No. Social housing is government owned and rented. Singapore is government built and sold. Singapore is a tiny island with little space. The government has to control what is built where and avoids it turning into Hong Kong slums.
>Public housing, also known as social housing, is subsidized or affordable housing provided in buildings that are usually owned and managed by local government, central government, nonprofit organizations or a combination thereof.
Wikipedia says 'usually'. And, yes, you are right that the individual HDB flats are typically owned by individual families (though the government also owns some and rents them out, but that's the exception).
However, HDB still does a lot of the managing. Eg HDB manages the lifts and other common spaces. They organise getting the exterior repainted, or general upgrading works to plumbing etc.
HDB also subsidises the price of a flat when you buy directly from them. There's a reason they have maximum income caps for buying.
My unpopular opinion: HDB should declare victory and go home. They more than solved the original acute housing shortage they were created for.
---
Singapore does a lot of things right. And HDB is, as usually a lot more competent than pretty much any other public housing programme anywhere else in the world. But that doesn't mean everything Singapore does (including HDB) is automatically a good idea forever.
Just like our local recreational drug policy could probably be improved by moving closer to what we do with the casinos. And the ban on vaping is just silly.
> However, HDB still does a lot of the managing. Eg HDB manages the lifts and other common spaces. They organise getting the exterior repainted, or general upgrading works to plumbing etc.
By that logic every apartment block is public housing.
If the criteria to be public housing is that someone manages the lifts, lights, and exterior. Then all apartment blocks are public housing. Condos and HDBs are all public housing.
Your logic is infallible. Of course, your premise is rubbish.
It's not about whether 'someone' is managing these things. Even an owner-occupier is managing their own lights and exteriors.
A useful criterion is whether the government (or an arm of the government) is managing these things. Like HDB, but unlike your typical condo management organisation. It's far from the only criterion, but it's a useful indicator.
"Singapore has one of the highest home ownership rate in the world, due to the commitment of our founding fathers since the very beginning of nation building. Today, there are more than 1 million HDB flats across the island, home to close to 80% of Singapore's resident population. The schemes highlighted below help Singaporeans meet their housing needs at different life stages."
So the dictionary says that HBD housing is public housing, wikipedia says that HBD housing is public housing, and the Singaporean government says that HBD housing is public housing.
For the benefit of any others (miraculously) still reading, I will repeat the statement of fact that you continue stubbornly to deny against all evidence: "'social housing' is a general term that implies subsidization and affordability rather than any one specific ownership model".
For the benefit of any others. Bluebarbet has never been to Singapore and ultimately doesn’t know what he’s talking about. HDBs are not public housing. It’s land control because Singapore is so tiny.
