HDB four-room flat sizes, 1996 to 2011

Per the Straits Times, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said on Wednesday that Housing and Development Board flats have not shrunk in recent years, and that flat sizes have remained unchanged for the past 15 years.

According to the ST:

A four-room flat, for instance, has remained at 90 sq m since the mid-90s, HDB figures show. HDB has also said that the amount of living space per person has risen, as the number of people in an average household has dropped.

The ST reporter, Jessica Cheam, later wrote this on her Facebook page:

A few people have asked me if it’s really true that #HDB flats have not shrunk in the past 15 years. And why it doesn’t match a previous report I wrote in Nov last year on the same issue. I’ve doublechecked with HDB and both reports are right – Minister Khaw is accurate in saying the flat size hasn’t changed in the past 15 years because the mid-90s was the last time that HDB changed flat sizes.

So, more accurately – The size of a four-room flat, for example, has been 90 sq m since the mid-90s. It was 100 sq m prior to that, and 105 sq m in the 1980s, according to HDB figures. (emphasis added)

The table given to us by HDB in the Nov report used a more generic timeframe (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) to show the sizes over the decades.

So yes, HDB flat sizes have shrunk in the past 3 decades – but it has not shrunk over the past 15 years.

It isn’t clear what type of four-room flat those figures refer to (models include: A, Simplified, Improved, Standard). They also appear to be average figures.

Compare them to the following list, which includes details of some HDB four-room flats sold in the resale market this year. The data is drawn from the HDB website, and is available here.

This list is not exhaustive (there is far more data for older flats than newer ones, as expected). I’ve also tried to provide some geographical variety for each year. It starts from 1996, although Khaw’s statement apparently covers the 1997-2011 period. For comparative purposes, I’ve only included model A flats.

Note: The existing Build-to-Order system was launched in 2001 to replace the Registration-for-Flat system. RFS was phased out in 2002. This is something to bear in mind, since construction of flats sold under the BTO system would have commenced up to four years prior to the start of the lease.

In terms of the timeframe, Khaw and the HDB may also be referring not to when the flats were completed and first sold, but when the flats were first planned and built. For example, if the HDB slashed flat sizes in 1995/6 (i.e. the mid-90s), then these smaller flats may only come to market from 1998 to 2000.

UPDATE: I should also credit Yu-Mei Balasingamchow for her blogpost on five-room HDB flat sizes, which gave me the idea to create a similar list for four-room flats.

Street Name	Storey	Floor Area (sqm)/Model	Lease start date
Jurong West St 81	06 to 10	107.00 Model A	1996
Yung Loh Rd	16 to 20	106.00 Model A	1996
Clarence Lane	01 to 05	104.00 Model A	1996
Redhill Lane	01 to 05	114.00 Model A	1996
Woodlands St 83	06 to 10	106.00 Model A	1996
Strathmore Ave	01 to 05	103.00 Model A	1997
Lompang Rd	11 to 15	101.00 Model A	1997
Hougang Ave 1	01 to 05	101.00 Model A	1997
Woodlands Circle	01 to 05	103.00 Model A	1997
Lor 7 Toa Payoh	11 to 15	106.00 Model A	1998
Gangsa Rd	01 to 05	100.00 Model A	1998
Jurong West St 61	06 to 10	100.00 Model A	1998
Hougang Ave 1	01 to 05	100.00 Model A	1998
Woodlands Circle	11 to 15	103.00 Model A	1998
Senja Rd	21 to 25	99.00 Model A	1999
Choa Chu Kang Ave 3	11 to 15	101.00 Model A	1999
Hougang St 31	06 to 10	101.00 Model A	1999
Toh Guan Rd	06 to 10	100.00 Model A	1999
Rivervale St	06 to 10	101.00 Model A	1999
Rivervale Walk	11 to 15	104.00 Model A	1999
Jurong East St 21	01 to 05	103.00 Model A	2000
Woodlands Dr 16	06 to 10	91.00 Model A	2000
Pine Cl	01 to 05	95.00 Model A	2000
Compassvale Rd	11 to 15	92.00 Model A	2000
Compassvale Dr	06 to 10	90.00 Model A	2001
Yung Sheng Rd	11 to 15	96.00 Model A	2001
Jurong West Ave 3	01 to 05	90.00 Model A	2001
Jurong West St 64	16 to 20	91.00 Model A	2001
Lengkok Bahru	16 to 20	90.00 Model A	2001
Anchorvale Rd	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2002
Cantonment Cl	01 to 05	75.00 Model A	2002
Choa Chu Kang Cres	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2002
Choa Chu Kang Dr	06 to 10	90.00 Model A	2002
Clementi Ave 3	06 to 10	86.00 Model A	2002
Lor 2 Toa Payoh	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2002
Ang Mo Kio Ave 6	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2003
Bt Batok Ctrl	16 to 20	90.00 Model A	2003
Teban Gdns Rd	16 to 20	90.00 Model A	2003
Klang Lane	11 to 15	75.00 Model A	2003
Edgedale Plains	11 to 15	85.00 Model A	2003
Woodlands Circle	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2003
Cantonment Cl	01 to 05	75.00 Model A	2003
Rivervale Cres	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2003
Farrer Pk Rd	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2004
Bt Batok West Ave 5	11 to 15	92.00 Model A	2004
Punggol Field	06 to 10	85.00 Model A	2004
Punggol Field	11 to 15	90.00 Model A	2004
Bedok Nth Rd	06 to 10	92.00 Model A	2005
Boon Tiong Rd	01 to 05	91.00 Model A	2005
Boon Tiong Rd	11 to 15	100.00 Model A	2005
Redhill Rd	21 to 25	100.00 Model A	2005
Jln Tiga	01 to 05	93.00 Model A	2005
Strathmore Ave	06 to 10	90.00 Model A	2006
Strathmore Ave	21 to 25	90.00 Model A	2006
Clementi Ave 3	06 to 10	90.00 Model A	2006
Lor 2 Toa Payoh	11 to 15	91.00 Model A	2006
Lor 2 Toa Payoh	26 to 30	86.00 Model A	2006
Eunos Cres	06 to 10	90.00 Model A	2007
Redhill Rd	01 to 05	100.00 Model A	2007
Jln Membina	06 to 10	90.00 Model A	2008
Tanglin Halt Rd	36 to 40	85.00 Model A	2008
Tanglin Halt Rd	36 to 40	90.00 Model A	2008
Jln Membina	26 to 30	85.00 Model A	2009
Toa Payoh Ctrl	16 to 20	76.00 Model A	2009
Toa Payoh Ctrl	16 to 20	91.00 Model A	2009
Fernvale Rd	11 to 15	96.00 Model A	2010
Sengkang West Ave	06 to 10	94.00 Model A	2011

Press muse – Boilerplate nationalism

Staying or quitting? Somehow then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong’s hypocritical comments in 2002 has endured as a dialectical signpost of Singapore’s fledging nationhood. Immigration may claim the lion’s share of headlines in an election year, but the question of emigration cuts right to the bone – do the people still believe in their national narrative?

The Straits Times on Monday (April 4) offered an answer on the front of its Home section:

‘Only 1 in 5 of Gen Y wants to emigrate’

The headline is strong, and offers a good hook for the story, which details a study by the Institute of Policy Studies. But funnily enough, you couldn’t find in the piece any newsmaker or analyst framing the referenced data with the qualifier ‘only’. It was reporter Rachel Chang (or maybe her editors) who inserted the prejudicial adverb, and in the story too (emphases mine):

“Only 20 per cent want to emigrate or spend an extended period of time abroad, and more than half, the survey shows, have no intention of leaving the country.”

‘Only’? What’s with this ‘only’? I’d like to see more context for these figures before they are dismissed offhand. But Chang cares not for analysis, instead adding this operative word to spin a yarn of local youth expressing a strong sense of rootedness. In journalism speak , this is ‘editorialisation’ – defined by dictionary.com as: “to insert one’s personal opinions into an otherwise objective account“.

It gets better. Chang neither made clear in her story what she means by “no intention of leaving the country,” and nor did she provide a definitive figure. The closest she comes to doing so is as follows:

“When asked if they agree they would prefer to be a citizen of Singapore than any other country, 57.2 per cent agree.”

You’d appreciate that emigration doesn’t necessarily mean giving up citizenship – the researchers had defined it as “relocating to another country permanently or for an extended period of time” (emphasis mine). Perhaps Chang and her editors didn’t count on nosey Google search-fu exponents to track down the study’s executive summary, detailed findings and collated data, which can be read here and here.

Compare Chang’s claims to what Dr Leong Chan Hoong, who led the study, actually said in his presentation:

“More than 50% of the sample had a low intention to emigrate, were strongly rooted by their social ties and were positive about the country and their prospects here. These were the Cosmopolitan and the Heartland Stayers.”

Who would have thought the Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings’ flagship English-language broadsheet, can’t tell the difference between “no” and “low”?

The poverty of Chang’s story is made even more apparent by the Today newspaper’s more nuanced report. The headline and an excerpt follows (emphases mine):

Youths’ intention to emigrate ‘not linked to threat from foreign talent

The study found four different profiles of young Singaporeans emerging with regards to emigration. Just over half, or 53.2 per cent, of the youths interviewed had a low intention to emigrate. These youths were classified as “Cosmopolitan Stayer” and “Heartland Stayer” (see box).

But about two in 10 of youths surveyed – classified as “Explorers” – are not as optimistic about their life in Singapore and feel threatened by the presence of foreign talent.

Sociologist Tan Ern Ser expressed surprise at the 20-per-cent figure. He co-authored a study in 1989, which found that 15 per cent of Singaporeans then considered emigration. “The ’80s must have been the golden age of emigration, given that the popular destinations of choice were perceived as allowing access to a more affordable, quality lifestyle, which includes the material things that matter to many Singaporeans: Houses and cars,” said Associate Professor Tan. “But … the world has become far more globalised during the last two decades, perhaps the 5-per-cent increase is plausible.”

As you may well know, statistics are not always merry bedfellows with truth and truthtelling. But with a little context, insight can emerge from beneath the barely-scratched surface. Like how Today’s Leong Wee Keat compared the latest IPS findings with Assoc Prof Tan’s comments on a similar study in 1989, and found that the proportion of youth inclined to emigrate may have increased.

Now that probably should have been the real story.

Or even this: the fact that 46.7%, or ‘nearly half’ as some journalists may say, of the respondents felt disconnected with their country – those classified as the “disengaged” (26.5 per cent, who “reported weakest family bonding and sense of national pride”) and the “explorer” (20.2 per cent, who “did not feel proud of Singapore”).

But try telling Chang and her bosses. They didn’t even think the (inconvenient) findings on Singaporean youth’s national pride and sense of connection to the country (or lack thereof) deserved mention on their infographic.

Channel NewsAsia too tried to put on a brave face, but could only come up with this:

One in two young Singaporeans strongly rooted, says survey

Which kind of makes you wonder…what about the other half? But at least they aren’t as confused between “no” and “low”.

The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia might seek shelter under the discourse of developmental journalism and argue their approach serves a larger national interest. But Leong too took on the subject from a so-called pro-nation angle, but instead of framing the study with an prescriptive, even disingenuous boilerplate premise, he offered a more sobering take on the state of play and some comments on the policy challenges in fostering “rootedness”.

Clearly, there’re more journalistically sound ways to tell this story. But perhaps we expect too much. After all, we are talking about a paper that splashes their pages with half-page profiles of individual ruling party candidates (see: “new faces”) while squeezing multiple opposition candidates (see: “rookies”) into a quarter-page slot. We are talking about a news station that prematurely declared Lim Swee Say and Dr Maliki Osman as East Coast GRC MPs and not realised it for days. We are talking about senior editorial staff who have the gall to declare their borderline propagandist spiel as quality journalism.

Staying or quitting? The Straits Times has apparently made our minds up for us. So perhaps the question is better posed to their journalists who might care about their professional bona fides.

Trollmedia – what no-fly zone?

So the Guardian begins with: “French planes enter Libya to enforce no-fly zone“. Later, le Grauniad says: “Libya no-fly zone: Gaddafi’s forces and rebels are hard to tell apart from the air“. Strangely on the Graun’s live blog, we are told: “Al-Jazeera is reporting that French war planes have destroyed four Libyan tanks in air strikes to the south west of Benghazi.”

Just because the official line on joint action on Libya began with talks of a no-fly zone, and that the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 1973 explicitly mandates a no-fly zone, doesn’t mean that the UN member states enacting the resolution are going to enforce just a no-fly zone. At least not in the manner in which the phrase is commonly understood (from post-1991 Persian Gulf War experience).

Not that some media outlets care particularly for the fine print, it seems.

The following are the key clauses in UNSC Resolution 1973 governing military action in Libya (emphases mine):

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

This presumably is the provision under which the UN member states concerned (effectively NATO) are acting to conduct air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces. Note that it says “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians”, and doesn’t dictate that these measures take the form of a no-fly zone. Taking out Gaddafi’s forces seen to be attacking rebel-held cities can logically be held as a “necessary measure” to “protect civilians”.

Also of note is the bit about barring “a foreign occupation force of any form”. The inclusion of the qualifier “occupation” opens the possibility of the insertion of a “transition” force – a label often used on UN military peacekeeping missions in the past. If the genuine thrust for the resolution was to bar completely any foreign ground forces from entering Libya, the qualifier “occupation” is surely superfluous, totally unnecessary.

6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

Again “all necessary measures”, this time to enforce the no-fly zone. And again a potential qualifier for broad action against Gaddafi’s forces – the enforcement of a no-fly zone can be hindered by ground forces providing anti-aircraft defence, and as such UN/NATO can argue it legitimate to destroy certain Libyan government units under the aegis of clause 8.

Such is the legal framework for more extensive intervention, one feels, even as cordite, copper-scented red mists linger in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anything for energy security, eh?

By the way, I also hear some pretty rough shit going down in Bahrain and Yemen…oh sorry, my bad. I forgot it’s already being taken cared of.

P.S.: If the comic still whizzes over your cuckoo’s nest, see this and this. If you jelly, I appreciate it. Took me about half an hour.

Quotable quotes – Readership ails

Singapore Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan in a parliamentary speech last week:

“In a series of articles on public housing in the TODAY newspaper last year, I explained the three key principles which underpinned our public housing programme. Incidentally, I would be compiling these articles into a booklet for wider circulation soon.”

ZING!!! For nothing reaches Singapore’s heartlanders better than a government circular.

And a follow-up for Mr Mah: why did you pitch those pieces to Today in the first place then?

Press muse – Image wrongs

Pictures tells stories, blah…thousand words, blah…Sontag, blah…photography. You know the form. But like sense, what is thought to be common knowledge/quality really isn’t. Although you’d expect a national “newspaper of record” to know better than the rest of us.

Not on evidence of their web staff’s editorial judgement. Below are screen caps of two separate stories published on the Straits Times’ website. The first, from Feb. 23, describes local police busting online sex syndicates, while the second, from March 4, tells of Indonesian police alleged to have gang-raped a teenager.

What’s the link between the two? I’m not sure, but the Straits Times’ web editors evidently know something I don’t.

Leave aside the fact that the keyboard was clearly customised, and that its use in the first story was acceptable. Rather, ponder what a crassly insensitive goof you have to be to deem that same photo appropriate for the gang-rape story.

I ranted lamely at @stcom about this, but as of 0222 GMT on March 4, that ill-judged image choice remains. Which reminds me, @stcom does tweet rather crassly. I’ll tell you more about that next time.

P.S.: Disappointed that my first post of 2011 was on something rather inconsequential? I am too.