Keywords

1 Introduction

The housing system acts as a marker distinguishing socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds (Forrest and Hirayama 2015; Haffner et al. 2017). One case study puts this succinctly: ‘The desire to own one’s home is overwhelmingly strong in all classes and all regions of England, and this cannot simply or even principally be explained by financial considerations. The home is the core of most people’s lives, and to own that home is at the centre of most people’s aspirations and values’ (Saunders 1989: 191). Owning, creating and maintaining an attractive home are unmistakably important. This is evident in the financial restructuring and liberalisation that have improved consumers’ access to mortgage lending and in the diverse publicity through the mass media (Instagram, television programmes and magazines) on home furnishing and interior design (Gram-Hanssen and Bech-Danielson 2004). According to the celebrated modernist architect, Le Corbusier, writing in 1923, ‘[a] house is a machine for living in’ rather than just a functional basic shelter (Le Corbusier 2007: 151). This involves financiers, property developers, governments, architects, designers and consumers attaching meanings and values to homes, including the material objects bought that boost the value of the home. Consumption enables people to invent and reinvent their identities, express their personalities, and develop lifestyle cultures around their preferences including diet, fashion, music and taste for leisure (Featherstone 1987: 55). The same can be applied to houses that are purchased or even rented. The expansion in the number of homeowners and of homeowners renting out their property has resulted in a financial divide in investment (wealth accumulation via rentals) and consumption (Haffner et al. 2017).

Consumption draws various socioeconomic groups together in a common housing market while accentuating differences and individuality (Illouz 2009: 378). However, consumption also creates insecurities as consumer desires and needs are constantly changing (Bauman 2001). The durability of commodities can be short-lived due to changing fashions influenced by the unprecedented multiplicity of material objects and brands produced. Past studies have shown that the desire for material objects is insatiable and consumers often indulge in consumption that emulates the behaviour of higher socioeconomic classes and that can be unattainable (see Veblen 2003; Mansvelt 2005; Illouz 2009). Consumerism encourages utilitarian hedonism and requires high levels of self-management as well as discipline by consumers (Illouz 2009: 378).

The rise of ‘new consumerism’ involves excessive and competitive spending because financial liberalisation enables borrowing and equity usage for consumers (Manning 2000; Schor 2004; Langley 2008). Unlike Thorstein Veblen’s theory of emulation or ‘keeping up with the Joneses’, new consumerism involves financialisation which stimulates a sense of false affluence or a form of ‘affluenza’, resulting in excessive consumption and debt (De Graaf et al. 2001; James 2007).Footnote 1 It also fuels consumers’ upscaling of identity through emulation of the super-rich (Schor 1998, 2004). Excessive borrowing and consumption drive production (Bauman 2001). Like producers utilising or exploiting natural resources to create, consumers also play significant roles in creating or modifying the things they consume, leading to what has been termed ‘prosumption’ (Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010; see also Toffler 1980). Both producers and consumers play active roles in curating values attached to commodities, including houses. A considerable amount of literature has documented the flaws of consumers solely investing in their house as money pits for spending, particularly during the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. The overheating and bursting of the housing market bubble undermined economies, bankrupted individuals and pressured governments to reconsider financial liberalisation (see Aalbers 2015; Smith 2015; Murphy and Rehm 2016; Haffner et al. 2017).

This chapter focuses on Brunei Darussalam and the values that Bruneians (particularly the working population) attribute to housing. A total of 216 consumers were interviewed about their values in relation to housing. I first explore the existing literature that examines the significance of housing and values people attach to housing. I then analyse the realities in Brunei by discussing the existing government structures such as financial facilities welfare provisions, housing policies that shape Bruneians’ perceptions and values attached to the housing. I continue by assessing how access to these structures as well as other sociocultural intermediaries such as the family shape Bruneians’ consumption choices. This includes their priority to become homeowners and the values they attribute to housing.

2 Attaching Values to Houses

A house can carry with it several values including its use value where it is seen as a necessary material structure to shelter people from the environment and dangers. Consumers also perceive houses as carrying other values including economic and financial values through which the house becomes a source for wealth creation and capital (Guyer 2015). This was evident when the British and United States governments decided to deregulate and improve consumers’ access to finances, creating a new consumerism (Mohan 1995; Muellbauer 2002; French and Leyshon 2004; Palley 2007; Langley 2008; French and Kneale 2009; Lee et al. 2009; Montgomerie 2009; Christophers 2009; Pike and Pollard 2009). John Mohan (1995) and John Muellbauer (2002) affirm that financial liberalisation was already evident in Britain in the 1980s with the implementation of Thatcherite policies when strict controls on credit flow and interest rates were relaxed along with the departure of the stern 10% down payment policies for house mortgages.

The last two decades saw the privatisation of social welfare including housing, forcing consumers to be more responsible for their wellbeing, which contributed towards a paradigm shift in finance and consumption culture. The rise of residential capitalism brought about economic, political and social reforms (Broome 2008; Smith 2015). The state’s role as providers of social welfare or safety nets in countries like Britain, the United States and Australia is slowly diminishing while welfare switching has been greatly advocated, encouraging more homeownership or owner occupation (Wood et al. 2013; Smith 2015).Footnote 2 Housing becomes a form of precautionary saving that enables consumers to use secured loans as a financial buffer (Wood et al. 2013). Evolution in residential capitalism saw countries with liberalised economies phasing out their tradition of welfarism by encouraging the expansion of homeownership as a social right while simultaneously valuing housing as a wealth generator and ensuring future financial security (Broome 2008). As a result, the house is considered more and more as an intertwined space of security, insurance, enforced savings, investment and consumption (Smith 2015).

When housing prices soared, an influx of consumers borrowed on their housing equity while a majority of lower-income consumers used mortgage loans to pay off existing debts (Smith and Searle 2008; Cook et al. 2009). Others reinvested more in their homes by spending on extensions and renovations. This shift in consumer culture transformed the meanings and values attached to houses; they are now seen as assets and sources of wealth creation to consumers (Langley 2008; Smith and Searle 2008; Cook et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2009). As the value of houses increases through market valuation, equity leakage occurs when money is cashed and spent on travel, family and other consumables (Sjørslev 2012: 386). Susan Smith and Beverley Searle (2008) stress that a large part of mortgage loans found their way into the hands of British retailers and importers resulting in a consumer boom, ‘identifying a trend away from reinvestment into housing’ (ibid.: 21). They establish that between 1991 and 2003, money from mortgage equity withdrawals spent on home improvements decreased by about 20%, spending on home extensions declined by 8%, while spending on cars, other consumer goods and other specific (but unrecoverable) consumption all increased. This leakage, which involves spending on family needs and desires, is deemed permissible and justified when the money is used to strengthen relationships with their loved ones, involving the interlocking between economic and social values of housing (Sjørslev 2012: 393). Hence, social scientists place more value on the house as a ‘meaningful’ place in which consumers have a sense of belonging (Tuan 1971; Cresswell 2004).

Houses have social and emotional values and meanings attached to them. Peter Saunders (1989: 177–178) defines the home ‘as an object of consumption’ that ‘is also the container within which much consumption takes place’, and a locus where people’s experiences and cultural significance are located. A home signifies the social relations between the consumers with others in their homes as well as their relations to their domestic spaces (Noor Hasharina 2010; Sobh and Welk 2011; Seo 2012). It has nodes where affective bonds between people and place evolve (Easthope 2004), contributing to the creation of consumers’ sense of place (Rose 1995). The consumers’ sense of place is influenced by their access to different types of capital, whether economic, social or cultural (see Bourdieu 1984). A home, therefore, is a space that is meaningful to consumers and where consumers feel safe to carry out their everyday activities and maintain their cultural norms.

The value of social connection or the sociality of objects becomes prevalent in consumption at home and integrated into the daily living of the consumers (Riggins 1994; Mansvelt 2005; Money 2007). Most studies on home consumption examine goods and identity as well as the identity conflicts that may arise through the home designs and décor imposed by different cohabiting consumers (Leslie and Reimer 2003; Miller 2009). In most affluent societies, spending on the home is becoming as conspicuous as shopping for fashion (Shove and Southerton 2000; Noor Hasharina 2010).

Like any commodity, the design, size, space and facilities found within the house are identity signifiers or social markers (Jayne 2006; Noor Hasharina 2010). The meanings attached to an object, including houses, are subjective and may vary from one social group to another (Kleine and Kernan 1991). Paul Du Gay et al. (1997) and Pierre Bourdieu (1984) affirm the significance of cultural intermediaries in influencing both the supply and demand of consumption. In capitalist society, advertisers exploit consumers by constantly changing fashions or trends and developing designer labels that influence consumers to participate in a yuppie lifestyle in which consumers buy the most expensive version of a product not because it has a higher use value but because it signifies status and exclusivity (Slater 1997: 158).

Household consumption patterns vary depending on social relations. The house goes through a personalisation process to promote security and identity through modification and the use of recreation spaces at home (Easthope 2004; Gram-Hanssen and Bech-Danielson 2004). This was made possible for many through financialisation and residential capitalism via equity leakage, as outlined in the previous section. Consumers in many societies suffer from what has been dubbed ‘luxury fever’ or ‘affluenza’ under which conditions they are unable to discipline themselves financially (De Graaf et al. 2001). This urge to splurge is contagious, disseminating globally as consumers take part not just in defensive consumerism but also ‘competitive spending’.

Shane Frederick’s (2012) study of consumers’ willingness to pay shows the incongruence between how much retailers think consumers are willing to pay versus the actual amount consumers would pay for a commodity. Consumers who are unable to afford it are willing to live above their means and pay for goods and services through financial borrowing and credit. Not all consumers are rational and solely influenced by optimum economic decisions. This applies to commodities including housing as some consumers take into consideration factors such as addresses and access to schooling, distance to workplace or access to retail and entertainment, environmental concerns and safe neighbourhoods as part of their decision to locate or buy houses, apart from price. In addition, the values of housing perceived by consumers vary geographically. Age, income, race and family size also influence housing choices and willingness to pay (Gross 1988).

This overview of the literature in the field highlights the economic value of homes at the individual level and its influence on consumption and wellbeing, and impact of homeownership on the economy of some Western societies. There is, however, a scarcity of literature examining the social functions of homes. In Brunei, a different pattern of homeownership can be seen with the high supply of public housing to Bruneians. The next section illustrates the role government has in influencing housing values through the national housing scheme and financial regulation. While public housing is preferred by many Bruneians, the policy states that such houses cannot be sold or used as collateral. This results in public housing lacking economic value, making residential capitalism and its possible leakage for consuming needs or wants impossible. Rather, houses in Brunei are seen to have social and cultural significance, with homeownership patterns differing from those in the West. In Sect. 11.4, I address these differences in values attached to housing and the lack of priority given to housing as part of their consumption. This section also highlights the important role of the government and family, relative to economic value, in influencing homeownership.

3 Study Participants

I recruited 216 Bruneians from various income groups consisting of 111 males and 105 females. The research employed a qualitative approach which consisted of mixed methods: (1) structured interviews; (2) semi-structured interviews; (3) observations (of both the physical landscape and online related to housing and consumption); and (4) secondary data research. The main fieldwork involved conducting structured and semi-structured interviews with employed respondents aged from 20 to 55 years and from various marital backgrounds. The salary range of respondents was between BND358 and BND10,000 a month. The reason for the selective sample was to examine whether different socioeconomic classes have different consumption desires and values placed on housing and homeownership. The research also documented consumer living arrangements, housing trends and willingness to spend. The structured interviews were qualitative in nature, involving more open-ended questions to allow consumers to avoid bias or leading answers as would be the case in multiple choice questions. In addition, as part of a mixed methods and triangulation strategy, the semi-structured interviews were also conducted with officers from Brunei’s Housing Development Department (HDD, Jabatan Kemajuan Perumahan) and six consumers. Both types of interviews lasted from 45 minutes to two hours. Secondary data were useful to show trends in lending by private financial institutions for property ownership, consumption patterns and income distribution, and included government policies on housing. Observations enabled me to take note of behaviours and attitudes occurring during private house-selling expositions as well as online advertisements and people’s reactions to these advertisements.

The semi-structured interviews were transcribed and structured interview data tabled or coded using Microsoft Excel. The main analysis method used was content analysis and thematic analysis, coding of common meanings such as words, word sense, phrases and sentences. This also generated frequency of answers or codes. The conversation during the interview involved code-switching between English and Malay. A challenge for researching a society that is bilingual, and particularly code-switching during a conversation, lies in choosing the right word during the interview and in subsequently transcribing it. I wanted to avoid any misinterpretation or loss of meaning and used simple direct translation. My research found that a majority of consumers interviewed (53%) lived in their family-owned homes (often with parents or parents-in-law). The remainder were either renting under the government scheme or were private renters. Only 12% were married homeowners living on their own. The study found that family and social relations followed by government policies are significant intermediaries that affect consumption in homeownership in Brunei.

4 The Brunei Way

Brunei is located on the island of Borneo and has a population of 429,999 with 353,313 being Bruneian citizens and permanent residents (Department of Economic Planning and Statistics 2021a: 1–2). It has one of the highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita rates in Southeast Asia at BND39,989 (USD30,967) in 2019 (Department of Economic Planning and Statistics 2021b). The government continues to pay for social welfare and protection for Bruneians: free or subsidised education, primary health and medical services, energy including car fuel and electricity, basic foodstuffs such as rice and sugar, and subsidised housing including via the national housing scheme. Other forms of social protection and social security include those that cater for the retirement of employees such as the pension schemes, the Employees’ Trust Fund (Tabung Amanah Pekerja, TAP) and the Supplemental Contributory Pension (SCP).Footnote 3 The SCP was implemented in 2010 to cover all employees in every sector as an additional savings provision for their retirement via a minimum 3.5% monthly deduction from their income (TAP 2018). In addition, full-time government employees have access to other benefits including an annual performance bonus, a fixed leave and passage allowance, an educational allowance (as it is subsidised by the government for parents employed in the public sector who send their children to private schools rather than to free government schools), an interest-free loan to purchase a car, and an interest-free housing loan where the amount of credit given depends on years of service left and monthly income (Hajah Sainah 2010; Rabiatul 2012; Ministry of Finance and Economy 2020a). All these social provisions are relevant to understanding the culture of consumption in Brunei, particularly in relation to homeownership.

Most housing markets are influenced by the invisible economic hand, but Brunei has a unique housing market due to the dominance of public housing for citizens (Oxford Business Group 2013). This public housing provision is heavily subsidised by the government mainly through oil and gas revenues. The housing scheme was initially introduced to move people living in Kampong Ayer onto land to improve their quality of life, due to problems of overcrowding, outbreaks of fire and disease (Jones 1997; Noor Hasharina and Yong 2019). The HDD under the Ministry of Development was set up in 1984 to provide housing for Bruneians. Local people who fulfil the criteria—including being 18 years of age at the date of application, not owning land or residential property, earning between BND445 and BND3,030, and having not disposed of any private land or residential property—are eligible to apply in two different national housing schemes: the National Housing Programme (Rancangan Perumahan Negara, RPN) which is accessible to all Bruneians regardless of race; and the Landless Indigenous Citizens’ Housing Scheme (Skim Tanah Kurnia Rakyat Jati, STKRJ) which is exclusively for the indigenous Brunei Malays.

The types of public housing provision have evolved from detached houses on large parcels of land (0.25 ha) to a design that ensures land maximisation and optimisation including semi-detached, terrace and butterfly or cluster houses as well as vertical living spaces such as town houses and flats (Rozan 2008). From 1971 to 2016, the average household size for Brunei remained at about five to six people (Department of Economic Planning and Statistics 2017a: 58–59). Despite the changes in public housing types to smaller units (three bedrooms and three bathrooms), there is still a demand for public housing for social security, in other words, a roof over people’s heads. Applications for public housing grew tenfold from 1980 (8,565 applications) to 2015 (81,066 applicants), which saw the HDD struggling to cope with housing demands (Noor Hasharina and Yong 2019) as ‘public housing [makes] up 40% of Brunei’s total residential market’ (Oxford Business Group 2014). As of 2019, the homeownership rate was 65% with a target of 85% by 2035 (BruDirect 2019). To achieve this target, the Ministry of Development is working to ensure the long-term financial viability of the RPN, in order to deliver a more cost-effective and sustainable financial model (Ministry of Finance and Economy 2020b).

According to one HDD officer, the smaller the unit the lower the price. A terrace unit costs about BND36,000–55,000 while a detached house varies between BND70,000 and about BND95,000 depending on location (Ministry of Development n.d.). The repayment period varies from 15 to 30 years depending on the applicant’s and/or guarantor’s balance of service in the public sector. No interest rate is charged for the public housing instalments or any default payments despite the government subsidising the construction of the houses and their amenities.

There are several challenges faced by the government with regard to national housing. First, the biggest challenge in housing provision is the increasingly limited land available, with less than 10% of ‘the country’s total landmass’ available for real estate development (Oxford Business Group 2014) and only about 5% of the total land being free of development constraints such as hills or peat swamps which make it costly and difficult to develop (Oxford Business Group 2012). Second, there is the mounting cost of national housing subsidies which cover more than 70% of the total housing cost (land is awarded by the sultan) (Rosli and Mohd Don 2019: 21). Third, there are concerns over some people defaulting on their house repayments. And fourth, the waiting period for a public housing unit is between 15 and 20 years, which shortens the payment period but increases the monthly mortgage. The long wait times are not helpful both to homeowners and the government. Hence the government has tried to shorten the waiting period by building high-density and smaller but affordable housing. According to a finance officer from the HDD, the issue of affordability is important as about 70% of applicants for the national housing scheme earn less than BND1,200 a month and by 2010 the total default of payment owed to the government by some homeowners of this scheme amounted to BND20 million. In 2013, a national target was set to reduce the waiting time to just 5 years by 2021, however, due to challenges faced by the government, in 2016, the waiting time was reduced to approximately 12 years (Izah 2013; Rabiatul 2016).

In contrast to many Western societies that underwent the housing bubble burst in 2007–2008 that contributed to the global financial crisis, the financial culture in Brunei is different. The government closely monitors and regulates the financial structures and services through the Brunei Darussalam Central Bank (BDCB), formerly the Monetary Authority of Brunei Darussalam (Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam, AMBD). This institution merges the authority previously held by the Financial Institution Department, under the Ministry of Finance and Economy, to monitor, implement existing regulations, formulate and enforce new monetary and financing policies including banking policies and processes. Bruneians have a different financial and consumption culture compared to the West. The average monthly household income was about BND7,009 in 2015–2016, with the main income sources coming from paid employment while income from property (imputed rent of owner-occupied housing) was only BND878.00 (12.5% of monthly income) (Department of Economic Planning and Statistics 2017b). The government reported that consumers surveyed spent 40–60% of their income on monthly expenses, saved 10–20% and allocated 10–19% for debt repayments. My study found that the main forms of borrowing among respondents were car loans or hire purchase (67%), personal loans (18%) and housing loans (9%). A third of respondents with housing loans were repaying for home renovations. Only a quarter of respondents’ monthly expenditure was spent on themselves and the remainder was spent on family needs, a prominent feature of many Asian societies (Wong and Ahuvia 1998; Chua 2000). On the other hand, active savings for future security and welfare have been an issue for many Bruneians and is acknowledged by the government. Most respondents are passive savers relying on monthly deductions and contributions from their income into the government-led TAP and SCP (Noor Hasharina 2017). Any savings by respondents are for short-term emergency funds such as car repairs and family expenses while some have no specific use for their savings.

The government, through the BDCB, acts as an intermediary in Brunei’s financial network, regulates financial access and influences consumer consumption culture through regulation reforms and policy. Brunei promotes and prioritises homeownership over renting by offering the public housing scheme and subsidising housing construction (Sarimah et al. 2019; Noor Hasharina and Yong 2019). In 2020 there were 216,886 Bruneians actively employed (32.7% in the public sector) with the total fertility rate in 2020 at only 1.8 births per woman (Department of Economic Planning and Statistics 2021b: 17; World Bank 2022). The average number of persons per household was reported to be 5.5 in 2016 (Department of Economic Planning and Statistics 2017a: 58). Another means of encouraging homeownership is through the government’s policy of providing access to home loans at a zero interest rate through the Ministry of Finance and Economy. Furthermore, the government introduced the housing fund scheme to encourage local TAP members to own houses by dipping into their savings from their monthly contributions. Another quicker option for homeownership for those who prefer a more customised house design that meets their desires is via bank loans (as prime lenders) which are monitored closely by the BDCB. The BDCB observes that the interest rates charged are based on global prime lending rates of 4.5% and it has set up a credit bureau to monitor and identify high-risk consumers. In addition, the implementation of the total debt service ratio (TDSR) in June 2015 appears to have caused borrowers to modify their behaviour by concentrating on appreciating assets such as housing, which saw an increase of over BND50 million (AMBD 2015a).

My study found that people tend to delay being homeowners due to the welfare schemes and social benefits provided by the government; hence consumers spend on other more short-term luxuries. In addition, people are highly dependent on the government for housing, through homeownership either under the national housing scheme or living in government-rented properties if they are in public service. It is therefore obvious that the economic value attached to homeownership among Bruneians is not the same as in other free market economies, because the rules and conditions of the national housing scheme stipulate that homeowners are not allowed to sell or use the national housing scheme houses or land as collateral for any form of mortgage or loan. Furthermore, the house cannot be rented out or used as premises for any business activity. This is different from welfare switching or social reform in Britain where people are encouraged to buy homes and use their homes as collateral for consumption and social wellbeing, for example to purchase health insurance or pay for children’s education resulting in less dependency on state welfare (Smith 2015).

5 The Value of Housing in Brunei

Although Bruneians put less priority on homeownership and perceive its economic value differently, this is not to say that those surveyed for this study saw homeownership as insignificant. These respondents would like to be homeowners eventually when they have saved sufficient funds or when they receive public housing. Some 47% of the consumers surveyed, regardless of age, preferred to wait for public housing compared to purchasing from private agents; these were mainly men. The main reason for preferring public housing was affordability while the justification given for choosing private homes was the space limitation and the standard design of public housing. Generally, public housing provision are landed properties (121.5 m2 per house) in the form of terrace or semi-detached houses comprising three or four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living space and kitchen, and costing about BND45,000. Recently, the government has built a few high-rise residential schemes with unit sizes of 170 m2, consisting of a master bedroom, three other bedrooms, three bathrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen and store, a balcony and laundry space. Yet most homeowners prefer landed properties compared to condominiums, apartments and flats (Sarimah et al. 2019). This pattern was also evident among the respondents surveyed, although a few did not mind living in a serviced apartment with proper maintenance. Surveys conducted by the Ministry of Development—75% in 2015—and for the Bandar Seri Begawan Development Masterplan—95% in 2010—indicate a majority was ready for high-rise living (BruDirect 2016). My study found that the younger age group (mainly single or just married without children) preferred apartment-style housing as their first home. They would upgrade to landed detached property when their family grows as public housing is limited in size and lacks privacy.

My study found that those who preferred to purchase and build their own house (46%) were highly represented by female consumers, while 7% would opt for whatever came first. Those who preferred a customised private house would still apply for the national housing scheme as a safety net. The Oxford Business Group (2013) found that young professionals or executives (often graduates) earning at least BND2,500 a month often purchase or construct homes through private developers. Interestingly, my findings suggest that consumers with an income bracket of BND1,000–1,999 preferred applying for public housing while those earning below BND1,000 and the higher bracket of those earning BND2,000 and above had a greater desire to build or purchase their own house rather than opt for government public housing. This is the case despite the price for a private detached house being on average at least triple that of a detached house under the public housing schemes (depending on location). The Oxford Business Group (2013: 145) identified several factors that have ‘push[ed] the average prices of properties to the BN$250,000–300,000 ($194,700–233,640) range’:

  1. 1.

    ‘growth of the economy’ (ibid.: 145);

  2. 2.

    ‘restrictions on land development’ (ibid.: 145) (5% in Brunei-Muara district);

  3. 3.

    ‘increased financing options’ (ibid.: 145) (prime lending packages from financial institutions, particularly banks regulated by the government);

  4. 4.

    interest-free government housing loan for government workers;

  5. 5.

    government-led schemes include the housing fund by the TAP to improve homeownership through public housing or purchase or construction via private developers (ibid.: 145).

In addition, the stringent requirements for bank loans, particularly for big purchases such as a house, and an oversupply in residential properties are believed to have affected the price of residential properties.Footnote 4 The government reformed the TDSR regulations in 2005 to limit an individual’s total monthly debt obligations and ensure individuals have sufficient disposable income (AMBD 2015b). By setting 60% as the TDSR for borrowers with a monthly income of more than BND1,750 individuals will be discouraged from misusing their credit facilities.Footnote 5

As stated earlier, my interviews with respondents suggest that the priority of homeownership was delayed and deflected towards spending for short-term consumer durables and services (Noor Hasharina 2010, 2017). This consumption pattern is further supported as the majority of consumers interviewed (60%) lived in parental homes, including houses lent or rented to them by their parents or parents-in-laws. The presence of an extended family is commonplace among those living in parental homes, influencing their consumption patterns as monthly expenses are shared. The extended family thus becomes a safety net for its members. The majority of the respondents also attached emotional and social value to the house:

It’s [house] a blanket which keeps me safe.… Referring to the physical building and people at home [parents] … it’s a place where you feel a sense of belonging. (Rina, 23, single)

Its where memories are created … we don’t see our old house to be let for rent. There’s just too much memories there of when we were younger … there’s no urgency for me to build a house and they [parents] aren’t forcing me to move out. (Saiful, 25, single)

It’s a space of refuge … it’s a place you come home and leave your worries behind … have quality time with your husband and children … to just be yourself … to chill after a long day at work. (Nur, 42, married)

I have a piece of land I bought from my brother a few years ago but I have not started building a house yet.… I live with my family [sibling and parents] … my sibling is building a house and we will all move to the new house soon. There is no urgency for me to build one at the moment. I’m not getting married anytime soon … I will pay off my personal loan and car loan first then think of constructing the house. I pay for the utilities at home and will continue to do so when we move while my sibling and parents pay for the house loan. (Mohd, 35, single)

Those who lived independently were in government-provided or rented houses allocated for government employees or were renting privately for those working in the private sector. My research found that those interviewed were more willing to purchase a car first and this was mainly due to a society so dependent on cars; Bruneians depend on their privately owned cars to move about for comfort and reliability.Footnote 6 Nevertheless, there is some indication that consumption has shifted as reported by the AMBD (2015a) on a decline in car hire purchases as more people opt for home loans. This is because consumers are purchasing more affordable cars with monthly repayments or instalments of BND290–1,300 as opposed to those car owners who owned more luxurious cars requiring instalments of BND1,000 and more before the 2005 financial loan directive (Noor Hasharina 2017).

The respondents’ willingness to pay for their desired house reflected the value they place on their home. The majority wanted a double-storey detached house; they were willing to pay for a house that costs BND1,000–1,499 in monthly repayments with a total cost of about BND200,000–299,000 (Table 11.1). Those earning below BND1,000 were willing to pay less than BND500 a month for a detached house with the total cost of BND149,000–249,000. Generally, married couples were willing to pay more for their desired house compared to singles due to their combined dual income and sharing of household expenses.

Table 11.1 Respondents’ willingness to pay for a detached house
Full size table

The value the respondents placed on their desired housing, whether through monthly repayments or the total cost of the house, reflected current housing market prices and loan repayments to banks. According to the BDCB, and based on mortgage data from banks, the median purchase price for all private residential properties in Q4 2021 was BND264,000, with detached houses being the most popular choice (62.5%), followed by terrace houses (18.7%), semi-detached houses (11.7%), apartments (5.5%) and land (1.6%) (Borneo Bulletin 2022). This demonstrates an awareness of current market prices of their desired houses. Examining the consumption patterns of respondents closely, the majority used 40–59% of their income for cash payments, comprising utilities, phone bills, food, petrol, and financial contributions for family members including parents, spouses, siblings and children. This reflects a combination of individual and collective consumption and the position of the family as a significant cultural intermediary, both in relation to consumer durables and in housing matters. My respondents found it hard to recall monthly spending during the interviews and based on their current monthly consumption patterns they did not have a sufficient balance in their accounts to purchase a house or to pay for monthly housing loan repayments, indicating that an overhaul of their consumption pattern was needed. A few consumers admitted not knowing the processes in applying for a house loan, the amount of deposit needed, and charges including interest rates they would incur. This indicates a lack of financial management and knowledge among respondents (Noor Hasharina 2010, 2017). This is something the government is addressing today with financial literacy and knowledge taught in schools (Ministry of Education 2021).

As already noted, the majority of the respondents lived with their extended families: 73% in multiple-storey detached houses, 11% in bungalows, 8% in terraces, 5% in semi-detached houses and 3% in flats. Those staying in flats were mainly in government-owned housing or barracks for civil servants. The findings show that popular desired homes were multiple-storey (commonly double-storey) homes (60%), bungalows (38%) and stilt houses (2%). This preference for a detached house is currently not on offer in the public housing scheme, whose properties are commonly in the form of terrace and semi-detached houses with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Hence respondents largely favoured houses with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a living space and kitchen. The reason for this preference is rooted in their socialisation and upbringing by their parents. Larger spaces, the symbolic value of the house, and the need for space for family and cultural events to maintain social relations have been embedded in their lives. The house is thus their source of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu 1984). Living in a detached double-storey house has been a norm and indeed a way of life for many Bruneians. More than 90% stated that their current houses, whether their parents’ house or a rented house, were detached and accommodated their extended families.

Relationships, education, levels of financial independence, labour market conditions, the cost of housing and cost of living are all factors that determine the age at which a young person moves out. On average, Europeans leave their parental home in their early twenties (Jezard 2018). The majority of my respondents will only leave their parental home and become homeowners when they have started working with a stable and good income, and get married or start a family. A minority would consider moving out earlier from their parental home for some freedom from their responsibilities at home, such as taking care of siblings and wanting to have time for themselves. Some stated that though they might become homeowners prior to marriage, they would still live in their parental home until they start a family:

I will apply for the national housing scheme first and consider buying a house, whichever comes first, if I am not married yet I will continue staying with my parents and maybe rent out my house. Once I am married, I will move into my house with my wife.… I think the current house will be given to my youngest sibling as they will be last to be married and will have to take care of my parents as they get older. (Saiful, 25, single)

A majority of respondents stated that the family (54%) is the main intermediary that shapes their housing preferences (Table 11.2). They valued the home as a form of social security—a roof over their heads out of necessity—and for the comfort and approval of their family to visit or stay. Also, they grew up in their parents’ detached houses, which has influenced their housing preference. This is followed by individual choice (31%) where respondents preferred a certain kind of design and space different from their parents’ tastes. Therefore, consumption involves a combination of individualistic but predominantly collectivist consumption (see Chua 2000; Noor Hasharina 2010). The house preference represents a fusion between consumer desires and needs; therefore a house does not have only one value attached to it but can have several. Recent trends have seen Bruneian consumers exposed to numerous house designs through satellite television, in particular Home and Garden Television,Footnote 7 and also the social media accounts of well-known home designers and celebrities who share their home interiors. The preference is for a more open concept of detached homes.

Table 11.2 Intermediaries influencing consumers’ housing choice
Full size table

It is evident that Bruneians prioritise social and emotional attachments to houses rather than their economic value as investments. Unlike consumers in Britain, for example, where people gradually move up the housing ladder, the majority of respondents stated they would purchase their permanent home when they decide to be homeowners. The culture of first homes as a step up the housing ladder is uncommon in Brunei. Only one respondent was considering buying an apartment unit as her first home (a five-year home) and will progress onto her permanent home (a detached double-storey house) once she gets married. Investing in a house is also not the norm for many younger Bruneians except for those coming from wealthier family backgrounds:

It [buying more than one property for rent] is not something taught to us by my parents; they build their house close to retiring. So the only advice or lesson to be learned from that was to build your house sooner…. I built mine in my late thirties … even at that age I felt the monthly instalments were expensive…. It was a scary decision to make [to get loan for a house construction] … but my parents help out where they can financially. I won’t be able to afford to buy a second home to be rented out … only those coming from a rich family or with a lot of property can do that. Not me! (Ema, 40, married)

My father gave me a piece of property [house and land] as he did with my other siblings; I am renting it out because I have my own house I am building with my husband. I wouldn’t be able to afford purchasing another property on my own due to other expenses … children’s school fees, car loans, other monthly expenses and so on. I moved out when I got married and lived in a government rented house. We only started building the house quite late in our working years, so yes, paying for a mortgage is expensive but hopefully the little bungalow my father is giving me will help. (Nur, 42, married)

The house me and my family currently live in was passed down to us by my father. I bought a house using my bank loan.… I’m currently renting it out to pay for my monthly bank loan. It’s an old house I bought from my cousin at a discounted rate. (Zul, 38, married)

Another factor influencing the selection of a detached house was the availability of space within the home and privacy, especially of the living room as a social space, the interface where social relations are strengthened and practised. Frequent descriptions of this space given by respondents were ‘for family bonding’ and ‘for gathering’, denoting the social meanings and values attached to the house. This social relationship involved the consumers and their families living under the same roof and their guests. The house, and especially the living room and the kitchen, should be big enough to allow for cultural and religious family events, which might involve anything from 20 to 1,500 family and friends. The choice of housing type also indicates the importance of privacy for consumers and the availability of space for further renovation or for cultural and religious functions. Maintaining social relations in order to ‘save face’ is a significant trait of many Southeast Asian communities including Bruneians (Wong and Ahuvia 1998; Noor Hasharina 2017).

The majority of respondents stated that privacy was important when selecting an ideal home, including national housing scheme houses. They preferred to have some distance from their neighbours in order to maintain privacy. The house should also be flexible enough to allow for renovations and extensions. The home is a contested space between individuals and community as well as between private and public. This study demonstrates that the home has multiple values. The home is not just functional but is also important for the comfort and privacy of family, maintaining social relations that include visitors, and the expression of social identities.

6 Conclusion

The culture of homeownership in many Western societies is based on owner occupation, where people consider the home as an investment possibility and home equity leakage has been normalised, especially in the current century, and promoted by governments as safer forms of investment and as asset bases have shifted (Smith 2015). Though it inspires welfare switching, particularly in Britain and the United States, by lessening the burden of government and improving homeownership, it has a significant bearing on the economic and social sustainability of consumers. Houses should not only be seen as assets to be used as collateral for borrowing and consumption but also as a means to expand consumers’ financial portfolios. Thus, after the global financial crisis in 2008, governments highlighted the need for some form of monitoring and reform of financial liberalisation. Brunei has a different financial and consumer culture in which financial markets and institutions are regulated by the government. This means borrowing is controlled and monitored, less predatory, and uses the Brunei prime lending rate (about 5.5%) which should encourage borrowing and homeownership due to the lower interest rates.

Changes in perspective on home values is observed with Susan Smith suggesting that home buyers or mortgagors ‘can insulate themselves from risk: rather than bet on the fortune of a single property, you can buy an index of, London or Tokyo home prices’ (cited in Brauman 2010). Nicole Cook and Kristian Ruming (2020: 2026) highlight the presence of second property buyers as part of consumers’ investment portfolios, which are seen as means to secure people against risks such as a property slump. Based on the findings of my research, homeownership is not the highest priority for younger working Bruneians. Brunei is still a welfarist state with many citizens having access to various forms of social protection, including public housing for those earning from BND445 to BND3,030 but who do not own property. The reluctance to move out of the family home is embedded in Bruneian culture, where living with one’s extended family is the norm. Most people only leave their family homes to live independently once they get married and start families of their own. Nevertheless, housing matters and is still important, but the value placed on houses is more functional, emotional and social than economic. Very few of those interviewed considered owning a house for its potential rental value or as a source of income. Homes are meaningful places where people seek to create a sense of belonging with their social groups. It is the ‘hearth … through which human beings are centred’ and a place to which social meanings or values are attached (Rubenstein 2001; Easthope 2004; Blunt and Dowling 2006: 11). According to Nikos Papastergiadis (1996: 2), ‘The ideal home is not just a house which offers shelter, or a repository that contains material objects. Apart from its physical protection and market value, a home is a place where personal and social meaning are grounded’.

To be a homeowner in the national housing scheme offers no economic value due to the regulations which forbid the sale, rent or use of the house as collateral. Yet there is a high demand for houses due to lower repayment costs and their functional and social value. A paradigm shift in the way we see housing is needed. This study finds that more Bruneians are looking for alternatives for investment (Noor Hasharina 2010, 2017). As Brunei gears up to meet its Bandar Seri Begawan Development Masterplan targets in 2035, the government has identified an optimum population size in the city centre to be about 302,800 (Municipal Department 2011a: x). Based on the executive summary of the masterplan (drafted in 2010), the total number of dwellings needed is about 44,000 with an average size of nearly 122 m2 (Municipal Department 2011b: 10). The question of housing supply will arise. Bruneians should see this as investment potential. This population increase puts pressure on available land, and therefore the creation of strata titles and high-density housing (in particular high-rise living) by the government is the future of housing. The problem of housing supply in Brunei will be as bad as that Britain is experiencing where the economic value of housing is high and has skyrocketed especially in cities like London. The delay in homeownership by Bruneians is influenced by the provision of public housing and subsidised rents provided to government employees of any income. Nevertheless, this delay results in higher loan repayments and becomes a burden, especially when people reach their forties and have to look after a growing family. Capitalising on cheaper loan rates at an early stage of employment should be considered by the young working population, whether through prime lending from banks or at a zero interest rate from the government.

Finally, this study shows the complex nature of how housing as a home is valued. Some may prioritise the economic value of the house over its emotional, social and functional values. For Bruneians, the house is not usually viewed as an investment. Because the policy of the national housing scheme prioritises social security and sustainability, houses are more likely to be seen as a safe haven to maintain the social relations and cultural practices unique to the Brunei community.