Singapore Urban Dev

Alexandrine Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Built Environment (1978-).

http://www.jstor.org

Planning for a Tropical City of Excellence: Urban Development Challenges for Singapore in the 21st Century Author(s): SHIRLENA HUANG Source: Built Environment (1978-), Vol. 27, No. 2, Pacific-Asian Cities: Challenges and Prospects (

2001), pp. 112-128Published by: Alexandrine PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23287516Accessed: 28-12-2015 22:23 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:23:49 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/publisher/alexpres

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23287516

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Planning for a Tropical

City of Excellence:

Urban Development Challenges for Singapore in the 21st Century

SHIRLENA HUANG

Following a brief survey of Singapore's urban history, the paper presents an overview of Singapore's largely successful planned urban/national development in the last

four decades of the twentieth century and a critical discussion of some key urban planning challenges facing Singapore as it moves into the global age of the twenty-first century.

Singapore . . . has come a long way from the days when Stamford Raffles first stepped on to its

shores, and has transformed from a jungle to a

bustling modern city-state . . . The key aim of

planners now is to gear Singapore up to become

a top Asian business and financial hub, as well as

the most liveable city. (Mah Bow Tan, Minister

for National Development, in the 'Foreword' to

Tan, 1999, pp. 10-11)

The key role of urban planning in advancing Singapore's transformation from 'kampung to global city' (Savage, 1992, p. 5) is well documented (see Teo and Savage, 1985;

Wong and Ooi, 1989; Savage, 1992; Teo, 1992; Chua, 1996; Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997; Dale, 1999 as examples of more recent

work). Although 'blessed' with an early start to urban planning not long after its found

ing in 1819, the effects of the Jackson Plan of 1822 (as conceived by founder Stamford

Raffles) lasted only for the next eight years. By the 1920s, Singapore had become 'a

striking example of a planless modern city ... undirected by any comprehensive general plan' (in the words of a Town Planning Adviser to the Federated Malay States, cited in Teo, 1992, p. 167). Piecemeal efforts to arrest the problems of haphazard urban

growth (mainly in the area of housing) were

symptomatic of the colonial government's laissez-faire approach to urban management in general. By the end of World War II, the

city area suffered the whole gamut of urban

problems characterizing developing cities: severe residential overcrowding (with den sities among the highest in the world) and

disgraceful housing conditions; dilapidated buildings; expensive and irregular plots of

land; an intricate jumble of commercial,

industrial and residential land uses packed into a small area; traffic congestion; and lack

of parking facilities (Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997).

Today, some five decades later, Singapore still has the one of the highest overall popu lation densities in the world at 5,771 persons per km2 (The Straits Times, 16 September, 2000) but according to Minister for National

Development, Mah Bow Tan, 'many visitors to Singapore tell us that the impression they take away of our city is that it is very clean,

green and efficient. The city is well-planned and orderly, with a touch of character and

some well-designed buildings' (speech made at the launch of the 'A Unique City in the Making', www.ura.gov.sg) (figure 1). More than that, according to the Urban

112 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 27 NO 2



PLANNING FOR A TROPICAL CITY OF EXCELLENCE: URBAN DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES FOR SINGAPORE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Figure 1. The modern

skyscrapers of Singapore's downtown tower over the

shophouses characteristic of

Singapore's vernacular

architecture.

(Photo: T C Change)

Redevelopment Authority (URA), Singapore's national planning authority, in their 1999

publication home.zvork.plax/, Singapore today not only ranks as one of the richest nations

in the world, but it also:

boasts the world's number one transhipment [sic]

port and airport. It is a throbbing financial hub

that is wired by information technology. Multi

national corporations have located their regional, as well as global headquarters, here . . . Self

sufficient housing estates throughout the country

provide the people with comfortable homes.

Efficient road and rail systems take them to work

with little fuss and fewer traffic jams. Enter

tainment outlets abound . . . and there are abun

dant facilities for those who want the sporting life. (Tan, 1999, p. 136)

While 'a superb geographical position, wise and farsighted leaders and a sensible

diligent people' are attributable reasons for

Singapore's current status as a city-state that

'not only works but thrives', 'equally crucial has been the comprehensive planning process that has gone on throughout the

years' (Tan, 1999, p. 136). Thus, in as much as it has been claimed that 'the laissez-faire style adopted by the colonial government facilitated a free trading system' that was the lifeblood of colonial Singapore (Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997, p. 57), it has also often

been argued that urban planning (often

equated to planning for national develop ment ) has been essential to the survival of modern Singapore especially given its limited land and natural resources.

Singapore is often described as a small

city-state with no natural resources, save

for its strategic geographical location and natural harbour. It has a current population of slightly more than four million

(www.singstat.gov.sg) and is located at the southern tip of Peninsular Malaysia between latitudes 1°09'N and 1°29'N and longitudes 103°38'E and 104°25'E. It comprises a

diamond-shaped main island (42 km in

length and 23 km in breadth at the widest

points) and some 60 smaller islands. Reclamation has gradually increased its total land area to 660 km2 today

(www.singstat.gov.sg) and is anticipated to continue until the land area reaches 730 km2,

an increase of 25 per cent since 1967 (URA, 1991, p. 8). Land reclamation is just one

aspect of the proactive and long-term approach that the government of Singapore has adopted in terms of ensuring efficient and optimal development, utilization and

management of land since attaining self

government in 1959. Indeed, deliberate 'top

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 27 NO 2 113



PACIFIC-ASIAN CITIES: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS

down' planning has characterized all aspects of urban land-use allocation -

infrastructural,

housing, industry, commercial, recreational, etc. - as well as urban redevelopment,

conservation and design in Singapore. This is accepted as necessary because urban

planning in Singapore today is not simply about influencing the spatial development of the city; it is also 'integrated into a wider national policy' as it is closely tied to 'notions of national survival and achieve

ment' (Teo, 1992, pp. 170-171). The next section of the paper presents an

overview of Singapore's largely successful

planned urban/national development in the

last four decades of the twentieth century. It

is followed by a critical discussion of some

key urban planning challenges facing Singapore as it moves into the global age of the twenty-first century: that of managing continuing growth without compromising the quality of life and local landscapes in an

increasingly crowded, affluent and cosmo

politan Singapore of extremely limited land

area, while meeting the growing demands

of the citizenry for a more consultative and inclusive style of planning.

Urban Planning for National

Development in Modern Singapore

We want Singapore to have a fine urban

environment, to be a world-class city with

distinctive Asian qualities and which has a wide

range of facilities. We have to add to the existing infra-structure [sic] to support commercial

opportunities for investors. Singaporeans expect better housing, a higher standard of health and

education facilities and wider scope for

recreational and cultural pursuits . . . The key to

that future is comprehensive and creative

planning. (URA, 1991, p. 8)

In response to the appalling urban conditions that characterized the central city in postwar Singapore, the colonial govern ment was forced to accept the need for a

more comprehensive plan to manage the

environment and to control land use. The

adoption of the first Master Plan in 1958

marked 'the beginning of an era of

continuous official involvement on a com

prehensive scale' in Singapore and 'laid the basis for comprehensive urban planning which [has come] to be regarded by the authorities as relevant, even essential, to the

development of the country (Teo, 1992, pp. 163, 169)'; additionally, it has left its legacy of a statutory basis of regulatory control over land use through zoning. It also in

fluenced the general framework of proposed land uses in the Master Plan of 1965 and its

subsequent versions (with the last being in

1998).2 Indeed, in post-independence Singa pore, the statutory powers held by the state

over land use (whether for zoning, compul

sory land acquisition, or the approval or

rejection of development proposals on a site

by site basis) and the fact that 80 per cent of all land in Singapore is state-owned, have enabled the planning authorities to respond quickly and appropriately (or draconianly, as some would argue) to changing socio economic needs (Chua, 1996; Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997) and facilitated the develop ment of Singapore into a modern metropolis with aspirations to becoming a world city, if not one already.

It was quickly recognized that the Master Plan (though regularly reviewed) would

prove inadequate as a guide to large-scale or

long-term public development (Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997, p. 193), nor was it flexible

enough to accommodate the plans for rapid economic expansion and the large-scale

public housing programme that the govern ment had envisioned for the 1960s (Tan, 1999, p. 145). The blueprint that emerged to fulfil this need was the Concept Plan of 1971 which 'introduced the idea of simultaneous island-wide development (with specific areas marked out for residential, industrial

and other uses)' including the redevelop ment of the city centre (Teo, 1992, p. 173). The Concept Plan of 1971 (often referred to as the Ring Plan) essentially envisaged the

development of a ring of new towns (high density public housing estates to accom





modate the masses resettled from the city

core and elsewhere as urban renewal and

redevelopment progressed) around the cen tral water catchment area and linked by a

network of expressways. Since 1991, Singapore's urban develop

ment has been guided by the Revised

Concept Plan (figure 2). While it builds on what has been achieved through the first

Concept Plan, it also provided a point of re orientation for urban planning in Singapore. As one URA planner put it, while the 1971

plan pivoted on industrialization and economic growth, the 1991 plan was 'for

everyone, touching on all aspects of life from business to leisure' with economic

growth being only the 'powerhouse' behind the plan (Keung, 1991). Significantly, the new plans were called Living the Next Lap (URA, 1991) and until Concept Plan 2001 is made public, the Revised Concept Plan will

continue to be the basis on which Singapore makes the 'quantum leap' (in the words of then Minister for National Development, S.

Dhanabalan, in the 'Foreword' of URA, 1991, p. 3) in the quality of its urban environment and life.

As conceived in the Revised Concept Plan of 1991, the challenge for urban planning in

the 1990s and beyond was and will be a

qualitative one 'as Singapore [strives] to be the first developed city on the equatorial belt, with its own identity distinct from the

great cities of the west' (Tan, 1999, p. 148). More specifically, the goal is for Singapore to become a 'tropical city of excellence', an

extension of a vision first conceived in the

early 1980s when the major basic problems of housing, employment and transportation

had been solved, and planners could turn

their attention to policies that would en hance the quality of life, including con siderations of giving the city more character and identity through, inter alia, urban conservation. This implies 'a city within an island which balances work and play, cul ture and commerce; a city of beauty,

character and grace, with nature, water

bodies and urban development weaved

together' (URA, 1991, p. 6). The Plan outlines the blueprints for achieving this by Year X in the twenty-first century, generally thought to be 2030 or 2040, through the

progressive development of a new down

town, a hierarchy of decentralized commer cial hubs, high-technology corridors, a world-class transport system, higher quality and a wider variety of housing and a host of

Figure 2. The Revised

Concept Plan of Singapore, 1991. (Source: URA, 1991)

Legend

£ Regional Centre

(§) Sub - Regional Centre Central Area

□ Housing

Q Infrastructure

J I Open Space/ ' ' Recreation

HI Agriculture

C3 Special Use





cultural, leisure and recreational facilities, as

well as a continued focus on conservation

and heightened prominence given to

emphasizing Singapore's 'islandness'. Micro

planning is accomplished through 55 de

velopment guide plans (DGPs) which are detailed local plans that translate the broad vision of the Concept Plan into reality by laying down guidelines on land zoning, density and height of developments.

The success of Singapore's current urban

landscape in efficiently accommodating its various land use needs bears testimony to

the efficacy of the 1971 Concept Plan (see, for

example, Teo, 1992; Chua, 1996; Tan, 1999) and, to a more limited extent, the Revised

Concept Plan because of the latter's long term perspective. According to the URA, the

high degree of success that Singapore has had not only in solving urban problems but in pre-empting them can be attributed to five

principles that have driven urban planning in Singapore since the 1960s: the adoption of

long-term planning perspectives (as

exemplified in the Concept Plans); the

incorporation of the private sector in urban renewal and redevelopment (what the URA

terms a 'pro-business approach'); the fact

that 'when it comes to planning and

development, all government agencies must

adopt a shared vision that overrides the

interests of individual agencies' (emphasis added); an increasingly open and

transparent system, with all development

plans and guidelines made easily available and with the public encouraged to provide feedback on the planning system; and

finally, by being flexible and responsive to

changing economic and social circumstances

(Tan, 1999, pp. 29-35). Indeed, of the factors cited in the list above, the third must be

highlighted as crucial to the success of urban

planning in Singapore. The central planning authority for

Singapore's physical development is the

Ministry of National Development (MND) which oversees public housing, urban

development, public works and parks and

recreational facilities and co-ordinates and

advises on all the development proposals of

the various development authorities in

Singapore (including, inter alia, the URA, the

Housing and Development Board (HDB), the Public Works Department (PWD), and the National Parks Board (NPARKS)) (Dale, 1999) 'to ensure that the proposals are in line with national policies on urban growth, transportation and infrastructure invest

ments and that they conform with the

provisions of the master plan and the long term objectives of the island-wide Concept Plan' (Castells, Goh and Kwok, 1990, cited in

Chua, 1996, p. 214). This high degree of the centralization of planning authority has

resulted, according to Chua (1996, p. 215) in 'a planning system with almost no public participation, in which a small elite group works in blissful insulation'.

The fact that the centralized nature of

planning in Singapore has been able to facilitate the optimal use of Singapore's scarce resources and the resolution of

development conflicts 'in the overall interest of the state for the common good' (Revised Master Plan, Report of Survey, 1985, cited in Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997, p. 191), has provided the basis of the People's Action Party's (PAP) legitimacy to govern Singapore relatively uncontested since 1959. The long-term record that the PAP holds of

being able to 'deliver the goods' has resulted

in little popular resistance to a centralized bureaucratic structure (Chua, 1996) by con

vincing Singaporeans that proper planning and control by a government that works 'for

the common good' holds the key to sus tainable urbanization and national develop ment. Clearly, urban planning in Singapore is at the crux of national development and is

essentially 'a technocratic exercise' (Teo, 1992, p. 177) aimed at preserving the

viability of the state and hence, a critical

aspect of the government's political mani festo. Urban planning in post-independent Singapore has thus always been essentially planning for national development.

116 BUILT ENVIRONMENT V0L27N02




development and planning in the first part

of the next millennium. After 40 years of 'deliberate urbanization'

(to borrow McGee's (1972) term), Singa pore's urban planning record is widely regarded as exemplary (even if not perfect). However, as it stands 'in the twilight of one

era and the dawn of another' (URA, 1991, p. 4) - an age of globalization - its achieve ments in themselves and the need for urban

planning not only to set the underlying framework but also to continue to drive

(and realize) national goals, present a new set of development pressures and issues,

and demand new and perhaps, visionary, urban planning solutions. The question is whether URA's set of five principles -

particularly that of a centralized planning system - that has proved generally success ful so far, can continue to be applied as

unproblematically or achieve results as

spectacularly as in the past. First, while

Singaporeans have been 'spoilt' into

expecting the state to deliver the goods that will support the affluent life-style to which

they have become accustomed, they have

also become more demanding of wanting a

voice in urban/national development issues.

Second, while urban development plans for

Singapore have continued to be relentlessly forward-looking, increasingly sophisticated and accommodating of the diverse land-use

demands of a progressively affluent popula

tion, the fundamental constraint posed by a

limited land area remains a critical issue.

And, third, while Singaporeans are sup portive of the need to 'retrofit, replace,

improve and further enhance' (to borrow a

phrase from a former Minister of National

Development, Lim Hng Kiang, cited in Tan,

1999, p. 26) Singapore's built environment to

keep up with the demands of a global economy, they are increasingly wary that

urban redevelopment, even in conserved

areas, is resulting in post-modern globalized 'landscapes of faux nostalgia' (Project Eyeball, 20 October, 2000) that fail to retain

Singapore's distinct identity and character. I

argue that these three contradictory trends

will present major challenges to urban

Challenges for the Twenty-first Century

Land for 5.5 million

The main concern in planning the growth and

development of Singapore has been its scarcity of

land. At just 647 sq km, Singapore is tiny. But

into this space must be packed all the elements of

a modern and safe country. (Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development, in the

'Foreword' to Tan, 1999, pp. 10-11)

From the point of view of national

development, Singapore's limited land area has presented URA with the constant

challenge of finding 'innovative ways to increase Singapore's supply of developable land' (Skyline, March/April, 1996, p.4). The demand comes from multiple sources: more

land is needed for commercial and in dustrial development, housing, roads, leisure

facilities, port and airport, while land

already allocated for military uses and water

catchment must be maintained at status quo if not increased also. While developable land has been increased primarily through reclamation and the removal of constraints

to development (such as removing height

restrictions, and having more intensive and

integrated uses), there are limits to both; for

example, buildings sited near Singapore's five military and civil airports can go only as

high as 12 storeys because of the air traffic

flight paths, while reclamation presents not

just physical, but cost and political con siderations as well.

One of the most pressing challenges -

indeed, what has been called 'Singapore's greatest challenge' (The Straits Times, 1 July, 2000) - is the anticipated shortfall of 4,000 hectares (ha) of land to accommodate the needs of the 5.5 million - from the current four million - that the state has argued is the critical mass Singapore must have by 2040 to sustain its economic growth (The Straits

Times, 14 March, 2000; 5 September, 2000).





URA has calculated that an additional

16,000 ha of land (8,000 ha for housing; 6,000 ha for industries; and 2,000 ha for parks and open spaces) for future development will be necessary to maintain 'the same standard of development as at present'

(www.ura.gov.sg). Significantly, the current

population density of 5,771 persons per km2 is already higher than the 5,400 km2

projected for Year X in the Revised Concept Plan (Tan, 1999, p. 22). Finding land for 5.5 million is thus an important issue not only because of the obvious problems of finding enough land to allocate among the different activities without a decline in the quality of life but also, as later discussed, because of its broader implications for social cohesion. This is best exemplified by examining the debates surrounding housing (which is a basic necessity) on the one hand, and leisure and recreation (arguably less crucial) on the other - the two issues that have raised the

most concern among the general population. In terms of housing, 86 per cent of the

population today lives in impressive (both

visually and otherwise), mainly owner

occupied1 public housing (www.singstat.

gov.sg) that has progressively improved in

quality over the decades under an in novative and award-winning housing man

agement programme4 and has so far managed to keep pace with the growing affluence and

sophistication of Singaporeans.5 For ex

ample, large-scale upgrading of the older estates constructed in the 1970s and early 1980s - through retrofitting blocks of flats and individual units with features such as

lifts, open balconies, and extended living spaces, and providing new modern office and retail complexes, bus interchanges, and

mass and light rail transit systems at the estate level - to bring them on par with the newer ones has taken place since 1991, a move anticipated ultimately to benefit 95

per cent of HDB residents (The Straits Times, 12 July, 1989).6 Additionally, since 1995, to

satisfy the aspirations of upwardly mobile

Singaporeans for condominium living,7 the

HDB introduced executive condominiums

touted as having facilities equal to private condominiums but at public housing prices. Organizationally, a Town Councils Act was

passed in 1988 to allow residents some

degree of participation in the day-to-day running of their estates (Ooi, 1990). Rules on flat alterations have becoming in

creasingly liberal, with the latest innovation

being the offering of 36 'white' flats which,

except for the toilets and the kitchen, have

no walls partitioning off rooms to allow residents flexibility in configuring the layout of their homes according to individual needs (The Straits Times, 4 November, 2000).

Since the Minister for National Develop ment announced the upwardly revised

population estimates in March 2000, the HDB has announced that the first four

blocks of 40-storey public flats will be ready in 2004 (currently, 30-storeys is the

maximum) (The Business Times, 2 September, 2000). Not surprisingly, the prime concern voiced among Singaporeans has been the fear that increased plot ratios will characterize HDB dwelling in the coming years and result in much of the population

ending up 'cooped up like chickens in

skyscraper flats' (Project Eyeball, 31 August, 2000) thereby bringing about a decline in the

quality of life for the majority. Taking the

option of infilling existing sites rather than

building upwards would not be able to

prevent the 'chicken coop phenomenon' because, as one letter to the forum page of

Singapore's most widely circulated daily newspaper lamented, one now has only to

'drive to the north of the island and it is no

longer possible to tell where one new town ends and another starts . . . the landscape is

undifferentiated' (The Straits Times, 8 July, 2000).

Trepidation surrounding a possible de cline in the quality of life is not unwarranted because despite early assurances that suf

ficient land has already been 'safeguarded' for housing in the long term to accom

modate 5.5 million (The Straits Times, 14





March, 2000), the Minister for National

Development later cautioned 'Singaporeans

[to] brace themselves for smaller homes' to

ensure that they could still be able to 'have the green spaces and other recreational

facilities that will keep life here pleasant and

meaningful' (The Straits Times, 22 Septem ber, 2000). While shrinking household sizes

(The Straits Times, 22 September, 2000) and a

greying population (Tan, 2000, p. 134) may provide some justification for smaller HDB

flats, down-sizing and down-grading go against what property market analysts have

characterized as Singaporeans' 'strong as

pirations to upgrade. They want to move from public estates to executive condos, to

apartments and then to landed housing . . .

[in 1999, despite the economic crisis], lots of

people actually jumped straight from public housing to landed because prices were right' (The Straits Times, 2 September, 2000).

Ultimately, while the state's plan to increase the proportion of private housing to 25 per cent (The Straits Times, 14 March, 2000) may help dampen some of the unhappiness, it is

anticipated that private housing will

generally move in a similar direction towards downsizing or increased intensity in development, while continuing to be the

privilege of expatriates and a minority of

Singaporeans. In terms of leisure space, Singapore

currently has about 2,500 ha of developed

park space to service the leisure needs of

Singaporeans which translates to a park

provision ratio of almost 0.7 ha per 1000

people; another 2,300 ha of ubiquitous amenity green space (i.e. greenery along roadways that provide shade as well as

acting as park connectors linking parks and

open spaces to housing estates and transport

nodes) is also maintained (Tan, 2000, pp. 208-209). Befitting its image as a tropical Garden City (a concept officially launched

in 1968), the island is also dotted with all forms of open parks: coastal parks, nature

parks, riverine parks, reservoir parks and

adventure parks. Residents of each HDB

estate also enjoy easy access to a hierarchy of parks (town parks of 5 to 10 ha, neigh bourhood parks of 1 to 1.5 ha, and precinct

gardens of 0.2 ha) equipped with a range of recreational facilities including jogging tracks, children's playgrounds, fitness

corners, and landscaped gardens with seats

and shelters (Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997, p. 215).

The concern for the future is that the

anticipated shortfall of 4,000 ha will be 'accommodated' at the expense of the public

space (i.e. public parks and open spaces) in favour of more economically viable

privatized leisure space (i.e. golf-courses, country clubs, fee charging tourist attractions,

or land within private condominium and

housing developments) (The Straits Times, 13

October, 2000). As even Singapore's Chief Executive Officer and Commissioner of Parks and Recreation has admitted: 'As individual space shrinks, public space must be allotted to allow breathing room for a

population denied the opportunity to own

private gardens. But recreational space has

traditionally been accorded lower priority than revenue generating ones' (Tan, 2000, p. 211). The URA has repeatedly argued for the need to exploit 'new [building and in

formation] technology and a good dose of

creativity' (The Straits Times, 12 July, 2000) to find solutions to accommodate the increased

demands for recreational space. However,

while cinemas, shopping centres and theatres can be moved underground (or

enjoyed via virtual space), technological solutions are more limited in application where public parks are concerned, es

pecially in terms of conserving Singapore's natural heritage not just in terms of green spaces but also in preserving flora and fauna intrinsic to the island (The Straits Times, 7

January, 2001; 11 & 14 March, 2001). While technological and creative answers

may ultimately be found to solve the land allocation dilemma, the planners must take

into careful consideration one issue that has

surfaced repeatedly in the public discussion





on the subject, viz, that any solutions im

plemented should not impact on the quality

of life for the majority of Singaporeans. While this sounds reasonable and in keep ing with the urban planning dictum of 'the common good', the discussion has thrown

up a disturbing indifference to any 'loss' that may affect better-off residents. In fact,

the argument of 'the common good' has

been employed to suggest that this small but elite group of locals and expatriates should be willing to make the necessary sacrifice for the majority. For example, it has been sug gested that a good way to make up the shortfall would be for some landed property - recently estimated as occupying 40 per cent of total residential land in Singapore but housing only 6.1 per cent of total households (Addae-Dapaah, 1999, p. 94) - to make way for bigger double-storey flats with luxurious penthouses in medium- and

high- rise housing (Addae-Dapaah, 1999;

Project Eyeball, 31 August, 2000). Similarly, it has also been argued that golf clubs and

country clubs built around catchment areas

near reservoirs should either be capped at the present number, or even converted into

open parks which the masses can enjoy, rather than just catering to a privileged

minority; there is even an implication that because the planners belong to this group,

'playgrounds for the elite few - are growing ever bigger [since] the people who plan the

'optimal population density' will find quiet, cozy [sic] and spacious corners for them

selves, while the rest have to manage in the ever increasing crowds' (Project Eyeball, 31

August, 2000; The Straits Times, 16 Sept ember, 2000 and 24 November, 2000).

Hence, the challenge for urban planning here is not simply physical but political -

that of managing the aspirations of what Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has called the 'HDB heartlanders' versus those of the

cosmopolitan Singaporeans8 without alienat

ing either group, thereby causing social

disunity along class lines. In the words of the Prime Minister: 'If cosmopolitans and

heartlanders cease to identify with each

other, our society will fall apart' (The Straits

Times, 1 August, 2000). Aggravating the

potential of a social divide is an emerging sense of xenophobia reflected in the public's concern that, with Singapore's population growth rate having fallen below replace ment levels and expected to stay that way, much of the population increase will come

mainly from 'foreign talent' that the state

argues is necessary to maintain Singapore's

competitive edge in a global economy. An influx of foreigners has important impli cations for urban planning and development not only because of their sheer presence in

the city, but because many areas of the city have been transformed into globalized land

scapes of commerce and leisure to attract

investment and tourists, as well as cater for

the needs of global talent in Singapore. Previously vernacular landscapes, these

areas are now the playgrounds of only a

small segment of the city's local and 'global' residents - those seen as enjoying a

cosmopolitan lifestyle. Is the average Singaporean heartlander being alienated by these landscapes?

A City of Distinction and Identity

A world-class city must go beyond being a well

built city that works in the tropics. The measure of a world-class city lies deeper than the physical attributes of a beautiful, efficient city. It touches

on the soul-life of the city. A world-class city should therefore contribute to the well-being of

its residents. It should promote a sense of pride of belonging among its people. (Khoo Cheng Lim, then URA Chairman, Skyline, March/April, 1996, p .4)

Arising from the above discussion, a second

challenge brought about by the need to accommodate multiple demands on a finite

amount of space is the question of how to

ensure that Singapore's urban landscape, in

its drive to become a global city, is able to retain a unique sense of local flavour with which Singaporeans can identify. Many contemporary cities have at least three





images -

'entrepreneurial images' aimed at

attracting investments; 'residential images' aimed at retaining residents and promoting a sense of civic pride; and 'tourist images' directed at foreign visitors (Ashworth and

Voogd, 1990). Singapore is no different, and the urban landscape has played a vital role

in promoting each of these images over the last four decades.

Beginning in the 1960s when the urban

landscape was 'dramatically redrawn along modernist lines informed by efficiency, discipline and rationality of land use' so that

Singapore could take 'pride of place in

becoming an integrated modern city centre'

(Yeoh and Kong, 1994, p. 20) to the planning for a New Downtown in the 1991 Revised

Concept Plan 'to help shape a stimulating environment for international business

activities' (URA, 1991, p. 20), urban renewal and redevelopment of the city through the different decades has continually supported Singapore's entrepreneurial goals of be

coming an international financial hub (1960s onwards), a centre for regional operational headquarters of multinational corporations

(late 1980s onwards), and most recently, a

global city of excellence in the tropics (1990s onwards). And, while the degree of success of the efforts has been questioned (see, for

example, Kong and Yeoh, 1994; Huang, Teo

and Heng, 1995; Teo and Huang, 1995; Yeoh and Kong, 1994), conservation of urban

heritage landscapes has been practised since the mid-1980s 'to retain Singapore's distinct

identity and character' (Perry, Kong and

Yeoh, 1997, p. 254) in the built environment as a means of providing residents9 with visual

records of Singapore's unique past (figure 3). By the late 1980s, heritage conservation of the built environment had also become

'intimately connected with redevelopment

strategies' (Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997, p. 257) designed to rejuvenate Singapore's tourist industry by catering to tourist demands for uniqueness. The need for the

urban landscape to support Singapore's vision of embodying the essence of 'New

Asia-Singapore' and becoming a Tourism

Capital of the world in the twenty-first century for both business and recreational

tourists (as explicated in Tourism 21, STB's

blueprint for the development of tourism in

Singapore for the twenty-first century) is not confined solely to conservation landscapes but also includes a wide variety of other sites such as Singapore's premier retail

district; trails in the nature reserve; the

offshore islands; and even HDB estates

(STB, 1996, pp. 30-31). Singapore has also declared its aim of becoming a 'Renaissance

City of Asia' excelling as a centre for culture

Figure 3. The challenge in

conserving urban heritage sites such as Boat Quay

along the Singapore River, is to ensure that they remain

landscapes with which

locals can identify. (Photo: Impact Postcards)





and the arts in the region (The Straits Times, 25 April, 1997), supported by the adaptive reuse of several historical buildings as museums and the construction of a mega

development 'Esplanade Theatres by the

Bay' for cultural performances. While all the strategic thrusts raise the

need for local identity to be retained, there is

general recognition that in the rush to meet

the demands of being a global city for business and tourism, the urban landscape is being transformed to one with which few local Singaporeans can identify. I would

argue that this dualistic thrust has contributed to an inconsistency in the way URA and STB have sometimes carried

through their plans for Singapore to be a

'tropical city of excellence' (URA) or as 'New Asia-Singapore' (STB), resulting in a

schizophrenic sense of identity at times

Singaporean, and at other times more

European. In the words of a journalist who

recently directed an impassioned plea to the

URA not to 'turn Singapore into Little Italy' (The Straits Times, 2 September, 2000) and worth quoting at length for the vivid images it evokes:

Singapore should look like . . . Singapore, of

course, a uniquely tropical Singapore - and not

some poor imitation of a pseudo-temperate

European enclave. After all, we have our own

history and heritage with roots in the four great ethnic cultures, our inimitable character and

charms, our natural beauty and array of

indigenous colours ... So why, oh, why are some

of our urban planners, architects and developers

conspiring to transform Sunny Singapore into

Spaghetti Singapore? . . . We have been thrust

with the vision of being a Renaissance City

evoking shades of the artistic grandeur of Italy in

the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. The Singapore River Promenade is being touted as the Venice of

the East with gondolas actually making an

appearance during promotions. Developers gush about lending a Venetian flavour to their

waterfront housing projects with meandering canals, low-rise houses and all. And before you can say Mamma Mia, a $280-million project was

unwrapped in May to transform St John's, Lazarus and Renget islands into an Asian version

of Capri, a resort off the west coast of Italy.

In reacting to the launch of the URA exhibition on A Unique City in the Making showcasing some of URA's ideas10 on how

Singapore can re-invent itself into a 'landmark city' with 'distinctive and memorable' landscapes that will contribute

to the city's 'unique flavour', local architects

cautioned the URA against allowing the

plans to degenerate into 'a theme park

approach . . . something that tourists would like to see or which can appear on Singapore postcards' (The Straits Times, 22 September, 2000). In this respect, the following state ment from a member of the public succinctly summarizes the greatest challenge to the

authorities in planning for Singapore to have a unique identity: 'Let's be New Asia and New Economy, but retain an Old Heart'

(Project Eyeball, 20 October, 2000).

Incorporating the Public in Planning

According to the S21 [Singapore 21 (Government of Singapore, 1999)] survey, many of you want to

be actively involved and to have your say in

national policies and issues. This is not

surprising, as Singaporeans today are better

educated, better informed and more travelled.

This is also an encouraging sign because for

Singaporeans to be proud to call Singapore home,

you must have a sense of ownership, of having made a contribution. (Mah Bow Tan, Minister of

National Development, at the launch of the

Public Consultation Phase of the Concept Plan

2001, 26 August, 2000; www.ura.gov.sg)

It is generally taken for a fact that policy decision making in Singapore is essentially a closed process restricted largely to state actors (Ooi et al., 1999). More recently, how

ever, as the quote above suggests, there

have been signs that this may be changing. As should have become apparent from the

preceding discussion in this paper, there has

been, on the one hand, increasing vocal

criticism of government policy via letters to the local press" and in internet chatrooms,

and the emergence of single-issue interest

groups focused on various issues, including urban conservation and heritage issues. On

the other hand, the state is seemingly taking





a proactive role in engendering and en

couraging public participation in shaping Singapore's future, as exemplified more

generally in the consultation of 'some 6,000

Singaporeans from all walks of life'

(Government of Singapore, 1999) in drawing up Singapore 21, the national blueprint for the twenty-first century which 'seeks to articulate a vision that Singaporeans can reach out for together . . . for the year 2000

and beyond' (Government of Singapore, 1999, p. 8). Additionally, the government launched a much anticipated 'Speaker's Corner', a 6,000 m2 free speech venue

located in Hong Lim Park where the public may air their views on issues of concern and

engage in discussions with others (The Straits Times, 11 & 31 August, 2000).12

From the perspective of urban planning, the URA formed two focus groups com

prising members of the public for its 2001

Concept Plan review (The Straits Times, 27

August, 2000) and held a public forum in December 2000; additionally, a public ex hibition of the draft Concept Plan - incor

porating some degree of public feedback - is also envisioned for early 2001 (The Straits

Times, 1 September, 2000). According to URA's chief executive officer and chief

planner, 'public feedback would help [URA] find out what Singaporeans treasure most,

so that the planners could apportion land

accordingly'. The URA is also actively soliciting public feedback (through multiple channels including e-mail, ordinary mail and faxes) on its latest proposal to make

Singapore's urban landscape a more dis tinctive one through its Unique City in the

Making exhibition. Whether these are just simply exercises to be dismissed if found too

clumsy - as in past attempts to incorporate input from private initiatives and the public (see Chua, 1996) - or whether they translate into a sincere effort to incorporate the public in planning decisions is a key issue that

requires closer investigation, and presents the third challenge to urban planning in

twenty-first century Singapore.

Looking more closely at the composition of the focus group members (information freely available on the URA website), it is obvious that most of the members are

professionals, grassroots leaders, developers, businessmen and academics. In addition, most of the members are male and English

speaking and drawn from 'a narrow social

and economic background' (The Business

Times, 29 August, 2000). Besides being less than representative of the general Singapore populace, it must be asked how different this is from the past process of holding public dialogues and exhibitions at which

mainly informed members of the public were invited to comment on urban de

velopment plans.13 When questioned about

this, the Head of URA's Urban Design de

partment (personal communication, September

2000) countered that first, the URA did not

really have control of the composition of the

groups because it had approached major organizations (government bodies, statutory

boards, and grassroots organizations) to

volunteer members for the focus groups;

second, the purpose of the focus groups is to

come up with creative solutions and hence

informed members of society were needed;

third, even if the composition of the members was skewed towards the more

elite members of society, there is still the odd taxi-driver in the group (closer investigation reveals him to be a grassroots

leader); and finally, members of the public have a variety of other sources by which to

provide feedback to the URA.

Also, as one journalist has noted: 'Going by the previous standard where decisions of

physical planning are handed to the

population as fait accompli, the consultative

style proposed by the Urban Redevelop ment Authority [for the Concept Plan] ... is a big step forward . . . But it is way too limited' because the basic parameters for discussion of the issue (such as the

population target of 5.5 million and the land shortfall of 4000 ha) have been set by the

planners (The Business Times, 29 August,





2000). So far, beyond declaring that it is

simply 'an estimate for long-term planning' and neither a 'magic number' nor a target

population (The Straits Times, 22 September, 2000), the authorities have not explained their basis for assuming that 5.5 million is the necessary figure to ensure a vibrant,

dynamic Singapore that can maintain its

competitive edge in a global economy; nor has it specifically explained how it arrived at a shortfall of 4,000 ha.

How has the public responded to the URA's efforts to solicit input? According to a project architect (personal communication,

September 2000) at the URA, the organiza tion currently receives an average of 20

items of feedback on the Concept Plan each

week, and this is considered a great improvement over the past. She feels that

URA's 'efforts to increase public awareness

and participation have paid off'. This would

appear so, given that approximately 400 members of the public attended the public forum held in December 2000 to discuss the focus groups' proposals regarding the

Concept Plan. However, she admits that the

level of response could and should be

higher and more effort needs to be put into

convincing the public that they will not be

'placed on some black list' should they

provide negative feedback. Feedback for the

Unique City exhibition has also been much lower than anticipated. Given the occasions

(e.g. Eu Court, Chijmes, and more recently, the National Library) in the last two decades or so when well-ventilated, even im

passioned, voices of the public appear to have been ignored, the public also needs

convincing that the state will listen to feedback - although URA readily admits that 'we disregard the emotional feedback, as it is not economically viable . . . Such feedback does not suit the long-term planning of Singapore and is therefore

disregarded' and at the end of the day, URA still needs to make the judgement call

(personal communication, Head of URA's

Development Control, Policy and Use

department, September 2000). As David

Lim, Minister of State for Defence and

Information and the Arts, has noted:

. . . after a matter has been fully debated, it is the

Government's responsibility to make a decision, and move on . . . (M)anaging dissent. . . reflects a

society that is alive to the ideals of the vision and

working together to find responses to challenges and constraints that are workable and supported

by a majority of Singaporeans. (The Straits Times, 31 August, 2000)

The planning authorities have demon strated that they are willing actively to solicit

public feedback and participation in the

planning process. Only time can tell how far

they will ultimately move away from their

previously top-down centralized stance not

only to incorporate public opinion, but also to allow basic assumptions made about

land use allocation and development to be

questioned. However, for URA successfully to meet the challenge of incorporating

public feedback, the public must be willing to speak up. It must be a two-way process. While the current review of the Concept Plan is a test case of the degree to which the URA will give public feedback serious consideration (as noted by one journalist, 'many wait with bated breath for the final draft of the Concept Plan, due late next year, to see the impact of the consultation process in its formulation' (The Straits Times, 27

December, 2000)), the planning authorities must accept that, in future, 'the civil-society front will be active' (The Straits Times, 29

December, 2000) with more Singaporeans demanding a voice and a role in the urban

planning process.

Conclusion

While there are many examples of well-planned cities in the temperate regions, there is no well

developed city in the tropics that Singapore could emulate, and so we had to come up with

novel solutions peculiar to Singapore's hot and

sometimes wet climate. (S. Dhanabalan, Minister

of National Development (1987-1992), cited in

Tan, 1999, p. 151)





It is true that a centralized, holistic and

proactive approach backed by long-range vision and a spirit of innovation has so far

worked successfully for urban planning in

Singapore. In anticipation of the challenges of the twenty-first century, there exists at the

macro-level a whole gamut of '21' plans

supporting the Concept Plan and outlining the broad long-term strategies for key sectors of the economy. Beyond Singapore 21

(the national level blueprint), there are, inter

alia, Tourism 21, Manpower 21, and Con struction 21; there is also IT2000 (defining Singapore's future as an Intelligent Island; see Mahizhnan, 1999) and a White Paper on

developing a world-class land transport

system in Singapore (The Business Times, 29

June, 2000). At the micro-level, there are

many examples as well. One example is the

recent opening of a system of underground linked malls in the city centre, touted as Southeast Asia's longest underground fully air-conditioned shopping mall covering about 5,570 m2 to facilitate shopping in

Singapore's tropical climate (Skyline, July/ August, 2000). Another is the relaxation of

guidelines in business parks to allow up to 15 per cent of gross floor space for such

'white' uses as independent banks, offices of venture capitalists and patent lawyers, and

even fitness and recreational centres in

anticipation of the rapid shift of the service and manufacturing sectors towards more

knowledge-based activities (Skyline, July/ August, 2000). URA is also moving towards a greater relaxation of rules to allow

architects 'more flexibility in their building designs' and developers more 'scope to free

up more ground space for communal

facilities or landscaping' to help 'Singapore to become a truly unique city' (Skyline, May/June, 2000, p. 10).

However, it is important to note that one

vital reason for Singapore's impressive record to date has been that, being a city state, Singapore has been unencumbered by

problems of uncontrolled rural-urban or

international migration and hence has been

able to estimate, with reasonable accuracy, the population base being planned for

(Chua, 1996; Perry, Kong and Yeoh, 1997). Since throwing open its doors to bring in

foreign talent, 'the large influx of foreigners .

. . led to faster-than-expected growth' which has had far-reaching implications for urban

planning and development in Singapore. The influx of foreigners is unlikely to stop because, as Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew

has put it: 'Now in a globalized economy, we are in competition against other cities in the First World. Hence we have to become a

cosmopolitan city that attracts and wel

comes talent in business, academia, or in the

performing arts. They will add to Singa pore's vibrancy and secure our place in a

global network of cities of excellence' (The Business Times, 16 February, 2000). Thus, one of the fundamental constants behind urban

planning has now been removed and

planners must take a serious look at how to

accommodate a much higher than pre

viously imagined population in an island whose area is more or less fixed, without

affecting the quality of life. Another pre viously accepted constant that has been

slowly changing is the willingness of Singa poreans quietly to accept the hegemonic plans of the planning authorities. It is clear

that they increasingly want a say in deciding what makes up the city, and whom urban

planning benefits or disadvantages. The

way the planning authorities move forward

to provide solutions to these challenges will have important implications for social co

hesion and identity. To ensure that Singa pore can capitalize on new opportunities for

growth and sustained urban development in the global economy of the twenty-first century, Singapore's urban planners must

display, more than ever, the nimbleness and

dynamism as well as a new degree of

openness and transparency necessary to

meet effectively these and other challenges that will come along with increasing speed and intensity in an age of globalization.





NOTES

1. According to Chua (1996, p. 208), 'the abolition

of the City Council and its elected mayor' in 1959, as the first act of the elected self-government,

'effectively eliminated the distinction, in plan

ning and management terms, between city and

non-city. It meant that the island was from then

on to be governed as a single, unified entity by a

single-tier government'.

2. The Master Plan 1998, gazetted on 22 January 1999, is the approved land-use plan that will

guide all development in Singapore for the next

10 years. It is the first Master Plan that is

prepared through the development guide plan

approach (as outlined in the Revised Concept Plan of 1991) which is more systematic and

comprehensive (URA, 1998).

3. At 90 per cent (www.singstat.gov.sg), the rate

of home ownership - for both public and private

housing - is among the highest in the world.

4. In 1995, Singapore's public housing authority, the Housing and Development Board, received

the Asia Management Award in Development

Management from the Asian Institute of

Management for substantially improving the

quality of life of people through its innovative, sustainable and effective management (Perry,

Kong and Yeoh, 1997, p. 228).

5. The continued provision of state-subsidized

public housing despite the high level of affluence

in Singapore may be interpreted as another

means of political legitimization by the current

government (as argued above).

6. In early March 2000, the government announced a plan to include private housing estates in 'the upgrading loop' at a budget of

S$4,000 per home (The Straits Times, 14 March,

2000).

7. The socio-economic aspirations of the typical

Singaporean are often popularly summarized as

the five C's: cash, car, condominium, credit card, and career (although some would add 'country club' as a sixth C).

8. As perceived by the Prime Minister who first

introduced the term into popular usage at his

1999 National Day Rally speech, while 'cos

mopolitans' are international in outlook, skilled

in banking, information technology, engineering, science and technology, and able to navigate

comfortably anywhere in the world, 'heart

landers' are parochial in interest and orientation, make their living within the country, and play a

major role in maintaining core values and social

stability' (Yeoh and Chang, 2001).

9. At the same time, new design concepts and

physical planning strategies were implemented to create specific identities for individual HDB

estates to help residents develop a greater sense

of community in their estates (Teo and Huang, 1996).

10. More specifically, the URA exhibition on A

Unique City hi the Making aims at coming up with

'extraordinary' landmark buildings that 'leave

lasting impressions'; focal points in public spaces 'where people mingle [to infuse Singapore] with

character and life'; gateways into the city to

create 'a sense of entry' and a greater sense of

place; and to identify view corridors and look out

points so that views of the natural and built

environment in Singapore can be protected and

enjoyed in the long term (www.ura.gov.sg).

11. Until a few years ago, the main source of

public ventilation via the press would have been

letters to the 'Forum Page' of the different

language daily newspapers in Singapore. For

English speakers, this would have been The

Straits Times. In the last two years, however, a

few new English newspapers (Project Eyeball;

Today and Streats) have emerged, each catering for a different market segment. More sig

nificantly, all the major newspapers have inter

active chatrooms that have become popular sites

for discussing -

anonymously (unlike the news

papers where personal details must accompany the letters if they are to be published)

- all topics of national interest. Like much of the Internet, discussion at these sites is primarily in English.

12. The Speaker's Corner got off to a promising start when it was launched on 1 September 2000

(The Straits Tunes, 2 & 3 September, 2000) and

was promptly hailed a 'success' {The Straits Times, 5 September, 2000) and even made headlines

worldwide (The Straits Times, 24 September, 2000). Within a couple of months, however, the

press was questioning whether the idea had 'run

out of steam' (The Straits Times, 11 November,

2000) as only a handful of speakers and listeners

turned up daily at the site. It should be noted that

only Singaporeans are allowed to speak at

Speaker's Corner, and they must first register with the neighbourhood police post; while

requests have been made for the authorities to

allow sound amplification devices, these have

still not been allowed. On 7 February 2001, The

Straits Times reported that two civil society activists were being investigated over allegations of unlawful assembly at Speaker's Corner.





13. That such exhibitions are actually part of a

statutory requirement raises questions on how

earnestly URA would have solicited public feedback if it had not been legislated.

REFERENCES:

Addae-Dapaah, K. (1999) Utilization of urban

residential land: A case study of Singapore. Cities, 16, pp. 93-101.

Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H. (1990) Selling the

City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector

Urban Planning. London: Belhaven Press.

The Business Times (various issues). Singapore

(daily newspaper; website: http://business

times.asial.com.sg).

Chua, B.H. (1996) Singapore: Management of a

city-state in Southeast Asia, in Ruland, J. (ed.) The Dynamics of Metropolitan Management in

Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast

Asian Studies.

Dale, O.J. (1999) Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City. Shah Alam, Selangor: Oxford University Press.

Government of Singapore (1999) Singapore 21:

Together We Make the Difference. Singapore: Prime Minister's Office (Public Service

Division).

Huang, S., Teo, P. and Heng, H.M. (1995)

Conserving the Civic and Cultural District:

State policies and public opinion, in Yeoh, B.S.A. and Kong, L. (eds.) Portraits of Places:

History, Community and Identity in Singapore.

Singapore: Times Editions.

Keung, J. (1991) Overview of the Concept Plan.

Paper presented at the URA-REDAS Joint Seminar on Living the Next Lap

- Blueprints

for Business. Singapore.

Kong, L. and Yeoh, B. (1994) Urban conservation

in Singapore: A survey of state policies and

popular attitudes, Urban Studies, 31, pp. 247

265.

Lim, H.K. (2000) Defining model cities:

Singapore's perspective, in Ooi, G.L. (ed.) Model Cities: Urban Best Practices, Vol. 1.

Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority and Institute of Policy Studies. (Lim Hng

Kiang is currently Singapore's Minister for

Health).

Mahizhnan, A. (1999) Smart cities: The Singapore case. Cities, 16, pp. 13-18.

McGee, T.G. (1972) Beach-heads and enclaves:

The urban debate and the urbanization process

in South-East Asia since 1945, in Yeung, Y.M.

and Lo, C.P. (eds.) Changing South-East Asian

Cities: Readings in Urbanization. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Ooi, G.L. (1990) Town Councils in Singapore: Self-determination for Public Housing Estates.

Occasional Paper No. 4. Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore

Ooi G. L., Tan, E.S. and Koh, G. (1999) Political participation in Singapore: Findings from a

national survey. Asian Journal of Political

Science, 7, pp. 126-141.

Perry, M., Kong, L. and Yeoh, B. (1997) Singapore: A Developmental City State. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.

Project Eyeball (various issues). Singapore (daily

newspaper; website: htto://eyeball.asial.

coms.sg / Eyeball / Home).

Savage, V.R. (1992) Landscape change: From

kampung to global city, in Gupta, A. and Pitts,

J. (eds.) The Physical Environment of Singapore:

Adjustments in a Changing Landscape. Singa

pore: Singapore University Press.

Singapore Tourism Board (STB) (1996), Tourism

21: Vision of a Tourism Capital. Singapore: STB.

Singapore Tourism Board (STB) (1998),

Promoting the New Asia-Singapore branding: Task force report, in Singapore Tourism

Conference '98. Singapore: STB.

Skyline (various issues). Singapore (URA's in

house news magazine).

The Straits Times (various issues). Singapore

(daily newspaper; website: http://straitstimes.

asial.com.sg).

Tan, S. (1999) home.work.play. Singapore: Urban

Redevelopment Authority.

Tan, G.C. (2000) The challenges of public housing in Singapore, in Ooi, G.L. (ed.) Model Cities:

Urban Best Practices, Vol. 2. Singapore: Urban

Redevelopment Authority and Institute of

Policy Studies. (Tan Guong Ching is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the Housing and

Development Board, Singapore).

Tan, W.K. (2000) Balancing nature, landscape and

the city, in Ooi, G.L. (ed.) Model Cities: Urban Best Practices, Vol. 1. Singapore: Urban Re

development Authority and Institute of Policy Studies. (Tan Wee Kiat is the Chief Executive

Officer and Commissioner of Parks and

Recreation, National Parks Board, Singapore).

Teo, S.E. (1992) Planning principles in pre- and

post- independence Singapore. Town Planning Review, 63, pp. 163-185.





Teo, P. and Huang, S. (1995) Tourism and

heritage conservation in Singapore. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, pp. 589-615.

Teo, P. and Huang, S. (1996) A sense of place in

public housing: A case study of Pasir Ris,

Singapore. Habitat International, 20, pp. 307

325.

Teo, S.E. and Savage, V.R. (1985) Singapore

landscape: A historical overview of housing

change. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 6, pp. 48-63.

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (1991)

Living the Next Lap: Towards a Tropical City of Excellence. Singapore: URA.

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (1998) Master Plan 1998. Singapore: URA. (computer file).

Wong, A. and Ooi, G.L. (1989) Spatial

reorganization, in Sandhu, K.S. and Wheatley, P. (eds.) Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore. Singapore: Institute of

Southeast Asian Studies.

Yeoh, B.S.A. and Chang, T.C. (2001) Globalizing

Singapore: Debating transnational flows in the

city. Urban Studies, 38(7), pp. 1025-1044.

Yeoh, B.S.A. and Kong, L. (1994). Reading

landscape meanings: State constructions and

lived experiences in Singapore's Chinatown.

Habitat International, 18, pp. 17-35.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg (Singapore Depart ment of Statistics webpage).

http://www.ura.gov.sg (Urban Redevelopment

Authority webpage).




Documents

Singapore Urban Dev