Thinking of housing as part of an urban system: what Malta can learn from Singapore’s public housing

Singapore’s housing policy is highly distinctive. With a homeownership rate of around 90 per cent, its approach is built around a nationwide public housing model that prioritises homeownership for its citizens. This is intended to foster social stability, strengthen national identity, and provide citizens with a tangible stake in the country’s future.

I recently represented the Malta Housing Authority at a workshop in Singapore to gain a deeper understanding of the country’s housing system. This forms part of the Housing Authority’s ongoing engagement to exchange perspectives and learn from best practices in other countries.

Singapore has a land area of approximately 722.5 square kilometres – roughly twice the size of Malta – but a population of around six million people, with about 25 per cent of its territory created through land reclamation. The country consistently ranks among the world’s top performers for ease of doing business and is known for its strong governance, rule of law, and world-class infrastructure.

While both Malta and Singapore have high homeownership rates, the pathways through which they have achieved this outcome differ substantially.

Around 80 per cent of Singapore’s residents live in public housing. Homeownership is supported through grants and housing subsidies for eligible buyers to improve affordability, alongside financing mechanisms that enable providers to deliver housing at scale.

At the same time, the State retains strict control over land policy. Public housing is sold on 99-year leases, meaning that land ultimately reverts to the State upon lease expiry. Another defining feature of the system is the Central Provident Fund (CPF), a compulsory national savings scheme funded through contributions from both employees and employers. The CPF can be used for housing, education, healthcare, and retirement, effectively replacing a conventional welfare system – Singapore does not operate a traditional public pension scheme. Given its multi-ethnic society, authorities also impose quotas on the ethnic composition in public housing to prevent segregation and promote social integration.

This model contrasts markedly with housing policy in Malta, where the private sector plays a more prominent role. Social housing in Malta primarily serves low-income and vulnerable households as a safety net. At the same time, several measures exist to improve housing affordability, accessibility, and adequacy, including rent subsidies and homeownership schemes targeted at first-time buyers.

Overall, Singapore’s housing system must be understood as part of a broader policy framework shaped by specific political and institutional conditions. It is underpinned by strong central state capacity, extensive land control, large-scale public housing provision, long-term planning, a national savings mechanism, and strict rules governing allocation and resale. While replicating this entire ecosystem elsewhere would be difficult, several of its core elements offer valuable lessons for other countries, including Malta. Five of these are particularly relevant.

5 lessons Malta can take from Singapore

First, housing is treated as an integral component of a wider urban system rather than a stand-alone sector. In Singapore, public housing estates are designed as complete neighbourhoods that integrate transport connectivity, schools, healthcare facilities, green and open spaces, and local amenities. This systems-based approach enhances liveability while reducing long-term social and infrastructure costs. Singapore’s emphasis on high-density, vertical construction—typical public housing blocks range from 15 to 40 storeys – frees up land for public and green spaces. This is supported by detailed multi-year planning that focuses not only housing but also on environmental objectives, such as the national commitment to plant one million more trees by 2030. Achieving this requires strong inter-agency coordination, with Singapore’s housing authority operating within a ministry that also oversees land use, urban planning, and the built environment.

Second, public housing in Singapore is positioned as a mainstream housing option rather than a residual safety net for low-income households. By serving a broad income spectrum, public housing avoids stigma and offers high-quality homes that are attractive to middle-income families. This approach echoes earlier Maltese programmes such as the HOS plots and Sale by Notices schemes prevalent from the 1970s to the mid-2000s, as well as the current efforts of the Foundation for Affordable Housing. Importantly, policy does not rely solely on demand-side subsidies but also ensures a predictable and sustained pipeline of public housing delivery.

Third, Singapore places strong emphasis on household savings. While the CPF model may be difficult to replicate elsewhere, there is scope for other countries to incentivise savings mechanisms that help households, particularly young adults, accumulate funds over time. Such schemes can strengthen financial resilience, facilitate down payments, and create more sustainable pathways into homeownership.

Fourth, housing policy in Singapore is firmly data driven. Continuous monitoring of demographic trends, including household formation and population ageing, allows authorities to adjust housing supply and incentives to evolving needs. An example of this is the development of community care apartments designed for older residents seeking to downsize, typically comprising compact one-bedroom units.

Finally, Singapore places a strong emphasis on productivity in the construction sector. The government has invested heavily in industrialised construction methods, including prefabrication and precast technologies, and continues to explore innovations such as 3D printing. These initiatives aim to improve the quality of buildings, shorten construction timelines, reduce costs, and address labour constraints.

Taken together, these features suggest that while full institutional replication may neither be feasible nor desirable, several aspects of Singapore’s housing model could be adapted in ways that are practical and potentially impactful in the Maltese context.