For most of Singapore’s history, urban renewal has been a selective, top-down exercise. The Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (Sers) allowed the state to acquire old flats, compensate owners, and move them into new homes with fresh leases.
Sers covered fewer than 5 per cent of HDB flats and it was driven top-down rather than by residents. That approach isn’t suitable for a renewal effort that could touch virtually every estate in the country.
Most Singaporeans live in Housing Board flats, many built during the construction boom of the 1970s to 1990s. With more than 1.25 million flats approaching the end of their leases, the problem is not technical but existential. It touches the very idea of home, and with it the foundations of Singapore’s social stability.
The announcement of the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (Vers) represents a break from the past. Instead of compulsion, it rests on consent. When a supermajority of residents in ageing blocks agree, the precinct can be sold back to HDB for redevelopment.
But the real promise of Vers and its success depend on whether it becomes a genuine exercise in collective choice – a process that empowers communities to shape not just their replacement flats but also the future of the neighbourhoods they call home.
That has to be carefully managed and made central to this exercise as a smooth passage isn’t guaranteed.
Overcoming crucial challenges
Implementing Vers will not be without challenges. Achieving the necessary supermajority for each buyback will require careful negotiation and consensus building among residents and other stakeholders.
Experience of acrimonious private property collective sales tells us it may not be at all easy. There have been examples of contentious collective sales exercises, like Pine Grove’s third attempt at an enbloc sale in 2017, and a number of other cases, such as Horizon Towers with its multiple attempts over the years that failed to strike a deal due to misalignment among the parties involved.
A complex Vers scenario could involve some residents wishing to cash out and move while others may wish to age in place, cherishing the familiarity and community bonds they have built. Some might even stick to a me-first mindset, and argue over what constitutes the “right” compensation.
In such situations, HDB, the willing buyer, is a public housing agency that will need to offer what can be defended as a fair and equitable price. It will also require enough willing sellers to cross the requisite majority threshold. Residents will differ on compensation, timing and what constitutes “reasonable” rehousing or replacement flats.
Resolving these differences through what is accepted as a just and equitable process will be critical.
How might we bridge these differences? Chiefly, by engaging residents meaningfully in a purposefully deliberative and participatory way. This could mean creating structured forums where differing viewpoints, such as whether to cash out or age in place, or what counts as fair compensation, are discussed openly, and where common ground is built by agreeing on shared principles even if individual preferences diverge.
That process must involve residents and other stakeholders from the start as it would allow us to better understand what they value in public housing. It isn’t just about the flats but also the shared spaces, and how these are a core part of our social infrastructure.
The process should also involve documenting and honouring each estate’s history, ensuring that renewal does not entail erasing shared memories and identity.
More On This Topic
ST Explains: What is Vers and which HDB estates could it be rolled out in?
Vers should not create ‘lottery effect’ or be a wealth-generating programme: Chee Hong Tat
Getting this going will first require a national level consensus to be built up. Public consultation is expected to begin before Vers is launched in the 2030s. It should be a deliberative process that establishes some underlying principles that would guide the fair and equitable evaluation of the flats that undergo Vers.
This would help us get to a stage where current flat owners are willing sellers matched with willing buyers who are essentially future generations of HDB flat owners, represented by the state.
Then, surely there should also be engagement at the district, estate and precinct levels to involve every community in this co-creation process.
Community bonds and social networks are not accidental by-products of proximity; they are the glue that holds our society together. Preserving and even strengthening these bonds during redevelopment must be a core objective of how Vers is rolled out.
Managing expectations
It would be naïve to think that Vers will be a smooth or universally welcomed solution. The financial costs will be significant, and HDB cannot buy back every ageing flat at generous valuations.
Some estates may be redeveloped earlier than others, raising concerns about fairness. Even with extensive consultation, consensus may not be achieved in every precinct – leaving some residents disappointed or divided.
These realities must be acknowledged upfront, so that expectations are managed and the scheme is not oversold.
Ultimately, Vers will surely be as much about the process as the outcome. If the process is designed and implemented well, it could become a case study in how a nation renews itself – not through compulsion by the simple effect of lease decay or by market forces, but through consensus and collaboration on something that matters so fundamentally to us.
In doing so, it would reaffirm the foundational principle behind Singapore’s public housing: that our estates are not just assets, but also homes and communities; not just units, but also the locus of shared lives.
Christopher Gee is deputy director (research) and senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore.
More On This Topic
What Vers really means: Trade-offs, not jackpots
With Vers, it’s time to get real with lease decay and the asset value of HDB flats
