This past week I have been travelling — starting in Qatar, then Malaysia and now in Singapore by bus and later Thailand. I like moving by bus or train to really experience the country.
My curiosity was triggered by one thing: the sight of endless vertical homes — flats rising everywhere, with more being built. I couldn’t help but ask: Who builds these houses? How are they financed? How successful have they been? Was there public discontent, and why?
For us in Kenya, what options did we really have? What can we do to make ours work? I have come across four models and four realities.
In Qatar, a wealthy state with only 12 per cent of its population being citizens, housing is part of the social contract. Citizens get free land, subsidized loans, even outright grants — all paid for by oil and gas revenues. Expatriates, who make up the majority, live in employer-provided or rental housing.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
Malaysia has taken a mixed path. The government runs programmes like PR1MA and PPR while also requiring private developers to set aside 30 per cent of their projects for low-cost housing. It has delivered hundreds of thousands of units, though affordability gaps and public trust issues still linger.
Singapore is the global benchmark. Through its Housing Development Board (HDB) and compulsory CPF savings scheme, it has built over a million flats — housing 80 per cent of the population, with 90 per cent owning their homes. Integrated planning, ethnic quotas, and consistent delivery have built strong citizen trust.
Thailand leans heavily on its Government Housing Bank and National Housing Authority. Low-interest loans and direct estates provide options for lower- and middle-income households, though repayment challenges remain.
Looking at these models, it is clear why Kenya had to introduce the housing levy. Unlike Qatar, we don’t have oil wealth. Unlike Singapore, we lack a compulsory savings system. Unlike Malaysia or Thailand, our fiscal space is limited.
With a housing deficit running into millions, the levy became a practical way to create a ring-fenced fund to drive supply. But Kenya’s model is unique. Buyers pay a 10 per cent deposit and then enter a rent-to-own arrangement, making ownership more realistic for ordinary Kenyans.
Still, the Affordable Housing Programme is not just about houses — it is also building modern markets and supporting infrastructure, ensuring livelihoods grow alongside shelter. For this bold move to succeed:
Rebuild trust. Kenyans must see completed homes and functioning markets, not just drawings. Transparency in allocation, pricing and delivery timelines will be the true currency of confidence.
Keep it truly affordable. Rent-to-own must remain central, with flexibility to include informal workers and hustlers so they too can step onto the housing ladder.
If this is done, the levy will shift from being viewed as a painful deduction to being a doorway to dignity, stability and opportunity.
Finally, my travels across Asia remind me that there is no single model for affordable housing. Each nation builds within its realities. Kenya’s levy may not be perfect, but it is our chosen path. The real test will be whether we turn it into a programme that not only puts roofs over heads but also builds communities, livelihoods and hope for the future.
-The writer is a business accelerator and trainer
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
By Eunice Mburu