How do we situate nature and the environment within IDEOLOGIES/REPRESENTATIONS AND PRACTICES of urban spaces we have seen?

7/31/2019 How do we situate nature and the environment within IDEOLOGIES/REPRESENTATIONS AND PRACTICES of urban s

1/4

How do we situate nature and the environment within IDEOLOGIES/REPRESENTATIONS

AND PRACTICES of urban spaces we have seen?

By Chen Enjiao

I will mainly discuss the use and construction of nature in both China and Singapore alike as

veering on representations of token gesture reflective of a top-down ideology towards their

management. This characterization is, in my opinion, hardly surprising given what both

countries share in terms of politics and cultural environment. Yet I admit that a mass-driven

bottom-up use in China can serve as a sign of good things to come, when situated in a proper

wider context.

More than 15000 people gathered in a sea of pink at Singapores Pink Dot this year in

support of freedom to love. This would not have been possible 12 years ago, not until

Speakers Corner, an area within Hong Lim Park was made available for public activities

such as demonstrations and speaking. Its use is bound by Singapores Parks and Trees

Regulations (Cap. 216, Rg. 1, 2006 Rev. Ed.), the Public Entertainments and Meetings

(Speakers' Corner) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2011 (S 493/2011) (issued under the PEMA)

and the Public Order (Unrestricted Area), a practice that sets the boundaries of purposes that

public spaces could be put to, parks included. From my perspective, the nature and the

environment are mandated by men top-down with restrictions on its bottom-up use in a

typical Singaporean representation, or at least such is the representation endorsed by the state.

A few points to bear in mind, the use of this Speakers Cornerrequires the application of a

license with Singapores National Parks by a Singaporean, while participants are limited to

citizens and permanent residents, leaving marginalized groups such as transient workers

dependent on the goodwill of natives to advocate their rights. This no doubt raises questions

of agency for non-citizens whose daily interactions are affected by policies foreign to them in


2/4

the sense that they are one-way commands rather than two-way dialectical processes

somehow typical to locals experience (even as actual degree of participation remains

debatable)the Speakers Corner was established due to persistent ground sentiments. Back

to the concern of citizens, in my experience, the park had been largely populated with

English-speaking events and crowds, a reflection of different degrees of political power

structured by linguistic engagements.

The eco-city is prima facie a different ideological representation of nature and its relationship

with the city. Yet I continue to find the remnants of Singapores instrumental philosophy

towards environment to be evident everywhere in the eco-city. With its endorsement of

economic growth as a key objective and utilitarian use of nature as an evolving by-process,

bushes are planted between roads and walkways to encourage the use of the latter. Rubbish

bins are supplied in abundance but there are no effective laws against the illegal disposal of

rubbish as would be in Singapore. As was communicated by the team, they had to fall back

on marketing to attract people to come stay in the eco-city, admitting that demand is lower

than supply at the present moment. This was a very curious point to admit to me, because

typical consumer theories require organisations to supply what customers wantto meet a

demandrather than the other way round. Firms like Apple are able to create their own

demand through branding and extensive marketing by appealing to peoples need for

conspicuous consumption as status symbols, but this is fundamentally different from a

settlement decision. I find it intriguing that there was no mention of consultation with any

major environmental group/think-tank anywhere as well. That the two governments had

decided they could push ahead with these supplies in a green city is no doubt once again

reflective of the top-down attitude they bring to bear on the environment. A lot of gestures

had been made to signify just how different this project would bebuilding on wasteland,

planting trees before construction is completed (without supplying its practical rationale apart


3/4

from being one of symbolic gesture)and I sincerely hope that this will be a success that can

be replicated across China instead of merely serving as a token gesture. At its worst, the city

could come to representjust as the bulldozer and skyscrapers come to symbolize Chinas

relentless drive to modernize and compete with its Occidental construction of the West

Chinas paying lip service to its role within an international community and citing this in

their refusal to make wide-ranging reforms in industrial practices. The failure of Dongtang,

an eco-city meant to be built with Chinese and British cooperation, serves as an alarming case

in point.

Unlike license-happy Singapore, China interesting features a vibrant and bottoms-up use of

its public parks and spaces. We had seen crowds of people dancing/doing taichi in parks, in

front of shopping malls, sang karaoke in open air, etc. The Central Government seems

content with such recreational uses as long as they do not harbor any political content, yet

such gatherings and accumulation of subsequent social capital is the very ingredient of a

reawakening, with a proper jolt. Though somewhat unfortunately, most of Chinas youths

seem happier enjoying the fruits of capitalist consumptionspending their time along Bin

Jiang Dao, at pubs and KTVsthan in the midst of nature like these old folks do. Nature as

defined by parks seem to be an elderly-driven affair while nature as defined by the wild and

Chinas landscape can be associated with some of its youths the famed (sounds like

traveling in Chinese, but literally translated as donkey friend). This is thus reflective of an

age difference, and on a deeper level, the lack of support in helping the elderly gain access to

greater plots of nature (unlike in Korea where Ive seen more than my fair share of old

people doing mountain-climbing).

I should like to crudely characterize 2 typical ideologies concerning nature in modern times:

One is to view them as instrumental means (Singapore, China), the other is to view them


4/4

strictly as ends in themselves (typical Environmentalists often accompanied with an

antagonism towards technology). Thankfully, a third way out is possibletechnology that

learns from and integrates with nature rather than trying to control it

(http://100.steelcase.com/de/mind/joi-ito/); and it is only my hope that the Tianjin eco-city

will be a step in this direction rather than both countries walking further along the first path.
http://100.steelcase.com/de/mind/joi-ito/http://100.steelcase.com/de/mind/joi-ito/http://100.steelcase.com/de/mind/joi-ito/http://100.steelcase.com/de/mind/joi-ito/

Documents

How do we situate nature and the environment within IDEOLOGIES/REPRESENTATIONS AND PRACTICES of urban spaces we have seen?