areas to lesser-known areas to “de-cluster”.  The intersection of ethnicity and class must be incorporated into the EIP, as income also plays a significant role in determining housing.

Ideally, EIP quotas should be relaxed as a solution to economic loss for homeowners. Rather than abolishing the policy altogether, efforts must be made to amend the policy in a manner where it accommodates all the recent societal changes and continues to ensure its primary objective of ethnic integration and harmony.

The only occasion in which the EIP can be abolished is when Singaporean society becomes race-neutral and there is no necessity for such initiatives.

Conclusion

The Ethnic Integration Policy was enforced in Singapore as a measure to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves within HDBs, or public housing which makes up the majority of the country’s residential area. The goal of this policy was to encourage racial harmony and integration among the country’s diverse ethnic community. By balancing ethnic groups in a particular residential area, the policy sought to facilitate interactions between these groups, consequently reducing communal segregation and unrest.

While the EIP has been effective in maintaining ethnic diversity in its focus area, the EIP requires reevaluation and has to adapt to address the complex contemporary issues Singapore faces today. The change in population dynamics is one such issue, arguably the largest one. Economic inequality and social mobility are other such issues.

Therefore, by reassessing the framework of this policy to better reflect the ethnic diversity of modern-day Singapore, this policy can retain its effectiveness.

REFERENCES

[1] NATIONAL LIBRARY BOARD, ETHNIC INTEGRATION POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED, https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=d8fea656-d86e-4658-9509-974225951607#

[2] PARLIAMENT, GOV’T OF SINGAPORE, PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES: OFFICIAL REPORT (1965-), https://catalogue.nlb.gov.sg/search/card?recordId=4826189

[3] Wong Pei Ting, ST Explains: What is the Ethnic Integration Policy and how does it work?, THE STRAITS TIMES (Aug. 02, 2024, 10:15 PM), https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/st-explains-what-is-the-ethnic-integration-policy-and-how-does-it-work

[4] Justin Ong, Ethnic housing policy should be abolished, but not before S'pore reaches race-neutral state, says WP's Pritam Singh, THE STRAITS TIMES (Jul. 05, 2021, 10:17 PM), https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ethnic-housing-policy-should-be-abolished-but-not-before-spore-reaches-race

[5] Navene Elangovan, Study finds ‘clustering’ of races in some neighbourhoods largely due to purchasing power disparity, TODAY ONLINE (Jul. 25, 2021, 10:19 PM), https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/study-finds-clustering-races-some-neighbourhoods-largely-due-purchasing-power-disparity