Executive Summary
Two heritage HDB blocks in Tiong Bahru (Block 35 Lim Liak Street and Block 34 Kim Cheng Street) failed to achieve the 75% voting threshold required for the Home Improvement Programme by margins of just 1-2 votes. This case reveals critical vulnerabilities in Singapore’s HIP framework when applied to small, rental-heavy blocks with absentee owners.
Key Points:
The Failed Votes:
- Block 35 Lim Liak Street fell short by just one vote, with 11 of 15 households supporting HIP (needed 75%), while Block 34 Kim Cheng Street missed by two votes, with 16 of 24 units in favor
- These were the only unsuccessful blocks among 29 that voted in Tiong Bahru
Why Residents Wanted HIP: Residents hoped for improvements like replacing leaking cast-iron pipes, rusty gates, and adding senior-friendly fittings such as grab bars and slip-resistant floors. One elderly resident noted his pipes had been leaking for 20 years and burst three years ago.
Reasons for Failure: According to MP Foo Meng Xiang, several factors contributed:
- Many units are rented out, with owners being uncontactable or feeling little incentive to support HIP
- Some owners had recently renovated and didn’t want disruption
- The small number of units meant each vote carried high weight
What’s Next: The MP plans to discuss options with HDB and engage residents over the next two weeks to find a solution for these blocks.
It’s particularly frustrating that these 1949-era blocks, among Singapore’s oldest public housing, missed out on needed upgrades by such slim margins.
Case Study Analysis
Background Context
The Blocks:
- Built in 1949 by Singapore Improvement Trust (HDB’s predecessor)
- Among Singapore’s oldest public housing stock
- Block 35: 15 households total
- Block 34: 24 households total
- Four-storey walk-up flats without lifts
Voting Results:
- Block 35 Lim Liak Street: 11 yes, 0 no, 4 abstained (73.3% – needed 1 more vote)
- Block 34 Kim Cheng Street: 16 yes, 2 no, 6 abstained (66.7% – needed 2 more votes)
- Success rate for other 27 blocks: 100%
Root Cause Analysis
1. Small Block Size Amplification Effect
- Each vote carries disproportionate weight (6.7% per vote in Block 35)
- Single abstention or objection creates outsized impact
- No buffer for inevitable non-participation
2. Absentee Owner Challenge
- High proportion of rental units with non-resident owners
- Owners uncontactable despite resident outreach efforts
- Lack of incentive for owners who don’t experience daily issues
3. Recent Renovation Paradox
- New owners who recently completed major renovations unwilling to undergo more disruption
- Investment protection mentality overrides collective benefit
4. Information Asymmetry
- Tenants cannot vote (only Singapore citizen owners eligible)
- Permanent residents excluded from voting
- Communication gaps with absentee landlords
5. Tragedy of the Commons
- Individual calculation (“my unit doesn’t need it”) vs. collective benefit
- Free-rider problem where improvements benefit entire block regardless of vote
Impact Assessment
Immediate Consequences:
For Affected Residents:
- Robin Loi (70): Must pay $300 out-of-pocket for leaking pipes that burst 3 years ago
- Elderly solo residents miss senior-friendly fittings (grab bars, slip-resistant floors)
- Continued deterioration of 76-year-old infrastructure
For Block Integrity:
- Unresolved spalling concrete poses safety risks
- Rusty cast-iron pipes will continue deteriorating
- Property values potentially affected
Community Division:
- Resentment toward non-voting neighbors
- Reduced social cohesion
- Volunteer fatigue among community advocates
Outlook & Scenarios
Short-Term (6-12 months)
Likely Developments:
- MP and HDB negotiations for special consideration
- Possible second voting round with enhanced outreach
- Individual residents forced to fund urgent repairs privately
- Continued infrastructure deterioration
Precedent Risk:
- Other small, rental-heavy blocks may face similar outcomes
- Chilling effect on community mobilization efforts
Medium-Term (1-3 years)
Without Intervention:
- Infrastructure failures escalate (pipe bursts, concrete spalling)
- Safety incidents potentially trigger emergency repairs at higher cost
- Resident exodus as living conditions deteriorate
- Block becomes less attractive to buyers/tenants
With Policy Adjustment:
- Revised voting thresholds or mechanisms implemented
- Enhanced owner tracking and engagement systems
- Alternative funding models for critical repairs
Long-Term (5-10 years)
Best Case:
- Policy reforms prevent similar failures nationwide
- Successful retrofitting models developed for challenging blocks
- Enhanced community governance structures
Worst Case:
- Two-tier system emerges: well-maintained vs. neglected blocks
- Heritage blocks become unviable without major policy overhaul
- Increased burden on individual residents and government emergency repairs
Proposed Solutions
Immediate Actions (0-6 months)
Solution 1: Emergency Provision Mechanism
- Proposal: Grant HDB discretionary authority to proceed with critical safety works (spalling concrete, pipe bursts) even without 75% vote
- Rationale: Safety cannot be held hostage to voting thresholds
- Implementation: Limited to mandatory works only; optional upgrades still require consent
- Precedent: Similar to en-bloc sale minority protection provisions
Solution 2: Second Vote with Enhanced Protocols
- Proposal: Allow one additional voting round within 6 months with:
- Legal requirement for landlords to provide forwarding contacts
- Extended voting period (30 days vs. current timeframe)
- Multiple voting channels (online, proxy, in-person)
- Target: Capture the 1-2 votes needed through better engagement
Solution 3: Partial Implementation Pathway
- Proposal: Proceed with mandatory safety works for consenting units only
- Challenge: May be technically infeasible due to building-wide systems
- Alternative: Create waitlist for next HIP cycle with priority status
Systemic Reforms (6-24 months)
Solution 4: Adaptive Threshold System
- Current System: Fixed 75% threshold regardless of block size
- Proposed Reform:
- Blocks <20 units: 70% threshold
- Blocks 20-50 units: 75% threshold
- Blocks 50+ units: 75-80% threshold
- Rationale: Accounts for statistical variation in small samples
- Risk Mitigation: Maintains high bar while recognizing practical constraints
Solution 5: Abstention Penalty Framework
- Proposal: After preliminary poll shows insufficient participation:
- Absentee owners receive registered mail warning
- Final non-voters ineligible for HIP subsidies in future cycles
- Mandatory response requirement (can still vote no, but must respond)
- Legal Basis: Similar to voting obligations in en-bloc sales
- Safeguards: Genuine hardship exemptions allowed
Solution 6: Tenant Proxy Voting Rights
- Proposal: Long-term tenants (3+ years) can cast provisional votes on behalf of absentee owners
- Mechanism:
- Tenant vote counts if owner doesn’t respond within deadline
- Owner can override tenant vote before voting closes
- Precedent: Similar to proxy mechanisms in corporate governance
- Benefit: Captures lived experience while preserving owner primacy
Solution 7: Enhanced Owner Traceability
- Proposal: Require landlords to:
- Register updated contact information with HDB annually
- Designate local proxy for block-related decisions
- Face rental license penalties for non-compliance
- Integration: Link to property tax and rental registration systems
- Enforcement: Graduated penalties from warnings to rental restrictions
Innovative Approaches (12-36 months)
Solution 8: Partial Subsidy Model
- Concept: Blocks failing vote threshold still get partial government subsidy (30-50%) for critical works
- Owner Co-pay: Residents share remaining cost proportionally
- Advantage: Ensures safety while preserving incentive to achieve full threshold
- Example: Failed vote = $300 owner co-pay vs. $0 with successful vote
Solution 9: Block-Level Sinking Fund
- Proposal: Mandatory reserve fund for aging blocks (similar to condo MCST)
- Structure:
- Small monthly contribution ($10-30) based on flat size
- Accumulates for future maintenance
- Reduces reliance on one-time HIP votes
- Transition: Introduce for blocks aged 40+ years
Solution 10: Community Advocate Incentive Program
- Recognition: Mary Lee and others spent significant personal effort
- Proposal:
- Service awards for community mobilizers
- Small tax credits for successful vote coordinators
- HDB-funded community liaison positions for heritage estates
- Goal: Formalize and support grassroots engagement
Solution 11: Rental Property Restrictions
- Long-term Reform: For heritage blocks with <30 units:
- Cap rental proportion at 40% to maintain owner-occupier majority
- Priority for owner-occupier sales
- Enhanced scrutiny for investor purchases
- Rationale: Preserves governance viability in small blocks
- Controversy: May reduce liquidity, requires careful implementation
Recommended Action Plan
Phase 1: Immediate Relief (Month 1-3)
- HDB grants special dispensation for critical safety works (spalling concrete, burst pipes)
- MP facilitates second voting round with enhanced owner tracking
- Establish emergency repair fund for affected residents
Phase 2: Policy Review (Month 3-12)
- Form inter-agency task force (HDB, MND, MPs)
- Study adaptive threshold models
- Pilot tenant proxy voting in selected blocks
- Implement enhanced owner registration requirements
Phase 3: Systemic Implementation (Year 2-3)
- Roll out graduated threshold system
- Launch sinking fund mechanism for aging blocks
- Establish community liaison program
- Monitor and refine based on outcomes
Success Metrics
Short-term (6 months):
- Both blocks proceed with critical repairs
- Zero safety incidents due to deferred maintenance
Medium-term (2 years):
- Voting success rate for small blocks improves to >95%
- Owner contactability increases to >90%
- Reduced second-vote requirements
Long-term (5 years):
- Sustainable maintenance model for aging, small-block estates
- Heritage blocks maintain viability and property values
- Scalable framework for Singapore’s aging housing stock
Conclusion
The Tiong Bahru case exposes a critical vulnerability in Singapore’s HIP framework: the assumption that 75% consensus is achievable regardless of block characteristics. For small, rental-heavy heritage blocks, this threshold becomes mathematically and practically challenging.
The solution requires both immediate relief for the affected blocks and systemic reforms to prevent similar failures. A combination of adaptive thresholds, enhanced owner engagement mechanisms, and alternative funding models can preserve the HIP’s community-driven ethos while ensuring critical maintenance proceeds.
Most importantly, these 76-year-old blocks—among Singapore’s oldest public housing—deserve preservation not just as heritage assets, but as homes for residents like Mr. Robin Loi who have lived there for decades. Policy must serve people, not become a barrier to their wellbeing.
The stakes extend beyond two blocks: Singapore has thousands of aging HDB flats. Getting this right now determines whether our public housing heritage can age gracefully or faces a maintenance crisis.