Published: 25 April 2025
For over three decades, Hougang has stood out as a small but powerful symbol in Singapore’s political landscape — not because of its size, but because of what it represents: a constituency that consistently voted for the opposition Workers’ Party, even when the odds were stacked against them.
Yet the story of Hougang is not just about opposition resilience. It’s also about how the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) treated a constituency that dared to vote differently. And it raises uncomfortable questions about fairness and governance in a dominant-party system.
Selective Upgrading and Political Priorities
After the Workers’ Party won Hougang in 1991, the government’s approach to the constituency shifted. PAP leaders openly stated that wards held by the opposition would not receive the same priority in upgrading and amenities. Then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong articulated this bluntly in 1996:
“In an election, each party offers its programme to the voters. The People’s Action Party (PAP) offers its programme of assets enhancement, which includes the Housing and Development Board (HDB) upgrading programme…
If you choose the opposition, you are rejecting the programme of the PAP. How then can the PAP proceed to upgrade your flats if you reject the programme in the first place?”
— Goh Chok Tong, 31 December 1996
This statement effectively confirmed what many voters already suspected: that the PAP would tie estate upgrading to electoral support, making it conditional rather than equitable.
In practical terms, this meant Hougang residents went without estate enhancements like lift upgrading, covered walkways, and other neighborhood improvements — not because of need or infrastructure readiness, but because of how they voted.
And in 2011, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong responded to a question from a resident by stating:
“The answer is that there has to be a distinction. Because the PAP wards supported the Government and the policies which delivered these good things.
Between the people who voted and supported the programme and the government, and the people who didn’t, I think if we went and put yours before the PAP constituencies, it would be an injustice.”
— Lee Hsien Loong, 2011
These quotes make the policy unmistakable: national upgrading programmes — funded by taxpayers — were selectively deployed in a way that privileged political alignment.
Acknowledging Past Mistakes
In 2007, the government introduced the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), which eventually included older flats in Hougang. By 2024, over 370,000 flats had been upgraded under HIP, with significant investments made to enhance living conditions across various estates, including Hougang.
However, despite these advancements, there has been no formal acknowledgment from the PAP regarding the previous policy of linking estate upgrades to electoral support. This absence of a public apology or explicit commitment to non-partisan allocation of public resources leaves lingering doubts about the underlying political culture.
Worryingly, partisan use of national resources has not been confined to the past. Even today, institutions like the People’s Association — funded by taxpayers — continue to operate with a heavy bias toward PAP-aligned activities. Opposition-run constituencies face ongoing challenges in accessing public facilities, funding, and grassroots support structures traditionally mediated through these organizations.
The risk is not merely historical. Without a clear and public renunciation of past practices, there remains a possibility that similar tactics could resurface in the future, whether overtly or through more subtle means, especially if the PAP finds itself under greater electoral pressure.
If the PAP is earnest about winning back trust in Hougang — and across Singapore — it must go beyond policy changes and demonstrate political humility. A public acknowledgment of past mistakes, coupled with a genuine commitment to equitable treatment for all citizens regardless of political affiliation, would send a powerful signal. Only through such steps can the affective and trust divide that has long lingered in Singapore’s political landscape begin to heal.