By Liew Kai Khiun
“Rising rents drive the proletariat into the suburbs. The quartiers [districts] of Paris in this way lose their physiognomy. The “red belt” [a description of working class suburbs surrounding Paris proper in the late 19th century] forms. Haussmann [the chief town planner] gave himself the title of “demolition artist”, artiste démolisseur…Meanwhile he estranges Parisians from their city. They no longer feel at home there, and start to become conscious of the inhuman character of the metropolis.” (Benjamin 2008: 107)
This excerpt comes from the German-Jewish critic Walter Benjamin’s (1892-1940) essay, “Paris, the Capital of the Nineteenth Century”. Written in 1935 under the darkening shadows of Nazi Germany, this particular critique of modern urban planning remains an important reference to students from across a multi-disciplinary range from Aesthetics and Architecture to Sociology and Cultural Studies.
Comprising of a well organized Public Private Partnership (PPP), the recent launch of the Singapore River One (SRO) initiative on 13 August 2012 brings hope to businesses along the zone between Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Roberston Quay. These areas, according to the Singapore Tourism Board figures, are frequented only by 18 per cent of tourists. In the words of the SRO pro-tem chairman, Mr Wilson Tan, who is also the director of CapitaLand and Retail Management, the non-profit grouping comprising of local and foreign board members from government organisations like the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Singapore Police Force to hotel chains “want to depict the river’s rich history and heritage”, and to “make the Singapore River a must-go destination” (AsiaOne 14 August 2012). History becomes not just a tool for collective memories, but integrated into part of the marketing efforts.
Perhaps a prize catch for the group has been the appointment of Mr Ty Tabing who has been reputed internationally in rejuvenating the Chicago River through his leadership of the Chicago Loop Alliance. Although Tabing has honestly admitted that prior to his new job, the closest he got to Asia was Turkey, he is determined to replicate the North American experience in tropical Singapore (Straits Times, 14 August 2012). On paper, the SRO looks like a wonderful holistic initiative where the group will try to inject a range of exciting events, improve land and water access and most interestingly to address concretely the perennial anti-social problems along the stretch where its approximate 10,000 residents have to endure with drunks and noise every weekend. Nonetheless, this initiative brought me to revisit not just Walter Benjamin’s “Paris”, but also my own memories of the Singapore River.
Shortly after the formal completion of the massive Clean River Campaign that lasted for a decade in 1987, like many Singaporeans led to believe that the aquatic life had returned, I brought my fishing rod to try my luck near what was then the former Immigration Office (now Asian Civilization Museum). I spent an entire morning with no catch and decided to end the day at the Empress Place Food Centre. Back then, there were still remnants of the traditional tongkang trade along the river where bumboats were used to ferry goods from offshore ships. But all that changed where for more than two decades the entire area became one long stretch of lifestyle alfresco dining and discotheques. Life around the river has been completely gentrified where the original residents whose maritime related trades defined the entire Kallang Basin since the1800s were completely displaced to make way for the post-industrial “New Economy”.
At the same time, the organic vibrancy of the Singapore River has also been systematically reduced by the resettlement of entire local communities into public housing estates in the 1960s and 1970s as various districts of the waterway became one yuppie-tourist-expatriate zone. However posh it may seem, businesses do realize that a completely gentrified area becomes at a certain point rather artificial and contrived, and eventually distancing both the local and tourist populations. It does not help when the emphasis on exciting 24-hours nightlife has devalued the character of the place into endless rows of restaurants, bars and nightclubs and associated with them, touts, drunks, criminals, noise and traffic congestion. While numerical tourist and expatriate numbers may have soared in recent years, they have been mainly pulled away from the Singapore River by attractions such as Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa.
Dramatically rising property prices have also pushed the general population away from the Central Business District (CBD), where according to the Singapore Statistics “Resident Population by planning Area, 2011", the heaviest population densities of 250,000-300,000 are found in the corners of the island - in Woodlands in the north, Bedok and Tampines in the East and Jurong West in the West. In fact, according to the Singapore Statistics Newsletter in September 2009, Jurong West registered the largest increase in population of 10,900 people in just one year, followed by 8,200 in Woodlands and 8,000 in Sengkang (p. 8). In contrast, the population density around the CBD is registered as 10,000 and less. With the peripheral areas like the old Rochore Road estate being made to give way to the new North-South Expressway, the number of ordinary Singaporeans residing near the city is expected to dwindle further. In spite of the expanding transportation networks, it is very unlikely in the near and even intermediate future for commuting times between these zones and the city centre to be shortened and made more pleasant for passengers, many of whom are probably keen to leave their workplaces as soon as possible in the CBD after long hours of work at the offices.
Given the macroeconomic, social and cultural conditions, it seems that the Singapore River, as well as much of the city, will on a routine basis, become more distant for an increasingly larger group of ordinary Singaporeans and even residents in Singapore. In spite of the acknowledgement of the significance of the Singapore River, the organizational structure and modus operandi of the SRO seem to be narrowly business oriented. In addition, despite mentioning extensive interviews and consultations in its 5-Year Business Plan, I see little evidence adoption of more progressive ideas of social inclusion, environmental sustainability and cultural sensitivity. With neither formal representation of community associations and civil society groups within the organization dominated by business interests, the SRO’s “managerial marketization” seem to place greater value on managerial rather than democratic accountability.
Termed as the “New Public Management”, or NPM, this form of PPP that is based mainly on the individualistic consumer-customer centric KPIs mode of governance that claims market rationality to be as effective as public interests. Without the more serious considerations to these determinants, it is highly likely that the SRO will turn Singapore River into another commercial template of perhaps a safer wining, dining and clubbing experience for a limited number of tourists and highly privileged expatriates and so called “cosmopolitan” Singaporeans. As observers like J.V. Denhardt and R.B Denhardt (2003) point out: “Citizens are bearers of rights and duties within the context of a wider community. Customers are different in that they do not share common purposes but rather seek to optimize their own individual benefits.” (60) Hence, it is not surprising to see the persistence of anti-social behavior along the pubs and bars of the Singapore River from customers, local and foreign, in a “community-less” place that has little meaning for them.
Not surprisingly, the image of Singapore here seems to resemble Walter Benjamin’s observation of Paris, where we as Singaporeans no longer feel a sense of belonging to the Singapore River regardless of how many museums and historical centres that the SRO will build. Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Robertson Quay will be reduced to tourist photo-imaginations and extended playpen for the wealthy while real Singapore is pushed into the congested Jurong Point, Causeway Point and Sengkang Mall.
Instead of one Singapore Story, a future Singapore may be a tale of two cities.
Hence, a more urgent task than just merely corporate branding of different zones by a small core of PPP would be for the government to fundamentally reassess its housing policies in putting more ordinary Singaporeans into the heart of the city through highly subsidized housing for the purpose of long term social equality and a healthier geographical distribution. New plots of land that would be freed up by the completion of the construction of the Thomson Line as well as the North South Expressway should be prioritized for affordable public housing. Waterfront activities should not be associated with merely luxurious yachts and boats for the few. Perhaps the state may even consider bringing back smaller scale and less pollutive maritime and lighterage industries that would provide jobs and enliven the area as they had before the Clean River Campaign. Instead of just endless rows of posh restaurants and bars, some of the shophouses and buildings along the river should be reallocated for community organizations, and arts groups. Personally, I would rather that the memorable Empress Place and Boat Quay hawker centres be brought back instead of having faceless and forgettable standardized rows of al-fresco restaurants and clubs that do not seem to last more than a few years.
Aside from the annual National Day Parade, many Passing-Out Parades of army recruits now take place at the floating platform at Marina Bay. The last thing for these NSmen and Singaporeans to feel is that their National Service is merely about protecting MBS or perhaps a revamped and corporatized Singapore River . An inclusive Singapore is one where having a 3-room Build-to-Order (BTO) apartment facing landmarks of the Singapore River is a workable ideal rather than a preposterous idea. If we want a Singapore Story rather than a tale of two cities, we have to put real Singaporeans back onto the Singapore River, the cradle of our history and our future.
---------------
References
Benjamin Walter (2008). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility and other writings on media. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Denhardt, J.V. & Denhardt, R.B. (2003). The New Public Service: Serving not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Department of Singapore Statistics. Population Trends 2011. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2011.pdf ( Accessed: 6 September 2012)
Jonas, Andrew E. & Linda McCarthy (2009). “Urban management and regeneration in the United States: State intervention or redevelopment at all cost?”, Local Government Studies. 35(3): 299-314.
Hall, Stuart (2011). “The neo-liberal revolution”, Cultural Studies, 25 (6): 705-28.
Pang, Ching Eng (2009). “Geographical distribution of the Singapore resident population” , Statistics Singapore Newsletter. September. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/ssnsep09-pg8-12.pdf (accessed: 6 September 2012).
Sager, Tore (2009). “Planners’ Role: Torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities” European Planning Studies 17:1 65-84. Singapore River. Five Year Business Plan (2012-16). http://www.singapore-river.com/pdf/Singapore_River_One_Business_Plan_Small.pdf (accessed: 6 September 2012).