So what have we learnt from Singapore’s urban planning experience? For me, it shows me the importance of political leadership in urban planning. This political leader must be able to stay loyal to long term visions, lead by example, recruit the right people, set a high standard on the people, cultivate a strong and effective administration and defend against those who are antagonistic to his/her ideology. Without a strong political leader who is competent and committed in realizing the vision for the country or city for the people, a city will not improve. It doesn’t matter how talent urban planners are, or how giving real estate developers are, good political leadership and governance are public goods that no technical knowledge or business acumen can replace. Urban planners who dream to replace the success of Singapore’s urban planning in their own city or country must be aware of their professional limitations in making functional and attractive cities.
That is not all. For mayors on the other hand, while Singapore’s case may motivate them to hone their political skills, they must also understand that Singapore urban development was based on a history and geography that is unique to them. A squalor in India cannot develop it in a Singaporean way due to its size, historical moment, social needs, political culture and system, international geopolitical and economic order. Do they have the political leverage, financial backing, local talent pool, transparency and effective administration to pull off a Singapore in their own country? Don’t be fooled by Singaporean state-owned thinktanks and urban planning consultants with colourful infographics and punchy articles. Building a city like Singapore requires much more than that.
While foreign observers continue to harp on Singapore’s brilliance, decision makers in the country may need to ask themselves if the political structure that created the city today is sustainable in the future. As the standard of living rises and population became more educated, people began to find Lee Kuan Yew’s austere, paternalistic mode of governance distasteful. After more than a decade of complete parliamentary control, Lee’s PAP lost a seat to its opposition in a by-election in 1981. As the opposition grew in size, Lee’s government increased spending in healthcare and retracted a controversial social eugenics policy that encouraged childbirth of highly educated women, while sterilizing those who are not. This time, the government doesn’t have total power in the choices for the country.
When Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as Prime Minister, the new PAP leaders following him – Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Long decided to provide more freedom for civil organizations, neighborhoods and individuals. Consultation sessions such as the Feedback Unit, Remaking Singapore Committee, Singapore 21 committee were formed, gesturing a new government that is open to the contribution of citizens and interest group in charting the future of the country. Town Councils were introduced to decentralize administration of the neighborhoods in Singapore. More museums, art galleries. studios and theatres were opened to revive the long suppressed artistic community. Gambling, artistic nudity and bar-top dancing were reintroduced, new libraries and universities were erected, and more parks and sport facilities were built. Two years ago, the government repeal Article 377A, effectively decriminalizing consensual sexual acts between same-sex adults.
This led to major implications on Singapore’s urban planning practices. Nature Society, the environmental conservation group, succeeded in changing the masterplan of the country to protect important wildlife and habitats from urban development in the 80s. The government also learnt to use the Land Acquisition Act more sparingly for fear of backlash. Since 2007, the law was amended for the acquired land to be bought at market price. This year, many government agencies organized public consultation sessions to collect opinions and disagreements from the public on state development projects and plans.
However, some believed that Singaporeans still are smarting under the oppressive PAP administration. Critics in the media and in the opposition parties believed that not only the ruling government fail to provide sufficient liberties to its citizens, the government created more stringent laws to tighten their grip of power. For example, they accused PAP for doctoring the parliamentary system with the new GRC system to put a high barrier of entry to the opposition party during election, deliberately legislate laws that contain words so vague that the government can virtually arrest anyone for anything, and regulate social media to cull criticism that comes from digital platforms.
Further, it is said that the electorates, having their houses, pension funds, healthcare provisions under the control of the government, feared choose the opposition party is equivalent to losing their livelihoods altogether. The tactics of fear and intimidation championed by the Lee Kuan Yew, now dead for nearly a decade, still grip the political practices of PAP until today.
The fears of western critics and local activists still remains. While unsaid, PAP might have kept the philosophy of Lee Kuan Yew who once even prided over his highhanded tactics in public:
“And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think. That’s another problem.”
Lee Kuan Yew, National Day rally speech in August 1986
In the end of the day, PAP perhaps believed that the price of success in Singapore was the suspension of rights.
It makes me wonder: what if the political foundation that led to Singapore’s success as a global city is toppled? What if the opposition succeed in winning the election and unleash the rights and freedoms of the city-state today? What will happen to the wealth of the country, the standard of Singapore as a city, and the pace of innovation of the country in a rapidly evolving world? Can Singapore function as a more competitive, happier without using the political model that Lee Kuan Yew have since nurtured in 1965? Will citizens be happier, or that they will regret for the voted they have casted in the ballot box? In next year’s general election, we might be able to find out.
References:
Binder, D. (2019). The deceptive allure of Singapore’s urban planning to Urban Planners in America. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3483282
Chua, B. H. (2017). Liberalism disavowed: Communitarianism and state capitalism in Singapore. Cornell university press.
Clydesdale, H. (n.d.). Singapore: Tough love in the nanny state. Asia Society. https://asiasociety.org/education/singapore-tough-love-nanny-state
Frost, M. R., & Balasingamchow, Y.-M. (2013). Singapore: A Biography. Didier Millet.
George, C. (2020). Air-Conditioned Nation Revisited: Essays on Singapore Politics. Ethos Books.
Heng, C. K. (2017). 50 years of Urban Planning in Singapore. World Scientific Publishing Company.
Perry, M., Kong, L., & A., Y. B. S. (1997). Singapore: A developmental city state. Wiley.
Planning singapore: The experimental city. (2021). . ROUTLEDGE.
Soh, D. (2021, August 21). HDB public housing 1960 – 1980: The first two decades. Docomomo Singapore. https://www.docomomo.sg/happenings/hdb-public-housing-1960-1980-the-first-two-decades
Thum, P. T. (2017, September 9). The show with PJ Thum . YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdIOk0jXApA&list=PLK5zBmY5nk_oFWjcoAnnLV18erJX3gqcL
Footnotes:
[1] Deng Xiaoping admired Singapore so much that China became to first country to invite Singapore to build a new city for China in the early 90s. More will be talked about in another blog.
[2] The locals who call someone “kiasu” (or “afraid to lose” in Hokkien) as a diss someone or someone’s parent who is competitive or is a hustler.
[3] In fact, Singapore used this excuse to tramp down dissidents until the end of the Cold War. The last one happened in 1987, when the government detained 12 people without trial, accusing them of engaging in “Marxist conspiracy”. After the Cold War, the Singapore government used softer justifications to silent political dissent.
[4] For the curious minds, they are MacPherson, Alexandra, St. Michael’s (today’s Whampoa), Selegie House, Cantonment Road. Many of the buildings have been demolished or undergoing demolishment.
Randolph Yew 
Leave a comment