As Singapore’s population expands and ages, and as our small island’s available land for development dwindles, spaces for the dead, for older persons, and for foreign workers in our midst become increasingly salient. Yet while most Singaporeans accept that these spaces are needed, many do not want them built close to where we live.

In December 2023, the announcement of plans to build a new columbarium in Mandai was met with dismay by some nearby residents, who urged the Government to relocate the development somewhere else given that the area already has two other columbariums.

This is the latest incident bringing to fore “not in my backyard” (Nimby) sentiments in Singapore — and it likely won’t be the last. What does that mean for us?

WHAT IS NIMBY AND WHY DOES IT OCCUR?

The term “Nimby” has been traced back to the 1980s, to characterise public opposition to nuclear developments in the United Kingdom as an irrational and selfish act of a small minority standing in the way of ample, cheap energy for the majority. 

Today, labelling an act as Nimby-ism is similarly an accusation of individuals being narrowly self-interested and harming the broader public good, because they oppose the siting of undesired facilities near their homes.

In Singapore, incidents of local opposition to various “undesired” uses have cropped up repeatedly, often earning the Nimby label. Nimby incidents in Singapore over the years have involved rental housing developments; migrant worker dorms; and eldercare facilities.

Objectors usually cite apprehensions about the negative effects of new developments, such as increased noise, traffic congestion and loss of open spaces — all reasonable concerns.

However, complaints often also contain thinly veiled hostilities towards neighbourhood entrants deemed undesirable, such as migrant workers or the poor. Ageism, xenophobia, and classism are often reasons for Nimby-ism elsewhere in the world, and Singapore is likely no exception.

Another common and widely accepted reason to oppose “undesirable” uses is their potentially negative impact on homeowners’ property value. Some experts have observed that societies with high homeownership rates (such as Singapore) tend to manifest more Nimby-like tendencies, because a large proportion of each person’s net worth is tied to the property they own.  

Homeowners’ anxiety about the value of their properties, however, should be seen in the wider societal context. 

Currently, the national emphasis on self-reliance, combined with our hypercompetitive environment, compels us to first secure benefits for ourselves. Singaporeans perceive their world as a zero-sum game, in which resources such as land and capital are scarce. Studies suggest that Singaporeans tend to see each other as “kiasu”, competitive, and self-centred; this also explains why only a small proportion see unselfishness as an important trait for children to have.

Being unwilling to absorb some costs for the benefit of others, which underlies Nimby attitudes, seems more acceptable in a society where everyone is expected to watch out for themselves. 

WHY IS NIMBY A PROBLEM? 

Where do we go from here? As a start, we need to recognise that the Nimby problem is fundamentally intertwined with inequality. 

Some groups are able to protest more loudly and effectively than others. Property owners often organise and lobby the authorities against building dormitories, nursing homes or rental housing in their area. 

However, it is much harder for foreign workers, senior citizens, or low-income people to speak up and advocate for themselves, even though such developments are essential to meet their basic needs. Groups such as these lack some combination of key resources to do so — knowledge of how to reach and convince authorities, language skills, time, money and so on.

Furthermore, residents who manage to successfully push unwanted uses away from their neighbourhoods tend to be those with greater societal standing and power, as they have more resources and connections to defend their turf. In contrast, lower-income, less resourced neighbourhoods are less likely to be able to mount a strong, coordinated response against unwanted land uses, and may end up shouldering more than their fair share of undesired uses in their backyard. 

As a result, Nimby tendencies can end up penalising the most vulnerable groups in society, thus generating and reinforcing patterns of inequality.

Additionally, property ownership (and the desire to maintain property values) drives both Nimby-type behaviours as well as wealth inequality in Singapore. Homeownership may give Singaporeans a stake in the country’s development, but with limited taxes on capital gains or inheritance, the wealthy have been able to leverage the property market to get further ahead from the rest over time.

Yielding to Nimby pressures can reinforce problematic wealth inequalities that undermine our meritocracy, by allowing property owners to protect and accumulate assets while passing on the costs of common social goods to others. 

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? 

Left unchecked, Nimby-ism poses a real threat to Singapore’s oft-cited commitment to providing a high-quality, liveable urban environment to all its residents, regardless of socioeconomic status or ethnicity. Countering it requires concerted efforts from both state and citizen. 

Urban planners have to ensure that the burden of “undesired uses” are equally distributed, and not simply borne by those who can’t say no. They need to make clear-headed, equity-informed assessments of citizen protestations, to consider whether there are legitimate concerns that can be addressed without trading off on the well-being of others in society — especially groups that might already be more marginalised and socially vulnerable. 

Some have argued that Nimby-ism is the negative result of taking a more participatory approach to urban planning, such as seeking public inputs on land use plans. But public participation does not need to lead to Nimby-ism. Rather, truly inclusive participatory efforts that empower more vulnerable members of society to advocate for their own needs can help combat and counterbalance instances of Nimby. 

Furthermore, engaging affected communities in sincere dialogue can help ensure that genuine concerns of affected residents are understood and mitigated, as long as mitigation efforts do not severely impinge on other affected groups.

For the sake of overall societal well-being, Singaporeans should resist pressures that exacerbate inequality. 

We can start by seeing residential properties more in terms of their primary function as homes, rather than as investments. Taking this perspective opens up our minds to the possibility that being situated near developments such as nursing homes and foreign worker dormitories is valuable, even if not financially so — because this teaches us how to interact, empathise, and live alongside others who may be unlike us. 

We should also recognise that ceaselessly and single-mindedly protecting our own interests is not optimal for all of us, and that collaboration instead of competition can lead to better collective outcomes.  

If we must organise for a purpose, let it be in support of redistributive policies in the form of taxes or land use planning, or to advocate for marginalised groups who may not have as loud of a public voice.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Tan Shin Bin is an assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. Her research focuses on how built environment interventions and public policy can improve social and health equity. 

Shannon Ang is an assistant professor of sociology at Nanyang Technological University. He pursues research interests in life course sociology, focusing on the health and social lives of older adults.