- Email: [email protected]
National identity, public housing and conservation in Singapore
HABITAT
INTL.
Vol. 18. No. 2, pp. 71-80. 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. 0197-3975/94 $7.00+0.00
0197-3975(94)EOOl%Q
National Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singapore GIOK LING 001 Institute of Policy Studies, Hon Sui Sen Memorial Library Building, Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 0511
ABSTRACT
Nation-building and the forging of a national identity have preoccupied the governments of young nation-states such as the newly industrialising city-state of Singapore almost as much as economic growth and development. Such nationbuilding effort has been particularly important in Singapore’s case because of its multi-racial society. While national identity has primarily been defined in abstract and intangible terms, this paper presents evidence to show that urban development and features of the built environment can be powerful contributing forces because of their importance in the perception of people among whom national identity is being forged.
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the role contributed to nation-building and the establishment of a national identity by the planning of the built environment in the citystate of Singapore. Singapore is a newly industrialising country with a relatively short history as a self-governing state. It won independence from British colonial rule only in 1959 and separation from its brief union with Malaysia in 1965. Not surprisingly, the government has been concerned about establishing a national identity and nation-building during the past three decades. National identity has primarily been defined in abstract and intangible terms. Definitions have emphasised common ideologies and values. One researcher has listed the most important elements of the Singaporean identity as being subsumed under multiracialism, multilingualism, multiculturalism and multireligiosity. Apart from such proposals which underline the significance of non-material things in defining national identity, the importance of national symbols and institutions have also been stressed in the evolution of a national identity.2 This implies that a mix of tangible and intangible symbols can contribute to a people’s sense of nationhood and, hence, national identity. In Singapore, the political leadership has had to forge a national identity that has relevance and is meaningful to different ethnic groups and cultures. The recent debate on national ideology in Singapore has brought to the surface varying opinions on its substance. A personal view of the values which such an ideology should include was presented by the former Minister of Trade and Industry, Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Loong who identified four core values - community over self; upholding the family as the basic building block of society; resolving major issues through consensus instead of contention; and stressing racial and religious tolerance and harmony.3 Subsequently, a set 71
of four shared values has been proposed by the Prime Minister and debated in Parliament - nation before community and society above self; family as the basic unit of society; community support and respect for the individual; and consensus not conflict. The debate on the components of a national ideology and the need for such an ideology is not unique to Singapore. A number of other nations, many with multi-ethnic populations, have developed their own ideologies, with the aim of providing guidelines for citizens’ behaviour. 4 These ideologies or values have been introduced by political leaders for the specific purpose of instilling in the people a sense of nationhood. Various tools have been used in nation-building. The instruments of nationbuilding include a host of policies including the tangible and highly visible achievements in public housing in Singapore. Similar to other young nations, its physical development other than public housing has been a source of national pride to the leadership - its international airport, tall buildings’ housing ministries and statutory boards, hotels and shopping centers. While the 1960s to 1980s were decades when the city-state concentrated on new construction and a high-rise and high-density urban environment, the latter part of the 1980s saw an unprecedented interest on the part of the government in the preservation of historical buildings and areas, Practically every city and nation in the world boasts its monuments and buildings of either national or historical significance. Apart from being of great value as tourist attractions, these aspects of the built environment are generally a source of pride to the nations in which they are located. In many instances, these monuments and buildings are symbols which the public has long linked with the respective cities and countries in which they are located. Just to name a few, there is the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and Westminster, St Paul’s Cathedral, the Parthenon in Athens, St Peter’s Cathedral and Vatican City in Italy, its falling tower of Pisa, Borobodur of Indonesia, Angkor Wat in Kampuchea, the Statue of Liberty in the United States and the White House. In essence, the monuments and buildings which form part of the built environment in these cities and countries are national symbols. They contribute significantly to national identity. In many instances, they continue to house the governments of nations or have been put up to commemorate significant events which have taken place in the nation. In Singapore, the public sector or government has assumed a major role in the development of the built environment.” It is not surprising that the public sector has also taken the lead in both the development of buildings of national significance and the preservation of those with historical significance. While there is no one single plan as such which has consciously linked the development of the city-state’s built environment to the forging of a national identity, it is the aim of this paper to discuss the importance of the built environment as part of the city-state’s identity. This discussion highlights the old and new features of the built environment which have been important to the Singapore’s nation-building efforts and the crafting of a national identity. There are two parts to the discussion - first a focus on aspects of the built environment which have served as tools of nationbuilding, and second the views of people on the preservation and conservation of monuments, old buildings and neighbourhoods currently being undertaken by the government. PUBLIC HOUSING AS A NATION-BUILDING TOOL The achievements estates distributed
in public housing are highly visible in the new towns and throughout Singapore. There is a view that public housing
Naiionui Idenrii.y, Public Housing and Consetvarion in Singapore
73
has been one of the major instruments
employed by the PAP (People’s Action Party) government to promote the development of a sense of national identity among Singaporeans ,(‘jWhen the PAP was contesting the general election in 1959, it promised to solve the severe housing problem if elected. In the following discussion, the nation-building role of public housing is examined. The aim of providing public housing in Singapore has been explained in the following terms, The fundamental aim of the present government from the inception of its public housing programme has been the creation of a nation whose people have homes they are proud to call their own. The underlying philosophy is that if one owns an asset in the country, one would stand to defend it.7
Public housing is extremely significant to the Singaporean population since it accommodates 86% of the people in this city-state. Housing allocation schemes which have been introduced by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) have emphasised home ownership and the support of what the HDB officials refer to as the family institution. To quote Chong et al., A major challenge to the HDB lies in the desire to devise the right schemes and policies that will ultimately place, in the hands of the deserving public housing applicants, the keys to their new homes. The need for rigorously formulated schemes and policies arises from four factors often associated with a good public housing programme. Firstly, there must be equity so that public resources ploughed into the housing programme are fairly distributed; thus, the need for rules and procedures to determine who gets a flat at which point in time. Secondly, it should benefit the majority of the population and thus involves the processing of large numbers. This calls for strict procedures to maintain efficiency, reduce errors and prevent abuse. Thirdly, it should offer some degree of choice in the location and type of public housing . . ., and finally, the existence of special groups requiring priority or special assistance in obtaining public housing complicates the task of maintaining equity at the broader level. *
Normally, only family units are eligible for public housing flats. An exception would be the housing of the elderly. A range of housing schemes has been formulated to promote the extended family in the 1970s and 1980s because of the government’s concern over the trend towards the formation of nuclear households as more and more Singaporeans opt to live apart from their parents after marriage. In some of the housing schemes, married children have been encouraged to either stay with or near their parents through various incentives such as priority in the allocation of flats. Through the public housing programme, ethnically mixed residential neighbourhoods have also evolved. Although there was originally no overt public housing sales policy regarding ethnic mix, this was changed when a new allocation and resale policy was introduced in 1989 to maintain ethnic heterogeneity in housing estates. The policy has aimed at a residential structure which basically differs from the ethnic clustering encouraged by the British colonial administration. Colonial policy is reflected in Raffles’ dictum that “, . . the separate nationalities and provincial groups should inhabit distinct areas of the town. . , .“9 In the current public housing flat allocation and resale policy aimed at fostering racial tolerance and harmony, the limits on the proportions of various ethnic groups in a neighbourhood as well as each block of flats are shown in Table 1. These proportions set the ceiling levels beyond which residents of the particular ethnic group would not be able to move into the block or neighbourhood. The impact of such a policy would be to foster a new consciousness among the public
74
Giok Ling Ooi Table I.
Ethnic
Neighbourhood (%)
group
Malay Chinese Indian & Other
22 84 IO
minorities
Source: Housing
and Development
Board.
Apartment (%)
block
25 87 13
1989.
housing residents of the significance of ethnic heterogeneity to nation-building. While not explicitly stated as such, the resale policy on ethnic mix in public housing estates can be expected to take precedence over other policies which have been introduced in support of the family institution, such as those to encourage married children to stay with or at least near their parents.** Residents wishing to move to stay near each other - like parents and their married children either through purchase, rental or mutual transfer of purchased flats are now subject to the policy controlling the proportions of ethnic groups in public housing estates. Sociologists agree that the policy of maintaining a balanced ethnic mix in public housing estates has had positive results. I1 The recent policy introduced to control ethnic proportions in the public housing estates during the resale of flats has, however, met with some misgiving. One view was that the policy would revive among the people, consciousness of the government’s effort and commitment towards inter-ethnic integration only in public housing estates but not necessarily in private housing areas. In private housing estates, control over ethnic heterogeneity would be more difficult if not practically impossible to implement. Just as recently, town councils have been introduced to manage public housing estates in Singapore. In an explanation by the Ministry of National Development, these town councils are . . . more than just a device to manage the HDB estates. It is an important nation-building mechanism to help Singaporeans to forge stronger community spirit and identity. . . . It would be in the interest of residents to be very
careful whom they choose to be their representative in Parliament. At the same time they should also become involved in the affairs of their town. By voting for honourable, capable and dedicated MPs [Members of Parliament], and by becoming involved in their community, residents will be able to avoid having to pay the price of a badly-run town council.12
Through town councils, Members of Parliament (MPs) are expected to run public housing estates with the help of residents. The introduction of the councils would, therefore, have the effects of making public housing residents accountable for their choice of MP and also the physical conditions of their homes and external living environment, as well as the costs of managing their housing estates. Policies on planning and development as well as management of the built environment have, therefore, been closely bound up with nation-building and national identity. Policies have been introduced which support values that the political leadership would like to encourage among the people. Public housing achievements in Singapore are regarded as having played an important role in the building of a national identity for a variety of reasons. Foremost of these reasons has been the solving of the critical housing shortage which was politically a major problem in the 1960s. Public housing has also contributed in a major way to the integration of ethnic groups in Singapore. Finally, the home-ownership scheme which has encouraged public housing
National Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singapore
75
residents to buy their flats was another means through which Singaporeans would become committed to and given a stake in the country. Apart from public housing and the policies which have direct bearing on the formation of values among the people, there is evidence that other aspects of the built environment are also considered significant to national identity not only by the government but also the public. In the following section, evidence concerning the importance of preserving and conserving old buildings in Singapore is discussed.
PRESERVATION,
CONSERVATION
AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IDENTITY
TO NATIONAL
In 1972, the Preservation of Monuments Board was set up to identify for conservation the buildings which had contributed to the architectural heritage of Singapore.13 Initially, priority was given to religious institutions and buildings associated with the early pioneers but the list of gazetted monuments has grown to include hotels, civic buildings and government offices. With the growing emphasis on Singapore’s cultural moorings and perspective on its past, there has also been greater effort to integrate past heritage with present developments in the built environment. A nation’s heritage is after all, an important part of the national identity. The preservation and conservation of old buildings was originally spearheaded by the government. Long under fire from public and professionals for destroying or demolishing rather than redeveloping city areas which are culturally and historically important and, therefore, a source of national pride, the government has recently drawn up an Island Conservation Plan. In March 1989, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) was gazetted as the conservation authority where none had actually been so gazetted before.t4 The amendment to the Planning Act to bring conservation under the control of the URA has provided fresh impetus to the conservation effort. Prior to the amendment of the Act, the Preservation of Monuments Board appeared to be the only authority actively identifying historical buildings for conservation. Also, until the legislative change, permission had to be sought from the Chief Planner of the Planning Department before work could be carried out in a conservation area. Then permission for the projects located in the Central Area had to be sought from the URA resulting in duplication and delays. At the same time as the amendment of the Planning Act to place the powers of Chief Planner with the Chief Executive Officer of the URA, 10 areas in the city were also gazetted for conservation. Various other ministries and government agencies are also involved in the preservation of historical buildings and sites like the Public Works Department, National Parks Board and the Ministry of Community Development. The impulse behind the renewed vigour in preserving areas and building of historical significance can be construed as both political and economic. The new political leadership has been active in the support of preservation. Similarly, there has been strong demand for restored buildings and the undertaking of preservation and conservation projects by the private sector. Since December 1987, some 188 shop units in the Tanjong Pagar conservation area have been sold by tender to the private sector. The URA received 84 bids for the 38 shophouses put up for tender during the first sale of the Tanjong Pagar project and in the third sale 565 bids were received for 93 shophouses. More explicitly, the Ministry of Community Development has identified sites, buildings and areas that are considered to be of national interest as well as those which reflect the country’s economic heritage and also Singapore’s battle sites. For its part, the National Parks Board, a government statutory board established
76
Ciok Ling Ooi
to manage the city-state’s major parks and nature reserves, has contributed to the conservation effort with Fort Canning Park. This has recently been declared a historical park. A Museum Precinct has been identified around the foot of Fort Canning. This precinct is intended to be the centre of the historical and cultural heritage of Singapore. By 1989, the Monuments Board had identified 22 buildings for preservation, All except three were religious buildings. The three non-religious buildings identified for preservation were Thong Chai Hospital, the Telok Ayer Market and the Salvation Army House. Since then, the URA working in tandem with the Board, has proposed a further nine buiIdings for preservation with another 40 plus pending. The monuments which have been identified for preservation have been of either architectural and historical importance or cultural and social significance. While not religiously followed, the URA has some rules of thumb and criteria used in identification of areas for conservation. Buildings and areas which are part of the historical development of the city would be one criterion. The buildings would not only have witnessed historical moments in the nation’s development, but are also documentaries of the development of architectural styles during various periods of the nation’s history. Rare and unique samples of architectural and construction styles are also conserved. Victorian buildings are an example, as are colonial bungalows. Another criterion would be when old buildings are clustered in an area like the ethnic neighbourhoods. Old buildings are also identified for conservation when they are evocative of the lives and times of ordinary people in the past. The Cultural Master Plan has earmarked for preservation and restoration the area designated as the civic and cultural district. l6 It is an area that is also known as the museum precinct. This plan is essentially for the conservation of areas rich in history, culture and architectural style. Details of some of the major areas which have been identified for conservation are discussed in Sim’s paper which was referred to earlier and will, therefore, not be dealt with here. In its Central Area Conservation Plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) had plans to conserve some 100 ha. Essentially, the conservation of these areas is aimed at preserving aspects of the architectural heritage of colonial Singapore. Among the areas are ethnic neighbourhoods such as Chinatown, Little India, Kampong Glam and Emerald Hill located in and around the Central Area.17 These neighbourhoods are ethnic areas and a legacy of the British colonial administration as has been pointed out.ts Out of the areas being slated for conservation, some 2.5 ha will be restored by URA. The remainder is owned either by individuals or organisations in the private sector and conservation will be left to them. While the Preservation of Monuments Board has in the past concentrated on identifying largely religious buildings for preservation, it is reportedly now working closely with the URA on proposals for other types of buildings to be preserved. The URA has kept to the minimum its undertaking of restoration work. A pilot project which it undertook in Tanjong Pagar involved the restoration of 32 out of some 200 shophouse units pegged for conservation. These 32 units then served as models for private sector entrepreneurs and owners willing to undertake conservation of the buildings. The entire conservation area was subsequently divided into three parcels and sold to private indi~duals on 99 yr leases. Recognition of the importance of preserving the older areas of the built environment is seen in the package of incentives which the URA provides to the private sector when it undertakes conservation work. Apart from its role of designating areas for conservation, the URA provides both incentives and guidelines. Incentives include rent de-control, the provision of infrastucture
Natiortal Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singupore
77
such as electricity, new cables and street paving, waiving development and car parking charges when the buildings are converted to commercial uses. For each of the areas slated for designation, the URA has provided conservation manuals which contain the guidelines on architectural characteristics and details to be observed when conservation work is being undertaken. It is mandatory for people undertaking conservation to follow the guidelines provided in the manuals. In recent years, the URA has also supplied the public with publication materials which explain the signi~cance of conservation. Some results of the effort at conservation can be seen in the residential area of Emerald Hill where old peranakan-style houses have been restored for purchase by high-income owners or conversion to commercial uses such as restaurants and speciality shops. 19 A number of areas being conserved are destined for uses related to the tourist industry although URA has emphasised that the conservation effort is for the people of Singapore. The preservation of old buildings has been an expensive venture. The Clarke Quay project which is the largest conservation project in Singapore has been estimated to cost S$240 million and is being undertaken by DBS Land, the property arm of the Development Bank of Singapore, one of the four major local banks in Singapore. 20 Completed in 1993, the project offers 31 restaurants and 149 retail outlets. Work on the revitalisation of this area was scheduled in May 1990. Another project was the S$80 million restoration and redevelopment into a theme park, the Tiger Balm Gardens or Haw Par Villa. This latter was the home of a prominent immigrant Chinese family. The immediate effect of restoration has been the increase in rents which the preserved buildings command and the upmarket uses to which they have been put. There has been concern about the impact of conservation on development in the city-state. Once an area has been designated for conservation, controls are imposed on new development. The development of new commercial properties housed largely in high-rise buildings has been important to the economy of the relatively young nation. There is a view that conservation will only stifle development. The pressure is for new developments in the areas where the URA would like to see an integration of the old and new through so-called adaptive re-use of old buildings.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION
OF PRESERVATION
AND CONSERVATION
The symbols of nationhood and national identity which come more readily to mind are the flags and national anthems of countries. Others like the nation’s history and heritage which would include old buildings of the state and their preservation and conservation appear to be less readily identifiable as national symbols. In this section the results of an analysis of Singaporeans’ opinions of symbols of nationhood are presented. The analysis is based on the findings of a survey on ethnicity, national identity and citizenship among Singaporean citizens aged 15 yr and above.21 Questions in the survey were directed at gauging the importance of a range of national symbols to Singaporeans. The symbols included among others, the flag, anthem, history and the preservation of historical buildings. Respondents - all Singaporean citizens - were asked to rate the importance of these symbols (Table 2). It is significant that the preservation of historical buildings ranks third after the national anthem and knowledge of Singapore’s history. This is all the more important because unlike the nation’s flag and anthem which have been the objects of conscious campaign as symbols of nationhood and national identity, the preservation of historical buildings or the conservation of old neighbourhoods has not. t&E18:2-F
Giok Ling Ooi
78
Table 2. The importance of national symbols to Singaporeans
National
Not important
symbols
Knowledge of Singapore’s history National anthem Preservation of old buildings Displaying national flag Watching/participating in national
Importance of symbols Somewhat important (%)*
2.9 4.5 8.4 17.7 21.1
day parades
25.2 25.1 31.2 42.2 46.8
Very important
71.9 70.4 60.4 40.1 32.0
*Row %.
In the question on the importance of preserving historical buildings in Singapore, the respondents were provided with examples such as Express Place, Little India and Chinatown.22 An analysis of the social and age profile of the people was considered to account for the varying opinions on the importance of preserving and conserving historical buildings and old neighbourhoods. A comparison of the ratings by people of different educational backgrounds is shown in Table 3. From the variations in the rating of the importance of preserving our old buildings, it is evident that by far the larger proportion of the respondents who consider preservation as very important are the tertiary-educated. More people of higher educational levels formed the larger proportion of those who considered the preservation of historical buildings very important. Income comparisons are shown in Table 4. Like educational levels, income variations contributed to the difference in the rating of the importance of preservation by respondents. The pattern approximates that of respondents with different educational levels. Table 3. Preservaf~o~ of old buildings and edu~at~o~~i level of respondents Primary and below
Tertiary
Post-secondary
Secondary
Importance
(%)
Not important Somewhat important Very important Total
11.0 34.7 54.3 100.0
8.8 29.0 62.2 100.0
3.8 39.2 57. I 100.0
4.0 15.7 80.3 100.0
Table 4. Preservation of old buildings and incomes of respondents
income (S-S)
level
c 200 20@399 4On-599 6OC-799 SO&999 1000-1499 1500-1999 2000-2499 2X&2999 33000
Not important
4.2 11.9 4.4 6.6 6.1 0.3 22.8 8.5 0.3 14.9
Importance of preservation old buildings Somewhat Very important important (%) 52.8 47.2 27.3 34.1 47.2 27.3 17.1 37.5 6.0 2.0
43.0 40.9 66.4 59.3 46.7 72.4 60.0 54.0 93.7 83.1
Total
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
19
National Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singapore Table 5. Importance of preserving old buildings and age of respondents
Middle
Young (15-29)
Old (245)
O0 (3(FG5)
Importance Not important Somewhat important Very important Total
6.4 30.9 62.1 100.0
8.0 30.9 61.1 100.0
13.5 31.1 55.3 100.0
Table 6. Importance of preserving old buildings and ethnicity of respondents Ethnicity Malay
Indian
Importance Not important Somewhat important Very important Total
Chinese
Others
2.7 28.7 68.6 100.0
3.8 15.4 80.8 100.0
(%) 1.6 12.2 86.3 100.0
1.4 14.9 77.7 100.0
The age profile and responses on the importance of preserving historical buildings are presented in Table 5. More respondents within each age category regard the preservation of old buildings as either important or very important. While only statistically significant at the 0.06 level of significance, the results show that the largest proportions within each age category are in favour of preserving old buildings. Further cross-tabulation by ethnicity of the respondents shows little difference in opinion between the various ethnic groups in their rating of the importance of preserving historical buildings (see Table 6). The consensus of respondents from all the ethnic groups would be that it is very important to preserve the old buildings in Singapore. There was little difference between the genders in the rating of the importance of historical buildings as national symbols. Similarly, language stream of education did not seem to have been a relevant factor.
CONCLUSION
Both the heritage and present developments in Singapore’s built environment are important to the efforts of the political leadership at building a national identity and sense of nationhood among the people. Among other things, public housing has contributed to the sense of ownership and residential integration of the different ethnic groups. The government has also recently shown renewed vigour in the preservation and conservation of historical buildings and old neighbourhoods which are deemed important to Singapore’s heritage. The survey results have been discussed and show the public support for these efforts at preservation and conservation. In order of importance, the preservation of old buildings ranked only lower than the country’s history and national anthem and was placed much higher than the displaying of the national flag and watching national day parades. The results show increasing consciousness of the need to preserve our heritage among higher income and better educated people, a trend which portends the future importance of preservation and conservation in a nation where affluence is growing.
80
Giok Ling Ooi
Notwithstanding the government’s active and major role in conservation with increasing support from private sector entrepreneurs, Singapore’s history and heritage preserved in the built environment are important to Singaporeans. In particular, the preservation of historical buildings and the conservation of old neighbourhoods have been rated important by more of the younger and higher income Singaporeans. Gender, language stream of education or ethnicity made little difference. Such consensus between people and government in Singapore can only augur well for the decision to preserve its old buildings and neighbourhoods and, hence, the link with its past and the making of its national identity.
NOTES 1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
20. 21.
22.
“Singaporean Identity”, S. Siddique. in K.S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds). Managemenf of Success: the Moulding of Modern Singapore (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1989), pp. 563-577. National Identity: Its Historical Evolution and Emergence”, Paper E.C.T. Chew, “The Singapore presented at the International Symposium Commemorating Jose Rizal’s 125th Anniversary, Tokyo. 1 l-17 June, 1986. Speech to members of the Alumni International Singapore on 11 January 1989 by BG (Res) Lee Hsien Loong and cited in J.S.T. Quah (ed.), In Search of Singapore’s National Values (Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore, 1990). L. Suryadinata, “National Ideology and Nation-building in Multi-ethnic States: Lessons From Other Countries”, in J.S.T. Quah (ed.). op. cit., p. 40. L. Low, “The Political Economy of the Built Environment”, Solidarity, Nos. 131-132, July-December 1991. A.K. Wong and G.L. Ooi, “Spatial Reorganisation”, pp. 788812 in K.S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds), op. cit. in J.S.T. Quah (ed.). op. cit., p. 49. J.S.T. Quah, “Government Policies and Nation-building”, K.C. Chong, Y.F. Tham and S.K. Shium, “Housing Schemes: Policies and Procedures” in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh (eds), Housing a Nation (Maruzen, Singapore 1985), p. 231. K.C. Chong, Y.F. Tham and S.K. Shium, “Housing Schemes: Policies and Procedures”, in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh (eds), 1985, op. cit., p. 230. Muster Plan, Report of Survey 1955 (Government Printers, Singapore), p. 8. of the Public Housing Resale Policy”, unpublished paper, Institute of G.L. Ooi, “The Implications Policy Studies, February 1989. in R. Hassan (ed.), Singapore: “The Cultural Logic of Singapore’s “Multiracialism”, G. Benjamin, Society in Transition (1976). pp. 115-133. Ministry of National Development, Singapore, Handbook on Town Councils, June, 1988, pp. 1. 15.. E. Lee, Hisloricnl Buildings of Singapore(Preservation of Monuments Board, Singapore, 1990) Personal interview with MS Lai Choo Malone, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. S.C. Tong, “Face-lift for the Past”, Singapore Business, June, 1989. the Built Environment for Now and the Year 2000”. pp. 7686. Solidarify. L.L. Sim, “Shaping Nos. 131-132, July-December 1991. A.K. Wong and G.L. Ooi, “Spatial Reorganisation”, pp. 788-812 in K.S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds), op. cit. G.L. Ooi, “Public Housing Estates in Singapore: the New Spatial Order”, pp. 123-134, Solidarity. Nos. 131-132, July-December 1991. Peranakan-style houses comprise two-storey terraced housing favoured by the peranakan community (people of mixed immigrant Chinese and local Malay ancestry) of the Straits Settlements towns during the British colonial period. These towns included Singapore as well as Malacca and Penang in the neighbouring country of Malaysia. Pleasure and Profits”, Business Times, Vol. 14(9), September, E. Koh and M.K. Lim, “Leisure, 1990. The survey on The Singaporean: Ethnicity, National Identity and Citizenship was conducted as part of study by the Institute of Policy Studies in 1989 with a grant from the Ministry of Community Development. Drs Chiew Seen Kong and Tan Em Ser conducted the study with the assistance of Dr Ooi Giok Ling. In the survey, a random sample of 706 Singaporeans of different ethnic backgrounds was interviewed. Empress Place is an example of a historical building which has been restored and is now an art museum and gallery. Chinatown and Little India are examples of old ethnic neighbourhoods dating from British colonial times which are being conserved.
INTL.
Vol. 18. No. 2, pp. 71-80. 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. 0197-3975/94 $7.00+0.00
0197-3975(94)EOOl%Q
National Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singapore GIOK LING 001 Institute of Policy Studies, Hon Sui Sen Memorial Library Building, Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 0511
ABSTRACT
Nation-building and the forging of a national identity have preoccupied the governments of young nation-states such as the newly industrialising city-state of Singapore almost as much as economic growth and development. Such nationbuilding effort has been particularly important in Singapore’s case because of its multi-racial society. While national identity has primarily been defined in abstract and intangible terms, this paper presents evidence to show that urban development and features of the built environment can be powerful contributing forces because of their importance in the perception of people among whom national identity is being forged.
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the role contributed to nation-building and the establishment of a national identity by the planning of the built environment in the citystate of Singapore. Singapore is a newly industrialising country with a relatively short history as a self-governing state. It won independence from British colonial rule only in 1959 and separation from its brief union with Malaysia in 1965. Not surprisingly, the government has been concerned about establishing a national identity and nation-building during the past three decades. National identity has primarily been defined in abstract and intangible terms. Definitions have emphasised common ideologies and values. One researcher has listed the most important elements of the Singaporean identity as being subsumed under multiracialism, multilingualism, multiculturalism and multireligiosity. Apart from such proposals which underline the significance of non-material things in defining national identity, the importance of national symbols and institutions have also been stressed in the evolution of a national identity.2 This implies that a mix of tangible and intangible symbols can contribute to a people’s sense of nationhood and, hence, national identity. In Singapore, the political leadership has had to forge a national identity that has relevance and is meaningful to different ethnic groups and cultures. The recent debate on national ideology in Singapore has brought to the surface varying opinions on its substance. A personal view of the values which such an ideology should include was presented by the former Minister of Trade and Industry, Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Loong who identified four core values - community over self; upholding the family as the basic building block of society; resolving major issues through consensus instead of contention; and stressing racial and religious tolerance and harmony.3 Subsequently, a set 71
of four shared values has been proposed by the Prime Minister and debated in Parliament - nation before community and society above self; family as the basic unit of society; community support and respect for the individual; and consensus not conflict. The debate on the components of a national ideology and the need for such an ideology is not unique to Singapore. A number of other nations, many with multi-ethnic populations, have developed their own ideologies, with the aim of providing guidelines for citizens’ behaviour. 4 These ideologies or values have been introduced by political leaders for the specific purpose of instilling in the people a sense of nationhood. Various tools have been used in nation-building. The instruments of nationbuilding include a host of policies including the tangible and highly visible achievements in public housing in Singapore. Similar to other young nations, its physical development other than public housing has been a source of national pride to the leadership - its international airport, tall buildings’ housing ministries and statutory boards, hotels and shopping centers. While the 1960s to 1980s were decades when the city-state concentrated on new construction and a high-rise and high-density urban environment, the latter part of the 1980s saw an unprecedented interest on the part of the government in the preservation of historical buildings and areas, Practically every city and nation in the world boasts its monuments and buildings of either national or historical significance. Apart from being of great value as tourist attractions, these aspects of the built environment are generally a source of pride to the nations in which they are located. In many instances, these monuments and buildings are symbols which the public has long linked with the respective cities and countries in which they are located. Just to name a few, there is the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and Westminster, St Paul’s Cathedral, the Parthenon in Athens, St Peter’s Cathedral and Vatican City in Italy, its falling tower of Pisa, Borobodur of Indonesia, Angkor Wat in Kampuchea, the Statue of Liberty in the United States and the White House. In essence, the monuments and buildings which form part of the built environment in these cities and countries are national symbols. They contribute significantly to national identity. In many instances, they continue to house the governments of nations or have been put up to commemorate significant events which have taken place in the nation. In Singapore, the public sector or government has assumed a major role in the development of the built environment.” It is not surprising that the public sector has also taken the lead in both the development of buildings of national significance and the preservation of those with historical significance. While there is no one single plan as such which has consciously linked the development of the city-state’s built environment to the forging of a national identity, it is the aim of this paper to discuss the importance of the built environment as part of the city-state’s identity. This discussion highlights the old and new features of the built environment which have been important to the Singapore’s nation-building efforts and the crafting of a national identity. There are two parts to the discussion - first a focus on aspects of the built environment which have served as tools of nationbuilding, and second the views of people on the preservation and conservation of monuments, old buildings and neighbourhoods currently being undertaken by the government. PUBLIC HOUSING AS A NATION-BUILDING TOOL The achievements estates distributed
in public housing are highly visible in the new towns and throughout Singapore. There is a view that public housing
Naiionui Idenrii.y, Public Housing and Consetvarion in Singapore
73
has been one of the major instruments
employed by the PAP (People’s Action Party) government to promote the development of a sense of national identity among Singaporeans ,(‘jWhen the PAP was contesting the general election in 1959, it promised to solve the severe housing problem if elected. In the following discussion, the nation-building role of public housing is examined. The aim of providing public housing in Singapore has been explained in the following terms, The fundamental aim of the present government from the inception of its public housing programme has been the creation of a nation whose people have homes they are proud to call their own. The underlying philosophy is that if one owns an asset in the country, one would stand to defend it.7
Public housing is extremely significant to the Singaporean population since it accommodates 86% of the people in this city-state. Housing allocation schemes which have been introduced by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) have emphasised home ownership and the support of what the HDB officials refer to as the family institution. To quote Chong et al., A major challenge to the HDB lies in the desire to devise the right schemes and policies that will ultimately place, in the hands of the deserving public housing applicants, the keys to their new homes. The need for rigorously formulated schemes and policies arises from four factors often associated with a good public housing programme. Firstly, there must be equity so that public resources ploughed into the housing programme are fairly distributed; thus, the need for rules and procedures to determine who gets a flat at which point in time. Secondly, it should benefit the majority of the population and thus involves the processing of large numbers. This calls for strict procedures to maintain efficiency, reduce errors and prevent abuse. Thirdly, it should offer some degree of choice in the location and type of public housing . . ., and finally, the existence of special groups requiring priority or special assistance in obtaining public housing complicates the task of maintaining equity at the broader level. *
Normally, only family units are eligible for public housing flats. An exception would be the housing of the elderly. A range of housing schemes has been formulated to promote the extended family in the 1970s and 1980s because of the government’s concern over the trend towards the formation of nuclear households as more and more Singaporeans opt to live apart from their parents after marriage. In some of the housing schemes, married children have been encouraged to either stay with or near their parents through various incentives such as priority in the allocation of flats. Through the public housing programme, ethnically mixed residential neighbourhoods have also evolved. Although there was originally no overt public housing sales policy regarding ethnic mix, this was changed when a new allocation and resale policy was introduced in 1989 to maintain ethnic heterogeneity in housing estates. The policy has aimed at a residential structure which basically differs from the ethnic clustering encouraged by the British colonial administration. Colonial policy is reflected in Raffles’ dictum that “, . . the separate nationalities and provincial groups should inhabit distinct areas of the town. . , .“9 In the current public housing flat allocation and resale policy aimed at fostering racial tolerance and harmony, the limits on the proportions of various ethnic groups in a neighbourhood as well as each block of flats are shown in Table 1. These proportions set the ceiling levels beyond which residents of the particular ethnic group would not be able to move into the block or neighbourhood. The impact of such a policy would be to foster a new consciousness among the public
74
Giok Ling Ooi Table I.
Ethnic
Neighbourhood (%)
group
Malay Chinese Indian & Other
22 84 IO
minorities
Source: Housing
and Development
Board.
Apartment (%)
block
25 87 13
1989.
housing residents of the significance of ethnic heterogeneity to nation-building. While not explicitly stated as such, the resale policy on ethnic mix in public housing estates can be expected to take precedence over other policies which have been introduced in support of the family institution, such as those to encourage married children to stay with or at least near their parents.** Residents wishing to move to stay near each other - like parents and their married children either through purchase, rental or mutual transfer of purchased flats are now subject to the policy controlling the proportions of ethnic groups in public housing estates. Sociologists agree that the policy of maintaining a balanced ethnic mix in public housing estates has had positive results. I1 The recent policy introduced to control ethnic proportions in the public housing estates during the resale of flats has, however, met with some misgiving. One view was that the policy would revive among the people, consciousness of the government’s effort and commitment towards inter-ethnic integration only in public housing estates but not necessarily in private housing areas. In private housing estates, control over ethnic heterogeneity would be more difficult if not practically impossible to implement. Just as recently, town councils have been introduced to manage public housing estates in Singapore. In an explanation by the Ministry of National Development, these town councils are . . . more than just a device to manage the HDB estates. It is an important nation-building mechanism to help Singaporeans to forge stronger community spirit and identity. . . . It would be in the interest of residents to be very
careful whom they choose to be their representative in Parliament. At the same time they should also become involved in the affairs of their town. By voting for honourable, capable and dedicated MPs [Members of Parliament], and by becoming involved in their community, residents will be able to avoid having to pay the price of a badly-run town council.12
Through town councils, Members of Parliament (MPs) are expected to run public housing estates with the help of residents. The introduction of the councils would, therefore, have the effects of making public housing residents accountable for their choice of MP and also the physical conditions of their homes and external living environment, as well as the costs of managing their housing estates. Policies on planning and development as well as management of the built environment have, therefore, been closely bound up with nation-building and national identity. Policies have been introduced which support values that the political leadership would like to encourage among the people. Public housing achievements in Singapore are regarded as having played an important role in the building of a national identity for a variety of reasons. Foremost of these reasons has been the solving of the critical housing shortage which was politically a major problem in the 1960s. Public housing has also contributed in a major way to the integration of ethnic groups in Singapore. Finally, the home-ownership scheme which has encouraged public housing
National Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singapore
75
residents to buy their flats was another means through which Singaporeans would become committed to and given a stake in the country. Apart from public housing and the policies which have direct bearing on the formation of values among the people, there is evidence that other aspects of the built environment are also considered significant to national identity not only by the government but also the public. In the following section, evidence concerning the importance of preserving and conserving old buildings in Singapore is discussed.
PRESERVATION,
CONSERVATION
AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IDENTITY
TO NATIONAL
In 1972, the Preservation of Monuments Board was set up to identify for conservation the buildings which had contributed to the architectural heritage of Singapore.13 Initially, priority was given to religious institutions and buildings associated with the early pioneers but the list of gazetted monuments has grown to include hotels, civic buildings and government offices. With the growing emphasis on Singapore’s cultural moorings and perspective on its past, there has also been greater effort to integrate past heritage with present developments in the built environment. A nation’s heritage is after all, an important part of the national identity. The preservation and conservation of old buildings was originally spearheaded by the government. Long under fire from public and professionals for destroying or demolishing rather than redeveloping city areas which are culturally and historically important and, therefore, a source of national pride, the government has recently drawn up an Island Conservation Plan. In March 1989, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) was gazetted as the conservation authority where none had actually been so gazetted before.t4 The amendment to the Planning Act to bring conservation under the control of the URA has provided fresh impetus to the conservation effort. Prior to the amendment of the Act, the Preservation of Monuments Board appeared to be the only authority actively identifying historical buildings for conservation. Also, until the legislative change, permission had to be sought from the Chief Planner of the Planning Department before work could be carried out in a conservation area. Then permission for the projects located in the Central Area had to be sought from the URA resulting in duplication and delays. At the same time as the amendment of the Planning Act to place the powers of Chief Planner with the Chief Executive Officer of the URA, 10 areas in the city were also gazetted for conservation. Various other ministries and government agencies are also involved in the preservation of historical buildings and sites like the Public Works Department, National Parks Board and the Ministry of Community Development. The impulse behind the renewed vigour in preserving areas and building of historical significance can be construed as both political and economic. The new political leadership has been active in the support of preservation. Similarly, there has been strong demand for restored buildings and the undertaking of preservation and conservation projects by the private sector. Since December 1987, some 188 shop units in the Tanjong Pagar conservation area have been sold by tender to the private sector. The URA received 84 bids for the 38 shophouses put up for tender during the first sale of the Tanjong Pagar project and in the third sale 565 bids were received for 93 shophouses. More explicitly, the Ministry of Community Development has identified sites, buildings and areas that are considered to be of national interest as well as those which reflect the country’s economic heritage and also Singapore’s battle sites. For its part, the National Parks Board, a government statutory board established
76
Ciok Ling Ooi
to manage the city-state’s major parks and nature reserves, has contributed to the conservation effort with Fort Canning Park. This has recently been declared a historical park. A Museum Precinct has been identified around the foot of Fort Canning. This precinct is intended to be the centre of the historical and cultural heritage of Singapore. By 1989, the Monuments Board had identified 22 buildings for preservation, All except three were religious buildings. The three non-religious buildings identified for preservation were Thong Chai Hospital, the Telok Ayer Market and the Salvation Army House. Since then, the URA working in tandem with the Board, has proposed a further nine buiIdings for preservation with another 40 plus pending. The monuments which have been identified for preservation have been of either architectural and historical importance or cultural and social significance. While not religiously followed, the URA has some rules of thumb and criteria used in identification of areas for conservation. Buildings and areas which are part of the historical development of the city would be one criterion. The buildings would not only have witnessed historical moments in the nation’s development, but are also documentaries of the development of architectural styles during various periods of the nation’s history. Rare and unique samples of architectural and construction styles are also conserved. Victorian buildings are an example, as are colonial bungalows. Another criterion would be when old buildings are clustered in an area like the ethnic neighbourhoods. Old buildings are also identified for conservation when they are evocative of the lives and times of ordinary people in the past. The Cultural Master Plan has earmarked for preservation and restoration the area designated as the civic and cultural district. l6 It is an area that is also known as the museum precinct. This plan is essentially for the conservation of areas rich in history, culture and architectural style. Details of some of the major areas which have been identified for conservation are discussed in Sim’s paper which was referred to earlier and will, therefore, not be dealt with here. In its Central Area Conservation Plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) had plans to conserve some 100 ha. Essentially, the conservation of these areas is aimed at preserving aspects of the architectural heritage of colonial Singapore. Among the areas are ethnic neighbourhoods such as Chinatown, Little India, Kampong Glam and Emerald Hill located in and around the Central Area.17 These neighbourhoods are ethnic areas and a legacy of the British colonial administration as has been pointed out.ts Out of the areas being slated for conservation, some 2.5 ha will be restored by URA. The remainder is owned either by individuals or organisations in the private sector and conservation will be left to them. While the Preservation of Monuments Board has in the past concentrated on identifying largely religious buildings for preservation, it is reportedly now working closely with the URA on proposals for other types of buildings to be preserved. The URA has kept to the minimum its undertaking of restoration work. A pilot project which it undertook in Tanjong Pagar involved the restoration of 32 out of some 200 shophouse units pegged for conservation. These 32 units then served as models for private sector entrepreneurs and owners willing to undertake conservation of the buildings. The entire conservation area was subsequently divided into three parcels and sold to private indi~duals on 99 yr leases. Recognition of the importance of preserving the older areas of the built environment is seen in the package of incentives which the URA provides to the private sector when it undertakes conservation work. Apart from its role of designating areas for conservation, the URA provides both incentives and guidelines. Incentives include rent de-control, the provision of infrastucture
Natiortal Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singupore
77
such as electricity, new cables and street paving, waiving development and car parking charges when the buildings are converted to commercial uses. For each of the areas slated for designation, the URA has provided conservation manuals which contain the guidelines on architectural characteristics and details to be observed when conservation work is being undertaken. It is mandatory for people undertaking conservation to follow the guidelines provided in the manuals. In recent years, the URA has also supplied the public with publication materials which explain the signi~cance of conservation. Some results of the effort at conservation can be seen in the residential area of Emerald Hill where old peranakan-style houses have been restored for purchase by high-income owners or conversion to commercial uses such as restaurants and speciality shops. 19 A number of areas being conserved are destined for uses related to the tourist industry although URA has emphasised that the conservation effort is for the people of Singapore. The preservation of old buildings has been an expensive venture. The Clarke Quay project which is the largest conservation project in Singapore has been estimated to cost S$240 million and is being undertaken by DBS Land, the property arm of the Development Bank of Singapore, one of the four major local banks in Singapore. 20 Completed in 1993, the project offers 31 restaurants and 149 retail outlets. Work on the revitalisation of this area was scheduled in May 1990. Another project was the S$80 million restoration and redevelopment into a theme park, the Tiger Balm Gardens or Haw Par Villa. This latter was the home of a prominent immigrant Chinese family. The immediate effect of restoration has been the increase in rents which the preserved buildings command and the upmarket uses to which they have been put. There has been concern about the impact of conservation on development in the city-state. Once an area has been designated for conservation, controls are imposed on new development. The development of new commercial properties housed largely in high-rise buildings has been important to the economy of the relatively young nation. There is a view that conservation will only stifle development. The pressure is for new developments in the areas where the URA would like to see an integration of the old and new through so-called adaptive re-use of old buildings.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION
OF PRESERVATION
AND CONSERVATION
The symbols of nationhood and national identity which come more readily to mind are the flags and national anthems of countries. Others like the nation’s history and heritage which would include old buildings of the state and their preservation and conservation appear to be less readily identifiable as national symbols. In this section the results of an analysis of Singaporeans’ opinions of symbols of nationhood are presented. The analysis is based on the findings of a survey on ethnicity, national identity and citizenship among Singaporean citizens aged 15 yr and above.21 Questions in the survey were directed at gauging the importance of a range of national symbols to Singaporeans. The symbols included among others, the flag, anthem, history and the preservation of historical buildings. Respondents - all Singaporean citizens - were asked to rate the importance of these symbols (Table 2). It is significant that the preservation of historical buildings ranks third after the national anthem and knowledge of Singapore’s history. This is all the more important because unlike the nation’s flag and anthem which have been the objects of conscious campaign as symbols of nationhood and national identity, the preservation of historical buildings or the conservation of old neighbourhoods has not. t&E18:2-F
Giok Ling Ooi
78
Table 2. The importance of national symbols to Singaporeans
National
Not important
symbols
Knowledge of Singapore’s history National anthem Preservation of old buildings Displaying national flag Watching/participating in national
Importance of symbols Somewhat important (%)*
2.9 4.5 8.4 17.7 21.1
day parades
25.2 25.1 31.2 42.2 46.8
Very important
71.9 70.4 60.4 40.1 32.0
*Row %.
In the question on the importance of preserving historical buildings in Singapore, the respondents were provided with examples such as Express Place, Little India and Chinatown.22 An analysis of the social and age profile of the people was considered to account for the varying opinions on the importance of preserving and conserving historical buildings and old neighbourhoods. A comparison of the ratings by people of different educational backgrounds is shown in Table 3. From the variations in the rating of the importance of preserving our old buildings, it is evident that by far the larger proportion of the respondents who consider preservation as very important are the tertiary-educated. More people of higher educational levels formed the larger proportion of those who considered the preservation of historical buildings very important. Income comparisons are shown in Table 4. Like educational levels, income variations contributed to the difference in the rating of the importance of preservation by respondents. The pattern approximates that of respondents with different educational levels. Table 3. Preservaf~o~ of old buildings and edu~at~o~~i level of respondents Primary and below
Tertiary
Post-secondary
Secondary
Importance
(%)
Not important Somewhat important Very important Total
11.0 34.7 54.3 100.0
8.8 29.0 62.2 100.0
3.8 39.2 57. I 100.0
4.0 15.7 80.3 100.0
Table 4. Preservation of old buildings and incomes of respondents
income (S-S)
level
c 200 20@399 4On-599 6OC-799 SO&999 1000-1499 1500-1999 2000-2499 2X&2999 33000
Not important
4.2 11.9 4.4 6.6 6.1 0.3 22.8 8.5 0.3 14.9
Importance of preservation old buildings Somewhat Very important important (%) 52.8 47.2 27.3 34.1 47.2 27.3 17.1 37.5 6.0 2.0
43.0 40.9 66.4 59.3 46.7 72.4 60.0 54.0 93.7 83.1
Total
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
19
National Identity, Public Housing and Conservation in Singapore Table 5. Importance of preserving old buildings and age of respondents
Middle
Young (15-29)
Old (245)
O0 (3(FG5)
Importance Not important Somewhat important Very important Total
6.4 30.9 62.1 100.0
8.0 30.9 61.1 100.0
13.5 31.1 55.3 100.0
Table 6. Importance of preserving old buildings and ethnicity of respondents Ethnicity Malay
Indian
Importance Not important Somewhat important Very important Total
Chinese
Others
2.7 28.7 68.6 100.0
3.8 15.4 80.8 100.0
(%) 1.6 12.2 86.3 100.0
1.4 14.9 77.7 100.0
The age profile and responses on the importance of preserving historical buildings are presented in Table 5. More respondents within each age category regard the preservation of old buildings as either important or very important. While only statistically significant at the 0.06 level of significance, the results show that the largest proportions within each age category are in favour of preserving old buildings. Further cross-tabulation by ethnicity of the respondents shows little difference in opinion between the various ethnic groups in their rating of the importance of preserving historical buildings (see Table 6). The consensus of respondents from all the ethnic groups would be that it is very important to preserve the old buildings in Singapore. There was little difference between the genders in the rating of the importance of historical buildings as national symbols. Similarly, language stream of education did not seem to have been a relevant factor.
CONCLUSION
Both the heritage and present developments in Singapore’s built environment are important to the efforts of the political leadership at building a national identity and sense of nationhood among the people. Among other things, public housing has contributed to the sense of ownership and residential integration of the different ethnic groups. The government has also recently shown renewed vigour in the preservation and conservation of historical buildings and old neighbourhoods which are deemed important to Singapore’s heritage. The survey results have been discussed and show the public support for these efforts at preservation and conservation. In order of importance, the preservation of old buildings ranked only lower than the country’s history and national anthem and was placed much higher than the displaying of the national flag and watching national day parades. The results show increasing consciousness of the need to preserve our heritage among higher income and better educated people, a trend which portends the future importance of preservation and conservation in a nation where affluence is growing.
80
Giok Ling Ooi
Notwithstanding the government’s active and major role in conservation with increasing support from private sector entrepreneurs, Singapore’s history and heritage preserved in the built environment are important to Singaporeans. In particular, the preservation of historical buildings and the conservation of old neighbourhoods have been rated important by more of the younger and higher income Singaporeans. Gender, language stream of education or ethnicity made little difference. Such consensus between people and government in Singapore can only augur well for the decision to preserve its old buildings and neighbourhoods and, hence, the link with its past and the making of its national identity.
NOTES 1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
20. 21.
22.
“Singaporean Identity”, S. Siddique. in K.S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds). Managemenf of Success: the Moulding of Modern Singapore (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1989), pp. 563-577. National Identity: Its Historical Evolution and Emergence”, Paper E.C.T. Chew, “The Singapore presented at the International Symposium Commemorating Jose Rizal’s 125th Anniversary, Tokyo. 1 l-17 June, 1986. Speech to members of the Alumni International Singapore on 11 January 1989 by BG (Res) Lee Hsien Loong and cited in J.S.T. Quah (ed.), In Search of Singapore’s National Values (Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore, 1990). L. Suryadinata, “National Ideology and Nation-building in Multi-ethnic States: Lessons From Other Countries”, in J.S.T. Quah (ed.). op. cit., p. 40. L. Low, “The Political Economy of the Built Environment”, Solidarity, Nos. 131-132, July-December 1991. A.K. Wong and G.L. Ooi, “Spatial Reorganisation”, pp. 788812 in K.S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds), op. cit. in J.S.T. Quah (ed.). op. cit., p. 49. J.S.T. Quah, “Government Policies and Nation-building”, K.C. Chong, Y.F. Tham and S.K. Shium, “Housing Schemes: Policies and Procedures” in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh (eds), Housing a Nation (Maruzen, Singapore 1985), p. 231. K.C. Chong, Y.F. Tham and S.K. Shium, “Housing Schemes: Policies and Procedures”, in A.K. Wong and S.H.K. Yeh (eds), 1985, op. cit., p. 230. Muster Plan, Report of Survey 1955 (Government Printers, Singapore), p. 8. of the Public Housing Resale Policy”, unpublished paper, Institute of G.L. Ooi, “The Implications Policy Studies, February 1989. in R. Hassan (ed.), Singapore: “The Cultural Logic of Singapore’s “Multiracialism”, G. Benjamin, Society in Transition (1976). pp. 115-133. Ministry of National Development, Singapore, Handbook on Town Councils, June, 1988, pp. 1. 15.. E. Lee, Hisloricnl Buildings of Singapore(Preservation of Monuments Board, Singapore, 1990) Personal interview with MS Lai Choo Malone, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. S.C. Tong, “Face-lift for the Past”, Singapore Business, June, 1989. the Built Environment for Now and the Year 2000”. pp. 7686. Solidarify. L.L. Sim, “Shaping Nos. 131-132, July-December 1991. A.K. Wong and G.L. Ooi, “Spatial Reorganisation”, pp. 788-812 in K.S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds), op. cit. G.L. Ooi, “Public Housing Estates in Singapore: the New Spatial Order”, pp. 123-134, Solidarity. Nos. 131-132, July-December 1991. Peranakan-style houses comprise two-storey terraced housing favoured by the peranakan community (people of mixed immigrant Chinese and local Malay ancestry) of the Straits Settlements towns during the British colonial period. These towns included Singapore as well as Malacca and Penang in the neighbouring country of Malaysia. Pleasure and Profits”, Business Times, Vol. 14(9), September, E. Koh and M.K. Lim, “Leisure, 1990. The survey on The Singaporean: Ethnicity, National Identity and Citizenship was conducted as part of study by the Institute of Policy Studies in 1989 with a grant from the Ministry of Community Development. Drs Chiew Seen Kong and Tan Em Ser conducted the study with the assistance of Dr Ooi Giok Ling. In the survey, a random sample of 706 Singaporeans of different ethnic backgrounds was interviewed. Empress Place is an example of a historical building which has been restored and is now an art museum and gallery. Chinatown and Little India are examples of old ethnic neighbourhoods dating from British colonial times which are being conserved.