CLC CSC Livable Cities

LIVEABLE
SUSTAINABLE
&
CITIES
A FRAMEWORK
LIVEABLE
SUSTAINABLE
&
CITIES
A FRAMEWORK
© 2014 Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore and Civil Service College, Singapore. All rights reserved.
CLC is a division of
Centre for Liveable Cities Civil Service College, Singapore

45 Maxwell Road Institute of Governance and Policy
#07-01 The URA Centre 31 North Buona Vista Road
Singapore 069118 Singapore 275983
Website: www.clc.gov.sg Website: www.cscollege.gov.sg
ISBN: 978-981-09-0557-6 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-981-09-0558-3 (ebk)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without prior permission from
the Publisher.
The opinions and views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Centre for Liveable Cities or the Civil Service College.
Every effort has been made to trace all sources and copyright holders of news articles, figures and information in this
book before publication. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, CLC and CSC will ensure that full credit is given
at the earliest opportunity.
For feedback and comments, please email MND_CLC_Enquiries@mnd.gov.sg or

cscollege_publishing@cscollege.gov.sg
Editorial Team
Khoo Teng Chye (Editorial Adviser)
Toh Boon Kwan l Premarani Somasundram l Vernie Oliveiro l Joanna Yong l Liza Lee
Cover photo: Marina Barrage, Singapore. Photo courtesy of © Toonman | Dreamstime.com
National Library Board, Singapore Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Liveable & sustainable cities : a framework. – Singapore : Civil Service College

Singapore : Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, [2014]
pages cm
ISBN : 978-981-09-0557-6 (paperback)
1. City planning – Environmental aspects – Singapore. 2. Sustainable urban development – Singapore. I. Civil
Service College, Singapore, publisher. II. Centre for Liveable Cities, publisher
HT169
307.1216095957 -- dc23 OCN879763919
CONTENTS
v Foreword LIU Thai Ker
CHAPTER 1
The CLC Liveability Framework KHOO Teng Chye
2 Genesis of the CLC Liveability Framework
6 Components of the CLC Liveability Framework
8 The Liveable City Outcomes
19 Integrated Master Planning and Development
21 Implicit Principles of Integrated Master Planning and Development
30 Dynamic Urban Governance
31 Five Implicit Principles of Dynamic Urban Governance
41 Conclusion
CHAPTER 2
Master Planning: Transforming Concepts
to Reality Phyllis TEOH
48 The Challenge of Planning the City of Singapore
50 The Principles of Integrated Master Planning and Development
96 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3
Urban Governance: Foresight
and Pragmatism TOH Boon Kwan, Mark CHEN and Vernie OLIVEIRO
102 Introduction: Transformation of a City
105 Principles of Dynamic Urban Governance
118 Putting Urban Governance to Work
152 A Systems Approach to Urban Governance
160 Future Challenges to Urban Governance in Singapore
CHAPTER 4
In Global Practice: The CLC Liveability
Framework Pablo VAGGIONE and Elyssa LUDHER
176 Introduction
180 Physical Planning Principles for Integrated Master Planning
212 Governance Principles
244 Conclusion
251 Epilogue Peter HO
259 Abbreviations
261 About the Contributors
263 About the Centre for Liveable Cities
264 About the Civil Service College
FOREWORD
LIU Thai Ker
Director, RSP Architects Planners &
Engineers Pte. Ltd.
Chairman, Advisory Board for the
Centre for Liveable Cities The dramatic physical transformation of Singapore in the
past five decades is increasingly attracting attention from
the rest of the world, particularly from developing countries.
Barely 50 years ago, 1.35 million, out of a population of
1.7 million, lived in squatter colonies. Within one generation,
Singapore transformed itself into a modern metropolis, a
city where there are no homeless people, no squatters, no
poverty ghettos and no ethnic enclaves.
In the midst of rapid urbanisation and development, we

realised that the tacit knowledge of those who led Singapore’s
planning and urban development had to be captured, in
order to present a holistic and practitioner-centric view of
our development journey. The Centre for Liveable Cities
(CLC) was thus formed in 2008, with a view to revisiting
critical government policies, as well as the inputs from
professional bodies, public organisations and civic groups
that informed some of those policies, and documenting
learning points that could serve as useful reference
materials for future planners in Singapore and elsewhere in
the world. At the same time, CLC recognises that there are
valuable lessons to be learnt from the experiences of other
cities across the world and, with this in mind, it has been
making concerted efforts to build links with as many cities
as possible. As the title suggests, “Liveable and Sustainable
Cities: A Framework” is an attempt to share with the rest of
the world four key pieces of Singapore’s urbanisation story.
It begins with the genesis of the CLC Liveability Framework,
which sets the parameters for the concept of “liveability” and
“sustainability”. This is followed by a detailed examination
of the two core pillars of the Framework: Integrated Master
Planning and Development, and Rational Urban Governance.
The book ends with a comparative study on a global scale,
from New York to Ahmedabad to Tianjin, to illustrate the
applicability of the CLC Liveability Framework to other cities.
Admittedly, the physical, social and political conditions of each

city are significantly different, but the underlying principles of
creating a good and liveable city can be applied widely. The
question is not so much the viability of principles, theories or
guidelines, but the skill of applying these principles.
In the preparation of this book, we were fortunate to be able to

gain access to some of the key players who contributed to the
planning and building of Singapore. Their candid insights on
the transformation of Singapore lend this book a unique flavour
and voice. I hope that you enjoy reading this book as much as I
did and find the Singapore story a useful and helpful reference.
CHAPTER 1
The CLC Liveability
Framework
Photo courtesy of AtelierDreiseitl

Liveable and Sustainable Cities: A Framework
The CLC Liveability

Framework
1
KHOO Teng Chye
01 Singapore’s City Area at dusk

Despite its high density, Singapore remains liveable, with high rankings in international studies measuring quality of life.
Photo courtesy of Erwin Soo
GENESIS OF THE CLC LIVEABILITY FRAMEWORK

Singapore is a densely populated metropolis, with more than
5 million inhabitants living on 710 km2 of land. In liveable city surveys
over the past few years, including Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey
of 2011, Singapore has been rated one of the few high-density cities
able to achieve high liveability standards.
Today, many of the cities considered to be highly liveable exist

in large geographical spaces with low-rise developments, low
population densities and low-polluting industries. Cities such as
Sydney and Vancouver are often cited in this regard. Singapore,
however, is one of the outliers, combining highly dense urban
structures with high standards of living.
2
The CLC Liveability Framework
02 The CLC Liveability Matrix*

The Matrix captures liveability against population density, where cities that exhibit both high
density and high liveability are captured in the blue box.
*Compiled in 2012 by the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC)
Singapore represents an approach to sustainable urban

development where high-density living does not necessarily have
to lead to a compromise on the quality of life.
Yet, back in the 1960s, it would have been hard to imagine

that Singapore—then a fledging nation troubled by high
unemployment, urban slums, poor infrastructure, lack of
sanitation, and an unskilled labour force—would make the leap
from developing nation to thriving global city-state in the space of
40 years, let alone be considered one of the world’s liveable cities.
It had a population then of about 1.7 million people, less than one-
third of today’s 5.4 million.
3
How did Singapore achieve this balance of density and liveability?

And what did Singapore learn in the process of achieving this
balance?
Many cities worldwide, especially those in the process of

urbanising, have often posed these two questions to Singapore
officials responsible for the city’s various urban systems. The
Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) started to look for answers to
these questions in 2010.
CLC’s challenge has been to distil the large body of knowledge

available—not just the codified knowledge from the formal
institutions of urban development, but especially the tacit
knowledge of those who led Singapore’s urban planning and
governance over the decades. When Singapore’s pioneering
leaders started to build the city, they did not have a particular
framework in mind or a written set of principles and guidelines.
CLC has captured their tacit knowledge through over a hundred
in-depth interviews.
We paid special attention to the roles of key actors, the enabling

processes and innovative policies that we believed are crucial to
understanding how Singapore’s key urban systems have developed
and played their part in the country’s urbanisation journey. The first
sets of urban systems that CLC studied were in the areas of water,
transport, housing, the environment and industrial infrastructure.
While these projects were on-going, we thought we could use
an inductive approach to discern from the information we had
gathered for these initial projects some general principles and
desired outcomes that have guided Singapore’s urban planners
over the years. The findings from this exercise culminated in the
CLC Liveability Framework.
One thing was clear—Singapore learnt a lot from other cities in its
early development phase and still looks abroad for ideas.
4
“ We learn what not to do by watching other cities and also what to do from
watching good cities. There is nothing new that you can think of that has not been
tried by thousands of other cities.2
” Lee Kuan Yew, first Prime Minister of Singapore
03 Communications Minister Ong Teng Cheong (third from right) visiting Paris to study the metro system, 1980
Singapore constantly looks abroad to learn from other countries, especially when implementing new systems like the
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).
Ong Teng Cheong collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore
5
COMPONENTS OF THE CLC LIVEABILITY FRAMEWORK

Three outcomes have been constant in how Singapore envisioned
liveability:
1 A competitive economy in order to attract investments and
provide jobs;
2 A sustainable environment because the city has to survive with
limited natural resources, especially in terms of land and water;
and
3 A high quality of life, including the social and psychological
well-being of the population.
These three outcomes are highly visible and are policy goals.
Additionally, what were the processes and mechanisms that

enabled this transformation? What were the principles that guided
generations of urban leaders in Singapore to ensure and sustain
these outcomes? In short, how did Singapore achieve these
outcomes?
Our investigations show that two elements have been key to

understanding how urbanisation occurred in Singapore. First, it was
crucial to have a system of integrated planning and development
that kept the outcomes of a liveable city constantly in view, over
the long term. Second, subscribing to an urban governance
approach that was dynamic helped sustain the conditions needed
for a thriving liveable city.
Thus, the CLC Liveability Framework looks at urban development

in terms of:
1 The three desired outcomes arising from urban planning that
contribute to a liveable city. We term these Liveable City
Outcomes.
2 The systems of urban planning that need to be in place to
achieve the Liveable City Outcomes. Singapore’s success has
depended on an Integrated Master Planning system and a
Dynamic Urban Governance approach.
6
04 The CLC Liveability Framework

Ten implicit principles are grounded in two key pillars of the CLC Liveability Framework—Integrated Master Planning and
Development; and Dynamic Urban Governance.
© The Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC)
7
THE LIVEABLE CITY OUTCOMES

The philosophy behind the three liveable city outcomes has
remained consistent for more than four decades of Singapore’s
development. As it turned out, this was not far from what the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) had posited in 1992—that the social, environmental
and economic needs of a country must be met but in balance
with one another. If the environment is abused and resources
are over consumed, people suffer and economies decline.
Likewise, if people are poor and national economies are weak, the
environment suffers.
For Singapore, how each outcome was assessed, as well as its

performance indicators, differed, depending on the stage of
development that the city-state was at. There are no absolute
levels whereby liveability is met. It is more often about optimising
the trade-offs at each point or at each stage of development. Each
city needs to figure out its own set of performance indicators,
taking into account various factors, for example, its developmental
stage, geography, access to natural resources and demographics.
Outcome 1: A competitive economy

Singapore’s competitive economy has contributed greatly to the city-
state’s liveability quotient. At the most basic level, residents needed
opportunities to make a living to achieve a degree of economic
security. The importance of this should not be underestimated. As
Liu Thai Ker, one of Singapore’s pioneer urban planners explained,
when the government set out to clear the kampong (rural village)
and squatter areas and rehouse the people into new public housing
apartments, the main objection the people had to being relocated was
largely based on concerns that they would be worse off economically.
“ Because in those days, if you live in a kampong, you get vegetables for free, you
get a chicken for free, you get eggs for free and so on … But when the government
included job opportunities through industrialisation, that objection [to moving out of
the kampong and into the new public housing estates] was diminished.3
”
Liu Thai Ker, pioneer urban planner
8
As Singapore became more developed, having a well-functioning

economy became even more important as it jostled with other
cities for investment dollars and global talent that was increasingly
mobile. To retain local talent—since Singaporeans had the option
to take their knowledge and skills elsewhere—Singapore had to
remain attractive enough as well as economically viable. Singapore
also had to have enough potential for others to want to relocate to
the city-state to invest, work and reside.
“ [I]t’s about people, right? And if the people are rooted to the place, that’s how
you can help ensure that there’s a certain robustness to it and even for those who
are foreigners … the liveability and vibrancy are important … To the extent that we
can root them through clustering of knowledge and people and like-minded activities,
we will do that.4
”
Beh Swan Gin, former Managing Director, Economic Development Board
Singapore’s urban systems have had an integral role in supporting

the country’s economic development aims, from the allocation of
land and facilities for industrial use, the transportation networks, the
supply of water and the provision of sewerage facilities. Lee Ek Tieng,
a former head of Singapore’s Civil Service, described the 1960s to
1970s as the period of building Singapore’s urban infrastructure
for economic development.5 Having a high-functioning transport
infrastructure that was well-networked locally and globally proved to
be critical to the economy, especially for a global city like Singapore.
To Lee Kuan Yew, connectivity was “most important”, and gave
Singapore an advantage over regional neighbours.6
In general, the existence of a competitive economy has been

important because the city-state had to be able to generate income
to sustain itself, develop and create more opportunities for growth.
In addition, economic stability and a distribution of prosperity
helped reduce the occurrence of social and political instability.
9
Outcome 2: A sustainable environment

As much as Singapore’s early leaders placed a huge priority on
economic development, they did not take the develop first, clean
up later approach. From the very start, environmental sustainability
was important because it ensured the long-term availability of
resources that were vital to Singapore’s survival.
When a country is as small as Singapore, environmental

sustainability has to be part of the development strategy—if
damage had been done to what little natural resources there were,
there would well have been nothing left to clean up later. Even as
the government lobbied international companies to locate some
of their operations in Singapore, there were certain areas which
the government would not compromise. An example was the
pollution control requirements the government imposed on the
Japanese company Sumitomo.
“ When Sumitomo built its petrochemical plant [in the mid-1970s], the Ministry of
Environment said that there were certain environmental requirements they must meet
in terms of the kind of investments they make to ensure that the effluent from the
stacks are of acceptable quality and so on. And Sumitomo said, “No, if you insist on
this, the costs will go up so much that it becomes not viable anymore.” Of course the
Economic Development Board and Ministry of Trade and Industry felt strongly that we
should concede to Sumitomo so that they can build the petrochemical plant. But the
Ministry of Environment said, “No, we should not concede. It will pollute Singapore.”
This went to Cabinet and Cabinet agreed with the Ministry of Environment. They said,
“No, we insist.” Then Sumitomo proceeded and put in the investments necessary.7
”
S. Dhanabalan, former Cabinet Minister
Planning for clean air, clean water and green cover was integral
to city planning. Since the 1971 Concept Plan (Singapore’s first
strategic land use plan), environmental considerations have been
incorporated into land use planning through land use zoning.
Industrial sites were zoned to ensure that the negative long-term
10
impact on the environment was minimal. Careful thought was even

given to wind patterns when the industrial estates were located
in the west of Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew explained: “[W]e have
northeast and southwest monsoons so the pollution won’t go
into the city.” He had observed the importance of wind patterns
when he visited heavily polluted cities that “smelled like chemical
factories”. He was determined that Singapore “protect ourselves
by placing the right industries in the right places, taking into
consideration the wind factor”8 so that we would not suffer the
same fate.
Generally, environment protection was not assumed to be at odds

with economic development. The government saw that it was
in line with economic development and an integral part of city
planning. In Singapore’s early days, having a clean and green city
was a way to show foreign investors that Singapore was a well-run
country and thus a good and pleasant place to set up business,
distinguishing it from other countries in the region.
Environmental values were therefore embedded into a larger social

and economic narrative by framing them as a means to distinguish
Singapore from its regional peers. This is key to understanding
how environmental concerns had an early and important place at
the policy table.
Outcome 3: A high quality of life

The benchmark of what constitutes a high quality of life in
Singapore is expectedly broad and can encompass many areas of
urban life. CLC chose to put more focus on the economic, social
and environmental aspects of city life.
“ The fact that we [Singapore] have such a strong pull, such attraction is because
we are a pleasant place to live in and for people to raise their children … We have a
”
combination of a vibrant economy, lifestyle and liveability.9
Mah Bow Tan, former Cabinet Minister
11
In the early stages of Singapore’s development, slums, squatters

and sub-standard living conditions were prevalent. At that time,
improving the quality of life would have included the provision of
basic accommodation, sanitation, and an elementary public health
system. Creating a sense of personal security was also important
and the new neighbourhoods and towns were developed with that
in mind.
“ A good city, first, you must feel safe in. It is no use having good surroundings but
you are afraid all the time … so we have police neighbourhood stations who know
the people in that neighbourhood so they will know when strangers come.10
”
Lee Kuan Yew
Singapore became more populated and dense over the decades

and as the population aged, other psychological aspects of
liveability were considered, for instance, the sense of space,
having recreational outlets and creating a sense of community.
Retaining a sense of engagement in the physical landscape was

thought to be a way to encourage Singaporeans to feel connected
to the land. A Park and Waterbodies Plan and an Identity Plan
were launched as part of Singapore’s 2003 Master Plan while a
Leisure Plan was launched as part of the 2008 Master Plan. In
2013’s Draft Master Plan released by the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA), plans included developing 100 km of waterways
for recreational activities and 360 km of park connectors by 2030.
“ The playgrounds we design now are what we call the 3G playground … three
generations, so that you have the exercise machines next to the playground so that
[if] the children go down, the babies go down, the grandparents are also there [using
the exercise machines]. So there is a lot of intermingling.11
”
Cheong-Chua Koon Hean, CEO of the Housing & Development Board
12
“ [T]he whole concept is to develop a green network [of park connectors] linking
the coastal parts to the central Catchment … so that residents in private and public
housing have access to this green network. If they want to jog, they want to cycle,
”
they can, eventually.12
John Keung, urban planner
Since the mid-1980s, city planning in Singapore also tried to give

more emphasis to the character and soul of the city-state, one
that encompassed culture, identity and aesthetics. In 1989, the
Advisory Council on Culture and Arts mapped out a blueprint
which led to the setup of what would become the National Arts
Council (NAC) and the National Heritage Board (NHB).13 These
organisations would play a crucial role to jumpstart Singapore’s
cultural development, enabling city life to be enriched by artistic
pursuits and cultural appreciation.
Balancing three liveability outcomes

The three liveable city outcomes are linked directly to Singapore’s
national-level outcome indicators. These indicators are published
in the Ministry of Finance’s Revenue and Expenditure Estimates
for each financial year and making these indicators public ensured
that all government agencies kept a big picture of the overall
state of urban development. It also signalled to the public that
the government was committed to and serious about making
Singapore liveable.
Making Singapore liveable involved balancing the three outcomes.

Focusing too much on one at the expense of the others could
easily have led to undesirable outcomes. One trade-off that the
government has had to manage constantly has been that between
regulation and Singapore’s economic interests.
13
INDICATORS OF
SINGAPORE'S LIVEABILITY
Measures of building safety Percentage of users

Home ownership rates satisfied
and quality, i.e., Construction with the parks
Quality Assessment System
Number of people living and Number of projects that aim for Traffic congestion at
working in the central area Green Mark certification peak hour
(green building rating system)
Percentage of people satisfied Park provision ratio Percentage of public

with the living, working and (ha/1,000 population) transport ridership
leisure environment in Singapore
14
Customer satisfaction levels Minimisation of Access to sanitation

for public transport unaccounted for water
Number of days in
Utilisation rate of a year where the Level of domestic water
State land Pollutant Standards consumption per capita
Index (PSI) is in the
“good range”
Water that meets WHO Number of air and water

drinking water quality pollution incidents in Recycling rate
guidelines a year
Access to clean drinking Size of flood prone areas Energy consumption levels
water sources
Source data: The Revenue and Expenditure Estimates for FY 2011/2012, Ministry of Finance
15
“ Well, I think everything has to abide by certain regulatory standards, whether it’s
the environment, whether it is building standards. You don’t compromise on these
standards. You just make sure you don’t set those standards in a way that don’t
shoot you in the foot, right? But you must set these standards which are applicable
to Singapore and enforce the standards. And I think our standards are not sub-
standard … I’ll do my fair share but there is no reason to handicap our companies
just because we want to be greener than everybody else … We still have to make a
living.14
” Lim Hng Kiang, Cabinet Minister
While we have described the three as discrete outcomes, the

reality is that there has been some degree of interdependence and
overlap among them, as the UNCED has posited. Singapore’s clean
and green environment was not only important for environmental
reasons but it also helped to present an attractive image of
Singapore to investors and provided pleasant living conditions for
Singaporeans.
In the same way, the growing arts scene in Singapore has added
a new dimension to city life and given Singapore some qualitative
advantages on the economic front. International companies
planning to set up operations in Singapore, for instance, those in
the services and lifestyle sectors, would want to be associated with
a city that had a ‘buzz’.
“ Why do you think [EDB is] involved in things like art exhibitions, Art Stage
Singapore? We work with the National Arts Council, we work with the National
Heritage Board. We even get involved with the Tourism Board in some of the
activities because the whole vibrancy [of the city] is important.15
” Beh Swan Gin
One other interesting finding was that, in some cases, in solving an

urban challenge to achieve one outcome, Singapore inadvertently
created opportunities to contribute to another outcome. Two most
notable examples are in water and waste management.
16
Seizing opportunities in water and waste management

Singapore’s quest for water self-sufficiency has given rise to a
niche sector of specialised companies—based in Singapore—
that provided services along the value chain for the reclamation
of used water and desalination. This nascent water sector has
contributed 1,550 jobs and $409 million to the economy. Seeing an
opportunity, the government committed $330 million to research
and development over a five-year period (2007–2012) to develop
this sector, which will have provided 11,000 jobs and added
$1.7 billion to the economy by 2015.
Parallel to these efforts, Singapore also paid attention to the

role residents could play in helping to preserve the health of its
water resources by encouraging residents. This it did by creating
the Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters (ABC Waters) programme
to encourage residents to care about water. Functional concrete
drains and canals were given a new life and transformed into
streams and rivers to make the environment more aesthetically
pleasing for residents. Streams and rivers became part of the
landscape and formed venues for community activities and water
sports. Although the main goal behind the ABC Waters projects
was environmental sustainability, they not only improved the
quality of life for residents, but also had an economic impact by
adding value to the surrounding land.
To remain a liveable city, it was also essential to maintain quality

living environment, where standards of public health would
meet the growing expectations of the local population as well as
those of investors, tourists, and a highly mobile international and
local talent pool. Given Singapore’s limited land area and dense
population, an efficient system for the collection and disposal of
waste has been critically important. To fulfil this, Singapore’s waste
management and recycling sector has generated $4.5 billion a
year in turnover and provided jobs for 9,000 people.16
17
05 Students at Bishan–Ang Mo Kio Park

The transformation of a concrete canal into a stream through the ABC Waters Programme encourages residents to take
ownership of water conservation, creating a more liveable and sustainable environment in the long run.
18 Photo courtesy of PUB, Singapore’s National Water Agency
INTEGRATED MASTER PLANNING

AND DEVELOPMENT
Singapore’s integrated master planning system has enabled the
government to create and manage urban systems that balanced
the different priorities of the city. Integrated master planning
goes beyond the drafting of physical plans. It looks at optimising
planning decisions such that the outcomes for the environment,
economy and quality of life can be balanced, especially in
situations where there are competing uses for the same resources.
Policies and plans have to meet short-term and long-term needs
and respond to the changes of a dynamic political, economic and
social environment.
On a practical level, the policies and plans have to be

implementable. A key differentiating factor for Singapore’s
planning was that its plans had not just stayed on paper—they were
implemented and executed through dedicated organisations, with
expertise and resources.
At the heart of the integrated master planning approach is

Singapore’s overarching Concept Plan. Strategic and long term
in nature, the plan looks at the country’s land use over a time
horizon of up to 50 years. In order to prioritise the competing
uses for land, the plan is created through an inter-agency effort to
ensure that all key land use requirements for the city are met and
individual urban systems such as transport, water or public housing
do not work in isolation. In particular, transport and infrastructure
planning has to be integrated to effectively link housing estates
to sites of employment, services, and recreation. More than 20
government ministries and agencies were involved in drafting the
2001 Concept Plan and 2011 Concept Plan. The plan is reviewed
every ten years and, when needed, there is a mid-term review.
The broad long-term strategies of the Concept Plan are then

translated into more operational details in the Master Plan,
Singapore’s statutory land use plan. Finer details pertaining to
land use zoning, gross plot ratios and building height controls
19
help developers from both the public and private sectors ensure
that their projects are in line with land use requirements. This
is important as Singapore has very little land and cannot afford
haphazard implementation.
Chapter 2 provides a detailed look into Singapore’s urban

planning experience. The following section describes the five
implicit principles of Singapore’s integrated master planning and
development approach.
06 Clementi Mall
The Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station, a bus interchange and public residential housing are seamlessly integrated,
with effective urban planning.
Photo courtesy of AECOM
20
IMPLICIT PRINCIPLES OF
INTEGRATED MASTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Principle 1: Think long term
“ [We made] a decision to project to ‘Year X’ which was 100 years. Why? Because I said
to myself that if we don’t do that, we will certainly run out of land. [You] build to too
low a density when you project for the short term. And then we run out of space.17
”
Liu Thai Ker
Singapore’s planners did not consider a 50-year timeframe as “too

long” for the Concept Plan, as explained by Liu. Taking a long-
term view was important in two other ways. First, it helped officials
keep the three outcomes in balance, at both the planning and
implementing stages. Planners better appreciated the reality that
planning decisions that were convenient now might not lead to
results that would be convenient later. It also meant that planners
would be willing to embark on projects that did not seem pressing
at the moment but would be important in the future. For instance,
even as Singapore developed and urbanised, there was thought
given to how important greenery would be to the city in the future.
In former Cabinet Minister Mah Bow Tan’s words, Singapore is

“different because of what we did 20 years ago”.18 The value of
something like greenery would only be appreciated many years
later.
Second, taking a long-term view helped the government identify

problems in the future, making it expedient to start taking steps
early to pre-empt the problem.
In other cases, it could be about making decisions on developing

a good project that could be before its time. At times, it could
be about waiting for technology to catch up, or it could be about
21
needing time to come up with sufficient funding. This was the case
with NEWater, Singapore’s system for recycling water to potable
standards. NEWater was launched in 2002 but the idea for it
originated as far back as the 1960s.
“ You’ve got to look ahead for problems and forestall or pre-empt the problems. I
mean, if we did not have the Certificate of Entitlement [a measure to limit automobile
ownership] at a time when the public [could not] afford so many cars, you can’t
introduce it now without a big row. But today, it is accepted as a fact.19
” Lee Kuan Yew
Because there was a long-term goal in place to recycle water, the

project was always on the backburner. When the technology for
dual reticulation finally became a viable option, Singapore was
able to develop NEWater swiftly as it was not starting from scratch.
“ The reuse of water has always been there in the late 1960s and 1970s … We put
in dual reticulation in the late 1960s [in Jurong] for the purpose of trying … [Lee Kuan
Yew] was very persistent that one day, we will be able to use our water. At that time,
being engineers, we had to think of the current situation. Technology was not available
and it was very uneconomic to treat the water to really drinking water standards.20
”
Lee Ek Tieng, former Head of Civil Service
Principle 2: Fight productively

Left to their own devices, each government agency will focus on
its own targets rather than the goals of the government as a whole.
An inter-agency structure—which has been crucial to an integrated
approach to planning—encouraged agencies to acknowledge
one another’s different concerns and goals. The structure created
an environment where officials learnt to have fights that were
22
productive so that discussions, sometimes heated, eventually

led different agencies to collectively reach decisions on planning
and implementation. Trade-offs made among the three liveability
outcomes were then understood by all parties and appropriately
managed.
Former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee was known to

create fights to encourage more critical thinking, for example, the
debate on whether Singapore should implement a Mass Rapid
Transit (MRT) system. A Cabinet meeting was held to decide on
the MRT system because Goh had presented a case for an all-bus
system that could do the job.
“ [Goh Keng Swee] objected to the MRT because the case for having the MRT
was that “you have no alternative” … [He thought] you can run an all-bus system
so don’t give this kind of argument that we need the MRT because there is no
alternative … That’s not to say he objected to the MRT but he objected to the
logic, which is not a frivolous matter. He objected to people who don’t think deeply
enough and argued deeply enough. That was what he was after.21
”
Lim Siong Guan, former Head of Civil Service
The ability to have productive fights within the government was

helped by a Cabinet that was collaborative and could serve as the
ultimate conflict arbitrator. In addition, the fact that office-holders
were rotated within different portfolios in government built in them
a deeper understanding of the work across different Ministries and
government agencies.
“ When a policy comes up to Cabinet, among the fourteen or sixteen of us, there
will be no less than three or four who have deep knowledge of that portfolio ... It
is not one person bringing his mind to it but several people ... even in a specialised
portfolio like healthcare and education ... So it is not just the say of the present
Minister, it is also the previous office holders who can add a perspective and provide
”
that longer [perspective].22
Lim Hng Kiang
23
07 Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve

24 Originally slated for development, the government later decided to turn it into a wetland reserve, conserving hundreds of
mangroves and bird species in the process.
Photo courtesy of National Parks Board (NParks)
25
As the culture of Singapore’s government had placed a premium

on rational thinking, many of the debates were also productively
resolved through expert studies and cost-benefit analyses.
Principle 3: Build in some flexibility

While planning was necessary for the long term and done in some
detail, Singapore’s city planners accepted that no plan was perfect
as the future was ultimately unpredictable. The Concept Plan has
been periodically reviewed in the light of changing conditions,
for instance, shifts in the economic or social environment, so that
planners could tweak the plan if the situation warranted it.
“ We cannot be so rigid that what was planned has to be executed without any
adjustment. We can’t. If so, then there [would have been] no business parks. If so,
there is no One North.23
”
Tan Chin Nam, former Managing Director, Economic Development Board
The government has also been open to changing the schedule

or form of certain developments slated in the Master Plan. For
instance, what is now Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve was to have
been developed as an agro-technology park. Following a proposal
from civil society groups to preserve the area and manage it for
education, the government decided to turn Sungei Buloh into
a nature park in 1989. Dhanabalan, then Minister for National
Development, felt that the move was in line with the government’s
commitment to preserve the environment; moreover, Singapore
could “afford” to leave Sungei Buloh undeveloped at that time.24
26
Another type of flexibility is that which is incorporated into the plans

for specific land sites. Some land parcels are reserved for the future
and zoned in a way that gives developers some leeway in the land
use mix. This is a concept known as ‘white sites’. As explained by
John Keung, “the whole Marina Bay is a white zone because we
want to leave it to the businessman to do their best.”25 Although the
government was not entirely convinced on the idea of having mixed
use developments initially, they were persuaded by the private
sector and responded with the concept of white sites.
Principle 4: Execute effectively

A plan is only as good as its successful implementation. One
important element of effective execution has been the careful
preparation that went on before implementation, which included
extensive research into the problem when necessary. This was the
case when the concept of “new town” first came into being in
Singapore’s urban plans and there was no official definition of what
a new town entailed then.
“ I spent more than half-a-year to define what was a new town ... We wanted
the new town to be highly self-sufficient … So I interviewed a lot of people, I
interviewed emporium operators, interviewed polyclinic doctors, the polytechnics …
all kinds of people, industries and so on … Basically the question is how many people
do you need to sustain an emporium, to sustain a supermarket, to sustain a polyclinic
etc. And the number came to 250,000.26
” Liu Thai Ker
Good inter-agency understanding among the various government

departments has also played an important role in the government’s
ability to execute its plans effectively. Agencies were expected to
work together effectively to achieve the larger national objectives,
even when they had professional differences on certain issues
or projects.
27
“ I think the government, the fact of the government backing of the housing
programme is really important … you can have all kinds of plans but if the finance
people don’t give you the budget, you can’t move … the fact that you have a
very cooperative bureaucracy is important … Government policies have t[o] be
implemented by capable civil servants ... the fact that you have continuity in
leadership is important. If there is a constant change in government, the civil servants
don’t know who to look to, whether to implement or not.27
”
Aline Wong, former Cabinet Minister
The key for Singapore has been the coordinated efforts among the
operational agencies set up by the government for implementing
policies and programmes. Executing a plan is also not just
about completing the project but giving careful consideration
to maintaining what has been built. The sewage systems are
an example. Maintaining them was far more cost effective than
digging up old systems for replacement. With technology, they
are now relined and can last another 50 years, according to Lee Ek
Tieng, former Head of Civil Service.28
Principle 5: Innovate systematically

The limits of resources, whether natural, physical or financial, will
place barriers on urban development. However, innovation can
mitigate these limits and, in some cases, remove them in the long
term. Solving Singapore’s urban problems required officials to be
able to see different possibilities beyond the conventional wisdom,
and, in some instances, have a degree of audacity to dream big.
“ I think a lot of urban development milestones and policy and what you call
breakthroughs … have to do with these very scarce resources.29
” Mah Bow Tan
28
To cite one example, an innovative approach was needed to deal

with the disposal of Singapore’s increasing amount of waste. To do
this, a new offshore landfill—the Semakau landfill—was created
in 1999 to meet the city’s solid waste disposal needs beyond
2040. Every effort was made to minimise the impact on the local
environment so that the area beside the landfill, which was rich
in biodiversity, would remain intact. Indications from the Raffles
Museum of Biodiversity Research in Singapore are that no species
has been lost because of the landfill. More remarkably, in 2005, the
government was able to open up part of Semakau as a place for
nature lovers to visit.
08 Semakau Landfill
Each completed cell is covered with earth and allowed to develop as a place of nature.
Photo courtesy of the National Environment Agency (NEA)
29
Innovation in urban systems and planning in Singapore has not

been confined to engineering feats such as Semakau or the
revolutionary Deep Tunnel Sewerage System30 that won the
“Water Project of the Year” at the Global Water Awards 2009.
Innovation can also come in the form of policies. In 1997,
marginal cost pricing of water was introduced to recognise the
scarcity of water, and in 1998, Singapore became the first country
to implement an electronic road pricing system to manage traffic
congestion. On the social side, to prevent ethnic ghettos from
forming in public housing estates, the Ethnic Integration Policy
was created. According to Lim Hng Kiang, Cabinet Minister, these
bold policies were the result of a “high level of administrative
innovation” present in the government.31
One other important aspect of Singapore’s experience in

innovation has been an inclination to ‘think big’.
“ Dare to dream … One day we want to make aircraft engines, man-on-the-moon

kind of statement, but we don’t know when we will get there. Even if we don’t get
there, maybe we’ll get a consolation prize—it’s still very good.32
”
Manohar Khiatani, CEO of JTC Corporation
DYNAMIC URBAN GOVERNANCE

At CLC, urban governance refers to the manner in which public
leadership interacts with citizens and other stakeholders to make
decisions on and have oversight of how a city plans, develops,
utilises and manages its physical and environmental resources to
achieve national outcomes.
The best intentions in planning amount to nothing if a city’s urban

governance system—or lack of an urban governance system—
30
does not allow good plans to be crafted and realised. For instance,
projects may never get started, may be derailed, may be done
shoddily, may turn out to be white elephants or, in the worst case,
may actually harm the city in the long run. Sound urban governance
creates the right conditions for a city to achieve the three liveable
city outcomes.
Singapore’s geographical scale and structure of government has

allowed for efficiency in policy formation and implementation, and
the country has been able to achieve economic and institutional
development. At the same time, Singapore’s size and lack of
resources have made it perennially vulnerable to changes in the
external political and economic environment. In this context,
Singapore needed an urban governance approach that was
dynamic to allow its leaders to make optimal decisions and
choices in an unpredictable, complex and constantly changing
environment as well as to help society develop the capacity to
deal with challenging situations.
Singapore’s urban governance approach has been distinguished

by its efficient provision of basic services to citizens and the setting
up of institutions for development and coordination. Of the many
elements that had an impact on Singapore’s urban governance
approach, five have stood out as implicit principles of dynamic
urban governance. These are outlined in the following section: a
detailed look into Singapore’s urban governance approach can be
found in Chapter 3.
FIVE IMPLICIT PRINCIPLES OF

DYNAMIC URBAN GOVERNANCE
Principle 1: Lead with vision and pragmatism
How leadership was exercised both at the political and
bureaucratic levels has had an important impact on planning
and implementation. A leadership with vision and political will to
31
realise it was critical for Singapore. Of particular importance was

having the political will to push through policies or projects that
were considered unpopular or politically difficult, as long as the
government was convinced that such policies or projects were for
the long-term benefit of the country and its people. For instance,
the spate of land acquisitions by the government that began in
the late 1960s was recognised to be somewhat draconian but was
deemed necessary for Singapore’s subsequent development.
“ I think you can’t run away from the fact that you need one strong visionary leader …
If you go back and think of some of the things that were done, I don’t think you will
be able to do it today … How land acquisitions were carried out in those days cannot
be done today. But it had to be done in those days … [What is required is] a strong
political will and a population that recognises that this has to be done.33
” Mah Bow Tan
Having such political will also indicated to the citizens that

the leadership believed in the vision and was committed to it.
Singapore’s leaders were also pragmatic and could focus on what
needed to be done immediately or was feasible. Housing was one
such instance, and was a key priority for land use planning in 1959.
According to Dhanabalan, even though there were other priorities
like creating employment and building up a manufacturing sector,
it was clear that “unless you solve the housing problem, you are
not going to be able to solve many other problems”.34
Principle 2: Build a culture of integrity

Public sector culture is about the values and beliefs that affect how
public sector officers and politicians execute their responsibilities
as well as their legitimacy with citizens. When public officials carry
out their responsibilities with integrity, they gain credibility and
build legitimacy. They need to do what they say they would do
while eschewing leakage and minimising waste.
32
“ After all, this is a Cabinet system and all of us have collective responsibility.35
Lim Hng Kiang ”
Since Singapore’s independence, a culture of integrity has been
strongly encouraged by governance systems that stress the
importance of accountability, transparency and incorruptibility.
This culture of integrity affected how Singapore’s public officers,
as well as politicians, carried out their responsibilities.
“ You must have the governance right. Once you have corruption, bad
administration, fickle decision making, which can be influenced by friendship or
favours or bribes, then you’ve got a problem.36
” Lee Kuan Yew
09 Singapore Parliament Building

Decisions concerning national development are frequently debated and made within the walls of this Parliament building.
Photo courtesy of Dion Hinchcliffe
33
The government took pains to inculcate a sense of accountability

in public officers. Those responsible for city planning propose
and develop large infrastructure projects that shape the city. It is
not just large amounts of resources—time and money—that are
involved; how well these officials do their work affects the daily
lives of citizens, from the roads used, to the roofs over their heads.
The government had to ensure that sound financing mechanisms
were put in place to maintain fiscal solvency and the sustainability
of the projects.
“ One critical thing about Singapore … is that we are very proud of the fact that we
don’t borrow money. Not even for development. This leads to very, very tight rules on
budgeting, which is good. You can say it is good for budget discipline … in Singapore,
we kept ourselves bound to what we are able to earn, and pay for everything.37
”
Lim Siong Guan
The key outcome indicators for Singapore’s city planning were

made public, which pushed government agencies to ensure
effective implementation, as each Ministry was held accountable
for the progress made under its charge. Formal structures were
put in place to guard against corruption, for example, systems that
were transparent, had high disclosure requirements, and meted
out severe and public punishments.
“ [There was] someone who was very close to me, in the Cabinet for many years.
Before that, he was the head of Housing and Development Board as a professional
architect and CEO but he breached the rules. I mean, he had to face the music. Had
I made an exception, it would have broken down. It would have collapsed because
the investigators are bound to talk if I had intervened and stopped this. It would have
been finished. The moral authority of the government would have dissipated.38
”
Lee Kuan Yew
34
Principle 3: Cultivate sound institutions

The institutional set-up plays a critical role in coordinating an
effective planning and development process. Strong institutions
with well thought-out systems and processes contribute to better
decision making.
“ You want as much structure and process as possible so that you are less
dependent on individual judgement which may be right or wrong … Some things
can be automated but a lot of big decisions cannot be automated and that human
intervention, human judgement, still comes in … my inclination is to try and put as
much structure and process in place as possible so that all the skills and competencies
[available] are brought to bear. If everything depends on just the judgement of the
individual, then I think you’re very subject to the vagaries of that person.39
”
Lim Hng Kiang
Singapore’s experience has been to use a range of structures

(both formal and informal) in planning, and to allow these
structures to evolve as the situation requires. Departments
have merged, changed parent ministries, or been reorganised
to support a more integrated and coordinated approach to
planning and implementation. Another important feature of
Singapore’s institutions is sound professional leadership. Many
of the professional bureaucrats were technical experts as well as
strategists. These professionals also worked well with the political
leaders and were prepared to defend their ideas when necessary.
Aside from these formal institutions, the challenge has been to build
the informal institutions—norms of governance such as a rational
approach to policy, respect for sound professional competence,
meritocracy, as well as the aforesaid culture of integrity, including
a commitment to incorruptibility.
35
The separation of politics and the professional services, as

embodied in Singapore’s institutions, is another significant norm.
According to Liu, having this demarcation was crucial for the
agencies’ effectiveness. While politicians focused on strategy
and policy, the professional and technical issues were handled by
the agencies, which ultimately led to greater accountability and
responsibility.40 This was most evident in the decade long clean up
of the Singapore River which began in 1977.
“ The technical engineering problems, we deal with, we don’t get interference from
Members of Parliament, politicians saying, “Why don’t you do this?” They don’t tell us
how to clean up. We deal with that part. But the social and political problems, being
the elected government and [having] practically all the seats in Parliament, they had the
political will and political muscle to carry though all these things.41
” Lee Ek Tieng
Institutional rules and norms, both formal and informal, have

enabled government agencies to work effectively together,
irrespective of different or competing interests or professional
opinions. Beyond the structures, one important factor has been
the culture and people in the institutions. The respect between the
political leadership and the bureaucracy is important for making
better decisions and for clarity of action and responsibility.
“ One thing I was quite clear about and that has been my philosophy wherever
I have been is to recognise that people who are actually on the ground doing the
work have many good ideas. But you have to be prepared to listen to them and
encourage them.42
” S. Dhanabalan
36
10 Singapore River
Once a filthy and congested river, the clean up took just a decade to complete. 37
Photo from the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC)
Principle 4: Involve the community as stakeholders

Creating a liveable city is a huge and complex undertaking, and
city planners need the support of the city’s inhabitants for projects
and policies to succeed and to be sustainable. No government has
all the answers or inexhaustible resources. Creating a stake in the
city for the community creates opportunities for the public, people
and private sectors to work together for the long-term good of
the city.
The Singapore government has involved the community in

protecting the country’s shared resources, as these contribute to
each resident’s interest. In this way, working with the government
to take care of the country’s water resources and greenery would
come naturally to the city’s residents.
“ We now have a population that appreciates clean water, which they can fish in, do
boating in and so on. So we are intending to clean up all our streams and our canals
[to] become little rivers with dams and grow bushes on the side, boardwalks and so on.
And they know that their houses will improve in price, in the value, so they are adopting
— we get schools to adopt [the rivers] and residents to adopt the stretch.43
”
Lee Kuan Yew
The government also engaged the community by creating avenues

for participation in the policy-forming processes. Even though
policy and planning decisions are fundamentally undertaken
by the government, the government has engaged the public
increasingly to build up the legitimacy of decision making and
policy outcomes. The 1990s was a point when the government
first opened up land use planning to greater public participation.
As it turned out, both the government and the community had to
get used to the process.
38
“ [W]e organised our own brand of public participation, quite managed, but
nonetheless, it was an opening of the planning system for more consultation. So we
have planners prepare the plan and then release it publicly, organise the dialogue for
that draft plan with the public. Of course we invited people to come at that time.
I think people were not as vocal as today and [we] had to get them to participate.
But nonetheless, it was a good start.44
” John Keung
11 Chek Jawa wetlands, on Singapore’s island of Pulau Ubin

Nature lovers gather at Chek Jawa to observe wildlife.
Photo courtesy of SengKang
When Chek Jawa, a biodiversity-rich area, was slated for

development, the Nature Society (Singapore)45 lobbied the
government to preserve the area. As a result, Chek Jawa was
given a reprieve in 2002 and is now a popular nature spot for
Singaporeans. Success on Chek Jawa came about not only
from having a strong case for its preservation, but also because
the government and community stakeholders found a way to
communicate and work constructively with each other.
When the government and key community stakeholders were

able to work together on issues that were in the interest of a wide
section of the public, the result was a collective win for the country.
39
“ I feel that NParks and Nature Society worked very well together because of our
improved relations … We did agree not to do too much confrontational fighting
with the government on Chek Jawa … The really important thing was that the public
supported it, and other groups started up spontaneously to support it.46
”
Geh Min, former President of Nature Society (Singapore)
Principle 5: Work with markets

The private sector has played a part in the provision of services
which the government alone could not provide, or services which
the government wanted to relinquish in order to re-direct public
funds to a different priority.
“ Competition is good [but] it is good up to a point. And then we have got to ask
ourselves also—is private sector operation the best way to run a public utility and should
a public utility be subsidised? These are important questions that need to be asked.47
”
S. Dhanabalan
A key governance approach has been to harness market forces

where they would improve efficiency. This has been a matter of
fiscal prudence. The government has successfully privatised power
generation and some parts of public transportation. Nevertheless,
there are limits to private sector involvement in the provision of
public services.
As such, the government had to be clear about the kind of services

that could not be outsourced or privatised. For example, the
government has not privatised the provision of water. In the case
of Changi Airport, Dhanabalan explained that the regulatory and
policy frameworks were not right for it to be a private company
then. There would have been too many regulations that would
need to be tweaked, which would have been problematic.
40
Concerning Surbana Corporation Pte Ltd, which used to be HDB’s

Building and Development Division and is now an international
building consultant, the issue of maintaining control was clear:
Surbana is a good positive example where the expertise

we have garnered by building public housing in Singapore
can now be applied elsewhere. We can sell these services
but we still have to be clear that Surbana should still
be controlled by us [Temasek Holdings, the Singapore
government’s investment vehicle] because they have a big
role to play in Singapore.48
Market forces have helped the government incentivise behaviour

and improve efficiency. This approach has enabled the government
to implement a wide range of programmes more effectively.
However, the role of the private sector in the provision of public
services is calibrated against the overall role of the government.
“ If the economies don’t work for the operator, they just neglect it and it becomes
”
worse after that.49
Lim Siong Guan
CONCLUSION
Having learnt much from others, and in the spirit of sharing
knowledge, we hope this CLC Liveability Framework can provide
some useful insights to leaders of other cities as they consider
the approaches best suited to their particular circumstances. The
Framework has been derived from Singapore’s urban development
experience and, as such, is not meant to be exhaustive but is specific
to Singapore’s particular circumstances. However, the general
principles of building an effective integrated master planning
process and a dynamic urban governance approach may be worth
a look by any city interested in raising and sustaining its liveability
41
standards, particularly small cities with limited natural resources.

In particular, we hope the CLC Liveability Framework can help
practitioners look at urbanisation issues from strategic, managerial
and political perspectives, rather than from purely technical ones.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) would like to thank the following
people for their contribution to this study through interviews and
other forms of support: Beh Swan Gin, Cheong-Chua Koon Hean,
S. Dhanabalan, Geh Min, John Keung, Manohar Khiatani, Lee Ek
Tieng, Lee Kuan Yew, Lim Hng Kiang, Lim Siong Guan, Liu Thai Ker,
Mah Bow Tan, Tan Chin Nam, Aline Wong and Serena Wong.
ENDNOTES
1. A preliminary and condensed version of the CLC Liveability Framework by Khoo Teng Chye
was published in the July 2012 issue of Urban Solutions.
2. Lee Kuan Yew, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, August 31, 2012.
Lee was Singapore’s first Prime Minister. He was also Minister Mentor from 2004 to 2011.
3. Liu Thai Ker, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 29, 2011. Liu is
currently Director of RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd. He held previous
appointments as Chief Executive Officer of the Housing & Development Board, and Urban
Redevelopment Authority.
4. Beh Swan Gin, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, February 21, 2012.
Beh is currently Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law. He held previous appointments
as Managing Director of the Economic Development Board, Executive Director of the
Biomedical Research Council at the Agency for Science, Technology & Research, and Director
of the Ministry of Trade and Industry’s Energy Planning Division.
42
5. Lee Ek Tieng and Tan Gee Paw, interview by Asit Biswas and Cecilia Tortajada, Singapore,
February 9, 2011.
6. Lee Kuan Yew, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, August 31, 2012. See
Endnote 2 for Lee’s past appointments.
7. S. Dhanabalan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, December 20,
2011. Dhanabalan was former Chairman of Temasek Holdings (Pte) Ltd. He held previous
appointments as Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Culture, Minister for Community
Development, Minister for National Development, and Minister for Trade and Industry.
8. Lee Kuan Yew, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, August 31, 2012. See
Endnote 2 for Lee’s past appointments.
9. Mah Bow Tan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, November 30, 2011.
Mah was former Minister for National Development, and also held previous appointments as
Minister for Communications and Minister for the Environment.
See Endnote 2 for Lee’s past appointments.
11. Cheong-Chua Koon Hean, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore,
September 13, 2011. Cheong-Chua is currently Chief Executive Officer of the Housing
& Development Board, and Deputy Secretary (Special Duties) of the Ministry of National
Development. She held previous appointments as Chief Executive Officer of the Urban
Redevelopment Authority, and is a board member of Jurong Port Pte Ltd, International
Federation of Housing and Planning, NUS Board of Trustees, and the Civil Service College.
12. John Keung, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, July 27, 2011. Keung
is currently Chief Executive Officer of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA). He is
also the Co-Executive Director of the Clean Energy Programme Office, Chairman of BCA
International Pte Ltd, a board member of BCA and member of the Supervisory Board, Solar
Energy Research Institute of Singapore. He held previous appointments as Deputy Chief
Executive Officer (Building) of the Housing and Development Board, Director of Strategic
Planning in the Ministry of National Development, Deputy Chief Planner (Planning Policies)
in the Urban Redevelopment Authority and later, as its Deputy Chief Executive Officer
(Development Control and Corporate Development).
13. Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, Renaissance City Plan III, 1st ed.
(Singapore: Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, 2008).
14. Lim Hng Kiang, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, April 13, 2012. Lim
is currently Minister for Trade and Industry. He held previous appointments as Deputy
Secretary of the Ministry of National Development, Chief Executive Officer of the Housing
and Development Board, Minister for National Development, and Minister for Health.
See Endnote 4 for Beh’s current and past appointments.
43
16. “Waste management sector set to expand.” The Straits Times, March 28, 2012.
17. Liu Thai Ker, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, September 16, 2011.
See Endnote 3 for Liu’s current and past appointments.
See Endnote 9 for Mah’s past appointments.
See Endnote 2 for Lee’s past appointments.
February 9, 2011.
21. Lim Siong Guan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, November 26, 2012.
Lim is currently Group President of GIC Private Limited. He held previous appointments as
Head of Civil Service, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Finance, Prime Minister’s Office,
Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Defence; he was also Chairman of the Economic
Development Board, Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, the Inland Revenue
Authority of Singapore and the Central Provident Fund Board.
22. Lim Hng Kiang, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, April 13, 2012. See Endnote
14 for Lim’s current and past appointments.
23. Tan Chin Nam, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, February 21, 2012. Tan
is currently Chairman of the Board of Temasek Management Services Pte Ltd and serves on
the boards of various listed and private companies as a director or senior corporate adviser.
In his previous public sector career, he held various appointments such as General Manager and
Chairman of the National Computer Board, Managing Director of the Economic Development
Board and Chief Executive of the Singapore Tourism Board. He was also Permanent Secretary
of the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts.
He was also Chairman of the National Library Board and Media Development Authority.
“One North” refers to a cluster of world-class research facilities and business park space, built
to support the growth of biomedical sciences, physical sciences, Infocomm Technology (ICT),
media, and engineering.
24. S. Dhanabalan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, December 20, 2011.
See Endnote 7 for Dhanabalan’s current and past appointments.
25. John Keung, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, July 27, 2011. See Endnote
12 for Keung’s current and past appointments.
See Endnote 3 for Liu’s current and past appointments.
27. Aline Wong, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, September 21, 2011.
Wong is currently Academic Advisor in the President's Office of the SIM University. She
held previous appointments as Chairman of the Housing & Development Board, Minister of
State for Health and Education and Senior Minister of State. She was formerly Professor of
Sociology at the National University of Singapore.
44
28. “A Pioneer Speaks”, interview with Lee Ek Tieng, ENVISION Magazine, Issue 1, February
2012, 46–49.
29. Mah Bow Tan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, November 30, 2011. See
Endnote 9 for Mah’s past appointments.
30. The Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) is conceptualised and managed by the PUB,
Singapore’s national water agency. It will process Singapore’s used water collection, treatment,
reclamation and disposal through deep tunnel pipes. For full information, visit http://www.
pub.gov.sg/dtss/Pages/default.aspx
31. Lim Hng Kiang, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, April 13, 2012. See
Endnote 14 for Lim’s current and past appointments.
32. Manohar Khiatani, interview for the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, September 8, 2011.
Khiatani is currently the President and Chief Executive Officer of Ascendas Pte Ltd, a wholly
owned subsidiary of JTC Corporation. Prior to Ascendas, he was CEO of JTC Corporation,
and Deputy Managing Director at the Economic Development Board.
33. Mah Bow Tan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, November 30, 2011. See
Endnote 9 for Mah’s past appointments.
36. Lee Kuan Yew, interview by Asit Biswas and Cecilia Tortajada, February 11, 2009. See Endnote
2 for Lee’s past appointments.
See Endnote 21 for Lim’s current and past appointments.
39. Lim Hng Kiang, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, April 13, 2012. See Endnote
14 for Lim’s current and past appointments.
40. Liu Thai Ker, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 29, 2011. See Endnote
3 for Liu’s current and past appointments.
February 9, 2011.
45
44. John Keung, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, July 14, 2011. See
Endnote 12 for Keung’s current and past appointments.
45. The Nature Society (Singapore) or NSS is a non-government, non-profit organisation

dedicated to the appreciation, conservation, study and enjoyment of the natural heritage
in Singapore, Malaysia and the surrounding region. It was formerly known as the Singapore
branch of the Malayan Nature Society. The branch was formed in 1954 and became Nature
Society (Singapore) in 1991.
46. Geh Min, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, March 14, 2012. Geh was
former President of the Nature Society (Singapore) and a board member of The Nature
Conservancy's Asia Pacific Council and the Singapore Environment Council. She was a
Nominated Member of Parliament from 2005 to 2006. An ophthalmologist by profession and a
committed conservationist, she received the inaugural President's Award for the Environment
in 2006 for contributions towards protecting and enhancing the environment.
48. Ibid.
See Endnote 21 for Lim’s current and past appointments.
46
CHAPTER 2
Master Planning
Transforming Concepts
to Reality
Photo courtesy of chensiyuan

Master Planning:
Transforming Concepts
to Reality
Phyllis TEOH
01 Marina Bay, Singapore at night

Long term planning ensured that land was set aside for developments such as Marina Bay.
THE CHALLENGE OF PLANNING THE CITY OF SINGAPORE

Many people harbouring hopes of improving their livelihoods have
been drawn to seek economic opportunities in cities around the
world. Modern Singapore began as an immigrant city in the 1800s.
In recent decades, the increasing inflow of people into the city-state
has brought about a growing density to the city and, with that,
increasing demands on the land and infrastructure.
Planning a city well is about ensuring that it develops in a manner

that achieves optimal economic, social and sustainability outcomes
in spite of physical constraints, the competition for the use of each
48
Master Planning: Transforming Concepts to Reality
parcel of land, and the lack of resources. This is by no means an

easy task.
Almost all cities in the world would have a physical master plan that
directs the way the city should grow. However, not all development
takes place according to the plan. Very often, other factors influence
the way development takes place, and the physical master plan
remains just a plan not translated into reality.
To ensure that its plans materialise, Singapore brings together the

policies and programmes of various government agencies and
incorporates these in a common national urban policy document,
known as the Concept Plan. The Concept Plan is a strategic land
use plan that has one important feature—it takes a long-term
perspective of 40 to 50 years. For instance, when Singapore’s
public housing authority ramped up its development programme
to meet public housing demand in 2012, there was empty land in
various areas of Singapore that had been safeguarded for housing
development since 1991 in the Concept Plan.
02 Public flats in Tampines, Singapore

80% of the population live in public housing. Land is set aside 20 to 30 years before to ensure enough homes can be
provided in the future.
Photo courtesy of Rodeo Cabillan
49
The emphasis towards having tight coordination among the

different stakeholders in government is not just at the strategic level
of the Concept Plan but also at the level of the Master Plan. The
Master Plan translates the broad and long-term strategies of the
Concept Plan into detailed plans for implementation over 10 to 15
years and guides the exercise of development controls. This high
level of coordination has been important to Singapore, for instance,
in ensuring an adequate transport network. The transportation
corridors for the development of Singapore’s Mass Rapid Transit
(MRT) system had been identified and safeguarded since the
1971 Concept Plan, ensuring that when new housing estates
are developed, they are adequately served by public transport.
Singapore’s experience has also shown that insisting on a high
degree of coordination has another practical outcome—it allows
for conflicts among different agencies to be resolved early and for
trade-offs to be dealt with in constructive and innovative ways.
Singapore met the challenges of urbanisation in the past decades

by relying on an integrated master planning and development
approach, which also reveals the role that leadership, policies,
legislation and government institutions played in the creation of
a liveable and sustainable city. Singapore’s style of urban planning
has not only been an effective tool in managing the country’s land
resources optimally for development, it has also been used as a tool
to manage the various social, economic and environmental issues
faced by the country.
THE PRINCIPLES OF INTEGRATED

MASTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Singapore’s planning and development approach took around
20 years to evolve into what it is today, where the Concept Plan,
Master Plan and development control regime all form parts of an
integrated system. This evolution was guided by five principles that
Singapore’s urban planners have consistently adhered to in order to
50
build some degree of resilience into Singapore’s integrated master

planning and development system.These principles are:
1 Think long term;

2 Fight productively;
3 Build in some exibility;
Execute effectively; and
Innovate systematically.
Principle 1: Think long term

Given Singapore’s limited land resources, we need to plan long
term. Long-range planning helps to ensure that sufficient land
is made available to cater for population growth and economic
activity, not just for the present, but for the future as well. Only
through careful planning has it been possible for Singaporeans to
enjoy a good uality of life in one of the most densely-populated
countries in the world. Singapore’s planning explicitly incorporates
a long-term perspective through the Concept Plan, a strategic
land use and transportation plan that sets out the directions for the
next 40 to 50 years, and takes into consideration all projected land
use demands for housing, industry and commerce, recreation and
nature areas, transport and utility infrastructure, as well as defence
re uirements. The Concept Plan is revised once every ten years
to ensure that it keeps pace with changing demographic, social,
economic and technological trends.
This principle of long-term planning did not emerge overnight. A

look at how this idea evolved over time underscores why this was
crucial to Singapore’s planning and development process.
Singapore’s historical town planning system

Statutory town planning in Singapore had its roots in 1951 when
the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) was legally empowered to
carry out a diagnostic survey for the preparation of a comprehensive
plan (Master Plan) to guide the future growth of the island. The
51
SIT had been established in 1927 to tackle town planning and

slum clearance but had not achieved much owing to inade uate
statutory powers to control land use. Singapore, in the 1950s, was a
city still recovering from the damage caused by the Second World
War and the challenges posed by an in ux of immigrants. Housing
was inade uate and slums were a common sight. S uatters had
sprouted out all over the central area after the war owing to the
burgeoning population growth.
03 Slums in early Singapore

Living conditions were squalid and cramped. Diseases were spread easily due to unsanitary conditions.
Photo courtesy of the Housing & Development Board
52
“ One of the few things I did at the very beginning … was to go round to
the slum area in Chinatown … It was an eye-opener for me to see the bad
conditions under which people lived … At that time when I went … some
of the labourers were so poor they shared trousers between them ... they
shared bunks. Some people will work at night and others will work during
the day time. So when the one who works in the day time is out, the one
who works at night sleeps in the bunk.1
”
Lim Kim San, former Minister for National Development
Housing needed to be provided on an unprecedented scale

to overcome the acute shortage. In 1947, a Singapore Housing
Committee had been established with the remit of resolving the
problem. It recommended the need for a master development plan
for the whole island and the decentralisation of the population in
new satellite towns.2
In 1955, renowned British town planner Sir George Pepler and

his survey team submitted the first Master Plan to the Singapore
government, and, four years later, Singapore adopted its first
statutory Master Plan in 1958. A Planning Coordination Committee
chaired by the Commissioner of Lands was set up to resolve any
con icts in land use planning. Agencies such as the City Council,
Rural Board, SIT and the Survey Team were all represented in the
committee. This committee was the predecessor of the Master Plan
Committee chaired by the Chief Planner.
The 1958 Master Plan was modelled on the Greater London Plan
of 1944. In forming the plan, Pepler’s team looked into population
trends, building resources, industrial resources, traffic standards,
and redevelopment needs and problems. The plan covered the
period between 1953 and 1972, premised on a projected population
of 2 million in 1972. The plan was fundamentally a static concept,
providing for limited and predictable change and ultimately for a
city of finite si e, even if it were to be reviewed every five years. It
was a form of blueprint planning. By and large, the 1958 Master Plan
was considered to be unsuccessful even though it was prepared and
administered in the most competent and sincere manner.3
53
The plan was based on three assumptions: (i) a slow and steady
rate of urban growth and social change; (ii) reliance on the limited
private sector for physical development of the city; and (iii) a primary
objective of preserving the achievements and institutions of the past.
As history showed, many of these assumptions did not hold. For one,
the population grew faster than expected. In 1947, the population
was nearly 940,000, with 72.4 of the people concentrated in the
city area. By 1957, the population had reached 1,445,929, of which
78.6 were living in the city area. The population was growing at
an average annual rate of 5.4 between 1947 and 1957. By 1970,
the population had hit 2.07 million, two years ahead of the Master
Plan’s target.
04 1958 Master Plan

Modelled after the Greater London Plan of 1944, this plan covered land use from 1952 to 1972.
© Urban Redevelopment Authority. All rights reserved.
54
Political changes were e ually dramatic. Shortly after the Master

Plan was approved in 1958, Singapore was granted full internal self-
government from the British in 1959. This was followed by a merger
to form Federal Malaya in 1963 and by 1965 Singapore had become
an independent republic under the political leadership of Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
“ The top priority when the government came into power was housing the
population and building up a manufacturing sector to create employment ...
at the political level, it was clear that unless you solve the housing problem,
you are not going to be able to solve many other problems ... Since housing
was the top priority, the approach was to find a piece of land, build housing
and decant people from the slum areas. Where the housing went and how
the land was used was secondary.4
”
S.Dhanabalan, former Minister for National Development
With a large growing population and high unemployment, the

primary task of the new government was not only to house the
population but also to create employment opportunities. The move
towards rapid industrialisation did not s uare with the preservationist
mode of the 1958 Master Plan. The United Nations’ 1961 Proposed
Industrialisation Programme for the State of Singapore, led by
adviser Professor A. Winsemius, also identified industrialisation as
a key strategy. Land would need to be used for ports, industrial
estates and transport networks, for instance. The drive for growth
and progress and the ambition to create a futuristic ultra-modern
city was a far cry from what was envisioned by the Pepler team.
55
“ The planners of the 1950s and 1960s believed that the concepts,
methods and techniques that were developed in the West were the social
equivalents of natural laws and, as such, universally applicable. They did
not realise that the ideas, methods and rule of work which they learned in
their universities were the result of the particular political, economic and
social conditions of their countries of origins and therefore inapplicable to
countries where these conditions did not apply.5
”
Otto Koenigsberger, Member of the UN team
The State and City Planning project—beginnings of a long-term approach

As the 1958 Master Plan was inade uate, it was clear that adjustments
had to be made. The Singapore government re uested the United
Nations (UN) to send a team of experts to give advice on dealing
effectively with the problems of urban renewal and redevelopment
in the city. In 1962, Erik Lorange, a UN Town Planning Adviser, did a
preliminary survey, and his recommendations highlighted the urgent
need to revise the 1958 Master Plan. In 1963, the UN team consisting
of Charles Abrams, Susumu Kobe and Otto Koenigsberger (referred
to as the“KAK team”) visited Singapore and found people unhappy
with the Master Plan.
Rather than embark on comprehensive planning in the manner of the

1958 Master Plan, which would have taken too much time, a plan of
operations was drawn up early in 1966, agreed to by the UN and the
Government of Singapore. In 1967, the Australian firm Crooks Stewart
was selected to execute the proposal. The government started to
consolidate all physical planning and implementing agencies within
the Ministry of National Development (MND). An ad hoc organisation
called the State and City Planning (SCP) project was formed from a
number of departments, with the original Planning Department as the
nucleus. The SCP team of 25 senior officials and nearly 100 technical
and administrative personnel served as the counterpart to the UN
team. Work on the SCP project began in 1967. An international
panel of experts, including local professionals, followed the project’s
progress. The SCP plan eventually became the 1971 Concept Plan.
56
The 1971 Concept Plan—building foundations for long-term planning

The 1971 Concept Plan made provisions for a time frame of 30 to
35 years as the government realised the possible long-term negative
effects that could arise from the shortcomings of a “project-by-project”
planning strategy and decision-making approach. In addition, the
plan re ected an understanding that urban planning policy had to
be formulated within an overall framework of social and economic
policies. This understanding has since informed the approach to
planning and the design of the planning system in Singapore.
As they went about to create the 1971 Concept Plan, the

government’s concerns at that time were to maintain Singapore’s
political independence and economic viability and to build a sense
of national identity among the socially and culturally fragmented
society. It wanted to broaden Singapore’s economic base, reduce
unemployment, slow down the rate of population growth, and
improve the standards of housing and living. The SCP project
made specific projections on population, schoolchildren numbers,
workforce, housing needs, motor vehicle numbers, productivity
growth, household income, employment and occupational structure,
industrial land re uirements, residential land re uirements, office
space demand and hotel space demand. Guiding them were policy
goals, projections and planning parameters.
The resultant 1971 Concept Plan brought about greater coherence in

public development, allowing the government to move ahead uickly
on building public housing, industrial estates and roads.The key idea in
the 1971 Concept Plan was the decision to develop Singapore along a
Ring Plan which addressed both land use planning and transport system
planning. Today, much of Singapore’s urban built area particularly the
ring-cum-linear shape is because of the 1971 Concept Plan.
57
05 1971 Concept Plan

The first concept plan to take into account a 30 to 35 year time frame, this plan had a major influence on Singapore’s
urban built area.
58
59
THE STATE AND CITY

PLANNING (SCP)
PROJECT
Planning Goals and Projections6
“ The State and City Planning project looked into

fresh areas such as sociology, which we previously
had no time for that. In addition, the project also
looked at integrating land use and transportation
where we studied the impact of how a change in land
use would react on the transportation network.7
Chua Peng Chye, Singapore’s second Chief Planner ”
The policy goals reflected the main priorities of the government—defence capability and
credibility, industrial development, public housing and urban renewal, and education.
These priorities were translated into the following planning goals:
A) To maintain, if not to advance,

Singapore’s position as one of the
world’s major ports.
This was to be done by fostering the expansion of

the port and maritime industries.
60
B) To reserve sufficient areas, in suitable locations,

for future growth of the manufacturing sector.
C) To reserve sufficient areas for

future urban expansion, especially
public housing development.
In addition, existing industrial
estates must be integrated
with urban expansion and
their accessibility improved,
or at least preserved.
The overall development plan should also be economical

in terms of infrastructure requirements, taking advantage
of recreational opportunities and other potentials, be
practicable and flexible in implementation, and provide a
coherent form and structure. Standards for housing units
and provision of shops, schools, open space and other
communal facilities should ensure a steady improvement in
the quality of living within housing estates.
D) To set in motion the urban renewal programme, taking

advantage of opportunities for comprehensive redevelopment.
E) To ensure adequate land and training

grounds for the Singapore Armed Forces
(SAF) when the British armed forces hand
over their land.
F) To develop Singapore as a tourist centre and as Southeast

Asia’s regional centre for trade, commerce, banking and
insurance, transportation and telecommunications, education,
culture and industrial research.
61
In translating these broad goals into tangible estimates of likely future demands and
requirements, the State and City Planning project made specific projections in the
following areas: population, schoolchildren, workforce, housing needs, motor vehicles,
productivity growth, household income, employment and occupational structure,
industrial land requirements, residential land requirements, office space demand and
hotel space demand.
These projections were then translated into the following strategic planning
parameters, where:
A) The population was likely to be

somewhere between 2.7 and 3.4 million
by 1992, and was expected to reach B) A total supply of about 670,000
4 million from 2000 onwards. housing units would be needed by 1992.
2.7 –
3.4
MILLION BY 1992
670,000
HOUSING UNITS
494,000
65 SQUARE
MILES
C) A total of about 65 square miles of
BY 1992
D) Employment in the manufacturing
sector may reach 494,000 by 1992. It
was estimated that about 20 square
land would be needed for residential
miles of land would be needed for
and associated purposes, assuming
the expansion of the manufacturing
that 65% of the total population
industry when the population reaches
might be accommodated in housing
4 million. This was five times more than
similar to the type provided by the
the present usage which was about
Housing & Development Board.
4 square miles.
62
The requirements for the SCP plan can be summarised as follows:
ACCOMODATE
4PEOPLEMILLION
A) The plan must accommodate a
population of 4 million with scope for
further growth.
B) It must pay strict regard to short-term

needs, particularly for industrial expansion,
the public housing programme and tourism.
C) It must allow flexibility in implementation to take

advantage of unforeseen development opportunities.
D) The development and

operating costs must be
economical, particularly in the
immediate future when resources
were expected to be heavily
strained.
E) It must take into account the rising standard of living of the

population and the increasing importance of environmental
standards and recreational facilities.
F) It must take into account government investment decisions

and prepare measures for guiding private development.
63
Studies done by the government had indicated that urban

development, as much as possible, should be concentrated along
the southern part of the island between Jurong in the west and
Changi in the east. This would produce the least distance of total
work trip miles. Of the several options explored, the government
decided on the Ring Plan for several reasons: rst, it was possible
to develop the urban units in stages and adapt if needed due to
changing priorities and trends; secon , it had a plan for an efficient
transport system consisting of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and
expressways; thir , the high density areas surrounding the Central
Catchment could maximise its recreational potential; and ourth,
the ring’ development pattern was a highly efficient pattern for
water supply and electrical power supply mains.
The Planning Department of MND used the Concept Plan as a guide

in subse uent land allocation for public projects. Plans for public-
sector development had to be submitted to the Master Planning
Committee (MPC) for approval. The MPC, chaired by the Chief
Planner, would evaluate the proposal, taking into consideration the
broad planning strategies of the Concept Plan and the planning
intention of the Master Plan. Proposals which are supported are
then submitted to the Minister for National Development, and
if necessary, the Cabinet, for final approval. The existence of the
MPC enabled development to take place in a coordinated manner.
Agencies such as the Housing & Development Board (HDB), Jurong
Town Corporation (JTC) and Economic Development Board (EDB)
could safeguard land early for their needs.
Major capital-intensive public utility and infrastructure that re uired

sufficient lead time of up to 20 years to develop (e.g., power stations,
water mains, service reservoirs, and refuse incineration plants)
could be planned and phased into a development programme.
The building of roads and supporting infrastructure could be timed
to ensure that new developments would be ade uately served.
64
The 1991 Concept Plan—the Watershed Plan

By the mid-1980s, the system and processes for physical planning
and the implementation of the plans by the various government
action-oriented agencies had been put in place. However, there
was a need to review the 1971 Concept Plan. In the 1970s and 1980s,
there had been demographic changes, including declining fertility
rates. The economy was doing well, and was moving towards
high-tech and information-based industries. With the economy
fast expanding, there was also a need to balance economic needs
and urban development with environmental considerations. Finally,
there was the need to take account the rising aspirations of an
increasingly af uent population wanting a better uality of life in
terms of housing choices and recreation needs and the need to
maintain Singapore’s identity and heritage.
The preparation for the 1991 Concept Plan started in the late
1980s. It was the first time the planning authority in Singapore was
drafting the Concept Plan on its own. The institutional framework
and the processes which were set up to draft the 1991 Concept
Plan would serve as the general basis from which the government
prepared future Concept Plans. In many ways, the 1991 Concept
Plan was considered Singapore’s atershe lan. The framework
was a Year ’ plan which envisioned the physical land use structure
when the population reached the ultimate si e of 4 million. It was to
cover a period of 40 to 50 years and the review process was intense
and rigorous.
The planning process (see Figure 1) comprised three main phases: a

review and identification of land use re uirements; the formulation
and translation of development strategies and policies into a
structure plan; traffic modelling, and refinement of the plan.
An Inter-Ministry committee was formed, with MND as the chair

(see Figure 2). arious sub-committees were created to look into the
areas of population, housing, transportation, commerce, central area
planning, environment, industry and recreation, and recommend
directions, specific policies, and strategies for the land use.
65
06 1991 Concept Plan

Considered the ‘watershed’ plan, the 1991 Concept Plan included an even longer planning period, projecting into ‘Year X’,
and integrated various other aspects like transport use and areas set aside for environmental conservation.
66
67
IGU E 1 T EE P SES O T E 1 1 CONCEPT PL N P EP TION
DEMAND SUPPLY
Population Projections Land Supply
Economic Projections Development Constraints
evie ssessment of Strategic Issues

Industry Commerce Housing
Infrastructure / Institutional Uses
Recreation Transport P SE 1
Long term requirements and policy

recommendations on housing, industry,
recreation, etc
Planning startegies for various

Overall physical
uses based on recommended land
development concepts
re uirements and policies
P SE 2
Structure Plan for 4 million population
P SE 3
Transport modelling
Source: Singapore-Suzhou Software Transfer Project, 1994, Urban Redevelopment Authority
68
The recommendations and any issues and con icts were then
discussed and considered holistically across all land uses by the
steering committee. The planners also laid out their assumptions
and projections.
IGU E 2 P EP TION O T E 1 1 CONCEPT PL N INTE - GENC ST UCTU E
STEERING COMMITTEE
Chairman: MND
Members: MINCOMM, MOT, MTI, EDB. HDB,
NParks, LTA, URA
POPULATION &
TRANSPORTATION COMMERCE CENTRAL AREA
HOUSING
Chairman: HDB Chairman: LTA Chairman: URA

Chairman: MND
Members: EN , Members: Members:
Members: EDB,
MCYS, MND, MOT, MINCOMM, MND, MINCOMM, NParks,
HDB, STB, URA
MOL, PPU, URA HDB, ITC, PSA, PUB LTA, HDB, STB
ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY RECREATION
Chairman: EDB Chairman: PRD

Chairman: URA
Members: EN , MOL, Members: EN ,
Members: EN ,
MND, MTI, PWD, MCYS, MINCOMM,
MND, EDB, HDB,
CAAS, EDB, HDB, MND, EDB, NUS,
JTC, PSA, PUB
JTC, NCB, URA PSA, SSC, STB, URA
C S Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore MTI Ministry of Trade and Industry

EDB Economic Development Board NCB National Computer Board
EN Ministry of Environment NUS National University of Singapore
DB Housing & Development Board PPU Population Plaming Unit
TC Jurong Town Corporation P D Parks and Recreation Department
LT Land Transportation Authority PS Port of Singapore Authority
MC S Ministry of Community Development Youth & Sports PUB Public Utilities Board
MINCOMM Ministry of Communications P D Public Works Development
MND Ministry of National Development SSC Singapore Sports Council
MO Ministry of Finance STB Singapore Tourism Board
MOL Ministry of Labour U Urban Redevelopment Authority
Source: Singapore-Suzhou Software Transfer Project, 1994, Urban Redevelopment Authority
69
STRATEGIC PLANNING PARAMETERS
OF THE 1991 CONCEPT PLAN
• Total land area to increase from 621 sq km POPULATION
to 733 sq km (17% increase) through PROJECTIONS
reclamation
• Identifies “hard” and “soft” areas—85% of • Assumes high
existing 621 sq km are considered “hard” fertility model land
(i.e., not amenable to changes) safeguarding
• Assumes migration
trends
INDUSTRY • Household size to fall
LAND SUPPLY from 4.7 in 1980 to 3.1
COMMERCE in 2030
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENVIRONMENT
HOUSING RECREATION
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
TRANSPORT
DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRAINTS
• Labour productivity to
increase while growth
of labour force to slow
down. • Height controls, noise controls,
• Projected GDP land use control around
pollutive uses, controls around
• Restructured economy hazardous uses, protected and
(change in GDP and ECONOMIC unprotected water catchment,
employment by FORECASTS explosive safety zones, live-
sector) firing areas, etc.
Source: Extracted from Singapore-Suzhou Software Transfer Project, 1994, Urban Redevelopment Authority, compiled by the Centre for Liveable Cities
70
The recommendations and overarching strategic policy directions

were subse uently presented to and endorsed by a committee
comprising all permanent secretaries a permanent secretary is the
top-ranked bureaucrat in a government ministry which endorsed a
set of overarching strategic policy directions on land use planning.
Some of these policies included controlling pollution at source
through technology instead of using land as a buffer; locating
pollutive installations offshore; having high uality open space
instead of increasing the uantity of open space; and planning for
the most probable scenario to safeguard ade uate land for major
uses. These policies guided the critical areas of industry, commerce,
housing, transport, recreation, infrastructure, institution use and
environment. The next portion highlights the new ideas that were
introduced in the different critical areas, namely transport, industrial
development, housing and recreation.
Transport—integrated land use planning

One of the bold ideas articulated in the 1991 Concept Plan was the
integration between land use and transport planning, together with
a decentralisation of commercial activities from the Central Area.
This arose from Singapore’s approach of planning land use and
transport in an integrated manner. In general, many international
cities tend to deal with land use planning and transport planning
separately. However, Singapore’s planners had a different approach.
“ The purpose of transportation is principally to move people from home, to

shopping to commercial centres, to factories, to school ... so, when you don’t
combine the two (i.e., land use and transportation), you get a lousy urban plan.8
Liu Thai Ker, pioneer urban planner ”
A key policy direction in the 1991 Concept Plan was to decentralise
in order to ease traffic congestion in the city centre. John Keung,
Deputy CEO of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) from
1996 to 2001, explained:
71
The 1991 Concept Plan made it clear that Singapore’s

entire urban system must have public transit as the
first organising principle. Therefore, the planning and
allocation of the most intensive and activity-generating
uses were at the most accessible locations by mass
transit the interchange stations where two or more
MRT lines would meet.9
This gave birth to the “constellation” concept with the

decentralisation of commercial activities to designated regional,
sub-regional and fringe centres at locations where MRT interchange
stations were to be located. The main intention was to encourage a
modal switch to public transport. As Keung noted:“This is probably
the backbone of the 1991 Concept Plan that has shaped the
development of our city-state till today.”10
The key strategies of integration between land use and transportation

were articulated in both the residential and commercial plans of the
1991 Concept Plan. High density housing would be developed
around the MRT stations to optimise land use and to maximise the
use of public transport. Likewise, commercial activities would be
07 Expressways
72 Planning for transport in an integrated manner was a crucial policy improvement within the 1991 Concept Plan.
intensified around MRT stations.

The main idea was to encourage
maximum usage of the public
transit systems by putting the
most intensive pedestrian ow
and movement around the MRT
stations.
Industry development—new ideas

08 Commuters alighting from the MRT
Industrial land use for the 1991
Public transport is a key feature of
urban living in Singapore, with almost Concept Plan was directed by
154 km of train tracks connecting the the Industry Sub-committee. By
whole city-state.
Photo from the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) the mid-1980s, EDB was already
promoting Singapore as a place
to do business. The manufacturing sector focused on high value-
added sectors such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, chemical
industries and R&D. In line with this economic restructuring, older
industrial estates that were low value-added and land-intensive
industries were scheduled to be phased out or rejuvenated.
These in-depth studies culminated in major strategies to develop

technology corridors that would have business parks located near
major tertiary institutions along major transportation corridors and
near regional centres. Other major strategies included reclaiming
offshore areas (i.e., Jurong Island) for the co-location of pollutive
industries such as the petro-chemicals/chemicals industries.
Housing strategies—quality homes

The 1970s and 1980s saw massive public housing construction
by HDB. HDB was planning and developing new towns to
accommodate the housing demand. With a population planning
parameter of 4 million in Year ’, and a fall in household si e from 4.3
in 1988 to 3.1 by Year ’, it was estimated that 1.35 million dwelling
units would be re uired.
Some of the key strategies included: (i) phasing out industries and
other less suitable uses within prime residential areas; (ii) safeguarding
73
offshore islands as a contingency land reserve to meet long-term

housing demands; (iii) carrying out further land reclamation with
interesting profiles to create high uality waterfront housing; and
(iv) upgrading and improving the living environment of existing
HDB estates.
09 Public housing in Chinatown

The government continues to upgrade housing estates to ensure high quality living.
Photo courtesy of Erwin Soo
Recreation policy—enhancing a Garden City

Since independence, Singapore has adopted a policy of greening
the city. The Recreation Sub-committee, headed by the Parks
and Recreation Department (PRD) (now known as NParks) in the
1991 Concept Plan review, looked into the provision of parks and
recreation areas. The major objectives were to enhance Singapore
as a “Garden City” and to create more of an island image. One key
strategy to accomplish this was to provide a variety of open spaces
that would be well distributed. These ranged from regional parks
74
to town parks and neighbourhood parks. Another strategy entailed

developing a riverine park and beach areas along the waterfront and
preserving nature reserves and ecologically important sites such as
Labrador Nature Reserve Park and Bukit Timah Nature Reserve.
“ We worked with NParks. We also liaised with Nature Society. We asked them to
advise us regarding which areas had special flora and fauna that we had to preserve,
for example, special aquatic or plan species. This was the kind of care that we took
to preserve nature.11
” Liu Thai Ker
Singapore’s strong action-oriented government agencies had been

put in place since independence to solve the various urban issues of
housing, infrastructure, job creation, greening and cleaning the city.
The 1991 Concept Plan integrated each of these major critical land
uses at a national level, taking into account the policy directions and
goals of each critical use. The review of the Concept Plan carried
out in the late 1980s culminated in an exhibition in 1991 to publicise
the strategic thrusts of the forthcoming 1991 Concept Plan and to
explain to the public how Singapore’s urban planning could affect
them in the future.
10 The Southern Ridges

A 10 km trail composed of treetop walks, pedestrian bridges and town park, it passes through three residential areas, 75
bringing nature closer to people.
Photo courtesy of Rodeo Cabillan
Integration—a key component of long-term planning

Singapore’s long-term planning principle is underscored by the tight
integration between policy-makers in the Concept Plan and action-
orientated government agencies. Long-term plans were translated
into detailed plans at the local level and implemented in a swift and
effective manner, resulting in Singapore’s well-planned infrastructure
today. Arriving at this point was not as easy task, re ected by the
many drafts and iterations which the initial 1958 Concept Plan
underwent. At the same time, an exhibition in 1991 to publicise the
thrust of the forthcoming 1991 Concept Plan signalled the move
towards greater community engagement.
Principle 2: Fight productively

Each of the various government agencies in Singapore has a depth
of technical expertise and a directive to solve specific urban issues.
HDB has a mandate to provide high uality affordable housing; JTC
has the mandate to develop land for industrial investments that
creates jobs, while PUB is the water authority with the mandate of
ensuring that the city-state has sufficient water. Given Singapore’s
land scarcity, it is inevitable that competing claims for land
would arise.
One of the major contentious issues raised in the review of the

1991 Concept Plan was about industrial development and housing
development encroaching into protected water catchment areas.
A policy decision that was set in 1983 stipulated that the land
area to be developed by the public and private sectors would
be restricted to 34.1 of the unprotected water catchment area,
covering a total area of 6,945 ha. The major concern then was that
development would increase the risk of contaminating Singapore’s
water resources. However, Singapore was urbanising so uickly
that the urbanisation ceiling of 34.1 set in 1983 had been
breached by 1991.
Following a 1991 Concept Plan review, URA and HDB also

estimated that an additional 1,855 ha of land in the unprotected
water catchments would be re uired in their long-term plans. Such
76
tensions between development and water sufficiency prompted

the need to review the 1983 water catchment policy.
While there was the need to accommodate population growth

and the growth of the economy by developing more housing and
industrial areas, there was also a need to ensure that growth would
not compromise the uality of the city-state’s water. Each agency
had its interest to protect in order to fulfil their mandate.
To tackle this problem, PUB and the Ministry of the Environment

(EN ) undertook, in November 1996, a study of the impact of
urbanisation on unprotected catchments and the allowable
urbanisation level in each water catchment. The key finding showed
that Singapore’s water pollution control efforts had been effective
and the water uality in the reservoirs of the unprotected water
catchments had not deteriorated significantly despite significant
developments in the catchments over the years.
11 Public flats near MacRitchie reservoir

After much debate, development near water catchment areas was no longer curtailed, provided that pollution control
77
measures were implemented.
Photo courtesy of tbSMITH
In 1999, following a joint proposal by MND, EN and the Ministry of

Trade and Industry (MTI), both the urbanisation cap and population
density limit were lifted, subject to the continuation of stringent
water pollution control measures. Future developments would no
longer need to be curtailed as long as pollution control measures
were implemented rigorously and effectively.
This ability of different government agencies to iron out their

differences and not dig in their heels on a position has been
instrumental in finding solutions. Another example of how con icts
were resolved up-front before reaching a critical stage was from the
Port of Singapore Authority12 (PSA).
Container trade was a significant contributor to Singapore’s GDP

in the 1980s, parallel to the global expansion of world trade.
From 1982 to 1869, PSA handled 2 million TEUs (standard unit
of a terminal’s cargo handling capacity) of containers. There was
also increasing demand from international shipping lines to help
manage and distribute their containers to regional ports. In 1990,
PSA’s annual throughput hit 5.22 million TEUs, making Singapore
the world’s busiest container port.13
PSA’s main port was located at Tanjong Pagar, right in the heart
of the city. In its expansion plans in the late 1980s, PSA wanted
to build a second terminal at Pasir Panjang. However, planners,
with the support of MND, were of the view that the area would be
better utilised for housing and recreational waterfront uses. The
planners proposed an alternative location in Tuas, at the western
end of Singapore and next to an industrial estate. PSA argued that
the distance between the existing terminal at Tanjong Pagar and
Tuas would drive up their operating costs significantly as containers
needed to be transported between terminals in the transhipment
process. Eventually, after much deliberation, the decision was
made to locate the new terminal at Pasir Panjang.
Having in place a rigorous process to settle policy differences is

critical to good urban governance. The implications of different
options should be analysed by professionals and presented
at different levels of government before a decision is made.
78
The significance of this process is not in whether the final decisions

are right or wrong; it is in carefully scrutinising all the options available,
with a full understanding of the implications of decisions made.
“ To do planning and development well calls for best practices ... you have to
have professional inputs, technical inputs, all the various perspectives put in, all your
analysis and then you have the process that brings all these considerations into bear
and you need people who have the experience, the competencies, the qualifications
and the right capabilities to make decisions.14
”
Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Trade and Industry
Even today, plans are updated, in line with changing demographics

and demands on limited space, as demonstrated by the decision
to consolidate all shipping activities, including Pasir Panjang Port,
in Tuas.
Principle 3: Build in some flexibility

Singapore learnt from the first 1958 Master Plan that a static
blueprint plan would not be effective in the light of changing
circumstances or inherent assumptions. As it is impossible to
predict and anticipate trends accurately over the next few decades,
the planning process has a built-in review mechanism in place. The
Concept Plan is reviewed every ten years, while the Master Plan
is reviewed every five years. The ability to change or adapt plans
if they were not working as intended has been a critical success
factor in Singapore’s urban development efforts.
This exibility was necessary in solving traffic congestion. The 1991

Concept Plan Review noted that vehicular traffic was particularly
heavy during morning peak hours in the east-west direction owing
to the concentration of manufacturing employment areas in the
western part of the island. There was also heavy travel in the
north-south direction, from residential new towns in the northern
part of the island towards the city centre, where the majority
of commercial, business and financial activities were located.
79
Planners realised that a more even distribution of housing and

employment-generating activities would help to make better use
of the transport infrastructure and balance transport demand in
each direction.
The 1991 Concept Plan thus introduced the idea of decentralisation

through the creation of commercial nodes outside the city centre, the
largest being the regional centres at Tampines, Jurong, Woodlands
and Seletar, together with smaller sub-regional and fringe centres.
More areas for housing were allocated in and around the city centre,
while employment areas such as industrial estates and commercial
centres were planned in the north and north-east. The intention was
to create a more even distribution of jobs by locating commercial
nodes and industrial uses in suburban areas.
However, the re uirements of Singapore’s economic structure

limited the scope for decentralisation. The petrochemicals and
pharmaceuticals industries were key economic activities. Given
their pollutive nature, there was little choice but to locate them in
the west, on offshore islands away from housing areas. Likewise,
financial sector players wanted to be located in “Grade A”offices
within the more prestigious Central Business District and within
a high contact’ environment. Thus, while the development
of commercial centres such as Tampines Regional Centre and
Novena Fringe Centre allowed some commercial activities to be
decentralised, there was still a need to plan for the majority of
office space to be located in the city centre. Developing a critical
mass of high uality office space in the city centre was also seen as
an important factor in projecting Singapore’s image as a financial
hub and vibrant global city. As such, the 2001 Concept Plan refined
the decentralisation strategy proposed in the 1991 Concept Plan to
retain the majority of office space within the city area.
There is also exibility within the system for considering proposals

which may not comply with existing guidelines. This is done through
the statutory process of ad hoc alterations to the Master Plan for
major departures, or waiver of certain guidelines when a proposal
merits special consideration. The key has been to strike a judicious
balance between controls and exibility.
80
Principle 4: Execute effectively
“ A plan is only as good as how well you implement it.15

”
Mah Bow Tan, former Minister for National Development
Implementing through action-oriented government agencies

Government agencies have played a pivotal role in implementing
Singapore’s urban development plans. One important element has
been the agencies’ bias towards action. As Keung noted: “We are
very strong in implementation. Really, I mean without that, we are
just like any other city.”16
Singapore at independence was faced with an acute shortage of

housing and employment. The political leadership tackled these
two issues through urban development. Two major action-oriented
agencies were established the HDB in 1960 and the EDB in 1961.
HDB’s terms of reference under the Housing and Development Board
Ordinance of 1959 were mainly for the provision of public housing
and to take over the function from SIT. The Economic Development
Board Ordinance of 1961 made EDB responsible for diversifying
the economic base and expanding employment opportunities
through industrialisation.
In June 1968, the JTC was established to take over the land and
estates development and management functions of EDB. Till today,
EDB and JTC continue to work in close coordination in industrial real
estate re uirements.17
Another major department that was also involved in development

projects was the Public Works Department (PWD). Both HDB and
PWD came under the purview of MND. PWD was responsible for the
execution of the development projects of government departments,
such as schools, hospitals and other medical facilities, roads, bridges,
drainage and sewerage. In addition, PWD was responsible for the
planning of the overall road network.18
81
The programmes of HDB, EDB and JTC were effective in developing

the needs of the city. To provide an idea of the speed at which each
of these agencies moved: 54,423 units of public housing were
constructed between 1960 and 1965. By the end of 1965, HDB was
building ats at a rate of 12,000 units per year. In 1968, nearly 0.75
million people or 36 of the population lived in public ats. “By 1985,
we were the first Asian city that was free from slums and s uatters
as there were practically no more s uatters and slums in Singapore
except for a handful of odd sites,”said Liu.19
EDB, together with JTC, also acted with e ual speed in developing
industrial estates. For the Jurong Industrial Estate, 6,000 ha of land
on the south-west corner of the island was developed. By the end of
1966, more than 12,000 ha of mostly swamp-land had been cleared
and major wharfage, water and sanitary facilities were completed.
Closer to the city, several smaller industrial estates intended for
small- and medium-si ed industries were under development.
The 4,000 ha Kallang Basin reclamation project, planned for mixed
industries and housing, was soon under way. By the beginning of
the 1970s, most of the space in these estates had been committed
to industrial enterprises. Along the eastern coastline, the Bedok
reclamation project created 400 ha of new land.
While the Concept Plan laid out the structure of Singapore’s

development, the success of translating the plan into reality lay with
the various policies and programmes of government agencies and
departments such as the HDB, EDB, JTC and PWD. As stressed by
Lim Hng Kiang: “You need very professional agencies, whether it is
HDB, URA, NParks or EDB.”20
Over time, other action-oriented government agencies and

government departments have been formed to effectively execute
the different facets of urban development within Singapore. For
instance, URA was formed as an independent statutory board under
MND in 1974 to redevelop the Central Area and resettle residents
affected by redevelopment.
82
The Land Acquisition Act 1966

In a land-scarce environment, the government felt it necessary to
ensure that land to implement public projects could be obtained
when needed. The power to ac uire land was critical in ensuring
the success of the public housing programme as it allowed the
government to amass the land re uired for the development of self-
contained new towns. The development of industrial estates and
major infrastructure projects such as the airport and ports was also
made possible through land ac uisition.
The Land Ac uisition Ordinance of 1955 and the amended Land

Ac uisition Act in 1966 provided the government with the power
to compulsorily ac uire private land deemed necessary for public
purposes, with monetary compensation for the land owners. This
power was used more extensively in the early years of nation-building
to carry out large public projects. A formal process was instituted to
ensure that the act was not abused.
“ The Land Acquisition Act is a powerful tool for development. But it has to be
used with care. It can be abused by unscrupulous politicians. Internal safeguards
are absolutely necessary to ensure that acquisition does not amount to confiscation.
In Singapore, any proposal for land acquisition by an executive ministry has to be
concurred to by the Ministry of Law before it can be submitted to Cabinet, for
decision. The Ministry of Law has to be satisfied that the proposal for acquisition is
clearly for a public purpose, such as the building of roads, schools, public hospitals,
MRT systems, HDB public housing and industrial estates. Owners of land not satisfied
with the rates of compensation can appeal to the Valuation Board of Appeal.21
Ngiam Tong Dow,former permanent secretary of the Ministry of National Development ”

As Singapore became more developed, the Land Ac uisition Act
was used more sparingly, mostly for major road and rail schemes
which were impossible to undertake without affecting private land,
as well as for comprehensive redevelopment to optimise the use of
land in conjunction with such schemes.
83
Implementing through the private sector—sale of sites and central area

redevelopment
Another avenue through which urbanisation plans have been

implemented is the sale of sites mechanism, executed through
government agencies such as the URA and HDB. Land parcels are
assembled and sold to the private sector with a set of conditions
tailored to achieve the planning objectives within the framework of a
free market economy. The private sector would contribute financial
resources and expertise to undertake the development projects.
This mechanism of materialising the planning intentions is now an
established system in Singapore’s urban development landscape.
In 1967, the Urban Renewal Department (URD) Sale of Sites

Programme was launched. The First Sale of 13 sites was released for
public tender in June 1967. The design guide and tender conditions
provided specifications for overall massing control as well as the
type and intensity of development. The Second Sale (14 sites) and
Third Sale (19 sites) were released in November 1968 and 1969
respectively. The projects ranged from office buildings to hotels,
cinemas, shopping centres, carpark buildings and apartments.
To attract developers, special concessions were given. These

included easy terms for land payments (20 down payment, interest-
free loans with repayment periods of over ten years and property
tax concessions at one-third of the normal rate of 36 for 20 years).
The sites were sold with vacant possession, with the necessary
infrastructure provided.
By the mid-1970s, following large-scale resettlement and the

erection of public housing and higher-income private residential
blocks as well as retail and office premises outside the city centre, in
line with the decentralisation process, the central area’s population
had declined correspondingly. Other industrial and warehouse uses
were also relocated from the central area to the Jurong industrial
one and other light industrial estates adjacent to HDB new towns.
84
Urban renewal in the Central Area was aided by the lifting of the Rent
Control Act of 1947. A new Controlled Premises (Special Provisions)
Act was passed in 1969. The new Act allowed landlords to terminate
tenancy and repossess their properties in areas ga etted by MND.
This gave landlords the incentive to redevelop land in such areas but
the landlords were re uired to submit their redevelopment plans for
approval. Thus, the rent de-control contributed to urban renewal in
the Central Area.
The most drastic changes occurred in the Golden Shoe area, where
the financial and banking sector was concentrated. The results from
the lifting of the Rent Control Act were positive. In 1979, the Golden
Shoe area was further redeveloped in anticipation of rising demand
for office space. Development took place at Raf es Place, Cecil
Street, Robinson Road and Shenton Way. Landmark buildings in
these areas such as the DBS Building (1975), OCBC Building (1976),
Standard Chartered Bank Building (1986), Monetary Authority of
Singapore Building (1985), Raf es City (1984) and Marina Centre
(1984) were erected.
12 Singapore’s financial district

Urbanisation plans were implemented through sale of sites to the private sector, creating a vibrant and attractive 85
financial hub.
Photo courtesy of Hammad Ali
Between 1967 and 1989, a total of 184 ha of land was cleared,

assembled and sold under the URA Sale of Sites Programme,
resulting in the development of 155 projects. Through this
programme, Singapore’s Central Area was transformed from an
area of slums and s uatters into a modern financial and business
hub. The Orchard Road Corridor was also transformed into the main
tourist and shopping district.
In 1980, URA, supported by other government agencies, prepared

a comprehensive long-term plan for the Central Area. Chief among
its proposals was the development of Marina Centre and Marina
South on 690 ha of reclaimed land south of Singapore. At the end
of 1983, 17 ha of land at the Marina Centre was sold by URA to build
an integrated development that included hotels, shops, offices,
residences, convention facilities and recreational venues.
As the economy grew and the country’s per capita income rose,
Singapore also had to keep up with the changing times by ac uiring
a modern physical infrastructure. In 1983, URA completed an
urban design plan for the central area. This resulted in an orderly
transformation of the city skyline and the creation of an impressive
environment interwoven with the historical, architectural and cultural
heritage of the older parts of the city. This led to the formulation of
the 1985 Central Area Structure Plan.
The sale of sites mechanism remains one of the most effective

programmes to meet the demand for various types of properties
to ensure the stability of the property market and to support
economic growth. It also allows the private sector to participate in
the development of the country to realise the planning intentions
of the Master Plan. State land sites across the island are released
for sale regularly for residential, commercial, hotel, industrial and
mixed-use developments.
86
Greater transparency—reform of the Master Plan and development

control system
Mobilising the private sector in urban development to materialise
Master Plans is more effective when there is a transparent planning
system. Today, a property developer can go to the Master Plan
found on the URA website to view the otential use of land and the
intensity of the use of land. However, this degree of transparency
was not always the norm.
Between the 1960s to 1980s, to aid day-to-day development control

work, the government prepared various non-statutory plans to serve
as guidelines on permissible forms of development. These plans
provide the basis upon which private sector planning applications
were evaluated. These non-statutory plans included micro zoning
plans introduced in 1973 to provide firmer guidance on acceptable
densities, forms of development and heights of buildings. Sectoral
land use plans were also prepared by the URA. These plans
provided a physical framework for future development in selected
areas.22 Other than micro- oning plans and sectoral plans, en elo
lans were prepared to provide urban design guidelines on the
desired scale, form and intensity of future development in any area.
Design controls covered aspects such as building heights, building
lines, setbacks, party walls, service lanes, carpark access, covered
walkways and density. However, most of these plans were for internal
development use and were known as bottom-drawer’ plans.23
The public and private sectors were not always aware of these
plans. Keung noted that if the private sector got a piece of land
and wanted to develop it in a certain way that was different from
the Master Plan oning, the authorities would assess and evaluate
the application, not so much on the basis of the Master Plan but on
some other guidelines or development control policy.24 It was also
difficult for the private sector to know the intended use of a parcel
of land. This was because the exact area of a site that was affected
by particular onings could not always be determined from visual
inspection of the Master Plan. The site may have been affected by
multiple ones, or, while it may be shown in the map, this was in
87
too small a scale which did not permit the precise determination
of the site’s location.
This lack of transparency in the allowable use, intensity and

design considerations led to centralised and cumbersome
decision-making processes.
“ Every development application submitted by the private sector required an

individual decision … there were piles and piles of development applications
overwhelming the Permanent Secretary and all the officials … Every decision had to
go up and be decided by the Minister … so we had to see how we could streamline
the process.25
” Lim Hng Kiang
Eventually, a number of changes were made to the planning system

and the organisational set-up of the planning bureaucracy. The
impetus for change came from Ngiam Tong Dow, when he became
the Permanent Secretary for MND. Khoo Teng Chye, currently the
Executive Director of the Centre for Liveable Cities and former CEO
of URA from 1992 to 1996, recalled Ngiam had told him that “all
your problems are because of your closed system, an arbitrary forest
of rules.” Ngiam asked, “Why don’t you work towards a planning
system that is a lot more open and a lot more transparent ”26
Development Guide Plans

The changes to the planning system started with a review of the 1991
Concept Plan carried out by URA. This led to the creation of forward-
looking Development Guide Plans (DGPs) in the 1990s. These plans
kept the public informed on the type of developments they could
have for certain sites.
The planners divided the entire island into five regions (north, north-
east, west, central and east) and 55 planning areas. Each area had a
DGP. The DGPs translated the broad intention of the Concept Plan
88
to detailed local plans. These DGPs, when ga etted, collectively

formed the 1998 Master Plan. They provided detailed guidelines
on land use, gross plot ratio, building heights, and special urban
design re uirements for development at the local level. Specifically,
each DGP was guided by the Concept Plan’s uantum provision for
various uses: housing, commercial, industrial, parks and recreation,
for instance. As articulated in the 1991 Concept Plan, the entire
planning principle was to integrate land use and transportation, with
a decentralisation of commercial activities.
Drafting the DGPs involved having consultations with many

government agencies. It was a time-intensive exercise and
completing the 55 DGPs took longer than anticipated. As the plans
would now have very specific details on each land parcel in terms of
land use, intensity and building heights, the planners reviewed the
plan at a more local level.
The government began releasing the draft DGPs to the public in the
early 1990s, and by 1998, all 55 DGPs were completed and ga etted,
forming the new Master Plan. These DGPs spelt out the technical
and operational re uirements for each planning area and became an
important tool, ensuring that development in the 55 planning areas
were in accordance with the long-term land use strategy mapped
out in the Concept Plan.
Reviewing development controls—changes to development charge

The other major change was that the development controls were
made more transparent. The development control system ensures
that all properties are developed and used according to what is set
out in the Master Plan, in land use oning, gross plot ratio, building
height controls, and other development control guidelines. This
ensures the development fits well in its neighbourhood.
In particular, a more open system for calculating the development

charge was introduced in 1989. The development charge is
a tax that is levied when planning permission is granted to
89
THE MAKING OF
DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
PLANS
The preparation of each Development Guide Plan (DGP) was a vigorous process where
the principles of the Concept Plan were applied within the localised context of the
planning area. The first stage involved the collection and analysis of all data.
“ At that time, there was hardly any data. We literally sent

people out to capture what was there and we mapped out
every piece of land, what was there and who it belonged
to—the data was all over the place as nobody really
updated the records so we had to do a major exercise.27
”
Cheong-Chua Koon Hean, former Chief Executive Officer,
Urban Redevelopment Authority
90
URA gathered data on existing land uses and master plan zoning,
planning decisions already approved, existing plot ratio, building
heights, land ownership, transport networks, conservation and
housing needs, topographical data as well as all technical height
constraints on the land.
The next step was studying the strengths and opportunities as well
as weaknesses and constraints of each DGP area. The process of
preparing a DGP included consultations with all relevant government
agencies and departments. At that time, this would have included,
for example, the HDB for housing plans, JTC for industrial areas, the
Ministry of Education (MOE) for schools, the National Parks Board
(NParks) for neighbourhood and town parks, the Singapore Sports
Council (SSC ) for recreation facilities, and the Civil Aviation Authority
of Singapore (CAAS) and the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) for
building height or other technical constraints. These consultations
looked into specific details, for example, what the exact alignment
of a proposed road or location of a rail station would be; whether
the sites allocated for schools were well distributed and sufficient to
cater for the projected population in new housing areas; whether
the sites allocated for sports facilities were large enough; and if there
was a sufficient distribution of parks throughout the planning area.
Various planning standards were used as a guide to ensure sufficient

facilities such as schools, sports and recreation centres, and clinics.
For example, the requirement was to have one primary school
to approximately 4,300 housing units and one secondary school
to approximately 5,600 housing units. Other provision standards
included one swimming complex per town.
Cheong-Chua recalled that URA captured information for every

parcel of land and traced the history of the site for every planning
decision that might affect the land value.
“ You cannot discard the history of the site because it captures a certain amount of
land value. So, if you change the land use of the site and you downgrade the value,
you better have a very good reason why.28
” Cheong-Chua Koon Hean
91
carry out development projects that increase the value of the land,
for instance, re- oning to a higher value use or increasing the plot
ratio. The development charge is an important tool in Singapore’s
development control system and was originally modelled after
the British betterment levy. Previous methods of calculating the
development charge payable had variations in terms of how the
intensity for residential and non-residential developments was
measured and had gone through different incarnations where
only fixed rates or only spot valuations were used. The system was
complicated and lacked transparency from the point of view of the
private developer.
The revised system of calculating the development charge based

on fixed rates was introduced in September 1989. This system
defined Singapore by sectors and included a table which showed
the values of different use categorised and classed by geographic
sectors. The Chief aluer reviewed the table every six months, taking
into consideration changes in property values. As part of the revised
system, applicants could also opt for spot valuation to determine
the amount of development charge instead of using the prescribed
fixed rates. Based on the land use and intensity of the site, and
the published fixed rates, the developer could then compute the
development charge payable to know the full implication of the
costs to develop his land.
Having put the systems in place, there was a need for an organisation
to deliver the reformed planning system. From the 1960s to
the late 1980s, the planning approval process for private sector
development had been assessed by the Development and Building
Control Division of PWD while the Planning Department processed
public sector projects. In 1989, the Urban Redevelopment Authority
Act was amended to give effect to the amalgamation of the URA,
established in 1974, MND’s Planning Department (which included
the development control function of PWD which had rejoined a year
earlier) and the Research and Statistics Unit.
Explaining the amalgamation in Parliament, S. Dhanabalan, then

Minister for National Development, said:
92
Firstly, it [the amalgamation] streamlines the planning

functions. URA is currently the Conservation Authority
and the planning agency for the Central Area, while
the Planning Department is the planning authority for
the rest of the Island. Through the amalgamation, the
planning and development control functions will be
centralised under a single authority. Second, it facilitates
the sharing of expertise. With the amalgamation of
URA’s expertise in Central Area planning, particularly in
urban design and the Planning Department’s expertise
in strategic planning, there will be better co-ordinated
planning for the whole island. Third, it minimises the
duplication in supporting services. Lastly, it attracts
talent.29
Dhanabalan also pointed out that the physical development of

Singapore in the future would increasingly be undertaken by
the private sector. The public sector would guide the course of
Singapore’s physical development rather than become involved in
the direct implementation of projects.
Liu Thai Ker was appointed CEO and Chief Planner of the new
URA, relin uishing his position as CEO of the HDB. The new
set-up involved six major divisions Physical Planning Division,
Conservation & Urban Design Division, Project Services Division,
Corporate Development Division, Land Administration Division
and Development Control Division and was staffed by planners,
architects, engineers, administrative officers, system analysts,
property officers, accountants, uantity surveyors and legal officers.
The formation of the new organisation allowed the authority to
carry out planning functions, facilitate development through the
Sale of Sites Programme and regulate the built environment.
“The uni ueness about the URA organisation is that we have
multidisciplinary expertise,” explains Lim Eng Hwee, current Chief
Planner, “and when you take it further, that is, Singapore’s system as
a whole, we work together as a whole-of-Government.”30
93
Principle 5: Innovate systematically

Innovative thinking, coupled with engineering expertise, has
been crucial in ensuring that urban policies and programmes
make Singapore’s 710 km2 of land area liveable. For example,
manufacturing investments brought in by EDB re uired large
parcels of land. However, given the limited land available for
sprawling manufacturing developments, JTC came up with the idea
of developing stack-up factories’. These factories are designed with
large ramps to allow container trucks to access factories located at
the upper oors of a development. At the same time, JTC ensures
that land is productively used by the industries. “Every time the lease
period of the land is renewed, we ensure that the value-added per
hectare of land is raised,” noted Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Trade
and Industry. “Otherwise, other industries that can contribute more
to the economy for the same parcel of land will be allocated the
parcel of land.”31
Another example of innovation can be seen in the use of Singapore’s

drainage corridors that connect a variety of open spaces. These
are planned and well distributed throughout Singapore. At the
conceptualising stage of the Concept Plan, the main idea was to try
to optimise the use of the drainage reserves to double up as a linear
connector. As Keung explained:
Almost all of the major parks in Singapore, with the

exception of the Central catchment and Bishan Park,
were coastal parks [and] were quite small. So the
concept was to develop a green network linking the
coastal parks to the Central Catchment so that
residents in private and public housing have access to
this green network. If they want to jog or cycle to the
coastal parks, they eventually can.32
Today, these green connectors are known to the public as park

connectors and NParks is the main agency implementing the Park
Connector Network.
94
Over the years, there have been innovative ideas for the drainage
networks. PUB, together with NParks, introduced the Active Beautiful
and Clean Waters (ABC Waters) programme. The main feature of this
project is to convert concrete drainage canals into naturalised rivers
with bio-engineered river edges by using a variety of plants and
bedding materials. The rivers are designed based on a ood plain
concept, whereby during dry weather the river ow will be confined
to a narrow stream in the middle of the river. The gently sloped river
banks would form part of a park feature and users would be able to
walk along the water’s edge. In the event of a storm, the water level
in the river would rise and the area adjacent to the river would be
used as a ood plain to contain the rainwater. These naturalised rivers
would meander through parks and housing areas so that people can
enjoy the water while appreciating the importance of clean water.
At the same time, these rivers would help enrich the biodiversity by
attracting different species of wildlife back into the city.
13 Before and after photos of canal restoration in Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park as part of the Active, Beautiful and Clean
(ABC Waters) Programme.
Photo courtesy of Atelierdreiseitl
95
CONCLUSION
Singapore’s urban planning system has evolved over the years.
To recap, the Concept Plan maps out the long-term land use and
development strategy and forms the basis to guide the physical
development of Singapore. The key principle of thin ing long term
fosters the discipline of considering the long-term implications of
current development trends, identifying areas for concern upfront,
and putting in place measures to address these concerns well
ahead of time. This is critical at the broad strategic and policy
decision levels.
Singapore’s urban development experience speaks of the

government’s emphasis on implementation, or in other words,
realising the plans. It has taken a degree of political will to see
the implementation through and the generally stable political
environment has helped. Technically competent and action-oriented
government agencies have played a significant part in executing
the plans effectively. In addition, effective mechanisms such as the
Sale of Sites Programme have fostered government-private sector
partnerships in materialising urban development.
The Master Plan translates the intentions of the Concept Plan into
detailed guidelines while the development control regime ensures
that development takes place in a manner that is consistent with the
Master Plan. In effect, Singapore has consciously moved towards
creating an integrated approach to planning and implementation
by aligning the Concept Plan, Master Plan and development control
system. This has improved transparency, which is important when the
government wants to involve the private sector in realising the plans.
Planning principles are applied consistently at all stages of the

planning process. At the Concept Plan level, various committees
comprising different government agencies are set up to look into
a range of strategic issues that have an impact on major land use.
Essentially, these platforms allow for land use con icts to be resolved
96
up-front. They also allow for the exploration of new and innovative
ideas to mobilise planning initiatives. This inter-agency approach
cascades to the Master Plan level as all executing agencies are
consulted in drafting the plan, down to details such as alignment
of roads, location of MRT stations, safeguarding land corridors
proposed in the Concept Plan, and the provision of all public
facilities and amenities. Even at the development control level, the
technical re uirements of the different government agencies are
complied with.
Planners also recognise that while the plans may have been
prepared with great thoroughness, things can change and there is
always a need to assess the plans and implementation approach
periodically. As such, the planning system has built in flexibility
to deal with changes to Singapore’s context and situation. These
key principles have been essential in creating a resilient integrated
master planning and development system for Singapore.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Centre or i eable Cities C C oul li e to than the ollo ing
eo le or their contribution to this stu y through inter ie s an
other orms o su ort Cheong Chua oon ean lan Choe Chua
Peng Chye oo Chee See ohn eung am o eng im Eng
ee iu Thai er Tan ien Seng an Se ena ong C C oul also
li e to than the Urban Re e elo ment uthority or contributing
no le ge an e ertise to ar s this stu y
The author than s all urban ioneers or ta ing the time to share
their insights an e eriences in the lanning an e elo ment
o Singa ore
97
ENDNOTES
1. Lim Kim San, oral history interview by Lily Tan, date transcribed February 25, 1985, Accession
number 000526/21, Oral History Centre,134–35.
2. Housing Committee, Re ort o the ousing Committee Singa ore (Singapore:

Government Printing Office, 1948).
3. Steven Choo, “Planning Environment and the Planning Process A Case Study of Singapore”,
UNI E M, 90–96.
5. Otto Koenigsberger, “Action Planning”, rchitectural ournal (May 1964): 308.
6. K.Olse ewski and R. Skeates, “Singapore’s Long-Range Planning”, Royal ustralian Planning
Institute (January 1971): 57–70.
7. Chua Peng Chye, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, December 19, 2011.
Chua was formerly Acting Chief of the Planning Department at the Ministry for National
Development. He was also ice President of the Singapore Institute of Planners and Deputy
Chairman of the Singapore Professional Centre.
8. Liu Thai Ker, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 29, 2011. Liu is
currently Director of RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd. He held previous
9. John Keung, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 27, 2011. Keung
is currently Chief Executive Officer of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA). He is
also the Co-Executive Director of the Clean Energy Programme Office, Chairman of BCA
International Pte Ltd, a board member of BCA and member of the Supervisory Board, Solar
Energy Research Institute of Singapore. He held previous appointments as Deputy Chief
Executive Officer (Building) of the Housing & Development Board, Director of Strategic
Planning in the Ministry of National Development, Deputy Chief Planner (Planning Policies)
in the Urban Redevelopment Authority and later, as its Deputy Chief Executive Officer
(Development Control and Corporate Development).
10. John Keung, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 27, 2011. See
11. Liu Thai Ker, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 29, 2011. See
Endnote 8 for Liu’s current and past appointments.
12. The Port of Singapore Authority has been known as PSA Corporation or PSA since 1997, when
its operational functions were corporatised. A year earlier, its regulatory functions were taken
over by a newly-established body, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.
98
13. See the PSA website,“The Dawn of a New Era”, http://www.internationalpsa.com/about/

heritage e.html (accessed January10, 2014).
Secretary for the Ministry of National Development, Chief Executive Officer of the Housing &
Development Board, Minister for National Development and Minister for Health.
Mah was former Minister for National Development, and also held previous appointments as
17. Economic Development Board nnual Re ort (Singapore: Economic Development

Board, 1968), 17–18.
18. Tan Jake Hooi, “Metropolitan Planning in Singapore”, ustralian Planning Institute ournal
(1966):111–119.
19. Liu Thai Ker, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 29, 2011. See
Endnote 8 for Liu’s current and past appointments.
21. Ngiam Tong Dow, Man arin an the Ma ing o Public Policy Re ections by Ngiam Tong
o ed. Simon Tay (Singapore: NUS Press, 2006), 181.
22. Planning Department, nnual Re ort (Singapore: n.p., 1973), 4.
23. Leung Yew Kwong, e elo ment an an e elo ment Change in Singa ore (Singapore:
Butterworths, 1987), 26.
26. Khoo Teng Chye, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, September 19, 2011.
Khoo is currently Executive Director of the Centre for Liveable Cities, Ministry of National
Development. He held previous appointments as Chief Executive of PUB, Singapore’s
National Water Agency; Chief Executive Officer/Chief Planner at the Urban Redevelopment
Authority; Chief Executive Officer/Group President of PSA Corporation; President and Chief
Executive Officer of Mapletree Investments and Managing Director (Special Projects) of
Temasek Holdings.
27. Cheong-Chua Koon Hean, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore,
September 13, 2011. Cheong-Chua is currently Chief Executive Officer of the Housing
99
& Development Board, and Deputy Secretary (Special Duties) of the Ministry of National
Development. She held previous appointments as Chief Executive Officer of the Urban
Redevelopment Authority, and is a board member of Jurong Port Pte Ltd, International
Federation of Housing and Planning, NUS Board of Trustees, and the Civil Service College.
28. Ibid.
29. S. Dhanabalan, Urban Redevelopment Authority Bill, Parliament no. 7, Session 1, ol. 54,
Sitting 5, August 4, 1989.
30. Lim Eng Hwee, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 2, 2011. Lim is
currently Chief Planner and Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Redevelopment
Authority. He has previously served in the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry
of Trade and Industry, overseeing urban development and economic development policies
and initiatives.
Endnote 9 for Keung’s present and past appointments.
100
CHAPTER 3
Urban Governance
Foresight and Pragmatism
Photo courtesy of William Cho

Urban Governance:
Foresight and Pragmatism
TOH Boon Kwan, Mark CHEN and Vernie OLIVEIRO
01 City Hall and Old Supreme Court

Founding principles and legislation were debated and set within this building, laying the foundations for
sound governance.
INTRODUCTION: TRANSFORMATION OF A CITY

Singapore faced severe socio-economic problems when it gained
independence in 1965. Unemployment rates among a population
of 1.6 million escalated from 5 in 1957 to 14 in 1959. At the
same time, the birth rate grew at an average of 4.4 annually
between 1947 and 1957, the highest known in the world.1 There
was widespread poverty with one in four persons living below the
minimum standards of livelihood.2 Some 250,000 of this rapidly-
growing population lived in badly degenerated slums in the city
102
Urban Governance: Foresight and Pragmatism
centre, squeezed six to a room; a sizeable number spilled over into

illegal squatter colonies surrounding the city centre.3 Public hygiene
was poor—widespread littering and public spitting exacerbated
the spread of diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. Street hawkers
dumped food waste into the roadside drains, transforming them
into open sewers.
From the outset of its ascent to power in 1959, the newly-elected

People’s Action Party (PAP) government was confronted not only
with these immense socio-economic problems but also with
significant political challenges. It was saddled with a budget deficit
inherited from the previous administration led by the Labour Front
government. The British had bequeathed a civil service to the
PAP government that, though reasonably efficient, was rife with
corruption. Within the PAP’s own ranks, an intense ideological
struggle between different political factions aiming to win the hearts
and minds of the newly enfranchised people was being fought out.
02 General Elections, 1959

A People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate speaking at a rally in Chinatown.
Photo from Ministry of Information and the Arts Collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore
103
Despite these problems, Singapore would, over the next four

decades, become one of the world’s most competitive economies.4
Its per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of US$36,537, when
adjusted for purchasing power, ranks among the top ten in the
world.5 Unemployment rates are low, the home ownership rate is
high,6 and the 82 of Singaporeans who live in multi-ethnic public
housing estates are well served by transport links and amenities such
as schools, sports complexes, and malls.7 Singapore is considered
one of the least corrupt countries, with Transparency International
ranking it fifth out of 177 countries and territories.8 At the same
time, it has been judged to be among the most liveable cities in
the world. Monocle named Singapore the 15th most liveable city
in the world in 2013,9 while Mercer’s 2012 uality of Living Survey
ranked Singapore the most liveable city in Asia, the 6th in the
Asia-Pacific region (including Australia and New ealand) and the
25th in the world. The same survey also ranked Singapore one of
the safest cities in the world.10
“ Create a sense of safety, a sense of feeling comfortable in this place. It is no use

having good surroundings, if you are afraid all the time. I went to New York’s Central
Park, and you felt unsafe … The police force must be effective, not visible. We have
Neighbourhood Police Posts—police who know the people in that neighbourhood,
so they know when strangers come in. It is easier to prevent people from going
to another place where they are not recognised and committing crimes, because if
you are not from the neighbourhood and you come in, you are noticed … Today, a
woman can go jogging at three o’clock in the morning, and she would not be raped.
It is an essential part of a liveable city.11
”
Lee Kuan Yew, first Prime Minister of Singapore
This dramatic transformation of Singapore may provide useful

insights to development researchers and policy-makers in the
field of urban planning. An examination of the role of urban (or
metropolitan) governance in managing Singapore’s transformation
from a politically turbulent, economically vulnerable and self-
governing country in 1959 to a wealthy and globalised city-state
in the present will provide key principles and insights to explain
104
Singapore’s success. Some of the challenges Singapore faced as

a developing city-state were and are not unique; other countries
and cities facing the challenges of development may glean
insights applicable to their contexts from Singapore’s experiences
in urban governance. Having delivered on security as well as
economic and institutional development, the challenge for urban
governance in Singapore now lies in shaping an effective and
efficient government that can help Singapore society develop
the capabilities to deal with an environment characterised by
increasing complexity, uncertainty, and rapid change.12
PRINCIPLES OF DYNAMIC URBAN GOVERNANCE

The very heart of Singapore’s governance paradigm is a focus on
achieving long-term, enduring benefits, rather than short-term
gains. This approach was critical in the early days of independence
and remains the guiding paradigm today.
“ I think long-term thinking is still important. There may be certain policies or plans
that we make which may not show results in the short term but will likely show
results in the long term. For example, greenery is something that we’ve always done,
taken a long-term view. People ask for the value of having parks and trees. You can
only have that, you can only realise the value of these things many, many years down
the road. How Singapore is so different? Why is it we are different? We are different
because of what we did 20 years ago.13
”
Mah Bow Tan, former Minister for National Development
Undoubtedly, long-term planning had been aided by PAP

dominance. These days, the Party’s gradually eroding electoral
majority and an increasingly competitive political sphere will
challenge the government’s ability to eschew populist, short-term
policies.
105
Singapore also recognised from the outset that good urban

governance requires technocratic and professional expertise, in
other words, a capable public service. The role of public servants is
to present all options, highlight all considerations and recommend
the options to take. However, it is the politicians who must choose
between policies and their associated trade-offs as it is they who
must be accountable to voters’ aspirations and demands.14
Of the many elements that had an impact on Singapore’s

governance approach, five stand out, and may be seen as
operating principles of sound and dynamic urban governance.
“ It is very well to talk about land use, urban governance, all the logical and rational
ways of approaching the planning and building of the city. But to do that well
requires a very competent and influential group of—I would say technocrats—people
who really know the subject. Unfortunately, they are not the ones who will determine
what the outcome is. The outcome is determined by political imperatives. At the end
of the day, the politicians have to make the decision as to what is politically more
important but they must know the cost of what they are doing.15
”
S. Dhanabalan, former Minister for National Development
Principle 1: Lead with vision and pragmatism

Singapore’s model of urban governance is derived in part from the
exigencies and constraints of a severely resource-challenged and
economically vulnerable polity. This is reflected in Lee Kuan Yew’s
candid assessment of Singapore’s prospects in 1965:
[A]n island city-state in Southeast Asia could not

be ordinary if it was to survive. We had to make
extraordinary efforts to become a tightly knit, rugged
and adaptable people who could do things better and
cheaper than our neighbours, because they wanted to
bypass us and render obsolete our role as the entrep t
and middleman for the trade of the region. We had to
be different.16
106
This ethic has strongly informed the mindset of the core leadership
on Singapore’s governance ever since. Understandably, governance
in the city-state has been overwhelmingly characterised by
pragmatism, understood here to be the prioritisation of economic
progress and socio-political order that the government has seen
as critical components of overall development. The result was an
effective translation of the priority of economic development into
policies that delivered rapid rates of growth over the course of a
generation.
Since it gained power in 1959, the ruling PAP has governed

continuously for more than five decades. The longevity of the
PAP’s rule has allowed the government to adopt a future-oriented
and long-term perspective in policy-making, a key strength of
Singapore’s urban governance model. But this model has come
under increasing critical scrutiny in the wake of the failure of
housing and transport policies to cater adequately to the rapid
influx of new immigrants, expatriate and foreign workers to the
island since 2005.
During Singapore’s march to developed country status in the

decades after 1965, the PAP’s policies benefited mostly, though not
all, citizens. This laid the foundation for good urban governance.17
The PAP’s responsiveness to citizens’ concerns and needs may also
have been a factor in its success. The Economist has succinctly
observed that “[t]he knack of responding to voters’ complaints
while sticking to its basic operating principles is what has kept the
[PAP] in power ever since independence in 1962 [sic]”.18
Lee was forthright in identifying the factors behind Singapore’s

success in building a sustainable and liveable city:
[M]y approach is a pragmatic approach. Does it work?

Does it not work? If it works, then do it. If it doesn’t
work, change.19
107
Was it planned from the beginning? No It was a

process of learning, adjusting, refining and passing it
on to the next generation so that they don’t have to
relearn the process.20
His attribution of success to the pragmatic streak of formulating

and adapting public policy understates the deep thinking that
went into public policy processes during his time at the helm of
the country. Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s first Finance Minister
who eventually rose to become Deputy Prime Minister under
Lee, observed: “[h]e sees problems with long-range implications
and has a deeper grasp of what has to be done, both to forestall
problems as well as to get things going.”21
This ethos of learning by doing while keeping broader visionary

objectives in sight was a hallmark of public administration during
Singapore’s early days. Political scientist and diplomat Chan
Heng Chee characterises this period of policy-making as one of
“experimentation with reactive institution-building designed to
shore up support rather than as a period in which there was an
effort systematically to implement a clear vision of a political or
an administrative system.”22 There was little time to draft master
plans and follow through with dogmatism.
“ It would be a mistake to say it was all planned. What is key about Singapore is
that we plan a little but when the environment changes, we react very fast to seize
the opportunities and then we fly.23
” S. Dhanabalan
Principle 2: Build a culture of integrity

The public service recognised from the start the need to create a
culture of integrity and to keep itself honest. The Singapore public
service’s reputation for incorruptibility has been achieved in two
main ways.
108
The first is an extreme intolerance of corruption, as seen in the

willingness of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau to pursue
all cases of corruption, no matter the sums or the prominence of the
individuals involved. Singapore’s intolerance for corruption is also
manifest in the severe penalties attached to bribery—offenders
may be imprisoned, pay a fine equivalent to the amount of the
bribe, and lose assets for which they cannot adequately account.
The prosecution of corruption is also eased by procedures that
make it easier for prosecutors to acquire evidence.24
Second, rules and processes reduce opportunities for corruption.

Public officers are well remunerated in order to reduce the
temptation for bribery and are held to high standards of probity:
they must avoid conflicts of interests between their official
positions and private interests; refuse gifts given in connection
with their work, declare and surrender these gifts, or pay their
value; sign an annual declaration of non-indebtedness in order
to avoid acquiring compromising obligations; and declare their
personal and familial assets to make transparent any properties or
investments acquired beyond their means. The ability of officers to
act with favour is also reduced.
Principle 3: Cultivate sound institutions

Although good leadership is key to a country’s or organisation’s
success, leaders, like all men, are susceptible to various biases. It
is therefore important to build robust institutions and processes to
guard against the whimsical judgement of a few leaders at the top.
Robust institutions and processes are important to ensure that all
available resources and expertise within a country or organisation
can be fully utilised.25 Current Minister for Trade and Industry, Lim
Hng Kiang, outlined the government’s thinking on the importance
of institutional structure:
I think basically you want as much structure and process

as possible, so that you’re less dependent on individual
judgment. As an administrator, my inclination was to
109
try and put as much structure and process in place as

possible so that all the skills and competencies are
brought to bear. If everything depends on just the
judgment of the individual, then I think you’re very
subject to the idiosyncrasies of that person.26
From the outset, the PAP government saw the public service as a
crucial element in the achievement of its objectives. Transforming
the bureaucracy from a colonial service to a public service for
national development involved the fostering of both human
capital and institutions. Efficient and resilient institutions resulting
in a capable technocracy have been seen as central to the city-
state’s rapid development.27
The close relationship between the Singapore public service and the
political leadership was seen as a means of encouraging effective
and efficient implementation of policies. According to Lee, the
setting up of the Political Study Centre in 1959 was meant to “re-
orientate their [i.e., civil servants] thinking, so that they understood
why we [i.e., PAP] felt it was urgent [that] the civil service must be
politically focused before they can become effective”.28 A more
“politically focused” public service would be one that was more
aware of the national, regional, and international contexts within
which policies for Singapore had to be made and implemented.
As Neo Boon Siong and Geraldine Chen have argued, the Political
Study Centre aimed to make civil servants “more aware of the new
developments in Singapore and the rest of Asia, and to socialize
them to the requirements of building a new society”.29
The public service was central to the development objectives for the
country but lacked sufficient talented individuals in its ranks. This
situation led the Singapore government to initiate and maintain,
over the years, aggressive talent recruitment, development,
and retention policies. Meritocracy guides the recruitment and
promotion of public servants at all levels. The Public Service
Commission and other public agencies in Singapore award
scholarships for tertiary education to academically able students
110
who then serve a bond with their sponsoring organisations for

a period of time. If selected to serve in the elite Administrative
Service, their skills in management and knowledge of public
affairs will be deepened through rotations in different agencies.
The salaries of senior public servants are benchmarked to those
in the private sector, ensuring that monetary reward becomes less
of an issue for individuals considering careers in the public sector.
Emphasis is also placed on fostering morale, promoting staff
well-being, and encouraging consistent training and continuous
learning.30
The expertise and honesty of the public service is further leveraged

in effective and efficient institutional settings. At the political level,
the Cabinet led by the Prime Minister sets the general strategic
policy directions. From the Cabinet, the Ministries receive policies
relevant to their portfolios and administer regulations and
Parliamentary orders besides running the operations of agencies
and departments. The Cabinet is also the final arbiter of conflicting
priorities between the different agencies and departments.31
“ When a policy comes up to Cabinet, among the sixteen of us, there would be at
least three or four who have deep knowledge of that portfolio, compared to other
countries where the system is such that there isn’t that same depth and number of
people. Take health policies. In the previous Cabinet, Goh Chok Tong was a Health
Minister previously, PM [i.e., current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong] who did the
white paper on healthcare, George Yeo who was a Health Minister, myself and Khaw
Boon Wan. In health policy there were five of us who understood the problems and
challenges. For economic development, there was even more depth. You can think of
any portfolio and you know that in the previous Cabinet or this Cabinet there will be at
least three or four persons with deep knowledge of it and I think that’s a strength.32
Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Trade and Industry ”
Beyond the cross-sectoral expertise of the various Cabinet
Ministers, the government has also ensured that ‘productive fights’
111
arising from policy debates result in optimal outcomes. Careful and

in-depth deliberations on the merits and downsides of a policy
proposal are conducted in Cabinet and despite the differences in
opinions and views, a consensus usually results at the end on the
basis of pragmatism.33 This can be seen in Dhanabalan’s account
of the Cabinet’s decision to proceed with the construction of the
Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE):
When the Bukit Timah Expressway was to be built,

it was being built through the water catchment area
and Ministry of Environment’s Ong Pang Boon, who
was the minister at that time, was against it because it
would pollute the water. The MND’s [i.e., the Ministry of
National Development] Teh Cheang Wan came with the
idea that you can do enough buffers and take enough
measures to make sure that the environmental impact
is kept to the minimum. And of course we needed a
road. So we went to Cabinet and Cabinet discussed as
a whole and felt that we should take the risk of building
BKE. It was not the PM [Prime Minister] who decided it,
it was the Cabinet.34
The National Parks Board (NParks) took further steps to mitigate

the BKE’s environmental impact when, in consultation with various
stakeholders and through studying overseas examples, it came up
with the Eco-Link@BKE proposal. This was an ecological corridor
connecting the primary and secondary forests dissected by the
BKE. Work started on the corridor in July 2011.35
In order to achieve more effective policy implementation, the PAP

government created statutory boards.36 Statutory boards operate
with some autonomy in implementing public policies under their
purview and do so while developing expertise and efficiencies in
their specific areas of focus.37 The top priority given to housing and
economic development is manifest in the fact that the first statutory
boards created under the PAP government were the Housing &
112
Development Board (HDB) in 1960—to construct public housing

for Singaporeans—and the Economic Development Board (EDB)
in 1961, to attract job-creating direct investments to Singapore.
Both these statutory boards were founded to perform the jobs
of predecessor organisations (the Singapore Improvement Trust
and the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board respectively) more
effectively. The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board, established
by the Labour Front government in the 1950s, was developed into
the central pillar of Singapore’s social security programme.
The importance to Singapore’s development of specialised public

agencies can be further seen in the spinning-off, from EDB,
of the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) to develop and manage
industrial estates, and the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS)
to provide industrial capital. These were among some of the over
60 statutory boards that were eventually created, some of which
were subsequently corporatised.
These ‘virtuous’ institutions carry with them the expectation

that they have to innovate and bring about institutional change
through a continuous cycle. While the limits of resources, whether
natural, physical or financial, place bounds on urban development,
innovation can mitigate these limits and in some cases, remove
them in the long term.
Solving Singapore’s urban problems required officials to be able

to see different possibilities beyond the conventional wisdom.
It was this audacity that led Singapore to court investment
from multinational corporations (MNCs) to generate export-led
economic growth when it was unfashionable thinking to do so in
the 1960s. It also introduced the world’s first road usage pricing
system in 1975 to ease traffic congestion in the Central Business
District (CBD), which was ahead of its time, though common-
place now. Lim Hng Kiang, emphasised the importance of policy
innovations:
113
I think you really need a high level of administrative

innovation. You don’t want to be so petrified that you
don’t make bold responses to changing or emerging
challenges. During Mr Dhanabalan’s time, for example,
there were several policies which were, I won’t say
revolutionary, but on hindsight, you would say that
these were all very bold policies. The ethnic ceiling
for HDB flats, if we had shirked it, you would have
racial enclaves today. He was bold enough, after the
‘88 election to put that in place. Now, 20 years later,
people accept it, but you need that political courage to
put that in place at the right time before the problem
becomes too big.38
Principle 4: Involve the community as stakeholders

Since the 1980s, the creation of the Concept Plans and Master Plans
spelling out future land use for Singapore has involved a public
consultation process. The Concept Plan is a strategic land use plan
with a time frame of 40 to 50 years while the statutory Master
Plan translates the strategy of the Concept Plan into operational
details. These development plans and guidelines are published
and widely disseminated to developers, professionals and the
public through the media, government gazette, dialogue sessions
and public exhibitions. The Master Plan (see Chapter 2, page
48) is reviewed every five years and this openness in information
and the presence of channels for interaction allow the public to
register objections to proposed amendments to the Master Plan.
More recently, beyond a straightforward public consultation,
officials have been cautiously moving into new ground, canvassing
ideas from the public. The example in which a civil society group
persuaded the government in 2001 to defer developing Chek
Jawa—a 40 ha piece of land rich in biodiversity—showed that
the public can sometimes recognise opportunities missed by the
government. Today, Chek Jawa is a hugely popular site for nature
lovers, student learning trips and members of the public.
114
03 Chek Jawa wetlands, on Singapore’s island of Pulau Ubin

Public interest was sparked during discussions to preserve the land, drawing large crowds to visit the area.
Photo courtesy of Ria Tan, www.wildsingapore.com
Various campaigns such as the 1967 “Garden City” campaign,

the 1968 “Keep Singapore Clean” campaign, the 1969 “Keep
Singapore Clean and Mosquito-Free” campaign, the 1971 tree
planting campaign and Inaugural Clean and Green Singapore,
Annual Save Water Campaigns, etc., were held and promoted with
the objective of inculcating a sense of ownership. More recently,
programmes like community gardening, the 1997 “Adopt a Park”
and the 2006 “Friends of Water” encourage the community,
through participation, to take care of the environment and
natural resources.
Taking into account the broader changes within Singapore society,

the move from consultation to engagement had gradually become
an integral part of urban governance by the end of the first
decade of the 21st century. In 2009, then Permanent Secretary
for Environment and Water Resources Tan Yong Soon noted:
“[I]t would be costly and unsustainable if the government was
to be relied upon to do everything to protect the environment.
There must be engagement. People can and must want to take
ownership of the environment.”39
115
04 Campaign posters for Singapore World

Water Day
Community engagement is a key
aspect in encouraging the general
public to save water.
Photo courtesy of Singapore World Water Day, PUB
Elaborating on the themes of public engagement and citizen

participation in 2010 and 2011, then Head of Civil Service, Peter
Ho, and then Minister for Information, Communications and the
Arts, Lui Tuck Yew, observed that in Singapore’s context, new
models of service delivery—one that was based on collaboration
and co-creation with the private and people sectors—would be
the wave of the future. This would require a major shift from a
Government-to-You to a Government-with-You mindset, based
on two-way communication between the government and the
people.40 A Government-to-You model may have worked in the
past. For the future, a Government-with-You model, based on an
empowered citizenry participating in the policy-making process
and taking joint ownership over policy outcomes, would be
essential for public policy success.
Principle 5: Work with markets

A driving force behind Singapore’s urban governance approach
has been the consistent emphasis on improving the efficiency of
public service delivery by leveraging market forces as much as
possible while avoiding the pitfalls of market failure.
116
This requires judicious balancing between competing demands

of a diverse stakeholder community. While government remains
pro-business and provides an environment for entrepreneurs to
earn decent profits, it also enforces regulations on businesses to
ensure that, first, the costs of externalities are not unfairly borne by
society; second, sufficient competition in the marketplace exists to
protect the interests of consumers; and third, the government can
actively intervene where the market has failed to ensure that public
interest is upheld.
Public housing is one example where the government has applied

market principles to ensure effective public service delivery.
Public housing is subsidised for a majority of citizens through the
mechanism of pricing flats below market value. This is intended to
promote the social goal of home ownership among families which
increases the sense of belonging to Singapore, and ensuring
the affordability of public housing. New flat buyers pay different
market prices which are determined by the location, floor level,
facing, design and size of their properties. This market subsidy
approach is more equitable for flat buyers as it recognises the
variable market values of individual properties.41
Singapore’s environmental policies also benefit from the

application of market principles, namely: (i) in deciding between
which projects or options to implement; (ii) in setting appropriate
prices or user fees; (iii) when introducing market competition; and
(iv) in dealing with market failures.42
For instance, sewerage services are a public good and a basic

necessity. The government does not apply full-cost recovery
since it serves the public interest to have a fully sewered island
to promote public health. However, when it comes to treatment
of used water and waste incineration services, cost recovery
is applied as consumers can exercise discretion on how much
refuse and used water they generate. A situation of under-pricing
public services in this respect may lead to over-consumption, is
unsustainable in the long run and lowers the welfare of society.43
117
PUTTING URBAN GOVERNANCE TO WORK

The following sections detail the various strands of urban
governance that made Singapore a highly liveable and sustainable
global city. The first section deals with how Singapore transformed
the concept of high-density public housing into a market-leading,
world class innovative public good. The second, third and fourth
sections examine Singapore’s economic competitiveness, urban
transportation framework and environmental sustainability
efforts. Finally, a systems approach to governance is illustrated
through the integrated urban planning process and a public
engagement framework.
Public housing
Housing was a flashpoint in the 1960s to 1970s. Singapore
was facing a severe housing shortage, with large numbers of
Singaporeans living in overcrowded and unsanitary dwellings. An
ambitious public housing programme was implemented with the
creation of the HDB and the appointment of Lim Kim San as its
chairman. Lim, who championed the goal of creating a just and
equal society, was assisted by chief executive officer, Howe Yoon
Chong, and chief architect, Teh Cheang Wan. This trio formed the
core group that directed the work of HDB in its crucial early years.
As former HDB chief executive officer Liu Thai Ker observed:
“[T]hey were leaders, they were not managers”.44
Introduction of First New

Urban Governance in action Creation of HDB Home Ownership Town:
Programme Toa Payoh
KEY EVENTS &

MILESTONES
Public Housing
1960 1964 1968
118
After Lim stepped down as Chairman, HDB’s leaders continued

his private sector discipline—that of perpetually rationalising
operations, cutting waste and improving productivity. Liu
describes several instances of such efforts in the 1970s and 1980s,
long after Lim had ceased to be HDB Chairman or the Minister for
National Development.45 The combination of political will, strong
leadership and sound financing policies were and still remain
integral to Singapore’s efforts to house its population.
Housing the masses
HDB’s primary mission was the rapid development of affordable

housing for the masses. The flats were one- and two-bedroom
units and came with modern sanitation. Although the flats were
small, they were a major improvement over the dilapidated
housing in which many of the first HDB dwellers had been living
in. HDB was careful to provide not just housing but also amenities.
Shop space was provided on the ground floors of the housing
blocks, allowing shopkeepers who had been relocated from the
squatter colonies to continue to run their businesses and earn a
living. These businesses were mainly service-oriented, such as
coffee shops, provision shops and hairdressers which provided
daily conveniences to residents.46 The HDB also planned green
spaces planted with trees between the blocks of flats to reduce the
harshness of what would otherwise have been a concrete jungle.
Home buyers Initial fear of lifts Exhibiting socially

allowed to responsible behaviour
use CPF to
pay housing
mortages
CHALLENGES IN TRANSITION
1968
119
05 Toa Payoh, 1967

The first satellite new town built after Singapore’s independence, Toa Payoh, served as the template for
subsequent developments.
Photo courtesy of National Archives of Singapore
The first HDB flats were built almost haphazardly wherever land
was available. It was only in the mid-1960s that integrated, fully-
planned new towns were initiated. The first of these new towns
was Toa Payoh, which served as the template for the other new
towns that HDB would build across the island during the 1970s
(beginning with Ang Mo Kio in 1973). These housing estates were
built as self-contained communities, with a town centre providing
amenities, community centres, schools, sports complexes, parks
and light industrial estates to provide employment for residents.47
The first new towns were built near the city centre to cut down on
the cost and time residents would spend commuting to work.
Formation of Town Councils Introduction of Ethnic

(TCs) to foster community Integration Policy (EIP)
spirit within housing estates
1989 1989
120
The Public Works Department (PWD), PUB, Ministry of the

Environment (ENV), MND, and then Telecommunications Authority
of Singapore, worked closely with HDB to ensure that public
infrastructure works dovetailed with HDB construction programmes
to achieve a seamless urban development outcome.48
Due to the government’s tight fiscal position and need for quick
results, HDB developed no-frills housing blocks and flat designs
that could be easily and cheaply produced. While the government
subsidised flat construction and provided a strong financial
commitment to the housing programme, it could not be over-
generous. As the population could not afford to buy their flats,
the HDB rented out the flats at an affordable rate. Although the
Home Ownership Programme was introduced in 1964, home
ownership only took off after amendments were made to the
CPF—Singapore’s social security programme—in 1968, to allow
Singaporeans to draw on their CPF accounts to pay their monthly
mortgages.49
Challenges in housing and resettlement

As HDB Chairman, Lim ensured that the construction contracts
awarded by HDB were subjected to competitive tenders,
thereby discouraging corruption and fostering cost efficiencies.
He personally rooted out corruption and criminal shenanigans.
He allowed construction firms to make a small profit but not to
profiteer from the government’s public housing construction
Matching demand and Creating an inclusive society Moderating

supply of population housing prices
growth and housing stock
A NE ERA CHALLENGES AHEAD

2000
121
programme. Apartments were distributed via a transparent and

public balloting system, reducing the ability of individual officers
to unfairly distribute apartments based on favour.50
The success of HDB’s early housing construction programme had

led to increasing numbers of Singaporeans being resettled into
HDB flats. This, together with the Land Acquisition Act in 1966,
allowed the government to initiate large-scale clearing of squatter
colonies at the city’s fringes as well as rural housing, develop new
towns on newly available land, and initiate the rejuvenation of the
city centre. This certainly was not achieved without some public
dissonance—that of the loss of the kampong spirit, or the good
neighbourliness and familiarity that characterised social relations
in the kampong, or village.
The transition from rural life to high density urban living proved
difficult for some of the resettled residents, and public agencies
engaged in various efforts to socialise Singaporeans into the civic
habits of urbanised life. These included campaigns against ‘killer
litter’ (the practice of throwing refuse out of apartment windows
rather than down chutes), urination in lifts, the failure to flush
toilets, and littering.
Building homes for the future

Over the years, HDB’s comprehensive planning and execution
have evolved with the planning of new towns centred around
sustainability as a fundamental philosophy, with maximum facilities
provided to reduce the need for commuting. Each new town was
to be self-contained and HDB took on the task of master planner.
In the early years, HDB not only built the residential blocks but
the commercial and industrial infrastructure (e.g., roads) as well as
recreational and community facilities. HDB is still the sole authority
that develops new towns and it continues to coordinate with
the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) on the physical land
use planning of the towns, and manages the implementation of
all services and facilities within its township with other agencies
122
such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) on the transportation

network; NParks on neighbourhood parks and park connectors,
and the Ministry of Education (MOE) for schools. It is this key
role as the centralised housing agency that has sustained HDB’s
success and enabled services to be delivered in a timely fashion
to residents.
In land scarce Singapore, co-location of community and

institutional facilities is often used as a strategy to optimise land.
Frontier Community Club at Jurong West, for instance, has a
public library, medical centre, community club and sports facilities
within its grounds. Such co-location is only possible when different
agencies like the National Library Board (NLB), Ministry of Health
(MOH) and People’s Association (PA) work together with HDB and
URA. Co-locating multiple uses also enlarges the opportunities
for different groups of residents (with different backgrounds and
profiles) to meet and mingle. This potentially fosters a greater
sense of community spirit. Those who choose to play a greater
role in the civic and community life of their estate can do so via
various committees such as the Residents’ Committees (RCs) in
public housing estates or the Neighbourhood Committees (NCs)
in private housing estates. The RCs and NCs were set up primarily
to promote neighbourly interaction and active citizenry. To achieve
this, their key functions are to organise programmes and activities
for the residents. The Town Council (TC) is yet another avenue
through which residents can serve. Formed in 1989, the TCs
empower local representatives and residents to run their own
estates and decide on local management matters.
HDB’s public housing programme has been highly successful, and

it has been a cornerstone of the PAP’s electoral performance. The
PAP won re-election in 1963 in part because it had delivered on
its promise of re-housing the population in modern and sanitary
accommodation. Moreover, land acquisition in Singapore had
clearly benefited the lower strata of society.51
123
“ A crucial thing is not to allow clever developers to corner large pieces of land
at critical areas, waiting for the development. We forestalled them to prevent
exploitation of fellow men.52
” Lee Kuan Yew
Housing a new era

The rising value of HDB flats has been a critical component of
wealth generation for Singaporeans, and the processes associated
with acquiring much sought-after flats have been transparent and
fair.53 The fact that about 80 of Singaporeans live in HDB flats
has allowed the government to use public housing to achieve
public policy results. To this day, home ownership continues to be
a key pillar of Singapore’s housing policy and Singapore boasts
the highest home ownership rate in the world. However, critics
have argued that when the level of home ownership is artificially
high, lower-income households are forced to buy when they could
potentially be better off through renting instead, since there is
a need to save for retirement, educational and medical needs
as well. Forcing them into ownership may divert scarce funds
away from social security contributions and family expenditure.
Nevertheless, HDB is significantly ramping up its supply of new
rental flats to meet the rising rental demand, in addition to revising
the eligibility criteria for its Public Rental Scheme to reduce the
waiting time for a rental flat.
The extensiveness of the public housing programme has made

the housing platform a useful tool for realising longer-term social
objectives, though not without costs. The Ethnic Integration Policy
(EIP) is a case in point, with its aim of achieving the larger goal of
national cohesion and preventing the creation of ethnic enclaves.
But this may have come at the expense of breaking up ethnic
minority families who could not buy a flat close to their parents’
homes. Another consequence was the lower resale flat prices for
ethnic minorities due to the EIP’s in-built inflexibility.54
The HDB Upgrading Programme has also had some controversy.

HDB flats have come to be viewed as a source of security for old
124
age for much of the masses. The asset enhancement of HDB

flats, through upgrading, has provided Singaporeans a means
to monetise their flats to fund their retirement. Additionally,
renovations in older HDB estates have helped to make Singapore’s
urban landscape more accessible to an ageing and therefore less
mobile population. But critics have charged the PAP government
with politicising the HDB upgrading programme by placing
precincts in opposition-held wards way down on the priority list.
This perceived effort to undermine the political opposition was
viewed in some quarters of Singapore society as unnecessarily
divisive and detrimental to nation building.
In recent years, there have been more vociferous public feedback

on and criticism of the housing policy. The volatility of economic
cycles and the property market have made it difficult for HDB to
find an effective and timely way to reconcile demand with the
supply of public housing. In the last 15 years, there had been
occasional bouts of over-supply of public housing units as well as
housing shortages. Rapidly rising housing prices have led to public
concern over the affordability of public housing. For instance, the
prices of resale HDB flats have risen steadily over the short term.
In 2008, the resale price index for the first quarter was 126.2. This
rose to 205.5 in the first quarter of 2013.55
Challenges to urban governance lie not just in reconciling the policy

intent of providing affordable housing with asset enhancement
(i.e., price appreciation of HDB flats) but also in addressing the
recent emergence of what has been dubbed the “not-in-my-
backyard” syndrome in which Singaporeans object to building
new community-based care facilities on vacant lots in their midst.
A recent example had residents living in Toh Yi Drive vehemently
objecting to the establishment of elder care centres in their district.
Efforts to foster community cohesion within HDB housing estates
have also taken on a new level of complexity beyond ethnic
relations, namely, the burgeoning foreign communities (e.g., South
Asia Indian, Filipino, mainland Chinese) that now reside there.
125
DESIGN, BUILD AND

SELL SCHEME
Another case in point was the public outcry surrounding the high prices of HDB flats
namely in Centrale 8, in Tampines, under HDB s Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS).
Under the DBSS, HDB outsources the design and development of public flats to private
sector companies. Property developer Sim Lian Group had initially asked for some
880,000 for the five-room flats, but reduced the price by 102,000 after the backlash.
Following commentaries and complaints to the forum page of the Singapore daily,
The Straits Times, MND announced in June 2011 that the DBSS housing option
was under review as part of the overall review of housing policies. Moving to quell
public unhappiness over skyrocketing property prices, and the inability of ordinary
Singaporeans to own homes, the government also announced in 2011 an increase in
the qualifying income ceiling for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats from 8,000 to 10,000, and
10,000 to 12,000 for executive condominiums.
126
Economic development
In tandem with tackling the housing shortage that afflicted
Singapore in 1959, then Finance Minister, Goh Keng Swee, set
about resolving the unemployment problem. Goh believed that
Singapore, lacking an agriculture sector which could absorb
workers, needed to pursue a strategy of industrialisation. He
therefore sought advice from the United Nations (UN) to develop
an industrialisation plan that would ameliorate the country’s
chronic unemployment.56 The Dutch economist, Albert Winsemius,
arrived in 1960 under the UN’s auspices and proposed a ten-
year development plan that encompassed new, labour-intensive,
import-substitution manufacturing industries.
EDB was established to execute the plan under the chairmanship

of Hon Sui Sen, who would later serve as Finance Minister.
Unfortunately, infighting within the PAP and strikes that crippled
firms created a climate that was not conducive towards business.
Moreover, the government of Malaysia, which Singapore was under
from 1963 to 1965, was unsympathetic to Singapore’s industrial
development: while Goh approved 43 Pioneer Certificates for
investors on 14 September 1963, Kuala Lumpur did not approve
a single Pioneer Certificate for Singapore during the period
between 16 September 1963 and 9 August 1965,57 which thwarted
the effective implementation of the First Development Plan (1961–
1964). Companies that were awarded Pioneer Certificates enjoyed
certain benefits such as exemption from corporate taxes.
Full political independence did not improve things economically.

The hostility displayed by Malaysia and Indonesia towards
the newly-independent Singapore made regional economic
cooperation difficult. To make matters worse, Britain announced
plans to withdraw its military bases in Singapore by 1971. This
threatened an already fragile Singapore economy since the bases
were responsible for 12.7 of Singapore’s GDP in 1967, and
generated, both directly and indirectly, just under 40,000 jobs—a
fifth of Singapore’s workforce.58
127
Developing an economic strategy
However, political independence did allow the Singapore

government to pursue its own economic strategy. Hence, Lee Kuan
Yew, building on the ideas of a UN development expert whom
he had met during the early 1960s, decided to focus on export-
led industrialisation, attracting MNCs to invest in Singapore,
leveraging their expertise to open doors to global markets,
and leapfrogging countries in the region that were hostile to
Singapore’s independence. Dhanabalan, who had served as
a junior officer in EDB for much of the 1960s, commented that
“once we came to the conclusion that there was going to be no
common market [with Malaysia], then we knew the way to actually
grow Singapore, Singapore’s manufacturing sector, was to attract
investors to come here to supply the world.”59 This strategy was
born out of desperation and unpopular with developing countries
at the time, but ultimately provided the conditions for Singapore’s
economic take-off.60
To spearhead Singapore’s industrialisation efforts in the early

1960s, Jurong—a swampy and hilly area far from the city area but
with a natural deep water harbour—was chosen by EDB as the site
of an industrial estate.61 Jurong’s relatively distant location meant
that industrial pollution could be kept far away from densely
inhabited areas. Jurong Port was built to support the growth of
Jurong Industrial Estate, and began operations in 1965.62
Urban Governance in action First Development Plan launched
KEY EVENTS &

MILESTONES
Economic Development
1961
128
“ [W]e passed a law that said that when government acquires coastal land, we
compensate without taking into account that it’s by the seaside. The market was at
an all-time low at that time and so we acquired large tracts of land. They were lying
fallow—investors were waiting for the climate to change so they could manipulate
and sell it at a big price. We just acquired as many large pieces of land as possible
and claimed the right to reclaim coastal areas … Jurong was a swamp, which we
reclaimed.63
” Lee Kuan Yew
At the outset, land was set aside for parks, gardens, and green
spaces to make Jurong Industrial Estate an attractive place in
which to work and live.64 By 1968, EDB had grown to such a size
that the Singapore government thought it wise to have EDB focus
on investment promotion, and to spin-off the function of planning,
developing and managing industrial parks to another statutory
board, JTC.65
Armed with a clear mandate to attract foreign direct investment

as a means of generating employment, EDB embarked on an
ambitious multi-pronged strategy which combined organisational
excellence with a generous package of investment incentives to
woo investors. Serving as a ‘one-stop shop’ for investors, EDB
was able to reach out effectively to potential investors.66 It worked
closely with other public agencies, providing industrial sites and
facilities in integrated industrial estates combined with a slew
of tax incentives. This proved to be a winning combination.67
Setting up of Jurong Port begins First American multinational

Jurong Industrial Estate; operations JTC formed corporations (MNCs) set up
EDB established shop in Singapore
1961 1965 1968 1969
129
In 1969, EDB successfully attracted American MNCs to invest in

Singapore and, within three years, added 20,000 more jobs to the
local economy.68
06 Jurong Industrial Estate, 1965

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (third from left) with Economic Development Board Chairman Hon Sui Sen (right) and officials
surveying the development of the project.
More than 40,000 jobs created in 3 years owing Singapore attains full employment status,
to ability to attract MNCs to Singapore with stabilised unemployment rates
90,000
3.5% - 4.5%
STABILISED UNEMPLOYMENT
RATES
50,000
1973 mid-1970s
130
By the mid-1970s, the Singapore economy had attained full

employment status and the unemployment rate stabilised—
between 3.5 and 4.5 —a vast improvement from the rate of
10 in 1970.69 EDB’s success in attracting pioneer manufacturing
MNCs such as General Electric, National Semiconductor and
Fairchild to locate their production operations in Singapore had
a positive effect on job creation, with employment generated
by these key companies rising from 50,000 in 1970 to 96,000 in
1973.70
Growing amidst global uncertainty

During the 1990s, the cluster development strategy was conceived,
designed to leverage synergistic benefits between mutually
supporting industries. The rationale was that plans could be
formulated to develop clusters based on the core capabilities that
were shared by industries in the cluster, thus raising competitiveness.
EDB unveiled a $1 billion Cluster Development Fund in 1993 to
“catalyse development of indigenous industries in high-growth
clusters” like electronics, petrochemicals, precision engineering,
and newer high-tech industries like biomedical sciences (BMS)
with a strong emphasis on Research and Development (R&D).71
On the services side, Singapore started building up its capabilities
as a financial, logistics and transport hub.
Since the recession of the mid-1980s, Singapore’s industrial

development had progressed upstream, with the economy growing
1 Billion Cluster Development Fund set Asian Financial Crisis hits, Economy experiences
up, with focus on high growth industries resulting in a contraction slow, but stable growth
of the economy by 2.1
sian
inancial
Precision Biomedical Crisis
Electronics Petrochemicals Engineering Sciences
1993 1997 1999
131
at an average rate of 8.5 per year. However, with the second

recession—the Asian Financial Crisis—in 1997, stock and property
markets plunged due to the widespread panic. Singapore, with its
significant trade links with regional economies, inevitably suffered.
The economy contracted by 2.1 due to a slowdown in both global
and domestic demand, leading to significant unemployment.
Recovery started in 1999 but this was unfortunately followed by a

succession of external shocks—the bursting of the dot-com bubble
in 2000 and the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The latter
badly affected the United States and global economy, leading
to Singapore’s third recession in 2001. Although the Singapore
economy rebounded quickly again due to its strong fundamentals,
the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and
the Iraq War led by the United States in 2003 put a damper on
already weak growth.
A people-centred strategy
In response, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) set up the
Economic Review Committee in 2001, which released its report in
2003. It recognised that Singapore was at another turning point:
it faced a maturing economy, globalisation, strong competition
from the rise of China and India, rapid technological advances,
and an increasingly unstable world. In order to remain competitive
in such a complex landscape, the key recommendations were to
remake Singapore into a globalised and diversified economy, and
a creative and entrepreneurial nation.
Global Formation of Release of Economic Review Report, which

uncertainties and Economic Review focuses development on key areas
external shock Committee
11
ttac
Dot Com Singapore talent Strategic geographical Singapore’s

Crash location connectivity
2000 2001 2003
132
07 Fusionopolis
A cluster of buildings designed to attract new industries such as information and communications technology, media,
physical sciences and engineering.
Photo courtesy of yeowatzup
The strategy was to build on Singapore’s good foundations—its

talent, strategic geographical location, and great connectivity
through its port, airport and telecommunications services—to
create an enterprise ecosystem of both large companies and
Global recession Announcement of

affects all economies, Resilience Package
including Singapore’s
2008 2009
133
innovative start-ups that would generate, harness and exploit

new knowledge and capabilities.72 The direction headed towards
pursuing high-tech and innovation-driven industries: biomedical
sciences, life sciences, information-communications and media,
clean technology, and environment and water management.
Beh Swan Gin, a former managing director of EDB, emphasised

the importance of three pivotal shifts for Singapore’s economy
during this decade.73 First, the economic rise of Asia from about
2005 changed business mindsets. EDB took advantage of this
by elevating the value of its Operational Headquarters strategy,
wherein Singapore hosted the key functions of global companies.
The new positioning was for Singapore to be a Global-Asia Home
for (i) global companies looking to invest in Asia, and (ii) Asian
companies aiming to go international.74 Second, there was more
recognition that hard infrastructure had to be coupled with soft
infrastructure—enhancing Singapore’s vibrancy and liveability—to
keep talent rooted. As industrial activities became more complex
and land use more constrained, soft aspects were necessary
to provide a competitive edge. Third, instead of just input or
capacity-driven growth, it was now about innovation, skills and
productivity. Beh summarised this as “creating value with the head
(knowledge), the heart (experience) and the hand (skills)”.75 These
shifts point towards advancing Singapore’s extant knowledge-
based economy to a higher level. Thus, much has been invested
to develop R&D capabilities, to nurture both local talent as well as
attract global talent.
Unfortunately, recession hit again in 2008 as a result of the

Great Recession that originated in the United States. The
government responded with a resilience package, aimed
to preserve jobs, cushion the impact on families, enhance
companies’ competitiveness, and strengthen future capabilities.
The contraction of the economy was contained at 0.8 , and
the economy recovered the next year. For the 2013 Budget, the
government had targeted economic restructuring to achieve
quality growth that will provide all Singaporeans with a better
quality of life. Partly in response to public resentment against the
134
rapid influx of foreigners, the government has also introduced

measures such as quota limitations to reduce the economy’s
and local businesses’ reliance on foreign labour. But the jury is
still out on whether such measures will be able to correct the
current imbalances in GDP growth, with economists pointing
to Singapore’s low shares of the GDP for labour incomes and
consumption in view of its over-reliance on MNCs’ investments.
Transport
Traffic congestion is a major problem faced by all cities. Hence,
land transport issues concerning mobility and accessibility are
increasingly accorded greater significance by mayors and city
planners all over the world.76 Indeed, few would dispute that a
smooth and seamless journey whether by road or rail constitutes
an important feature of a liveable city. An efficient and effective
land transport system has allowed a land scarce city-state like
Singapore to fully optimise the use of its limited land while also
promoting economic growth through reducing travel times and,
thus, business costs.
Today, Singapore’s urban transport system comprises a

comprehensive network of more than 3,300 km of roads and
highways and a high-quality public transport system. The
International Association of Public Transport rated Singapore’s
public transport system amongst the best in the world, together
with those of Helsinki and Vienna. Singapore’s transport
infrastructure consistently ranks amongst the top ten in the World
Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report.77
Yet, Singapore in the 1950s experienced land transport problems

that many developing cities today would find familiar. Then, one
dominant bus company provided most city-bound services, while
a plethora of ‘pirate taxis’ and smaller, Chinese-owned ‘mosquito’
bus companies operated in the suburbs and outskirts.78 During the
mid-1950s, riots caused by labour unrest, in which bus workers
were active participants, frequently clogged up transport channels.
135
In 1955 alone, there were 15 stoppages of bus services, some,

though not all, of which were triggered by issues pertaining to
conditions of service, such as bad working conditions, low pay and
long working hours.79 Nor were the inefficiencies of public transport
the sole challenge confronting urban transport in Singapore: from
1962 to 1973, the average annual growth rate of motor vehicles
was 8.8 , contributing to severe traffic congestion in the central
area.80 Traffic flow among major arterials such as Kallang Road was
at 85,000 vehicles per day with Anderson Bridge (linking Collyer
uay to Nicoll Highway) in the central area carrying an astonishing
figure of 93,000 vehicles per day.81
The problems of urban transportation were well-documented and

generated public dissatisfaction even in the early years. However,
transport issues were not given a high priority when considered
alongside more pressing concerns. The PAP’s manifesto for the
watershed 1959 elections did not address the issue of public
transport as other areas such as public housing, nation building,
education and unemployment were deemed more critical and
given greater priority.82 Even the Master Plan of 1958 did not
emphasise transport.
Planning for transport

Two key developments arose in the 1960s which were to have
long-term implications on transport provision and planning.
First, the abolition of the City Council removed duplications and
Urban Governance in action Hock Lee Bus strike and riots
KEY EVENTS &

MILESTONES
Transport
1955
136
inconsistencies in the regulatory powers between state and city.

Hence, the Registry of Vehicles (ROV), which used to fall under
the purview of the City Council, now became part of the Civil
Service. Second, the PAP government commissioned a landmark
State and City Planning (SCP) project in 1967 to examine urban
planning in general and transport in particular.83 Experts from the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) assisted with
the project, and recommended that an integrated approach was
needed to manage urban renewal, industrial development and
transport. The recommendations culminated in Singapore’s first
integrated land use and transport development plan, the Concept
Plan in 1971, which was to become an important foundation for
Singapore’s modern land transport system.84
From the outset, the government recognised the need to address

private transport issues in tandem with the fledging public
transport system. A high-level committee comprising permanent
secretaries of the ministries of Communications, National
Development, Finance and Home Affairs was formed to tackle the
traffic congestion problems, especially in the CBD. In a way, the
PAP government’s success in the two areas of job creation and
public housing had the unintended effect of exerting pressures on
the land transport infrastructure. A state of dynamic disequilibrium
had arisen: as car ownership increased, the resulting traffic
congestion on the roads made bus operations unreliable which
in turn compelled people to switch to cars. In order to rectify the
situation, the government moved quickly to curb car ownership
and manage road usage, deploying a slew of market-based
Registry of ehicles (RO ) is The State and City Planning (SCP) project
placed under the Civil Service. recommends an integrated approach to
planning, including transport.
1960s 1967
137
policies such as the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) in 1975 which

levied a toll charge on motorists entering the CBD, and a Vehicle
uota System in 1990 that capped the number of vehicles added
to the roads each year. The ALS would eventually be replaced by the
automated Electronic Road Pricing system in 1998.85
08 Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) sales booth, 1975

A toll was levied on motorists entering the Central Business District (CBD) to curb increasing traffic congestion.
Singapore’s first Concept Plan is Area Licensing Scheme is set

produced, laying the foundations of up to reduce city traffic
future transport developments
1971 1975
138
Moving towards visionary planning

From the 1950s to the 1970s, changes in the transport system
tended to be reactionary since motivations behind these
changes were urgent problems faced both by the providers
and users. There was also some degree of experimentation on
the use of market forces to modify consumer behaviour. In the
1990s, changes in transportation came to be driven by the city’s
economic development strategy which was to make Singapore a
global city with economic dynamism, a high quality of life, and a
strong national identity. This was reflected in the Concept Plan
of 1991 (see page 65) which projected a population of 4 million
and outlined a broad view of Singapore within the next 30 to 40
years.86 It heralded a paradigm shift in transportation planning
from problem-driven to vision-driven planning. Concept Plan 1991
adopted a ‘constellation concept’ strategy of setting up regional
centres. The aim was to decentralise commercial activities and
hence reduce congestion in the city. The four regional centres
planned were Tampines in the east, Seletar in the north-east,
Jurong East in the west and Woodlands in the north.
As Singapore’s economy developed, transport changes moved on

three key fronts: (i) development of an extensive rail network picked
up in the late 1990s; (ii) more measures to curb both car ownership
and usage; and (iii) institutional integration to coordinate different
pieces of the transport planning and execution processes. In 1995,
the government integrated the planning and regulatory functions
for both private and public transport and put this under a single
Construction for a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system begins
1982
139
statutory board, the Land Transport Authority (LTA). This was

established through the merger of the Roads and Transportation
division of the PWD,87 Registry of Vehicles (ROV),88 Mass Rapid
Transit Corporation (MRTC), and the Land Transport division of
the Ministry of Communications. The integration of these public
agencies into a new institution allowed the government to take a
holistic approach to the transport challenges facing Singapore.89
Nevertheless, new issues have emerged recently that pose fresh

and complex challenges to policy-makers. A major MRT breakdown
in December 2011 followed by a series of train disruptions has
undermined public confidence in Singapore’s public transport
system. The severity of the situation has been acknowledged by the
government, with Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew commissioning
a public inquiry into the train disruptions to identify the problems
and corrective actions required to remedy the situation. Indeed,
the issue of public transport has become more complex and
multifaceted. For example, population and immigration growth
has been cited as a significant factor in imposing severe strain
on the public transport infrastructure. When trains break down,
alternative modes of transport such as buses or taxis must be
mobilised to ensure that mobility is assured. The current model
of public transport has worked well for Singapore over the last
25 years, with LTA as regulator and private companies such as
SMRT and SBS operating the train and bus services. However, a
fundamental re-think may be needed to better address the current
and future realities of an increasingly complex transport environment.
1991 Concept Plan Land Transport

is released, with a Authority set
constellation’ concept up to integrate
guiding transport the planning
development and regulatory
functions of
private and public
transport
1991 1995
140
09 An Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry

An automated system set up to control and manage traffic, the ERP levies charges on motorists entering congested areas
during peak hours.
Photo courtesy of {Guerrilla Futures | Jason Tester}
141
THE MASS RAPID TRANSIT

VERSUS THE ALL-BUS
SYSTEM
Photo courtesy of mailer_diablo
The 1971 Concept Plan pushed planners

to consider the best approach with which
Singapore s public transport system could
meet future demand. This led to an initiation
of feasibility studies, carried out between
1972 and 1981, on the necessity of building
a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system supported
by a network of buses, and the routes that
this MRT system should take. Major factors
relating to cost and project viability were
142
also studied. The debate on the development of the MRT started as former Prime
Minister Lee uan ew and then Minister for Communications Ong Teng Cheong faced
formidable opposition in the Cabinet, led by then Minister for Finance Goh eng Swee.90
Lee strongly advocated for the MRT as he saw how it could support future economic
and social growth in the city.91 However, Goh strenuously opposed the project because
of its cost: the sum of 5 billion was a large amount at that time.92 He said, “If you got
to spend all this money and subsidise the system, why not spend the money and have
an equally effective all-bus system If an all-bus system is just as good as MRT, why have
MRT if you have got to subsidise it ” He bolstered his argument by referring to a study
led by enneth Hansen of Harvard University which argued that an all-bus system would
be sufficient and would cost some 50% less than the MRT.93 The government appointed
two teams of American transport and urban planning experts to conduct independent
reviews on the system proposed. They completed the Comprehensive Traffic Study in
1982 which reported that an all-bus system was not practicable since it would have to
compete for road space in a land-scarce country.
In 1982, the Singapore

government decided to
construct the MRT system.
This monumental project
was significant not only for
redefining Singapore s urban
landscape, but also for the high
degree of public information
available, and the government s
public revelations of its own
cautious and careful deliberations
before coming to a decision.94 Lam
Chuan Leong, a former permanent
secretary of the Ministry of National
Development, recalled that it was the idea
that major public infrastructure projects such as the MRT could raise the value of land
around the transit stations, especially in the newly reclaimed area of what is now Marina
Bay, which ultimately persuaded the government.95 He further observed that while
Singapore had previously focused on simply finding land to build needed facilities such
as housing or an airport, by the 1980s, the “first stage of complexity had crept in”.
Issues pertaining to noise, density and other potential negative externalities became
considerations for policy-makers.96
143
Environmental sustainability
From the outset, Singapore’s city planners were careful to minimise
the pollution that often accompanied development. Much of this
was due to Lee Kuan Yew’s championing of urban cleanliness and
order. He personally intervened on various occasions to introduce
or encourage policies to promote a clean and green city.
“ I learnt from negative examples. Hong Kong has crowded, tall buildings, you
seldom get sunshine in the streets, no greenery. So that’s something we must avoid.
I went to Osaka and I could smell chemical factories. I said no, we mustn’t allow
that. We are a small island; unless we protect ourselves by placing the right industries
in the right places—taking into consideration the prevailing winds—we will despoil
the city. There are thousands of other cities and we can see the mistakes they have
made. We can also see what they have done right.97
” Lee Kuan Yew
Upon learning about a regulation requiring biannual emission

inspections on cars while on a visit to Boston in 1968, Lee
implemented the same policy back in the city-state.98 He also
led by example and planted his first tree in 1963 and requested
that 10,000 trees be planted annually.99 Tree Planting Day
was introduced in 1971. Lee’s personal interest in the urban
environment ensured that public agencies took the issue seriously.
Greening Singapore was, in Lee’s opinion, a “part of an overall
strategy for Singapore’s development”.100 As he explained at the
Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize Ceremony in 2009:
First tree is planted by Implementation

Urban Governance in action Lee Kuan Yew, then of the Sewerage
Prime Minister Master Plan
KEY EVENTS & of Singapore
MILESTONES
Environmental Sustainability
1963 1968
144
The most difficult thing to do was to carry out the

industrialisation, the development of services and
logistics without polluting the island. Because once you
pollute the island, you destroyed the living conditions.
When you destroyed the living conditions, then it is not
worth having this place. So every project that was put
up, our first concern was anti-pollution And that went
for every project The careful attention given to the
environment, at the same time going for growth and
industries, services and logistics, got us where we are.101
10 Tree Planting Day, 1973

The first Tree Planting Day was introduced in 1971, to signal the importance of maintaining Singapore’s green cover.
Launch of Keep Singapore Expansion of Seletar Reservoir is

Clean Campaign completed, starting the journey
towards water sufficiency
1968 1969
145
A clean and green city

Lee would continue to stamp his vision of a clean and green city on
Singapore during the 1970s. He insisted that the Japanese firm,
Sumitomo, in building Singapore’s first petrochemical complex,
would have to follow the highest possible pollution control
standards. As a result, as Lee claimed, Singapore “did not have
a petrochemical project that would pollute the whole island. And
that went for every project.”102 In his National Day message in
1970, Lee stressed the need to clean up the country’s beaches
and waterways. At the time, tens of thousands of small farms and
industries used the nation’s rivers and drains as their sewer and
dumping ground. That year, an action committee was formed to
combat the indiscriminate dumping of domestic and trade refuse
into the Singapore River and to clean up its banks. He envisioned:
“[o]pen drains now running into the sea will go into underground
sewers and end up in treatment plants ... The air we breathe will
be kept clean.”103
Indeed, far from being a mere aesthetic concern, a clean and

well-maintained city was intended by city planners to help foster
civic pride, keep diseases at bay, and enhance the overall quality
of life in Singapore. Greenery broke the harshness of the urban
landscape and reduced air pollution, while parks provided a
respite from the daily grind of living in a noisy and crowded city.
Lee further hoped that a “clean and green” Singapore would
help to lure tourists and businessmen to the island.104 Hence, the
government threw its weight behind efforts to improve cleanliness
Tree Planting Day is Ministry of the Environment Expansion Water Pollution Control
introduced formed; first Water Master of Peirce and Drainage Act is
Plan produced Reservoir is passed
completed
ater Master Plan
1971 1972 1975
146
and encourage greenery. The first annual public campaign to keep

Singapore clean was launched in 1968, and PAP ministers regularly
led constituents on street cleaning campaigns during their early
years in power. These efforts were given further emphasis with
the creation, in 1972, of the Ministry of the Environment (ENV).105
In the same vein, the Sewerage Master Plan of the late 1960s
introduced a comprehensive sewer system for the island. The
coverage of modern sanitation was gradually enhanced (and
achieved completely in 1997) and effluent was treated before
being discharged into the sea.
Efforts to build a clean and green Singapore persist presently.

Singapore first produced a blueprint for environmental
sustainability in 1992; this Green Plan was subsequently updated
in 2002 and 2006. The Plan identifies 19 nature sites and pledges
to reserve 5 of Singapore’s land area for nature conservation. The
2002 Parks and Waterbodies Plan expanded recreational space.
The Leisure Plan of 2007 increased parkland, enlarged the park
connector network, and enhanced other green areas. Gardens by
the Bay, an ambitious waterfront development set in the heart of
the prime Marina Bay area, features conservatories and gardens
that offer learning experiences about Singapore’s natural history.
Managing Singapore’s water resources

Concerns about environmental sustainability and security dovetail
in Singapore’s management of water resources. In the aftermath
Introduction of ehicular Exhaust Emission Singapore River clean up is

Standards for Petrol vehicles completed
1984 mid-1980s
147
of independence in 1965, then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku

Abdul Rahman issued a veiled threat that he would cut off the
water supply from Johor that supplied most of Singapore’s water
needs under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements between
Singapore and Malaysia. In doing so, the Tunku indicated that he
was prepared to use the water supply as leverage to ensure that
Singapore did not undertake any policies that were detrimental
to Malaysian interests. In response, Lee Kuan Yew established a
unit within the Prime Minister’s Office to frame and implement
a holistic government response to this challenge.106 In order to
develop Singapore’s water sources and storage capacity, the
government initiated a project to expand the Seletar and Peirce
Reservoirs. These projects were completed in 1969 and 1975
respectively. The central nature reserve was also conserved
against urban encroachment to safeguard the pristine condition
of the catchment area for the local water supply. By 1972, a Water
Master Plan was instituted to steer the long-term development of
Singapore’s water resources.107
Singapore’s water sources (termed “National Taps”) gradually

became more diversified in the mid-1990s with the introduction
of NEWater and Desalination (the original two were domestic
reservoirs and imported water from Malaysia). The successful
introduction of recycled water (or NEWater, as it came to
be known) to the water supply was not only an exercise in
technological innovation, but also a demonstration of effective
public engagement. The NEWater technology was not unique to
Singapore, as it was already carried out in places such as Orange
The Singapore Green Marginal Pricing for Cabinet approves

Plan is issued water is introduced proposal to build a 30 mdg
desalination plant
1992 1997 1999
148
County in the United States. Singapore’s innovation was twofold.

On the technical front, Singapore successfully scaled up NEWater
production for Indirect Potable Use. On the communications front,
it won public acceptance—that was crucial to remove the “yuck
factor”—for NEWater as an important source of supply for both
residential and industrial use.
In 2005, PUB (the national water agency) developed a fourth

National Tap, usable water through desalination. Ten years earlier,
a team consisting of officials from PUB, URA, MTI and the then
National Science and Technology Board had visited Saudi Arabia,
the United Arab Emirates and Malta to learn about desalination
technology and its management. In 1999, the Cabinet approved
the building of a 30 mgd desalination plant. PUB subsequently
called a tender for the building of a 30 mgd Multi-Stage Flash
Distillation desalination plant, with an associated 1 mgd Reverse
Osmosis plant. In 2003, PUB awarded a Design-Build-Own-
Operate contract to SingSpring, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Hyflux Group.108 This became one of PUB’s pioneer public-private
partnership projects.
Pricing water right

From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, the Singapore government
managed domestic water consumption through instruments
such as the pricing system, incentive schemes and regulations.
In 1997, Marginal Cost Pricing was introduced to recognise the
The Park and Waterbodies Introduction 4th National Tap is ac uired

Plan is introduced of NEWater with the completion of the
desalination plant
2002 2005
149
scarcity of water: the price of water reflects the opportunity cost

of consumption (price pegged to the cost of the next drop,
then desalination). NEWater, introduced in 2002, was priced to
encourage industries which used significant amounts of water in
their production processes to switch to NEWater. However, it could
not be priced too low as this would thwart PUB’s efforts to reduce
water consumption. NEWater was eventually priced at $1.30 m3,
based on cost recovery, in order to balance the two conflicting
objectives.109 Overall, Singapore’s water pricing works on the
principle of marginal water pricing, which is pegged to the higher
cost of producing desalinated water, even though this constitutes
only a small proportion of Singapore’s water capacity. It is common
practice in other countries for governments to price water below
cost recovery. The excess fee is called the water conservation
tax which brings home to customers the message to save water,
thus managing both supply and demand. The pricing formula, as
such, balances both the need for affordable water and the need
to conserve it.
By 2011, Singapore had achieved enough water generation

capacity to eschew the need to renew the 1961 Water Agreement
with Malaysia. Current plans project that by 2061, Singapore will
not need to renew the 1962 Agreement upon its expiry. Total self-
sufficiency in water mitigates a vulnerability in national security.
Through the efforts of the Ministry of the Environment and Water
Resources (MEWR) and PUB, the contentious water supply issue
with Malaysia has been desecuritised, removing an obstacle
to warmer bilateral relations between Singapore and Malaysia.
What started out as a vulnerability has also been converted into
a strength—Singapore has become a leading player in the global
water management industry.110
150
11 NEWater Visitor Centre

Visitors interact with the exhibits to learn about the process of reverse osmosis.
Photo courtesy of NEWater Visitor Centre, via Shaun Wong
151
A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO URBAN GOVERNANCE
As previously mentioned, a comprehensive nation-wide urban

development plan was only instituted in 1971. The Urban Renewal
Department (URD) of the HDB initiated urban redevelopment in
1964, having been given the task of “rejuvenat[ing] the old core
of the city by making better economic use of land by rebuilding
the city completely.”111 In 1967, with assistance from the UNDP, the
government established the State and City Planning Department
(SCPD) to prepare a long-term comprehensive urban development
plan for Singapore. The cross-disciplinary composition of the
SCPD, which included a diverse mix of agencies such as the PWD
and the URD, helped ensure that an overall integrated approach
to urban planning would be realised in the form of the Concept
Plan of 1971.
Public agencies in Singapore already had experience in working

together to achieve national objectives prior to the Concept Plan.
What the Plan did was to formalise the whole-of-government
approach to addressing the country’s immediate problems,
calling for the marshalling of all available and pertinent resources,
and providing a structured framework that allowed government
agencies to adopt an integrated approach in making and
implementing public policies. The Plan considered the land use
needs of relevant public agencies, mapped out the different uses
of Singapore’s limited land, and put forward a strategic formulation
of Singapore’s long-term land needs.
Integrating plans and execution

The integrated planning at the core of the Concept Plan accounts
for the adjudication of competing priorities and the efficient
allocation of land for different uses in Singapore. The Master
Plan translates broad strategies of the Concept Plan into detailed
implementation plans over the next 10 to 15 years. To retain
152
flexibility, the Master Plan is reviewed every five years. The Master
Plan is similarly a whole-of-government effort representing all the
different interests of the development agencies and ensures that
all development is aligned to the long-term needs of the country.112
Institutional changes
There was a deliberate and comprehensive organisational overhaul
of Singapore’s land planning system and institutions during
the 1980s. While preparation of the 1971 Concept Plan was
dominated by public agencies, the formulation of the 1991 version
was characterised by a concerted effort by MND and URA to solicit
input from the private sector and academia. This was a feature of
the former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s administration, which
distinguished itself from that of Lee Kuan Yew’s, with its more open
and consultative style of government. The finished plans were then
presented to the public for feedback. Then Minister for National
Development S. Dhanabalan explained that this more consultative
process was intended to allow the government to “tap the ideas,
skills and experience of the private sector” and “ensure that the
land use plan in each zone [took] into account the opinions and
ideas of all interested sectors of [Singapore] society”.113
During this period (1987–1992), a major organisational overhaul

was also conducted. In 1989, the Urban Redevelopment Authority
Act was amended to give effect to the amalgamation of URA, the
MND’s Planning Department, and its Research and Statistics Unit.
This reorganisation allowed for a more integrated and coordinated
approach to urban planning in Singapore. Until then, URA had
been responsible for planning in the central area of the city, while
the Planning Department had been responsible for planning in the
rest of the island. The integration also eliminated the need for the
duplication of support services.114 It also made the system more
open and transparent.
In terms of the planning systems and processes, Lim Hng Kiang,

who was then a deputy secretary in MND when Dhanabalan was
153
Minister for National Development, described the thinking that

went into the changes made:
I think basically the main achievements or impact

that we made in the early years, in terms of planning
was to put in place a structure. It had been a very
ad hoc, case-by-case approach. So I was brought
in as Deputy Secretary to try and see how we
could work to streamline the process. We evolved
a structure by having a concept plan that sets out
the long-term land use of Singapore. We got there
after many meetings, compromises, changing
assumptions etc. It was not a statutory plan, but it
gave us the basic foundation. You know where we
can be bold, and where we have to be restrained.
It’s the backdrop to all the other key decisions.115
“ Tap private sector knowledge, private sector ideas as to what should be done …
As people found that I was receptive, they gave more ideas and I found the ideas
good and decided to proceed.116
” S. Dhanabalan
Planning for urban conservation

As a result of the legislative changes, the URA was also formally
appointed as the Conservation Authority. Until this time, urban
conservation had not been accorded high priority due to the
need to address the more pressing concerns of unemployment
and public housing; the government had pursued economic
growth and efficiency to the detriment of historical sites of
collective memory. Lee Kuan Yew acknowledged that his
government had “recklessly demolished the old run-down
city centre to build anew”, and that this had sparked a sense
of “disquiet over the speed at which [Singapore was] erasing
[its] past”.117 The effort to identify historically, architecturally, or
artistically significant buildings in Singapore had commenced in
1971, with the establishment of the Preservation of Monuments
154
Board. It was only in July 1989, however, that URA gazetted the
first batch of areas for conservation. These comprised Chinatown,
Little India, Kampong Glam, the Singapore River (Boat uay and
Clarke uay), Emerald Hill and Cairnhill.
Admittedly, this shift in approach towards urban conservation

resulted from utilitarian considerations in the 1980s. First, there was
an oversupply of commercial facilities towards the middle of the
decade; the government-appointed Property Market Consultative
Committee reported in 1985 that the oversupply of office space
by 1990 could range between 500,000 m2 and 950,000 m2.118
Consequently, commercial space, essential for economic growth,
became less of a competing factor in land use allocation. Second,
through the Land Acquisition Act and land reclamation in the
Marina Bay area, the government had successfully accumulated
adequate unreleased land stock that could last until the 21st
century. This reduced the pressure to demolish quality old
buildings for new developments.119 Third, the decline in tourist
arrivals motivated a fundamental re-think of the government’s
attitudes to old buildings; conservation was now linked to efforts
to promote tourism.
Conservation in the city supported Singapore’s efforts to grow its

tourism industry.120 The Tourism Task Force, formed in August 1984
by MTI, argued that the conservation of historically and culturally
significant sites would “provide a remarkable contrast” to the
more modernised elements of Singapore’s landscape, “provide a
focus of attractions”, and “bring to life the historical and cultural
heritage” of the city.121
In 1986, the government released the Tourism Development Plan

which allocated significant financial investments in a comprehensive
urban conservation programme (e.g., $187 million on building,
preservation and restoration projects, $260 million on upgrading
historical areas and landmarks).122 This was in tandem with URA’s
ongoing efforts to revitalise key civic and cultural districts culminating
in the release of the Master Plan for the Civic and Cultural District
155
in 1988. URA officials who were keen on conservation managed to

persuade Dhanabalan of the wisdom of their views.
“ I thought it is something that really is worth attempting to save. We can clear

everything and have modern housing, modern buildings. But then [what] is the
difference between Singapore and any city in the West? The architectural profession
is international, they tend to design things more or less the same everywhere.
Everybody wants to have an iconic structure. I mean Raffles City can be anywhere
in the world. The argument that I put to Cabinet which Cabinet accepted was that
what we have—that is something worth attempting to save.123
” S. Dhanabalan
12 Chinatown
156 One of the most popular tourist spots in Singapore, the area consists of both new and conserved buildings that reflect
the heritage of early Chinese immigrants.
Photo courtesy of William Cho
A new approach
The open and consultative approach incorporating the renewed
emphasis on urban conservation was repeated for the formation
of the 2001 Concept Plan. Focus group sessions involving private
sector interests, academia, and, for the first time at the review
stage, ordinary citizens, were formed as part of a public consultation
exercise to review the Plan. URA sought public feedback on the
Plan and incorporated it into the policy formulation process.124
The comprehensive, integrated and inclusive approach adopted
for urban planning, development and management in Singapore
has ensured that a fine balance is achieved between achieving
economic growth and the development of a sustainable and liveable
urban environment.125 Long-term planning ensures clarity of vision
but sufficient flexibility is built into the process to review and revise
plans where necessary while keeping sight of national objectives.
Engaging public stakeholders

Today, there are various means by which public agencies can
collect feedback. At the grassroots, these channels include
Citizens’ Consultative Committees, Residents’ Committees (which
are formed in HDB housing estates), and ethnically-based self-
help organisations. These grassroots organisations also help
government officials explain policy to individuals on the ground.
In addition, the Feedback Unit has brought together members
of the public for consultations on policy since 1984. In 2006,
the Feedback Unit was replaced by REACH (Reaching Everyone
for Active Citizenry @ Home) to allow for broader engagement
between public agencies and the public.
Indeed, governance in Singapore has grown increasingly adept at

broadening the scope for public participation in decision making.
Space for more critical engagement on policy-making was limited
in the first decades of Singapore’s independence. E. Kay Gillis has
argued that the first years of PAP rule involved the “dismantling of
civil society”, when trade unions and student groups were muted,
and existing organisations such as the Singapore Family Planning
157
INSTITUTIONALISING
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The HDB upgrading programme was
the first instance of residents having a
stake in the way their neighbourhood was
shaped—at least 75% of residents had to
vote positively in support of the upgrading
programme before it could proceed.
The newer Neighbourhood Renewal
Programme (NRP), introduced in 2007, goes
a step further and allows residents to offer
their feedback and propose improvements
they wish to see for their precincts. To this
end, residents are involved in town hall
meetings and dialogue sessions at the
outset and where feasible, the proposals
would be incorporated in the design works.
The NRP thus reflects a move towards more
active consultation of residents.
Town Councils (TCs) were formed in 1989

to empower local elected representatives
and residents to run their own estates.
Through the TCs, residents can participate
in decision making and local estate
management. Elected Members of
Parliament (MPs) are empowered to lead
TCs. TCs control, manage, maintain and
improve the common property of HDB
residential flats and commercial property
within the town. Common property
includes corridors, void decks, lifts, water
tanks, public lighting and open spaces.
Photo courtesy of Calvin Teo
158
Association had their functions taken over by public agencies.126

Chan Heng Chee has famously described Singapore as an
“administrative state”, one where politics is reduced to a series
of technocratic and managerial decisions; she dates the formation
of this “administrative state” to the period 1965–1984.127 Michael
Barr has argued that Operation Spectrum, launched in May and
June 1987 by the Internal Security Department against social
activists, has had a long-lasting chilling effect on civil society
in Singapore.128
An open and consultative government

The subsequent premierships of Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien
Loong have seen governments of a more consultative nature.
Goh’s government saw the introduction of emaking Singapore,
an extensive effort to engage different groups of Singaporeans in
dialogue about the future of Singapore. In 1997, the government
launched Singapore , an effort to articulate collective solutions to
the dilemmas facing Singapore. One of the dilemmas in Singapore
21 was described as “Consultation and Consensus vs Decisiveness
and uick Action”. Singapore 21’s answer to this dilemma was
themed “Active Citizens: Making a Difference to Society”. Lee, in a
speech to the Harvard Club of Singapore prior to his appointment as
Prime Minister, called for “further civic participation” and pledged
that the government would “continue to progressively widen the
limits of openness”.129
Civil society in a new era

Accordingly, the 1990s and 2000s saw efforts by civil society testing
the extent to which they could freely and openly speak out on issues
of interest. A prominent case was the engagement between Nature
Society of Singapore (NSS) and the Singapore government on issues
relating to biodiversity conservation. In 1986, one of its members,
Richard Hale, stumbled upon an area made up of degraded mangrove
habitat and prawn ponds around Sungei Buloh that was rich in
bird numbers and diversity. However, this area was also slated for
159
development as an agro-technology park. The Malayan Nature Society

(as the NSS had been called then) rushed to document bird species that
could be found there and submitted a proposal to the government on
how the area could be managed to increase its educational value, with
a programme of guided walks and farm tours. They also reached out to
government ministers and the Chairman of the Conservation Committee
personally escorted then President Wee Kim Wee, then Deputy Prime
Minister Goh Chok Tong, and then Minister of National Development
S. Dhanabalan to the site for a visit. This resulted in the decision
to develop Sungei Buloh into a nature park in 1989. The Parks and
Recreation Department (PRD) enlisted the services of Jurong Bird Park
and the expertise of UK-based Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and, in 1993,
the Sungei Buloh Nature Park (see page 26) was officially opened by
then Prime Minister Goh.
There currently seems to be a genuine desire on the part of the

government for engagement with civil society. The extent to which
the Singapore government is willing to listen to critical views depends
on how it views the contestation that is an inherent component of
pluralistic democracy. The Singapore government often stresses that it
prefers to govern by consensus; however, such consensus must emerge
from the reconciliation rather than the repression of contestation.
Indeed, given the extent to which the World Wide Web has altered the
media landscape in Singapore, engagement with dissenting and critical
voices is arguably unavoidable, and the government no longer holds a
monopoly on the ability to set the public agenda.
FUTURE CHALLENGES TO URBAN GOVERNANCE

IN SINGAPORE
In the early years, the government’s preoccupation with nation-
building did not allow it the luxury of retrospection and codifying
insights. It was only in 1979, on the 25th anniversary of the founding
160
of the PAP, that Lee Kuan Yew summarised his government’s

philosophy:
1 Give clear signals: don’t confuse the people.

2 Be consistent: don’t chop and change.
3 Stay clean: dismiss the venal.
Win respect, not popularity: reject soft options.
Spread benefits: don’t deprive the people.
Strive for success: never give up.130
Chan Heng Chee suggests that the principles emphasise the

importance of political will and tough-mindedness—doing the right
things, right—among other values. Strong government, judged on
its efficiency and effectiveness in public service delivery to citizens,
was the forte of the Lee Kuan Yew government. Decisive action
coupled with efforts to build support for government policies was
the order of the day.
Current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong further identified several

reasons behind Singapore’s transformation. First, the political
leadership set a clear direction and rallied the people behind it.
Second, various agencies cooperated to formulate and implement
policies that fostered growth and improved lives. This was
especially clear in Singapore’s industrialisation, as agencies worked
together to provide incentives, facilities, utilities, and trained
labour to investors.131 Third, Singaporeans stepped up to the
plate. The population was disciplined and industrious, contributing
to Singapore’s growth. These factors enabled Singapore to
consistently deliver on promises, demonstrating consistency and
reliability, and building a reputation for integrity. This fostered a
virtuous cycle that boosted Singapore’s credibility and reputation,
helping to make Singapore a dynamic global city.132
Going forward, however, Singapore has been struggling to

overcome one of the key challenges for urban governance today
as identified by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
161
Development (OECD)—the need for cities to reconcile their

global ambitions with the interests and needs of their citizens.133
The growth of the financial industry, the political decision to keep
taxes and wages low, and the influx of immigrants at both ends of
the socio-economic spectrum, have all contributed to a worsening
of income inequality in the city. Singapore’s Gini coefficient
increased from 42.5 to 47.2 between 1998 and 2006.134 While this
has led the government to relax its staunch opposition to welfare
and introduce “workfare”, by which the incomes of the lowest
earners are topped up through grants from the public purse,135
there remain calls for the Singapore government to spend more
on social transfers and reassess its reliance on market solutions to
social and political problems.136
Another source of tension deriving from Singapore’s place in

globalisation has been the strong and rapid influx of expatriate and
migrant labour over the last half a decade. This has contributed to
both record economic growth and certain dislocations that have
contributed to rising anti-immigrant attitudes among citizens.
Expatriate professionals are seen as a threat to the advancement
of Singaporean professionals. Cheap foreign labour has depressed
the wages of working class Singaporeans. The public transport
system is straining to cope with the huge influx of foreigners that
have been allowed to live and work on the island. The Straits
Times opined that “[an overly] cautious investment strategy,
failure to integrate transport planning better with land use, and
a sudden spike in population” accounted for the overcrowded
public transport facilities that clearly riled voters during the
2011 elections.137 Indeed, the sudden explosion in Singapore’s
population during the 2000s has also contributed to record
housing prices and rents. These developments have alienated
voters against the PAP government, leading to its worst electoral
showing in the 2011 elections.
While most government policies have been effective in promoting

the general prosperity of the city, not all have been successful in
achieving their original objectives. However, arising from this is
162
a revelation of the strength in government in being able to spot

policy failure, and make policy U-turns as necessary. In 2013, the
Prime Minister acknowledged publicly that his government’s quest
for economic growth led to the housing and transport crunch.
His government had been blind-sided by the short and volatile
economic cycles.
“ So we lacked that 20/20 foresight. Next time, we will try to do better, certainly to
have a bigger buffer and not to cut things so fine … we’ve paid a political price. We
”
learn from it.138
Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister
This ability to adapt to the changing environment, mount a

comprehensive response, and learn from past mistakes so that they
are not repeated in the future is a hallmark of Singapore’s dynamic
governance approach and remains a key competency of the PAP
government. MND has rescinded its build-to-order (BTO) policy of
waiting for sufficient demand to be generated before constructing
HDB flats. Its new policy aims to provide public housing ahead
of demand to satisfy the needs of aspiring home owners and
provide sufficient supply of units to moderate public housing
prices.139 The Ministry of Transport (MOT) has rolled out initiatives
to reduce overcrowding on the public transportation network and
improve the service quality of the public transport operators.140
On 6 February 2013, the government officially announced that it
would henceforth, invest in infrastructure ahead of demand. Only
time will tell whether this major shift in planning strategy will prove
effective, or a response that is too little, too late.141
Singapore’s principles of urban governance will continue to

evolve with its political and social landscape. Whether they can
be modified, and the nature of these modifications, is a matter
for empirical experimentation in the future; but this study has
shown that they have provided strong foundations for Singapore’s
developmental journey in the past.
163
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) would like to thank the
following people for their contribution to this study through
interviews and other forms of support: Lee Kuan Yew, Lim Hng
Kiang, Mah Bow Tan, and S. Dhanabalan.
ENDNOTES
1. Chua Mui Hoong, Pioneers Once More The Singa ore Public Ser ice 9 (Singapore:
Straits Times Press, 2010), 51; W.G. Huff, The Economic ro th o Singa ore Tra e an
e elo ment in the T entieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994),
292; Goh Keng Swee, Social Sur ey o Singa ore Preliminary Stu y o Some s ects
o Social Con itions in the Munici al rea o Singa ore (Singapore: Department of Social
Welfare, 1947).
2. W.G. Huff, The Economic ro th o Singa ore Tra e an e elo ment in the T entieth
Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 291.
3. C.W. Teh, “Public Housing in Singapore: An Overview”, in Public ousing in Singa ore, ed.
S.H.K. Yeh (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1975), 5.
4. Singapore was ranked number one in the World Bank’s oing usiness report with
data current as of June 1 2012. See The World Bank and International Finance Corporation,
oing usiness Smarter Regulations or Small an Me ium Size Enter rises, http://
www.doingbusiness.org/ /media/GIAWB/Doing 20Business/Documents/Annual-Reports/
English/DB13-full-report.pdf (accessed January 2, 2014). Singapore was also ranked the 5th
most competitive country in the world in the IMD World Competitiveness Rankings 2013.
See IMD, “IMD releases its 25th Anniversary World Competitiveness Rankings”, http://www.
imd.org/news/World-Competitiveness-2013.cfm (accessed January 2, 2014).
5. Han Fook Kwang, uraidah Ibrahim, Chua Mui Hoong, Lydia Lim, Ignatius Low, Rachel Lin
and Robin Chan, eds., ee uan e ar Truths to ee Singa ore oing (Singapore:
Straits Times Press, 2011), 16.
6. Department of Statistics, Singapore, “Latest Data”, http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/

latest data.html (accessed January 2, 2014).
7. Housing & Development Board, Singapore, “HDB Annual Report 2012/13”, 5, http://www10.
hdb.gov.sg/eBook/AR2013/keystatistics.html (accessed January 2, 2014).
8. Transparency International, “Corruption Perceptions Index 2013”, http://www.transparency.

org/country SGP (accessed January 2, 2014).
164
9. “ uality of Life Survey 2013”, Monocle, http://www.monocle.com/film/affairs/ uality-of-life-

survey-2013/ (accessed January 2, 2014).
10. “2012 uality of Living Worldwide City Rankings”, Mercer, http://www.mercer.com/articles/

uality-of-living-survey-report-2011 (accessed December 28, 2012).
11. Lee Kuan Yew, “Lee Kuan Yew: The Chance of a Lifetime”, Urban Solutions, Issue 2, February
2013, 12.
12. Aaron Maniam, “Preparing Public Officers for New Modes of Governance”, Ethos, Issue 10,
October 2011, 66–71.
Mah was former Minister for National Development and also held previous appointments as
15. Ibid.
16. Lee Kuan Yew, rom Thir orl to irst The Singa ore Story, 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times
Media and The Straits Times Press, 2000), 24.
17. Ngiam Tong Dow, “The Politics Behind Development Policies”, The Straits Times, November
19, 2011.
18. “Falling on Their Wallets”, The Economist, January 7, 2012, 22. Singapore achieved
independence in 1963 after merging with the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia, only to
leave Malaysia in 1965.
19. Elgin Toh, “Mr Lee Warns of Two-Party System Dangers”, The Straits Times, July 27, 2011.
20. Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, oo ing East to oo est ee uan e s Mission In ia (Singapore:

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), 134.
21. Sonny Yap, Richard Lim and Leong Weng Kam, Men in hite The Untol Story o Singa ore s
Ruling Political Party (Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings, 2009), 377.
22. Chan Heng Chee, “The PAP and the Structuring of the Political System”, in Management o
Success The Moul ing o Mo ern Singa ore, eds. Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley
(Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), 77.
23. Barry Desker and Kwa Chong Guan, eds., oh eng S ee Public Career Remembere
(Singapore: World Scientific and S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 2011), 73.
24. N.C. Saxena, Virtuous Cycles The Singa ore Public Ser ice an National e elo ment
(Singapore: UNDP, 2011), 45–49.
165
Secretary of the Ministry of National Development, Chief Executive Officer of the Housing
and Development Board, Minister for National Development, and Minister for Health.
26. Ibid.
27. Michael Barr, “Beyond Technocracy: The Culture of Elite Governance in Lee Hsien Loong’s
Singapore”, sian Stu ies Re ie 30, no. 1 (March 2006): 1–17; Gary Rodan and Kanishka
Jayasuriya, “The Technocratic Politics of Administrative Participation: Case Studies of
Singapore and ietnam”, emocratization 14, no. 5 (December 2007): 795–815. The
Economist referred to Singapore as “the best advertisement for technocracy”. See “Minds
Like Machines”, The Economist, November 19, 2011.
28. Han Fook Kwang, Warren Fernande and Sumiko Tan, eds., ee uan e The Man an is
I eas (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 1998), 92.
29. Neo Boon Siong and Geraldine Chen, ynamic o ernance Embe ing Culture
Ca abilities an Change in Singa ore (Singapore: World Scientific, 2011), 323.
30. Ibid., see chapter 7 for more information on the Singapore Public Service’s talent recruitment,
development and retention efforts.
31. S. Dhanabalan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, December 20, 2011;
Lim Hng Kiang, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, April 13, 2012. See
Endnotes 14 and 25 respectively for Dhanabalan’s and Lim’s current and past appointments.
33. Elgin Toh, “ Diversity of iews’ in Cabinet”, The Straits Times, January 29, 2013.
See Endnote 14 for Dhanabalan’s past appointments.
35. See National Parks Board website, “Construction Starts for Southeast Asia’s First Ecological
Corridor. Eco-Link BKE to Link Two Nature Reserves across the Expressway”, http://
www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php option com news&task view&id 264&Itemid 50
(accessed September 14, 2012).
36. See Jon S.T. uah, Public ministration Singa ore Style (Singapore: Talisman Publishing
2010), 41–69, for the rationale behind the creation of statutory boards.
(Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), 76; Chua Mui Hoong, Pioneers Once
More The Singa ore Public Ser ice (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010), 48;
Edgar H. Schein, Strategic Pragmatism The Culture o Singa ore s Economic e elo ment
oar (Singapore: Toppan and The MIT Press, 1996), 37–38.
166
39. Tan Yong Soon, Clean reen an lue Singa ore s ourney To ar s En ironmental an
ater Sustainability (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), xxiv.
40. Peter Ho, Keynote Speech at iGO Global Forum, Singapore, June 14, 2010; Lui Tuck Yew,
“What Gov 2.0 Means to Singapore A Collaborative Government”, Speech at Singapore
Govcamp, Institute Of Systems Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore,
January 19, 2011.
41. Warren Fernande , Our omes i ty ears o ousing a Nation (Singapore: Straits Times
Press, 2010), 131–134.
ater Sustainability (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), 234.
43. Ibid., 240–241.
Liu is currently Director of RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd. He held previous
45. Ibid.
46. Warren Fernande , Our omes i ty ears o ousing a Nation (Singapore: Straits Times
Press, 2010), 50–51.
47. Ibid., 67–71; Yap Chin Beng, “Homes for a Nation–Public Housing in Singapore”, Ethos,
Issue 2, April 2007, 23–24.
48. Aline K. Wong and Stephen H.K. Yeh, eds., ousing a Nation ears o Public ousing in
Singa ore (Singapore: Housing & Development Board, 1985), 115.
49. Asad-ul I bal Latif, im im San uil er o Singa ore (Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, 2009), 67, 80; Warren Fernande , Our omes i ty ears o ousing a Nation
(Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010), 49, 51, 57.
50. Asad-ul I bal Latif, im im San uil er o Singa ore (Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, 2009), 65–71; Warren Fernande , Our omes i ty ears o ousing a Nation
(Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010), 60. For more information, see Jon S.T. uah, “Public
Housing”, in o ernment an Politics o Singa ore, eds. Jon S.T. uah, Chan Heng Chee
and Seah Chee Meow (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1985), 233–258.
51. Chua Beng Huat, “Singapore as Model: Planning Innovations, Knowledge Experts”, in
orl ing Cities sian E eriments an the rt o eing lobal, eds. Ananya Roy and Aihwa
Ong (Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 44–45.
167
2013, 8.
See Endnote 44 for Liu’s current and past appointments. Also see Warren Fernande , Our
omes i ty ears o ousing a Nation (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010), 59.
54. This is a policy to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves in public housing estates and to
promote harmony. It involves the use of the at allocation mechanism to ensure a balanced
ethnic mix in public housing estates. The re-sale of public housing ats is also regulated to
maintain the ethnic balance.
55. The HDB Resale Price Index is available at http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyR

esaleFlatResaleIndex OpenDocument Detail (accessed January 2, 2014).
56. Chan Chin Bock, “The Birth of EDB”, in eart or , ed. Chan Chin Bock (Singapore:
Singapore Economic Development Board and EDB Society, 2002), 15–16.
57. S. Dhanabalan, “I was a Rookie’ at EDB”, in eart or , ed. Chan Chin Bock (Singapore:
Singapore Economic Development Board and EDB Society, 2002), 26.
58. Lawrence B. Krause, “Government as Entrepreneur”, in Management o Success The

Moul ing o Mo ern Singa ore, eds. Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley (Singapore:
59. Chua Mui Hoong, Pioneers Once More The Singa ore Public Ser ice (Singapore:
61. Jurong Town Corporation, years on urong To n Cor oration (Singapore:

Jurong Town Corporation, 1988), 6, 10.
62. See Jurong Port website, http://www.jp.com.sg/JurongPort/history/ (accessed October 6,

2011).
2013, 9. The Foreshores Act was amended in 1964 to end compensation to landowners for
their loss of sea frontage.
64. Stephen H.K. Yeh, “The Idea of the Garden City”, in Management o Success The Moul ing
o Mo ern Singa ore, eds. Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley (Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), 829.
65. Barry Desker and Kwa Chong Guan, eds., oh eng S ee Public Career Remembere
(Singapore: World Scientific and S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 2011), 72;
Jurong Town Corporation, years on urong To n Cor oration (Singapore:
Jurong Town Corporation, 1988), 16.
66. Tan Sek Toh, “From coffee to chips: Eradicating unemployment in the 60s”, in eart or ,
168
ed. Chan Chin Bock (Singapore: Singapore Economic Development Board and EDB Society,
2002), 38.
67. Chia Siow Yue, “The Character and Progress of Industriali ation”, in Management o
(Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), 264–270.
68. Chan Chin Bock, “Romancing the American MNCs”, in eart or , ed. Chan Chin Bock
(Singapore: Singapore Economic Development Board and EDB Society, 2002), 51.
69. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Economic Sur ey o Singa ore, various years.
70. See Department of Statistics, Economic and Social Statistics Singapore 1960–1982 in Neo
Boon Siong and Geraldine Chen, ynamic o ernance Embe ing Culture Ca abilities
an Change in Singa ore (Singapore: World Scientific, 2011), 91.
71. Ministry of Trade and Industry, “Economic Milestones: 1990s”, http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.

asp id 445 (accessed September 23, 2011).
72. Teo Ming Kian, “Empowering Technopreneurs”, in eart or ed. Chan Chin Bock
(Singapore: Singapore Economic Development Board and EDB Society, 2002), 322–323.
Beh is currently Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law. He held previous appointments
as Managing Director of the Economic Development Board, Executive Director of the
Biomedical Research Council at the Agency for Science, Technology & Research, and
Director of the Ministry of Trade and Industry’s Energy Planning Division.
74. Leo Yip, “The Road Ahead,” in eart or E Partners Ne rontiers or the
Singa ore Economy, ed. Chan Chin Bock (Singapore: Straits Times Press and Singapore
Economic Development Board, 2011), 253.
75. Beh Swan Gin, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, February 21, 2012. See
Endnote 73 for Beh’s current and past appointments.
76. Ooi Giok Ling, Sustainability an Cities Conce t an ssessment (Singapore: Institute of
Policy Studies, 2005), 150.
77. Lew Yii Der and Maria Choy, O timising Un er Constraints n O er ie o Singa ore s ey
an Trans ort Policies (Singapore: LTA Academy, 2009), 5.
78. N. araprasad, “Providing Mobility and Accessibility”, in Management o Success The

Moul ing o Mo ern Singa ore, eds. Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley (Singapore:
79. Seah Chee Meow, Some ey Issues in Singa ore s omestic Trans ortation ho ets
here hen an o Occasional Paper Series no. 18 (Singapore: Department of Political
Science, University of Singapore, 1975), 9.
80. Redha Behbehani, . Setty Pendakur and Alan T. Armstrong-Wright, Singa ore rea
169
icensing Scheme Re ie o the Im act (Washington: The World Bank, 1984).
81. Crooks Michell Peacock Stewart, The Unite Nations Urban Rene al an e elo ment
Pro ect Summary Part T o (Sydney: Crooks Michell Peacock Stewart, 1971).
82. People’s Action Party, The Tas s hea (Singapore: People’s Action Party, 1959).
83. H. Wardlaw, “Planning in Singapore The United Nations Urban Renewal and Development
Project”, Royal ustralian Planning Institute ournal no. 2 (April 1971): 45–47.
84. Former National Development Minister Dhanabalan made specific references to the SCP and
the Concept Plan 1971 in the context of land transport, in two of his speeches, first in 1988
and then in 1991 before the unveiling of the 1991 Concept Plan. See Suppiah Dhanabalan,
“General Statement on Road Development”, Speech in Parliament, March 17, 1988, http://
stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/starsDetail.jsp &chkD D id 21960&keyword dhanabalan
(accessed February 14, 2012); and Suppiah Dhanabalan, “Speech at the Opening of the
42nd FIABCI World Congress in Real Estate”, Singapore, May 1991, http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/
stars/public/starsDetail.jsp &chkD D id 21195&keyword dhanabalan (accessed February
14, 2012).
85. See Chin Hoong Chor, “Urban Transport Planning in Singapore”, http://www.
elsalvadorcompite.gob.sv/portal/page/portal/ES /Pg Biblio logist/MFA 20- 20
Urban 20Transportation 20(Singapore 20Model).PDF (accessed June 5, 2012).
86. Ministry of Trade and Industry, “The Strategic Economic Plan: Towards a Developed Nation”,
http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/885/doc/NWS plan.pdf (accessed June 5, 2012).
87. In 1800s, the British established the Straits Settlements’ PWD which was head uartered in
Singapore. It was popularly known as the “grandfather” of all transport planning units and
the primary builder of transport infrastructure in Singapore. The PWD was formally launched
in 1946 and took charge of most public works in Singapore including the construction of
government buildings and supervision of the sewerage and drainage system. Its Roads and
Transportation Division was in charge of building transport infrastructure, which included
roads, bridges, bus interchanges and shelters.
88. The RO was established in 1945. It implemented policies relating to vehicle ownership
and usage control, enforcement of vehicle safety and the regulation of public transport
services. The RO was also the licensing authority and regulator of the taxi industry until it
was subsumed into the LTA in 1995.
89. T.S. Low, former Executive Director of MRTC, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities,
Singapore, April 14, 2011.
90. Extracted from National Archives of Singapore, Oral History Centre’s interview with Ong
Teng Cheong, Accession number 00794, reel 3.
91. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, The Singa ore MRT ssessing Public In estment
lternati es (Singapore: National University of Singapore, 1993).
92. Extracted from National Archives of Singapore, Oral History Centre’s interview with Ngiam
170
Tong Dow, Accession number 001658, reel 5.
93. Lee Siew Hoon, In Memorium Ong Teng Cheong , http://www.channelnewsasia.

com/cna/obituaries/ongtengcheong/special2.htm (accessed June 5, 2012).
94. See Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, The Singa ore MRT ssessing Public In estment
lternati es (Singapore: National University of Singapore, 1993). The Government spent
10 million on 10 studies over 15 years, engaging international consultants from developed
countries such as the United States.
Straits Times Press, 2010), 87, 89.
96. Ibid., 91.
97. Lee Kuan Yew, “Lee Kuan Yew: The Chance of a Lifetime”, Urban Solutions Issue 2, February
2013, 8, 12.
99. Stephen H.K. Yeh, “The Idea of the Garden City”, in Management o Success The Moul ing
o Mo ern Singa ore, eds. Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley (Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), 814; Neo Boon Siong, June Gwee and Candy Mak, “Growing
a City in a Garden”, in Case Stu ies in Public o ernance uil ing Institutions in Singa ore,
ed. June Gwee (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012), 13.
101. Lee Kuan Yew, Dialogue with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at Lee Kuan Yew World City
Pri e Ceremony, June 29, 2009.
102. Ibid.
104. Lee Kuan Yew, rom Thir orl to irst The Singa ore Story (Singapore: Times
Media and The Straits Times Press, 2000), 199–200.
ater Sustainability (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), 6–7.
106. Ibid., xxiii; Lee Kuan Yew, The Singa ore Story Memoirs o ee uan e (Singapore: Times
Editions and The Straits Times Press, 1998), 663.
ater Sustainability (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), 128–129.
171
108. Hy ux 2003 Annual Report, 4.
109. Y.H. Wah and W. Yang, “Water and Used Water Pricing” (internal paper, Centre for Liveable
Cities, 2009).
110. Joey Long Shi Ruey, “On the Threshold of Self-Sufficiency: Toward the Desecuritisation of the
Water Issue in Singapore-Malaysia Relations”, in eyon Vulnerability ater In Singa ore
Malaysia Relations, ed. Kwa Chong Guan (Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic
Studies, 2002), 136; Cecilia Tortajada, “Water Management in Singapore”, Ethos, Issue 2,
April 2007, 31–39; Editorial, “Water Scarcity: Turning Weakness Into Strength”, The Straits
Times, September 2, 2011.
111. HDB, nnual Re ort (Singapore: HDB, 1963), 2.
112. Melissa Sapuan, “Managing Singapore’s Land Needs”, Ethos, Issue 2, April 2007, 9; See also
URA’s land use planning webpage, https://www.ura.gov.sg/land use planning/ (accessed
January 30, 2013).
113. S. Dhanabalan, “Speech at the Opening of the 42nd FIABCI World Congress in Real Estate”,
Singapore, May 1991, http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/starsDetail.jsp &chkD D
id 21195&keyword dhanabalan (accessed February 14, 2012).
114. S. Dhanabalan, Urban Redevelopment Authority Bill, Parliament no. 7, Session 1, olume 54,
Sitting 5, August 4, 1989.
118. Ministry of Finance, Re ort o the Pro erty Mar et Consultati e Committee ction Plan or
the Pri ate Sector Singapore: Ministry of Finance, 1986), 46.
119. Liu Thai Ker, “Charting a Course for Conservation in Singapore”, paper delivered at the
Conference on Building Conservation, Hong Kong, September 1992. See also Ole Johan
Dale, Urban Planning in Singa ore The Trans ormation o a City (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999), 155.
120. Lily Kong, Conser ing the Past Creating the uture Urban eritage in Singa ore (Singapore:
Straits Times Press, 2011), 41, 43–44.
121. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Re ort o the Tourism Tas orce Singapore: Ministry of Trade
and Industry, 1984).
122. Ministry of Trade and Industry, The Tourism Pro uct e elo ment Plan Singapore: Ministry
of Trade and Industry, 1986).
172
124. Ooi Giok Ling, “Reshaping Urban Space: From a Tropical to Global City”, in Im ressions o
the oh Cho Tong ears in Singa ore eds. Bridget Welsh, James Chin, Arun Mahi hnan
and Tan Tarn How (Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies and NUS Press, 2009), 280; Melissa
Sapuan, “Managing Singapore’s Land Needs”, Ethos, Issue 2, April 2007, 9.
125. Melissa Sapuan, “Managing Singapore’s Land Needs”, Ethos, Issue 2, April 2007, 13.
126. E. Kay Gillis, Singa ore Ci il Society and ritish Po er (Singapore: Talisman, 2005), 172–198.
127. See Chan Heng Chee, “Politics in an Administrative State: Where Has the Politics Gone ”,
in Un erstan ing Singa ore Society, eds. Ong Jin Hui, Tong Chee Kiong and Tan Ern Ser
(Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1997), 294–306; Chan Heng Chee, “The PAP and the
Structuring of the Political System”, in Management o Success The Moul ing o Mo ern
Singa ore, eds. Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley (Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, 1989), 70–89.
128. Michael D. Barr, “Marxists in Singapore Lee Kuan Yew’s Campaign against Catholic Social
Justice Activists in the 1980s”, Critical sian Stu ies , no. 3 (September 2010): 335–362.
129. uoted in Lenore Lyons and James Gome , “Moving the OB Markers: Rethinking the Space
of Civil Society in Singapore”, So ourn 20, no. 2 (October 2005): 119.
131. CPF, in turn, allows workers to pay for their housing, which is in turn provided to the vast
majority of Singaporeans by HDB. Another example of whole-of-government coordination
can be seen in the work of the Garden City Action Committee. Formed in the mid-1960s to
implement the Garden City concept of greening Singapore, the committee was chaired by
the MND’s Permanent Secretary and included representatives from the MND, PWD, HDB,
Primary Production Department (subse uently restructured as the Agri-Food and eterinary
Authority of Singapore), PRD (later NParks), JTC and URA. The agencies laid out a clear
division of labour, with the HDB, URA, and JTC being responsible for greening efforts in
their respective policy jurisdictions and the PRD taking charge of the rest of Singapore.
The agencies also worked closely with each other to implement road side greening. For
more information, see Stephen H.K. Yeh, “The Idea of the Garden City”, in Management o
132. Lee Hsien Loong, Speech at the EDB 50th Anniversary Gala Dinner, Singapore, August 1,
2011.
133. See Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), “The Reform of
Metropolitan Governance”, 2.
173
134. Melanie Lee, “Singapore’s Economic Boom Widens Income Gap”, Reuters,
November 9, 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/09/us-singapore-economy-
ine uality-idUSIN20069020071109 (accessed December 12, 2011).
135. See Koh Tsin Yen, “Workfare in Singapore”, in Jocelyne Bourgon, Ne Synthesis o Public
ministration Ser ing in the st Century (Montreal: ueen’s School of Policy Studies,
2011), 217–228.
136. See, for example, Manu Bhaskaran, Ho Seng Chee, Donald Low, Tan Kim Song, Sudhir
adaketh and Yeoh Lam Keong, “Background Paper: Ine uality and the Need for a New
Social Compact”, in Singa ore Pers ecti es (Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies,
2012), http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/ips/docs/events/p2012/SP2012 Bkgdper cent20Pa.pdf
(accessed February 14, 2012).
137. Christopher Tan, “Go Beyond Infrastructure in Fixing Transport Woes; Integrate Land Use
with Transport Planning and Don’t Forget about Buses”, The Straits Times, May 27, 2011.
138. Jeremy Au Yong, “PM Throws Light on What Led to Infrastructure Strain”, The Straits Times,
29 January 2013; Lee U-Wen, “How uest for Growth Led to Housing and Transport Crunch”,
The usiness Times, 29 January 2013; May Wong, “PM Lee Admits Govt Lacked 20/20
Foresight”, January 28, 2013, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/
view/1250767/1/.html (accessed January 30, 2013).
139. Khaw Boon Wan, “Build Ahead of Order”, May 27, 2011, http://mndsingapore.wordpress.
com/category/new- ats/ (accessed October 6, 2011).
140. Lui Tuck Yew, “Bus Matters”, August 3, 2011, http://app.mot.gov.sg/News Centre/
Perspective.aspx (accessed October 6, 2011).
141. Rachel Chang, “Major Shift in Planning Strategy: Khaw”, The Straits Times, February 7, 2013.
174
CHAPTER 4
In Global Practice
The CLC Liveability
Framework
Photo courtesy of Adambro

In Global Practice:
The CLC Liveability
Framework
Pablo VAGGIONE and Elyssa LUDHER
01 Bilbao City
Winner of 2010’s Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize, Bilbao demonstrates the transformative powers of effective urban
planning and sound governance
Photo courtesy of Bilbao City Council (Ayuntamiento de Bilbao)
INTRODUCTION
If left to grow organically with little guidance, cities could miss
critical opportunities for urban development. Land values may
not be adequately captured, leading to misallocation and over-
consumption of resources. Consequently, the quality of life could
be compromised.
One school of thought believes that city management can be done

through development controls specified in a master plan, something
176
In Global Practice: The CLC Liveability Framework
that almost all cities have. But a set of indices and drawings is
insufficient to maximise opportunities for urban development.
Successful cities have demonstrated that formulating and applying
an overarching set of values is essential to guide development and
enable cities to stand out.
“ While geography and history remain important to a city’s success, so is visionary

leadership, strong governance, constant innovation and the relentless drive to make
cities attractive places for social and economic intercourse … In a world of rapid
change, cities need to work hard to remain vibrant and liveable.1
”
Lee Kuan Yew, first Prime Minister of Singapore
This chapter looks at how two Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize laureate
cities,2 Bilbao and New York City, have throughout key moments in
their histories put in practice overarching principles, both explicit
and implicit, to guide their development. It demonstrates how a
clear development framework, rooted in experience, provides a
conceptual foundation which permeates leadership, institutions,
and governance structures and facilitates effective decision-making
in the face of the complex challenges that come with rapid growth.
It ensures that cities employ human and physical capital to their
full extent and that development is well aligned with stakeholder
interests. If effective, the framework can translate into measurable
guidelines that inform investment, land use, and other key aspects
that shape a city.
New York City embodies many attributes that are universally

associated with a city. Built out of vibrant opportunity, the City has
not been immune to the difficulties associated with rapid growth and
changing conditions—difficulties exacerbated in this case by New
York City’s large scale. Many of the strategic decisions and resulting
actions throughout its history can be bounded in a set of principles
covering both the management of the physical infrastructure
and governance aspects. These have helped decision makers to
transform challenges of growth into opportunities, resulting in a city
with a unique dynamism and innovation that has attracted people
the world over.
177
02 New York City

One of the world’s most attractive cities, New York exemplifies integrated master planning.
Photo courtesy of Sébastien Plisson
Bilbao is a foremost example of a city that has taken the lead to

address the negative impact of structural changes to its economy.
The city was exposed to a dramatic game change when the
heavy metal and shipbuilding industries, the principal sources of
economic activity, moved elsewhere in just a few short years in the
1980s. Unemployment rose consequently and disenchantment and
unrest set in. But the city soon transformed risk into opportunity
and achieved a remarkable recovery, one that has thrust it onto
the international map. This transformation was enabled by a set of
values created through the alignment of stakeholder interests and
implemented by special purpose agencies.
This chapter studies the development paths taken by New York

City and Bilbao. Their stories are complemented by perspectives
178
from selected international cities (see box stories). The objective

of the study is to determine whether there are universal principles
that could help guide urban development. For this purpose,
we applied the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) Liveability
Framework mentioned in Chapter 1. This is the compendium of
principles derived from Singapore’s development experience. This
framework groups two sets of ten principles under major themes,
namely integrated master planning and development and dynamic
urban governance.
Our finding was that the markedly distinct development paths

of the two cities, New York City and Bilbao, have converged,
whether by design or opportunistically, on the same set of broad
guiding principles captured in the CLC Liveability Framework.
179
The supplementary stories of several international cities, each

focused on exploring one principle, served as additional validation
of the principles in the CLC Liveability Framework. These findings
lend to the conclusion that there are indeed some universal
principles that can facilitate effective urban development.
Nonetheless, the framework is not a panacea; it may not be

easy to apply in every context, given the unique circumstances
of each city. However, it could serve as an impetus for cities to
articulate their own visions and formulate their own principles for
governance, institutional arrangements, policy implementation,
and resource optimisation, which could in turn lay the groundwork
for effective local planning.
PHYSICAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES FOR INTEGRATED

MASTER PLANNING
1. Thinking long term enables problem solving and sustained
competitiveness
Many cities that have applied long-term thinking into their actionable
frameworks have gained a competitive edge over those that are
entrapped in a short-term mode. In the latter, a piecemeal approach
to problem-solving is adopted, which does not allow for issues to
be tackled at the root; solutions provide only short-term respite,
and opportunities do not trickle down to the broader society. Long-
term thinking is a key asset for cities as it allows them to anticipate
challenges before they arise and to make the necessary adjustments
to stay on track to their desired direction.
New York City

In the early 19th century, rapid and unplanned growth in New York City
created suboptimal conditions. Its population was growing at almost
6 annually, and had tripled to reach 100,000 inhabitants in 1810.
The southern tip of Manhattan was densely populated, with irregular
180
plot sizes and a disorderly street network.

Congestion and chaos compromised
the city’s ability to develop economically,
and overpopulation and poor ventilation
hindered the quality of life of its residents.
Furthermore, the uncertainty of rules limited
land development and construction, which
could have served as employment and
wealth generating industries.
Thinking long term was the means

by which the city’s decision makers
overcame growth challenges. The
Common Council, the city’s authority,
concurred that a long-term framework
was indispensable to manage growth, and
appointed a multi-disciplinary commission
of three experts with a significant track
record in governance, law and surveying
to prepare a plan to address poor street
layout and lack of air circulation. The
Commission worked for four years in
the preparation of the document, which
became known as the Commissioner’s
Plan. Approved in 1811, the plan was
visionary in its size and design. It covered
most of the island of Manhattan, about
four times the size of the existing urban
core located in the southern tip, rationally
subdividing land in a modular system of
plots that could be sold individually or
in groups, thus easing land transactions.
Many grid plans have been drawn up, but
in the case of New York City, it was the city
council’s ability to relentlessly implement
03 The Commissioner’s Plan of 1811—provisional map of
it through various political cycles that New York City, released in 1807
created clear rules of the game, one With increasing population, planners realised the
that allowed land markets to soar and need to integrate planning with governance. Bringing
together experts in all areas, the Commissioner’s Plan
gave the city its distinctive structure and was considered to be visionary when released in 1811.
physical attributes. Photo courtesy of Jleon
181
Two centuries later, the principle of long-term thinking continues.

The Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability,
created in 2006 by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, released PlaNYC in
2007. This was an action-oriented agenda to address the challenges
of population growth, climate change, economic performance
and quality of life. Stakeholder input, through non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and experts in the various fields, was central
to the preparation of PlaNYC. Such public engagement and civic
ownership of the plan are dynamics that would ensure continuity
over changing mayoral administrations.
Some of the projects that have stemmed from this agenda and the
Office’s coordinating capacity include redesigning Times Square and
Broadway, where the Department of Transportation modified public
space to feature cycle and pedestrian lanes; and the Brooklyn Bridge
waterfront, where the Department of City Planning changed land
use from industrial to public use, allowing the Department of Parks
and Recreation to create the Brooklyn Bridge Park. The plan’s clearly-
defined goals and associated indicators triggered such initiatives.
04 Brooklyn Bridge Park

To ensure long-term sustainability of plans, PlaNYC incorporates public engagement and civic engagement to ensure
continuity over changing mayoral administrations.
Photo courtesy of Marcin Wichary
182
Bilbao
For Bilbao, industrial transformation policies in Western Europe in
the 1980s, after the 1973 oil crisis, had dramatic consequences. The
delocalisation of traditional sectors, including heavy steel industries
and shipbuilding, to more competitive locations elsewhere meant the
loss of 50 of existing industrial jobs. Unemployment, almost non-
existent in the early 1970s, climbed to a record 25 in the first half
of the 1980s. Structural changes were met by long years of industrial
union action and outbursts of violent labour conflict. From the early
1980s, Bilbao suffered serious population decline. Such severe social
problems were mirrored in the city’s intense physical decay.
Recognising the urgent need to reverse the downward trend,

the national, regional, provincial and municipal governments and
civil stakeholders created a space for dialogue which drove the
development of a strategy for urban regeneration. This resulted in
the Strategic Plan for the Revitalisation of Metropolitan Bilbao, which
promoted an integrated approach through eight long-term pillars. The
plan was adopted in 1991, and a dedicated agency, the Association
for the Revitalisation of Metropolitan Bilbao, or Bilbao Metropoli-30
(BM-30), was founded in the same year to facilitate the regeneration
process. The framework for the design of tools and action plans was
based on the 1989 physical plan for Bilbao, and extended to the
metropolitan area in 1994.
Bilbao’s Eight Long-Term Pillars

1 Developing human capital;
2 Creating the conditions for an advanced services sector within an industrial region;
3 A coordinated, multi-modal mobility system;
Environmental regeneration to improve quality of life and economic opportunity;
Infrastructure updating and urban renewal;
Facilities to make culture a symbol of the city;
Public-private alignment for quality, effectiveness and efficiency in management of
public services; and
Social inclusion and the involvement of citizens in the effort.
183
MELBOURNE
Liveability by Design
Melbourne in Australia s state of Victoria did not arrive at its

high liveability by chance, but by design. The city is a product of
nearly two centuries of planning, beginning with its distinctive
grid pattern designed by Robert Hoddle in 1837. Hoddle created
a dense cityscape with a regular street layout and public spaces.
Beyond physical improvement, planning schemes introduced
since Melbourne s first strategic plan in 1929 aimed to protect
property values, prevent misuse of land, control traffic congestion
and distribute recreational spaces.
184
Over the next 40 years, Melbourne continued producing various
planning documents, each building on the experience of its
predecessor. Its plans, however, were not always a success. By the
1970s, Melbourne s city centre was in decline, attributed to the City
Council s laissez-faire approach to new development. In an article in
1978, the inner city was described as “an empty, useless city centre”3
which had lost the charm and attraction it once had. People came
to the city to work but retreated to the suburbs after office hours,
leaving the central area uninvitingly empty.
Against this context, the city council was tasked to bring life back to
the city. Two programmes were introduced: a es r e e and
st e .
PLACES FOR PEOPLE

In 1994, the council collaborated
with architect Jan Gehl and initiated
a es r e e to attract more
life to the city. The programme
recommended that the city be built
around strong communities and liveable
public spaces, through the upgrading of
promenades, walkways and meeting points. A
ten-year goal was set to increase the city s liveability
and to establish benchmarks to measure its progress.
st e focused on
the redevelopment of key POSTCODE 3000
sites, including the redesign
of Swanston Street as a
pedestrian-friendly street,
the development of ueen
Victoria urban village,
and the creation of a new
riverfront park from under-
used rail sidings.4
185
The benefits of both programmes were significant. Melbourne
saw detailed bluestone paving installed across the city, laneways
opened up for retail use, the arra River s frontage redesigned
to include walkways and pedestrian bridges, and street furniture,
art, new lighting, signage and greenery installed. The initiatives
became an integral part of Melbourne s urban design and residential
densification programme.
FROM 1,600
15,000
TO
The projects were a success: inner city residents increased from

1,600 in 1991 to 15,000 by 2006.5 The number of pedestrians in the
city on weekday evenings doubled.6
The city s revival as a place to live

and work led to a boom in inner-city
FROM 3,000
15,000
apartment developments, increasing TO
from approximately 3,000 in 1997
to 15,000 by 2010.7 Laneways and
arcades have now become some of
Melbourne s most iconic elements.
186
05 Street artist along Swanston Street, Melbourne
Successful redesign has resulted in the installation of a tram system and bike friendly lanes, rejuvenating the city.
Photo courtesy of bram_souffreau
The city continues to plan for its long-term

liveability. To accommodate a population that is
expected to grow to around 6.5 million by 2050,8
the Victoria Government released its vision for
2050 in 2013. It is expected that “Plan Melbourne”
will meet the challenges of population growth,
driving economic prosperity and liveability, while
protecting the city s environment and heritage.
The new Metropolitan Planning Authority was
created solely to carry out the Plan and to
coordinate between the numerous councils,
ensuring that it is able to take on the weighty
challenge of safeguarding Melbourne s liveability
into the future.
187
2. The integration of agencies empowers transformative solutions

The complexity of planning and managing a city is such that it
would be unrealistic to think that one municipal department, or
one technical skill, or one budget resource could magically solve
all issues. Integrated thinking does not happen naturally in most
operational settings; instead, it must be nurtured. Since their
performance is evaluated individually, city departments tend to
work in silos. When dealing with complex situations, successful cities
of all sizes have demonstrated that integrated thinking and action
are necessary; moreover, overcoming the obstacles to integration
requires acting with special determination.
New York City

Managing New York City requires an intricate administrative set-
up that includes a number of agencies and departments. The city’s
challenges cut across these agencies and departments, and the limits
of competencies are frequently blurred. The Office of Long-Term
Planning and Sustainability is a vehicle for coordinated thinking and
action across city agencies, the City Council, and stakeholders, and
embedding sustainability goals and practices into planning to ensure
they are implementable.
Executing a strategic agenda for a city with the complexity of

New York City would not have been possible without extensive
coordination between agencies that are responsible for long-term
goals and short-term milestones. Transparency is an essential asset for
creating the conditions of multi-stakeholder alignment. A methodical,
transparent, and inclusive planning process establishes an atmosphere
of coordination that allows setting commonly accepted goals and a
distribution of tasks to fulfil them. For example, the acclaimed High
Line, a park created over an unused elevated rail line, was initiated by
a civil society group, Friends of the Highline. The project was enabled
by the combined work of the departments of City Planning and
Parks which created favourable conditions through zoning changes
and incentives, further capitalised upon by public-private deals by
the Economic Development Corporation. The clear allocation of
responsibilities among agencies and partners, and the sense of
common direction, were critical components of efficient delivery.
188
Bilbao
During Bilbao’s critical period in the 1980s, political consensus was
essential for generating and implementing a strategy, requiring
effective alignment between agencies. Stakeholders, including all
municipalities in the Bilbao Metropolitan area, collaborated on the
1991 Strategic Plan. Early coordination was indispensable in creating
the institutional alignment, including polity tools and budgets, which
helped to ground long-term strategic pillars into a project-oriented
approach that was implementable in the short term. In many cases,
these projects spanned various contiguous municipal areas.
Even more complex was the establishment of Bilbao Ria 2000, an

agency, created as a not-for-profit publicly sponsored partnership that
operated as a private entity. The national and regional governments
each owned 50 of the shares, but Bilbao Ria 2000 involved all four
tiers of government—including provincial and municipal—in its work.
Its daily work required aligning agendas and balancing decision-
making powers that were spread across these tiers. For example,
urban planning was a local government competency; fiscal spending
was vested at the provincial level; and most of the land, which was the
agency’s capital, was owned by the national government.
06 Members of the Bilbao Ria 2000

Comprising members from different administrations, Bilbao 2000 has the collective goal of transforming Bilbao.
Photo courtesy of Bilbao Ria 2000
189
TIANJIN ECO-CITY
Government-to-Government Collaboration on
New City Development
If integration and collaboration between local government

departments are challenging, imagine collaborating across
borders. This is what the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city project
achieved; it is one of the world s first cross-border collaborative
city development efforts that involved two national governments.
hen completed, the Chinese city will house 350,000 residents
on 30 km2, or about one-third the size of Manhattan island, on
land that was saline and polluted.
190
“ Even the best of friends need to have

common hobbies, common projects to work
on. Likewise between Singapore and China.
It is useful to have projects to work on
together to continue to build on [our] bilateral
relationship.9
” Ho Tong Yen, Chief Executive Officer,
Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city Investment
and Development Co. Ltd
The idea for a joint collaboration was seeded in April 2007 by

Goh Chok Tong, Singapore s then Senior Minister, during a visit to
China. The idea quickly gained traction, and in November 2007,
Singapore s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and China s then
Premier en Jiabao officially signed the bilateral agreement.
A special purpose vehicle, the Sino-

Singapore Tianjin Eco-City Investment
and Development Co. Ltd. (SSTEC),
involving the two countries on a 50-50
US$660 MILLION
basis, was formed to ensure that the
project had private sector participation
and was commercially viable. Under
the joint venture agreement, the initial
registered capital of approximately
US 660 million was contributed by
both sides, in cash or in kind.
The collaboration went beyond funding and high-level political commitment; working
groups were formed horizontally, at every level of government, from head of state to
local levels, and “diagonally”, where various Chinese agencies and corporations worked
collaboratively with their Singapore counterparts.
191
MULTI-TIER COLLABORATION A crucial joint decision that had to

be taken was the choice of the site
STRUCTURE FOR TEC from four alternatives considered;
equally important decisions were
the auspicious naming of the city, the
economic development strategy,
and integrated master-planning.
oint Council for Bilateral The last is an example of the

Corporation oint complex collaboration between
Steering Committee the two governments. Producing
(Co-chaired by Singapore Deputy one cohesive master plan involved
Prime Minister and the agencies for urban planning,
China Vice-Premier)
water, environment, housing, and
transport from both countries. The
master plan principle, which was
the outcome of this collaborative
effort, can be summarised as “1
axis 3 centres 4 districts, 1 island 3
waters 6 corridors” (一軸三心四片,
一岛三水六廊).
oint orking Committee
(Co-chaired by Singapore’s Beyond the complex multi-agency
Minister for National Development collaboration, multi-tier government
and China’s Minister for
engagement platforms were
Construction
Housing and Urban-Rural essential to resolve issues where
Development) differences arose. For example, a
concern surfaced when the Tianjin
Binhai New Area (TBNA) regional
authority revised the regional rail
transport plan. The plan realigned
Sub-Committees under the high speed rail, which resulted
TBNA in reduced connectivity from Tianjin
(Sub-committees include: Eco-city to Tianjin Central Business
Urban Planning and Transport;
Public Housing; Economic
District and the airport. The issue
Promotion; Water Management, was raised at higher government
Environmental Management; engagement platforms, and a
Social Development; Green
Building Research and
mutually beneficial compromise
Development) was reached—the TBNA authority
added several light rail stations to
connect Tianjin Eco-City to the high
speed line.
192
6,000
RESIDENTS
IN 2013
The first residents moved to Tianjin

Eco-City in 2012. By 2013, it had 6,000
residents.10 The city is lauded for its
comprehensive key performance
indicators ( PIs) which the orld
Bank assessed to be broader in scope
compared to existing Chinese standards,
as well as more advanced, particularly in
the areas of carbon emissions, proportion
of green buildings, proportion of green
trips, renewable energy use, solid waste
recycling, and use of non-conventional
water resources. These PIs leapfrog
China s current urban development
model, and provide a comprehensive
model for future cities in China.
Essentially, despite the complexity of
multi-country collaboration, the agencies
were able to coordinate well enough to
bring about superior outcomes than if
they had acted alone.
193
3. Adaptability to changing conditions is essential

Economic activity is a principal influencer of land use in cities. But,
business models change, new activities emerge and others fade
away, and when this happens, what was once valuable land may
go into inexorable decay as productive activities are relocated or
disappear. The ability of governments to foresee such negative
turns and take pre-emptive measures is essential. Policy-makers
need to shed their linear modes of thinking and be prepared for
constant change.
New York City

To stay competitive, New York City continuously adapted and
reinvented itself. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, 42nd Street
and the Times Square area were considered seedy red light districts,
where severe social marginalisation and economic underutilisation
symbolised a period of decline for the city. A long-term development
plan was created under mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins.
Measures to discourage undesirable uses were followed by the
public acquisition of theatres on 42nd Street. A special non-profit
organisation was created to oversee their restoration or conversion
and release to the market. The area received an influx of corporate
investment in media facilities and tourist-friendly attractions as well
as branded establishments. Recently, the partial pedestrianisation
of Broadway, a key vehicular artery, signals how land use policy for
the area constantly adapts to evolving public demands.
The city’s flexible grid also allows for the intensity of land use to evolve.
The buildings around Columbus Circle, for example, have been
replaced three times since the early 1900s. The Majestic Theatre,
built in 1903, was demolished in 1954. It was replaced by the New
York Coliseum, a 30,000 m2 convention centre and a 26-storey office
tower developed by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. In
2000, this was demolished to give way to the Time Warner Center, a
building that is ten times bigger. Covering 260,000 m2, the 55-storey
mixed-use complex has added residential use, where previously the
land was used only as an office and commercial space.
194
07 Times Square, New York City

After recent improvements and changing demands, roads were closed off to make way for pedestrian friendly areas.
Photo courtesy of Payton Chung
As PlaNYC is not a statutory document, subsequent city administrations

are not legally bound to apply it. However, the New York City
government has established regulations by which the plan should
be updated every four years, thus creating conditions that would
enable continuity.
Bilbao
Bilbao’s economic model is in transition from heavy industries

and shipbuilding—the sustenance of the region until the 1980s—
to services. Such transformational change cannot be completed
195
overnight. The comprehensive physical transformation of Bilbao

has taken over 20 years to materialise. However, other aspects of
this economic transformation will take longer to materialise than
this visible physical transformation. Notably, the results of policies
for the creation of a suitable business climate, the development
of needed human capital, and establishing a market reputation
for advanced service sectors to develop and thrive will take much
longer to materialise.
For this reason, the acclaimed revitalisation strategy of Bilbao

has evolved, switching focus from establishing the infrastructure
CAPE TOWN
Adapting Programmes to Upgrade Communities
196
building blocks to developing the conditions to attract and retain

talent through policies that have people and values at the centre.
In its 2010 Strategic Reflection document, BM-30 defines Bilbao’s
values as innovation, professionalism, identity, community and
openness. These values would be reflected in such policies as the
development of champion companies, especially in the fields of
energy and Information and Communications Technology (ICT);
the internationalisation of small and medium enterprises; and an
emphasis on research, development and innovation (R D I).
Strengthening the city’s productive competitiveness through human
capital development is believed to be essential in achieving the
strategic objectives.
The city of Cape Town in South Africa successfully adapted local resources to address
one of the most basic priorities of urban policy: personal safety. The incidence of
murder in South Africa is highest in Cape Town s hayelitsha township (or informal
settlement in the South African context). One is ten times more likely to be murdered
in that township than in the rest of South Africa. In 2006, the City Council, the German
Development Bank ( f ) and AHT Group AG SUN Development Pty Ltd set up
a partnership to undertake a project named Violence Prevention through Urban
Upgrading (VPUU).11 Its purpose was to create safe and sustainable neighbourhoods
by reducing social, cultural, economic and institutional exclusions.
From the outset, the group recognised that

simple urban upgrading would not suffice:
“ There are two ways you

can go ... You can either take
the traditional route of city
improvement districts, that is
through the privatisation of public
space to increase public safety, or
you go the other route, we call this
communalisation.12
”
Michael Krause, Director, SUN Pte. Ltd.
197
The team chose the latter approach highlighted in rause s comments above, based
on the local concept of “Ubuntu”, or multilateral solidarity.13 It recognised that for the
initiative to be sustainable, it had to be rooted in community engagement. A five-step
community involvement methodology resulted.
FIRST, it held extensive consultations

to build in mature local leadership
involvement.
SECOND, community members
were actively involved in creating
the Community Action Plan.
THIRD, community members

had to commit to assisting in the
implementation of interventions.
This galvanised the
community around ideas
and interventions.
This often required equipping

FOURTH, members of the
participants with the necessary
community were mobilised
skills, for example, in landscaping,
to manage and maintain the
construction or mosaic- making.
initiatives.
FIFTH, regular monitoring and evaluation are

conducted by the partnership as well as partner
universities to ensure that the aims of each
initiative are met.
Approximately 200
people volunteer for all
The benefits were multi-fold, not
initiatives weekly.
only in the physical upgrading of the
environment, but also in community
empowerment, funding retention and
198 local socio-economic improvement.
Flexibility was implicit in the programme. A continuous cycle of learning, action,

monitoring and reflection naturally led to further improvements, and it was necessary
that the project could integrate them.
“ [The plan] started with a fairly

modest intention: to reduce crime
through improving the urban
environment, but, in order to achieve
this, [it] recognized that wide-ranging
intervention is necessary; that crime
must be tackled through spatial means,
socially and institutionally.14
”
Julian Cooke, Emeritus Professor,
University of Cape Town
08 Khayelitsha, Cape Town, South Africa

Community briefings are held to facilitate participation in
programmes that address issues like personal safety.
Photo courtesy of Iris Taani, Sun Development, VPUU
The physical changes were apparent—20 public facilities were built, including a House
of Learning with a library, an early childhood centre and hall, and Live- ork units
(businesses below, homes above) that were introduced to improve “eyes on street”.15
In addition, numerous social initiatives resulted. For example, policemen were renamed
“community safety officers” and institutions such as business advice centres, legal aid
clinics, and anti-gender violence centres were established. Some 250 local businesses
have benefited from the business advice centres, and 50,000 people have benefited
from anti gender-based violence initiatives, an exceptional achievement given its short
time-frame and modest funding.16
VPUU s success can be attributed to planning that went beyond traditional upgrading; it
had factored local needs, conditions and resources in its planning. ithout such a focus,
the programme may have shared the same fate as the countless unsuccessful urban
upgrading projects in informal settlements. The VPUU programme has been recognised
for its exceptional achievements and was singled out for Special Mention in 2012 s Lee
uan ew orld City Prize. Its lessons have been adopted widely: Cape Town s urban
design policies were largely built on knowledge gained from the VPUU programme, and
its community institutions are being introduced in other informal settlements in Cape
Town and other South African metropolitan regions.
199
4. Plans are effective only if execution is embedded in the

planning process
Plans that are not executed effectively or enforced thoroughly are
a waste of public resources and may damage a city’s reputation as
they signal an inability to implement. To ensure that the objectives
of strategic plans are transformed into actions, plans need to
consider implementation from the onset. This involves bringing
the agencies that execute plans upstream to the plan’s inception
stages; including clear and measurable performance indicators; and
setting the right incentives and disincentives. In addition, successful
planning requires involving the intended beneficiaries in the process
of selecting various options. If these steps are incorporated into
the planning process, the likelihood of plans being implemented
effectively increases significantly.
New York City

PlaNYC’s goal of achieving a “greener, greater New York
City”17 is structured in ten categories, including (1) Housing and
Neighbourhoods, (2) Parks and Public Space, (3) Brownfields,
(4) Waterways, (5) Water Supply, (6) Transportation, (7) Energy,
(8) Air uality, (9) Solid Waste, and (10) Climate Change. Each
category contains clearly described metrics to assess progress.
Over 97 of the 127 initiatives18 were launched within a year of the
plan’s inception in 2007 and almost two-thirds of the milestones
have been achieved in 2009.
An example of achieved milestones, in the category of Housing

and Neighbourhoods, is that of planning regulations that have
been adopted for more than 20 transit-oriented schemes, with
the aim of having, by 2030, 87 of new housing units built within
400 m from a public transport stop. For Parks and Public Space, the
target is to have 85 of New Yorkers living within 400 m from a park.
To meet this target, more than 200 ac of parkland was created, and
over 74 of residents now live within a ten-minute walk of a park.19
In addition, new public spaces for pedestrians have been created,
including one in Times Square, which has attracted tourists and
200
residents and reduced pedestrian fatalities. The Office for Long

Term Planning and Sustainability collects data from city agencies,
for example the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority,
among many others. Indicators are obtained directly from existing
agency reports or by composite estimates based on multiple data
sources. For example, annual total greenhouse gas emissions are
calculated by adding estimates of carbon dioxide equivalents
from transportation data, building energy consumption and fuel
combustion, and electricity used in infrastructure components
such as wastewater treatment, streetlights, and traffic signals.
Bilbao
The Strategic Plan for the Revitalisation of Metropolitan Bilbao was
based on eight pillars or action programmes but did not determine
implementation steps or targets per action area. Instead of an
empirical evaluation by specific components, the plan considered
an overall assessment of how conditions were changing through the
observation of cross-cutting themes.
In collaboration with a local university, BM-30 developed, in 1998,

a revitalisation indicator framework that looked at four cross-cutting
themes, namely: (i) the quality of human resources, to assess how
human capacity is contributing to well-being and competitiveness;
(ii) internationalisation, the degree of integration of Bilbao with
global economic networks; (iii) knowledge society, evaluating
the penetration of technologies and especially information and
communication; and (iv) sustainable development, looking at how
the benefits and costs of growth are balanced. This is the basis
of BM-30’s annual reports, which serve as evaluation tools and are
used to give focus to the strategic dialogue between partners.
Data on measurable outcomes in economic activity, employment,
demographics, infrastructure, environment, education and tourism,
with key areas requiring priority attention identified, are presented
in the annual statistics book prepared by the Bilbao Observatory.
Since 2012, the observatory has been part of Bilbao Ekinzta, the
municipal government’s development agency.
201
AHMEDABAD
Building a Reputation in Project Delivery through
Effective Execution
The Indian city of Ahmedabad, known as Gandhi s home city and the
commercial centre of Gujarat, has won numerous local and global awards
for its ability to strategically plan and deliver high quality projects. Previously
one of three most “critically polluted” cities in India, Ahmedabad was named
the most liveable city in India in 2012, owing in part to its Bus Rapid Transit
System and the Sabarmati Riverfront Project.
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) benefited from the

considerable autonomy granted by the state government. This allowed
the AMC to undertake novel initiatives including issuing municipal bonds,
introducing e-government tools, implementing property tax reforms, and
structuring effective public-private partnership models. Crucially, AMC s City
Development Strategy was coupled with an investment plan.
202
The results have been far reaching. In

the case of the Sabarmati Riverfront
project, 185 ha of land was developed
on both sides of the Sabarmati River,
with the reimagined public waterfront
giving a new lease of life to the city.
By leveraging property and land value
gains, 86% of land was retained for
public utility, including walkways,
community centres, an informal LAND SET ASIDE
market and a cultural mile—a precinct
FOR PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
for culture, art and entertainment.
The project not only revitalised the
historic city centre, but improved the
environment through the installation
of a water management system, which
doubled up to manage floods. In 2012,
PMG named the project as one of
100 most innovative projects globally.
09 Sabarmati Waterfront, Ahmedabad, India

Redesigning the waterfront has opened up the surrounding area to residents, allowing them to enjoy the city’s
shared spaces.
Photo courtesy of Manjil Purohit
203
BUS RAPID
TRANSIT SYSTEM
BRTS
Ahmedabad s liveability was boosted further with the delivery of

the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS). AMC set up Ahmedabad
Janmarg Ltd to implement a comprehensive set of public-
private partnerships for building, maintenance and operations.
Notably, the planning and monitoring of the BRTS involved
strong academic participation through its premier university,
Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology University.
Ahmedabad Janmarg was able to install a 39.5 km busway
without significantly impacting day-to-day traffic, and could also
procure 220 environmentally-friendly CNG (compressed natural
gas) buses, leading to a 33% reduction in AMC s operating costs.
ithin 4 months, public transport ridership doubled.
“ For a city which is 600 years old, change is generally slow-

paced and not quite visible. But the BRTS … made a major
difference in the way the residents move. It is not just about
making [the] life of [the] people comfortable and easy, but
helping the city air remain clean, as BRTS reduces pollution in the
city … This is the only project of its scale in this country which
has been received so well by the locals. The most remarkable
feature of the project … is that it was executed very quickly and
without paralysing the movement in the city.20
”
Shyam Parekh, Resident Editor, Daily News Analysis
204
Ahmedabad s efficiency is being rewarded.

Investor confidence is apparent: the state
received foreign direct investment of
US 398 million21 from 2011 to 2012.
US$398 MILLION
FOREIGN DIRECT
INVESTMENT FROM
2011 TO 2012
GUJARAT
INTERNATIONAL
FINANCE TEC-CITY hen Tata, an industrial conglomerate, urgently
GIFTCITY
needed to identify a location for its Nano automobile
plant, it quickly shortlisted Ahmedabad. A thriving
automotive cluster has since sprung up; both Ford s
and Suzuki s plants will come online in 2014 and
2017 respectively.
METROLINK EXPRESS
A new compact city with special economic FOR GANDHINAGAR AND
zone status, Gujarat International Finance AHMEDABAD
MEGA
Tec-City (GIFT City), is being built outside
of Ahmedabad as a public-private joint
venture. A high speed railway, named MEGA
(Metrolink Express for Gandhinagar and
Ahmedabad) is also being planned to connect
Ahmedabad with the capital of Gujarat,
Gandhinagar. These projects and others have
led to Gujarat s GDP growth of an average
10.5% per annum between 2001 and 2010.
205
5. Innovation is a requisite to stay ahead

Not only is creativity essential for addressing the challenges arising
from growth or changing conditions, it is also needed to transform
challenges into opportunities. Without innovation, cities will only
fall behind.
Although many policy-makers associate innovation mainly with

new technology, even systems and processes can benefit from
innovative thinking. A systemic approach to urban development
can yield innovative solutions. All stakeholders, including civil
society, political leaders, government and non-government
agencies, and industry have a part to play in adapting innovatively
to constantly changing conditions.
New York City

In 2010, New York City launched the Applied Sciences NYC
initiative in Roosevelt Island, a central location within the city.
Innovation and economic diversification were the drivers behind
this initiative. The establishment of the research and development
node aimed to propel job creation in economic sectors of interest,
such as media, medicine, and urban systems and design. The
government of New York City incentivised the location of leading
academic institutions, earmarked support funds for infrastructure
and set nominal rents for the occupation of city-owned land.
An example of process innovation in urban development is the

acclaimed High Line. A linear park built on an unused elevated
railroad in the lower west side of Manhattan, the High Line began
as a community-based initiative started by two local residents in
1999. The historic structure was under threat of demolition. The
line had been closed since 1980, and local property owners were
in favour of tearing it down for redevelopment. “Friends of the
High Line”, an interest group with influential members, began
advocating the preservation and use of the elevated structure as
a park. The initiative called for re-using the derelict infrastructure
206
in an imaginative way, generating a green zone in a densely-knit

urban area. The group lobbied politicians and the general public,
organised ideas, competitions and exhibitions, and effectively
reframed the project as an economic opportunity. The High Line
opened in June 2009 and has been a public success since, both
in terms of visits and as a stimulus for real estate development in
the area.
10 High Line Park, New York City

The park demonstrates innovative reuse of a derelict rail line, transforming the area into a multi-use park.
Photo courtesy of David Berkowitz
207
Bilbao
In Bilbao’s most critical moment, innovation in governance created
the conditions to build consensus around an alternative future for
the city. Thinking laterally and from the bottom up, the government
was able to turn the ideas of a broad stakeholder group into policy.
In the 1990s, BM-30 conducted strategic scenario planning

exercises with municipalities within the Bilbao metropolitan
area, universities, the private sector, and sector associations. For
example, the Chamber of Commerce anticipated the requirements
needed to position Bilbao as a leading retail centre in the region.
These scenarios established a vision for Bilbao’s future with a
horizon of five to 20 years. That vision allowed stakeholders to
identify pressing challenges and plan possible interventions. This
collective perspective is an innovation in the strategic planning
system and allows specific needs on the ground to be better
interwoven with policies and action plans.
11 Bilbao, Spain
The rejuvenation and transformation of Bilbao was aided by the application of innovative solutions, one of which was the
208
decision to build the Guggenheim Museum in the city centre.
Photo courtesy of Bilbao City Council (Ayuntamiento de Bilbao)
A key outcome of strategic planning was Bilbao’s transition

towards a knowledge-based economy. The cultural dimension
was identified as a key factor in this transition. The 1991
Strategic Plan envisaged that Bilbao’s competitive advantage
would lie in its ability to position itself as a cultural centre of
international dimensions. The plan concluded that an influential
cultural industry with recognisable cultural assets, and an image
associated with art and culture would be an advantage in shaping
the future Metropolitan Bilbao. Such intent, however, needed an
investment in assets and infrastructure. Against this backdrop, the
Guggenheim Museum was constructed, a project which has now
become the symbol of Bilbao’s transformation. The museum, a
daring architectonical challenge in the mid-1990s, demanded
constructive solutions that had never been attempted before.
Bilbao and its companies took pride in solving these challenges.
However, the museum is by no means the originator of Bilbao’s
cultural transformation but rather a tangible icon that served to
catalyse other transformation efforts.
209
COPENHAGEN
A Pioneer in Innovative Urban Development
hile the Danish capital, Copenhagen, is sometimes referred to as the Design Capital
of Europe, one of its greatest accomplishments lies in its urban development. In this
regard, Copenhagen is a city before its time.
Copenhagen s 1947 Finger Plan COPENHAGEN’S 1947
FINGER
established a pioneer approach
to regional urban growth through
a concept now regarded as the
PLAN
predecessor of tra sit rie te
e e me t. First tabled in 1928,
the plan zoned urban growth along
five fingers , with the base of the
palm representing Copenhagen s
historical city.22
210
A train network formed the spine of each finger, with townships built at each station.
The wedges between the fingers were allocated for farmland, forests and recreation;
this ensured residents had easy access to green spaces. Although the wedges
subsequently faced strong pressure for new housing, industrial and transport needs
through the years, growth was maintained close to the original boundaries. The Finger
Plan was able to adapt to change: an example was the sixth urban development region
(the sixth finger) that was adopted to revitalise the waterfront in the restad region.23
In the 1990s, Copenhagen, as well as its surrounding region, was in economic decline. To
revitalise the region and provide a stronger economic base, Copenhagen and Malmo in
Sweden took regional planning to the next level—across national borders.
“ We work closely together, the two

cities, in city planning, infrastructure,
promotion and in attracting new
business as well as events to the area.
We are Europe’s largest university
region and strive to be Scandinavia’s
business hub providing optimal
conditions for the international
business sector and attracting
international head offices as well
as small, innovative entrepreneurs.
Copenhagen is seeing rapid growth
these years and we will see it in the
”
future as well.24 12 The Öresund Bridge
Linking Copenhagen, Denmark and Malmo, Sweden
Pia Allerslev, Mayor of Culture and Leisure, together, the bridge symbolises aggregation of a
Copenhagen City Council greater economic base for revitalisation of the city’s
economy.
Photo courtesy of Håkan Dahlström
Copenhagen continues to remain at the forefront of innovation. The Copenhagen

Climate Plan highlights the city s ambitious goal to be carbon-neutral by 2025.
Copenhagen has introduced Denmark s first district cooling network—the Adelgate
cooling plant—which will help decrease carbon emissions and electricity consumption
by 70% and 80% respectively, in contrast to conventional air-conditioning.25 Also, coal
burned by combined heat and power stations will be replaced by wood chips and
straw.26 For its innovative green solutions, Copenhagen was named the 2014 European
Green Capital.
211
GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES
1. Leadership connects vision with pragmatism
Managing cities is a complex balancing act that demands from
local leaders a unique combination of long-term thinking and the
ability to achieve tangible results in the short term. Given the
magnitude of the challenges that cities face, it is unlikely that these
are addressed in one administrative cycle. Setting a collective
direction and establishing the conditions for policy continuity are
crucial to realising transformative and relentless progress towards
desired conditions. Such continuity largely depends on political
will, for which “local statesmanship”—the kind of leadership that
puts the interest of a city over partisan agendas—is indispensable.
But, as city administration is the level of government closest to
citizens, local leaders must put their skills at the service of the
community—showing that their social contract with the people is
not only about the decades to come but about positive changes
on a day-to-day basis.
New York and Bilbao have had many mayors throughout their
histories, 109 since 1665 and 89 since 1835 respectively. Thus, it
would be imprudent to consider that one person alone could have
brought about unparalleled change in the tiny window that is open
in a local government mandate. Nonetheless, in recent times, two
mayors, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City (2002–2013)
and Mayor I aki Azkuna of Bilbao (1999–2014), have exercised the
type of leadership that has had a lasting, positive impact on their
cities. Both mayors had in common the characteristics of successful
local leadership: a fondness for attainable agendas and concrete
projects and the strong ability to deliver.
New York City

Bloomberg came into office believing that mayors are key agents
of change. With great insight, he understood that city centres
were again becoming desirable places to live in, especially when
212
suburban sprawl was beginning to be associated with many of the

externalities that harmed sustainable growth. His predecessors
had laid some basic foundations for urban living—Mayor Edward
Koch (1978–1989) had steered the city out of near-bankruptcy in
the 1970s and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (1994–2001) had laid an
agenda for public safety, delivering significant results.
13 Michael Bloomberg (far left), C40 summit on climate change.

Credited as one of the key leaders in the continued transformation of New York City, Bloomberg is known for his business
acumen and results-based management approach.
Photo courtesy of Gobierna de ka Ciudad de…
213
Bloomberg can be best defined by his innovative character.

A successful entrepreneur, he sought to apply some of the
techniques that had made him a business magnate to running
the city council. These included a results-based approach to
management. He tackled many cross-cutting issues in education,
transportation, public health and public spaces by using a
combination of direction, metrics and results. Under his term,
New York City became a hyperactive node for talent, creativity
and innovation that makes the city thrive economically across
all sectors. A maxim he often quoted was: “If you can’t measure
it, you can’t manage it.” Through PlaNYC, he laid out the city’s
sustainability programme and, in his style, left it armed with easy
to measure, concrete indicators in a number of areas considered
critical today, such as resilience, climate change, and energy.
He took this agenda further through his leadership of C40—a
network of the world’s megacities for sustainable action on climate
change. He leads the network by focusing on research and data
collection necessary for assessing progress in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
Bilbao
Azkuna (1943–2014) was largely believed to be the indispensable
driving force behind the city’s turnaround from 1999 to 2014.
Although the basis of the transformation, including the broad civic
compromise around the Strategic Plan for the Revitalisation of
Metropolitan Bilbao, had been laid under Mayor Josu Ortuondo
(1991–1999), it was Azkuna, who was able to follow up by building
on the consensus and delivering tangible results against initial
public scepticism on the proliferation of grand architectural
models. That he was able to win three successive mayoral elections
after his first term attests to his success.
A medical doctor by training, Azkuna brought a problem solving

approach to local politics. His experience in managing local
hospitals was complemented with a political role in the regional
government—before winning the 1999 mayoral elections.
214
Azkuna had an innate ability to create consensus; his willingness

to negotiate common ground with other parties, including the
political opposition, other levels of government and the private
sector, turned reticence into partnerships. Above all, Azkuna
was able to generate the credibility in public administration that
is needed to mobilise resources and elevate the self-esteem of
Bilbao’s citizens. Azkuna’s achievements won him the World Mayor
of the Year award in 2012.
14 Mayor Iñaki Azkuna (far right)

The transformation of Bilbao has been credited to Azkuna, with his efforts recognised when he was awarded the World Mayor
of the Year in 2012.
Photo courtesy of EAJ-PNV
215
SURABAYA
Visionary Hands-on Mayor Transforms the City
into “Sparkling Surabaya”
Indonesia s decentralisation process since 1998 has thrown up a few

exemplary leaders who have transformed cities into thriving urban centres
through clear vision and pragmatic action. Among the most renowned is
Tri Rismaharini, elected in 2010 as Mayor of Surabaya, a port city in East Java.
She is one of the few women leaders in Southeast Asia.
216
ell known for her hands-on approach, Rishmaharini is often seen picking up litter
from the streets. She has helped to transform Indonesia s second largest city, with
a population of 3 million, from a dirty city into a green and clean city through the
revitalisation of its public open spaces. Today, the city boasts of some 30 ha of gardens,
50 ha of parks, 31 ha of protected forests and 2,500 ha of mangrove areas. In total,
about 20% of Surabaya s 33,000 ha are classified as green areas.27
Rismaharini s passion for parks stems from her time as a former head of the City Parks
Department. She was a Surabaya City government employee for more than 20 years,
serving successively in various portfolios, including Land and oning, and Municipal
Environment and Sanitation.
COUNTRY’S FIRST
One of her early successes came in 2003,
when, as head of the Surabaya Programme E-PROCUREMENT
Controlling Division, she launched the
country s first e-procurement system,
persisting through death threats to her and
SYSTEM
her family. According to an independent
study commissioned in 2007 by the
Corruption Eradication Commission of
Indonesia, the e-procurement system has
reduced opportunities for corruption by both
the private and public sectors and improved
public trust in government procurement
processes.28 The e-procurement systems
saved Surabaya between 13% and 24% of
the estimated cost of procurements.
217
Led by Rismaharini, the Surabaya City

government also actively engages the
public to improve the environment,
starting with sorting waste for
compost or “waste banks”. At the
BINA MANDIRI
TURNS OVER
US$7,000
latter, waste is sorted, recycled or
sold, providing formalised income
for the sorters. It is so successful that
one waste bank, Bina Mandiri, has a
turnover of US 7,000 per month.
PER MONTH
Local schools have gotten into the act; one kindergarten allows students to pay
for tuition in garbage. The city also recruits “environment cadres” from the local
kampong (villages) to promote environmental awareness. Thus far, the city has
over 28,000 environment cadres. For its efforts in engaging the community in its
environmental initiatives, Surabaya was awarded the “CityNet C2C” award for
public participation in 2012.
SURABAYA WAS AWARDED THE
CITYNET C2C
AWARD FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN 2012
218
SURABAYA HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS OTHER

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AWARDS
Under Rismaharini s dynamic leadership, Surabaya has

received numerous other national and international
awards, including Adipura encana (Indonesia s
highest environmental award), ASEAN Environment
Sustainable City, and Smart City Award 2011. Most
recently, in 2013, the city won two FutureGov awards
(for public sector innovation) and the Parahita
Ekabpraya Award (for fostering gender equality and
child protection). In addition, Rismaharini s low-key but
effective approach has won her local and international
admiration. She was awarded Globe Asia s omen
Leader Award in 2012 and was listed as one of 10
Inspiring omen in 2013 by r es esia.
219
2. Integrity is the foundation of sustained value creation

The trustworthiness of the administration system is a principal
asset for a local government such as a city. Key words such as
accountability, transparency, reliability and legitimacy spell
opportunity for long-term value creation. An environment of
biased decision making, cronyism and opaque procurement
processes compromises a community’s trust in its leaders and is
not conducive to economic competitiveness. Such conditions are
possibly the biggest enemy of urban development. On the other
hand, clear rules of the game allow for equality of opportunity and
spur competition, which in turn would help increase investments
and job creation. Integrity also entails governments being able to
respond to citizens’ requests in an open and direct manner, which
further fosters trust and should be a priority strategic objective for
local governments.
New York City

New York City’s Data Transparency Law requires each government
agency to post a compliance plan that describes all of the
public data each agency owns and to update it every year. The
intended outcome of this open-data inventory is a unified web
portal containing all agency datasets by 2018. This is an example
of locally-passed legislation that enables a climate of trust and
certainty, one that supports the values of forward-thinking,
flexibility and pragmatism. Data openness and data sharing with
stakeholders is a means of creating such a climate; at the same
time, such transparency allows for accountability.
New York City’s 311 is a call centre and online resource that
provides government information and non-emergency services. It
was established in 2003 and by 2010, had reached its 100 millionth
call, with an average of more than 50,000 calls a day. The system,
costing about US$46 million a year to run, has changed the way
citizens interact with the government. It enables citizens to provide
information on street and sidewalk conditions and maintenance
of infrastructure such as water supply and sewer networks; report
220
issues on noise levels, taxi services, illegal building uses and make
general consumer complaints; and obtain information on cultural
events, school operations, and recycling procedures. The system
is managed by the Department of Information, Technology and
Telecommunications, which allocates tasks to the appropriate
department. Previously, citizen requests and queries were
processed by 40 different agency help lines and the Mayor’s Action
Center. The buy-in of the agencies for this one-stop call centre
and online resource is primarily attributed to the strong mayoral
drive to overcome the initial concerns that 311 operators would be
unable to answer complex service requests.29 Feedback provided
by citizens through 311 serves as a real-time indicator of public
concerns and enables the delivery of more targeted services in
New York City. The intensive use of technology enables the city to
provide the public with clearer information online, and gives the
public a clearer idea of how public funds are being spent.
Bilbao
Transparency International has consistently ranked Bilbao as Spain’s
most transparent local government for five consecutive years
from 2008 to 2012. A transition to public accountability and data
openness needs to be complemented by specific programmes
that support broader mindset shifts in public administration.
This was the case with Bilbao, which undertook an initiative to
strengthen creativity in public administration, promoted by BM-
30 and the economic development agency of Biscay province, of
which Bilbao is a part. As part of the initiative, barriers to efficiency
were identified that could potentially affect accountability. These
included tight departmental compartmentalisation, which limits
open sharing across departments, and a traditional approach to
hiring that resulted in junior positions being taken up by young
graduates lacking in drive and commitment and more concerned
about job security.
221
HONG KONG
Achieving the Impossible by Eliminating Corruption
15 Hong Kong night skyline

Once rife with corruption, Hong Kong has managed to tackle this challenge
with strong governance and transparency.
Photo courtesy of Base64, retouched by CarolSpears
In cities today, corruption is so entrenched that it is perceived as nearly

impossible to root out. Corruption erodes trust in public institutions, stifles
competition and prevents growth from reaching its full potential, and
thereby erodes liveability. Hong ong has proven that rooting out corruption
is possible.
222
In the 1960s and 1970s, Hong ong was said to be one of the most corrupt
cities in the world. Corruption was said to exist from “womb to tomb”,30 in
every industry and level of society. The then anti-corruption branch in the
police force proved ineffective in suppressing corruption, which was also
pervasive in the ranks of the force.
“ Police corruption, especially, was syndicated. Nearly

all types of organized crime: vice, gambling and drugs,
[was] protected. As a taxi-driver, you could even
buy a monthly label stuck on your taxi and it would
guarantee you from any traffic prosecution … some
junior police officers, whilst their official salary was
just a few hundred dollars, openly lived in a million
dollar worth luxurious apartment and drove
a Cadillac.31
”
Kwok Man Wai, former Deputy Commissioner and Head of
Operations, Independent Commission Against Corruption
In 1974, the Hong ong Government

initiated the Independent Commission
Against Corruption (ICAC) to address
rampant corruption. At the beginning,
people had little confidence in
its success. Nevertheless, within
three years, the ICAC eliminated all
government syndicates and prosecuted
247 government officers, including 143
police officers.32
223
Its structure, legal mandate and approach are at the centre of ICAC s effectiveness. First,
unlike its predecessor, ICAC reports directly to the Chief Executive of Hong ong and
is independent of the Hong ong civil service. Second, ICAC is given legal powers to
investigate and book suspects according to three specific ordinances: the Independent
Commission Against Corruption Ordinance, the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and
the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance.
These give the ICAC the powers of arrest, specify the
offences of bribery involving civil servants, public
and private sector employees, and ensure that
public elections are conducted fairly, respectively.
Third, ICAC adopted a three-pronged approach
of deterrence, education and prevention. The three
departments under the Commission reflect this
approach. The Operations department has a
thousand staff, and is dedicated to responding
to allegations within 48 hours,33 investigating,
and prosecuting offenders. The Community
Relations Department educates
departments, corporations and the
public on the harms of corruption;
it also works with schools on an
anti-corruption curriculum, and
collaborates with the media
industry to produce movies and TV
mini-series that are based on actual
corruption cases. Ren Liao, Senior
Programme Coordinator of Transparency
International, notes that “Punishment
means you have committed the misconduct.
Prevention is very important.”34 The
Corruption Prevention Department examines,
reviews and advises organisations and
departments on systems and procedures to
eliminate loopholes.
224
Nonetheless, the recent scandal involving

Timothy Tong, former chief of the ICAC, who
had spent lavishly on official entertainment
and accepted gifts from Mainland Chinese
officials during his tenure, has undermined
Hong ong s reputation. But this dent to Hong
ong s credibility has been redeemed by public
disclosure and criminal investigation.35
HONG KONG RANKED
15 TH
AMONG 177 COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES
The ICAC has become one of Hong ong s indispensable institutions, continuing its
effectiveness even after the return of Hong ong to Chinese rule. In 2013, despite the
scandal, Transparency International ranked Hong ong 15th among 177 countries and
territories in the Corruptions Perception Index,36 ahead of the United States and Japan.
Hong ong s high level of transparency continues to contribute to its competitiveness
and liveability.
225
3. A city works as well as its institutions

Organisational structures that ensure that the best possible options
are chosen to address key issues, and are able to implement
them effectively, are another key trait of successful cities. An
institutional structure conducive to good decision making would
be based on agencies that provide neutral, independent advice
and technical know-how to complement and inform political
decisions. The work of such agencies goes beyond political
cycles and their human resources and organisational behaviour
are characterised by professional competence, meritocracy, and
proficient management. In many cases, cities create agencies with
specific mandates, commonly known as “special implementation
vehicles”, to accelerate the execution of complex projects.
New York City

The Department of City Planning is the agency responsible for the
macro-level development of the city. As adviser to the Mayor of
New York City, borough presidents, the New York City Council,
community boards and other local government bodies, it sets the
framework of physical planning for the city and is responsible for
land use and environmental review, preparing plans and policies,
as well as conducting research and analysis and outreach activities.
Outside government, one entity that has played a crucial role in

providing a strategic perspective to the city’s planning process is
the Regional Plan Association (RPA), an independent, not-for-profit
urban research and advocacy organisation dedicated to improving
the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the New York-
New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan region. Set up in 1922, RPA
has been a source of ideas and plans for policy-makers and opinion
shapers. Its value lies in its ability to go beyond election cycles
and partisan thinking to make far-reaching policy and investment
recommendations. RPA’s work demonstrates that civic groups can
play a significant role in developing long-range visions for cities.
RPA has written three regional plans to guide the region’s

growth that have benefited New York City. The first plan, issued
in 1929, was the first to recognise a New York metropolitan
region comprising the city and several cities in the neighbouring
226
states of New Jersey and Connecticut. The 1969 plan identified

and quantified the externalities caused by urban sprawl and
emphasised the importance of developing a robust public
transportation network for urban centres to thrive—a principle
that was reflected by investment in later decades. The third plan,
issued in 1976, supported new initiatives to revitalise parks and
streetscapes, especially the underutilised urban waterfronts. It
set the basis for the creation and conservation of open spaces,
and suggested closing Broadway in midtown Manhattan to traffic.
Decades later, this proposal was crystallised in Times Square’s
pedestrian makeover which was completed in 2009. The plan
advanced the idea of developing regional centres linked by
public transport. RPA is currently working on a fourth plan that will
address urgent issues such as climate change, fiscal uncertainty
and declining economic opportunity.
Bilbao
Two key institutions have been instrumental in articulating the
strategy and implementing projects for the revitalisation of Bilbao.
At the strategic level, the key institution was BM-30—formed

in 1991 by municipal, provincial and regional governments,
2 universities, 51 companies of varying sizes, 22 not-for-profit
organisations, and 26 civil society associations. BM-30 carries
out planning, research and promotion activities centred on the
revitalisation of Metropolitan Bilbao. Its main aim is to set the
framework for implementing the Strategic Plan for the Revitalisation
of Metropolitan Bilbao. It achieves this by conducting knowledge
activities, comparative studies and research projects; undertaking
promotional activities to increase awareness and strengthen the
image of Metropolitan Bilbao; and fostering cooperation between
the public and private sectors with the aim of finding collective
solutions to problems affecting Metropolitan Bilbao.
At the execution level, the key agency was Bilbao Ria 2000.
Set up in 1992, its specific mission was to develop enabling
policy, funding streams and technical projects to support the
implementation of the strategic plan for revitalising Bilbao. Bilbao
Ria 2000 had the mandate to manage the transformation of large
and strategically located plots of land previously occupied by
227
harbours, rail yards and heavy industries—mostly controlled by

the national government—into areas of opportunity. The agency
cleared and prepared underutilised land before releasing it to the
market. The market value of the re-zoned land allowed Bilbao
Bogotá
Oversight of Government
from the Ground Up
Transparent governance may be driven entirely by the grassroots as well. The C mo

Vamos programme of Colombia s capital city, Bogot , is a prime example. This citizen-
based mechanism has strengthened accountability and transparency processes across
the administration.
Bogot C mo Vamos (BCV) or “Bogot how are we doing” is the result of an alliance
between El Tiempo Publishing House, the Bogot Chamber of Commerce, and the
Corona Foundation.37 It was formed in 1997, driven by concerns that there should be
accountability for election campaign promises. Backed by the 1991 Political Constitution,
BCV calls for citizens to exercise social oversight of public administration and budgeting.38
228
Ria 2000 to self-finance its activities. Profits were re-invested in

the regeneration of public space, roads, and other infrastructure
improvements. Owing to its responsibility in carrying out the main
redevelopment, Bilbao Ria 2000 became the de facto planning
and development entity in Bilbao.
BCV aims to improve citizens quality of

life through holistic evaluations of areas
such as health, education, housing and
utilities, and public finances. It gathers
data from public and other sources to
formulate indicators. These indicators
form the basis for an annual BCV survey,
which, measures citizens perceptions
of the city s service delivery. Conducted
annually since 2008, the survey is
administered to 1,500 citizens, chosen
16 Cómo Vamos workshop, Bogotá, Colombia
Public workshops are held regularly with citizens, where to achieve a balance of geography,
checks on the government and political party holders are age and gender.39 Findings, along
done to ensure accountability.
Photo courtesy of Bogotá Cómo Vamos with proposed solutions are fed back
to policy-makers and experts, as well
as disseminated to the public. BCV thus ensures its contributions are constructive. In
addition, BCV holds forums and roundtables with the Bogot district governments to
monitor the development, implementation and execution of the Bogot Development
Plan.
The outcomes have been positive. Bogot s district agencies and entities now collaborate
with BCV to diffuse knowledge on the performance of each successive mayor and his
administration. Government agencies provide coordinated reporting on outcomes
related to overall quality of life, rather than piecemeal reporting on their respective
accomplishments. For example, social housing stock changes are now reported,
whereas in the past, only total housing numbers were reported. The success of Bogot
C mo Vamos led to the launch in 2002 of Concejo C mo Vamos or “Council How Are
e Doing”, which evaluates the annual performance of the Bogot City Council.40 BCV
has also been replicated in other cities in Colombia, including Medell n, Cali, Barranquilla
and Bucaramanga, and internationally in Lima, Peru, and Mexico City.41 The organisation
has received numerous awards, including Best Citizen Practices for Improving uality of
Life (2000) and Dubai International Award for Best Practices (2002).42
229
4. Empowering the community multiplies policy impact

Engaging residents in shaping the future of their cities is a powerful
tool to build government legitimacy. It gives residents a sense of
belonging and civic pride and helps to obtain their buy-in, which is
critical for the successful implementation of projects. It also allows
governments to benefit from the wisdom of the crowds in the
planning and budgeting process.
On the other hand, ignoring the community increases the risk

of project failure as citizens may not identify with some projects
or may not have wanted them in the first place. There are many
examples across the world of governments developing grandiose
showcase projects that ended up as white elephants. Such
inefficient use of public resources could alienate the public from
its leaders, decision-makers and public institutions.
New York City

In New York City, the engagement of stakeholders in urban
development begins at the community board level. The city is
divided into 59 community districts, each represented by a board.
Community-based planning activities range from information
sessions to the preparation of local plans for official adoption. Such
plans address local issues including preserving neighbourhood
character, promoting affordable housing, facilitating new
development and or encouraging local employment. The city’s
Department of City Planning provides technical assistance and
advice to individuals and community-based organisations. It
makes data—including land use, population, housing, and
community facilities—openly available online. This resource
also provides guidance on zoning and descriptions about land
use and environmental review processes. To address broader
issues, community-based organisations can collaborate with the
Department to develop local zoning proposals and participate
in inter-agency and community task forces made up of local
representatives, city agencies and elected officials.
230
Private developers must submit plans under the Uniform Land

Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a standardised process where
applications which affect the city’s land use are publicly reviewed.
The New York City Charter establishes time frames within which
application reviews must take place. Key participants in the ULURP
process are the Department of City Planning, the City Planning
Commission, community boards, the borough presidents, the
borough boards, the city council and the mayor.
A broader vehicle to engage residents is NYC Service, a regional

volunteer centre that has connected over 9 million individuals
since its launch in 2009. NYC Service drives volunteer resources
to address ongoing challenges in education, environmental
sustainability, public health, disaster preparedness, helping
neighbourhoods and strengthening communities. In 2013, NYC
Service engaged 5.4 million volunteers43 in more than 38 initiatives.
An example is Love Your Block, which invites volunteer-led
neighbourhood groups from across New York City to run projects
that will transform their own blocks, thus helping to beautify the
city at large. Resident-led volunteer groups receive grants of
up to US$1,000 and project-planning and community-building
assistance, as well as access to city services from the Departments
of Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and Sanitation. These
include cleaning vacant lots, planting trees and creating new tree
beds, removing graffiti, repairing street signage and providing trash
collection points. In 2013, about 50 blocks had been beautified
throughout the city boroughs.
Bilbao
The municipal area of Bilbao is divided into eight districts, each
comprising a population of approximately 50,000. District councils
were created in the mid-1980s to facilitate community involvement
and to serve as a communication channel for the community to
voice specific concerns. Councils have two commissions, one on
planning, municipal services and public works, and another focusing
on social and cultural issues. At the request of the community,
231
PORTO ALEGRE
AND SEOUL
Involving the Community through Participatory Budgeting
PORTO ALEGRE
SEOUL
232
One exemplary model of community

involvement in urban development can be
found in Porto Alegre, in southern Brazil.
Upon being elected into office in 1989, its
new government prioritised the nurturing
of an active civil society. It introduced a
unique participatory budgeting process
which has been hailed as a successful
model of participatory democracy by many
international institutions, including the
orld Bank and the United Nations. Since
its inception, participation levels have been
rising. Currently, some 50,000 citizens—
approximately 3.5% of Porto Alegre s total
50,000
population of 1.49 million—take part in the
annual exercise.44
CITIZENS
3.5%
OF PORTO ALEGRE’S TOTAL POPULATION TAKE
PART IN PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
Porto Alegre s participatory budgeting process is being continually assessed and
improved. Every year, before the start of the process, assemblies from Porte Alegre s
16 administrative regions convene to review the previous year s exercise and look into
improvements. In March, citizens from all 16 districts convene to discuss and share their
views on five main themes: Transportation; Education, Leisure and Culture; Health and
Social elfare; Economic Development and Taxation; and City Organisation and Urban
Development.45 These preparatory meetings are conducted without the presence of
government officials so that citizens can feel free to air their views. Citizens also select
delegates, who serve as representatives in meetings with municipal authorities. As a
sign of increasing citizen participation over the years, one delegate is selected for every
80 or so participants (for meetings of over 1000 participants), compared to one delegate
for every 5 participants in 1989.46
233
Positive results are apparent: since implementation,

99% and 85% of households have access to treated
water and piped sewage respectively.47 Greater
transparency in budget allocation processes
has drastically reduced tax evasions. Over a 15-
year period from 1989 to 2004, total tax receipts
increased by 269%. 48
99% ACCESS TO
TREATED WATER
85% ACCESS TO
PIPED SEWAGE
Participatory budgeting schemes
PARTICIPATORY have spread to other cities. Amongst

these is the South orean capital
BUDGETING of Seoul, which implemented a

participatory budgeting exercise for
SCHEME the first time in 2013. Participatory

budgeting in the country was first
encouraged by President Roh Moo
Hyun s administration in 2000, as part
of the push for a broader participatory
democracy. hile drawing lessons
from the experience of Porto Alegre,
Seoul introduced modifications to
suit the orean context.49
234
To form the Seoul Participatory Budgeting Council, 250 citizens of Seoul were selected
through a balloting process. They were to decide on budgets for local projects worth 47
billion won (US 44.7 million).50 The ballot was open to individuals from all walks of life—
so as to allow the Seoul Metropolitan Government to obtain a range of feedback and
opinions. The youngest and oldest participants were 13 and 73 years old respectively.51
To promote redistributive justice and equity, priority was given to citizens from lower-
income groups, the elderly, as well as the disabled.52 Besides fostering civic engagement
among its citizens, Seoul is committed to empowering the disadvantaged and the
underprivileged in decision-making processes.
Public engagement exercises in Seoul are

not limited to the annual participatory
132
budgeting exercise. In June 2012, the
Seoul Metropolitan Government held a
public contest to select city projects which
citizens wanted to see implemented. Out
PROJECTS SELECTED of the 402 proposals that were received,
THROUGH PUBLIC VOTING
132 proposals were selected through
public voting.53 These were included in the
municipal budget for 2013.
235
the district council can establish thematic working groups. While

district council meetings are held monthly, the community can call
for extraordinary meetings if a petition is signed by at least 5 of
the voters in the district.
In addition to district councils, Bilbao has established Sector

Councils, which are thematic advisory bodies set up to address
topics as and when they become relevant to the community.
Sector councils bring together relevant stakeholders, including the
city administration, public and private entities, and independent
experts. Most sector councils were created in the 1990s and
allow the community to participate in discussions of broader,
city-wide topics.
The rehabilitation in 1995 of specific areas of Bilbao, such as

the historic core known as Bilbao La Vieja, prompted the setting
up of the Rehabilitation Roundtable. This was intended as a
space for broad neighbourhood participation, where political,
institutional and civil society actors identified not only future
needs but also short-term improvements in social integration
and public space. This initiative was the predecessor of the
current participatory planning process, which has been applied
and used in several upgrading projects, for example, the
Plan of Barrios Altos, or in plans to improve public spaces and
accessibility to neighbourhoods. Through community inputs,
Bilbao adjusted its planning to better and more efficiently meet
neighbourhood needs.
In 2012, the city took advantage of district and sector councils

in addition to a Planning Advisory Board to obtain public input
for the General Urban Plan—the city’s main urban development
instrument. Online participation, open to all citizens, was introduced
for the four-month public consultation period for the plan. To
build consensus and to ensure transparency, a feedback form gave
citizens the opportunity to express their views on 100 key points
in the plan—ranging from the executive summary, diagnosis and
proposed urban structure to demographics, social development,
236
mobility, public space, and heritage. Finally, thematic roundtables

were organised during the public hearing period, covering social,
economic and physical issues. These roundtables involved experts,
institutions not represented in the district councils, and individual
citizens chosen randomly from among those who had responded
to the online feedback form.
5. The right development policies enable partnerships with

the market
For some local governments, the private sector is short-term
oriented but a necessary evil. On the other side of the coin,
entrepreneurs in the fields such as land development, civil
works and construction, infrastructure, and housing, generally
view the public sector as slow, obstructing the development of
a competitive market that would thrive with its own rules. An
effective local government establishes a broad strategic thrust for
development and then creates the conditions needed to leverage
the attributes of the private sector in realising that strategy. Such
a government would not assume the role of the private sector or,
conversely, relinquish public responsibility to the private sector;
instead it would ensure that there is certainty of rules and generate
an environment of trust that allows the public and private sectors
to jointly design a roadmap of development policies for the long-
term common good.
New York City

Historically, New York City has had a fluid working partnership with
markets. For example, the real estate industry soared, enabled in
large part by the conditions that the 1811 plan created, and, by
1870, the assessed value had increased 50-fold from 1807 values.
A century later, in the 1970s, the long-nurtured familiarity in
working with markets facilitated the government’s reach to private
and non-profit interests to participate in the revitalisation of New
York, and, especially, in one of its key assets—public space. The
city conducted major park and public space privatisations, the
237
largest being the Central Park Conservancy—founded in 1980 by a

group of civic leaders to end Central Park’s dramatic deterioration
in the 1970s. In 1998, the Conservancy and the City of New York
signed a management agreement, formalising their then 18-year
public-private partnership. The relationship was reaffirmed in
2006 when the agreement was renewed for an additional eight
years. As the official manager of Central Park, the Conservancy
is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance and operation of
the park and provides 75 of the park’s annual expense budget,54
including employing 90 of the park’s maintenance staff,55 through
fundraising and investment revenue. New York City funds lighting,
maintenance of park roads and enforcement. Retaining policy
control and discretion over all user permits and events is essential
for the City to avoid relinquishing control of public goods to the
highest bidder. Had this not been done, it could have led to over
commercialisation as corporate interests might have prioritised
certain parks over others.
The City hosts 69 Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), which

levy assessments on local businesses and landlords and uses the
revenue to revitalise neighbourhoods and catalyse economic
development. BIDs are non-profit and provide free public goods.
BIDs annually invest over US$100 million worth of programmes
and services in neighbourhoods across the five boroughs of
New York City. The Department of Small Business Services is
responsible for managing the City’s relationship with each BID and
works to ensure BIDs carry out services efficiently. These include
street cleaning, providing security, collecting waste, maintaining
planting, installing street furniture and public art, and creating
over 1,000 jobs.
Bilbao
Bilbao successfully tapped management, finance and technical
expertise from the private sector in the formulation of the city’s
strategic plan and its follow-up through BM-30. Expertise was co-
opted from the chambers of commerce as well as a wide range
238
of business sectors, including banking and financial services,

insurance, utilities, engineering, publishing and media,
telecommunications, and large consumer goods sectors. The
private sector’s views and experiences have contributed to enabling
a rapid and efficient transition from strategy to implementable
projects.
One of the key success factors behind Bilbao’s revitalisation plan

was the city’s capacity to work alongside the market. Bilbao Ria
2000 prepared underutilised industrial land—which was its seed
capital—by, among other things, providing basic infrastructure,
before releasing plots to the market. An example of such
collaboration with the market is the area of Abandoibarra, where
the Guggenheim Museum is located. Once a rail yard, it is now
a vibrant mixed-use destination, with corporate towers, shopping
facilities, residential buildings, and hotels surrounding it.
The ability to relate to the market is evident in the projects

undertaken by Bilbao Ria 2000, which were conceived as
construction cum financial projects. Its work comprised defining
land use schedules, modelling financial options, conducting the
procurement process for technical and construction services,
aligning public sector resources and delivering infrastructure,
and managing the relation with private developers, including
incentives for early entry in ventures to alleviate public financing.
239
NEW TAIPEI
Building Social Cohesion and Liveability
through Partnerships
Public-private partnerships often involve infrastructure provision. However, New Taipei

City has focused on delivering social services through such collaborations. ith special
municipality status since 2010, the New Taipei City government has worked closely with
businesses and community organisations to push forward innovative programmes to
improve social cohesion and liveability.
“ I would say, don’t spend any public budget if you

can get any support and any help from the private
sector. That’s my philosophy.56
”
Eric Chu, First Mayor, New Taipei City
240
New Taipei City s strength lies in

recognising that the community is mature
enough to participate in the urban
development of the city. Two of its most
unique and innovative programmes are its
Infant Day Care Centres and the Eat with
Love programme.
Taiwan has achieved great strides in

providing childcare facilities, in both the
public and private sectors, and often
within workplaces. The Taiwanese birth
GOVERNMENT SET UP rate is low, at only 0.89 in 2010.57 The
26 77
government has recognised the need to
& assist overburdened parents. Companies,

too, recognise that providing child care
PUBLIC PRIVATE services give them an edge in attracting
and retaining talent.
INFANT DAY CARE CENTRES
WITHIN TWO YEARS
New Taipei City has gone further, introducing infant day care centres for new born babies
and infants up to two years old. ithin two years, the government set up 26 public58 and
77 private infant day care centres. Parents pay only approximately US 200 per month.59
This is possible because the Council acts as a facilitator for the development of these
centres, a coordinator for resource training, as well as guarantor for the operations.
Unused public spaces in schools and elsewhere are renovated for use as such centres,
thus saving public funds.
“ We can be very efficient to get [unused public] space, we can collaborate

with [the] private sector or with the universities ... Get those personnel,
those people to work for us … we use our budget mainly [for renovation],
then we outsource the space to the private sector. The private sector
[doesn’t] cover any fixed cost, only variable, personnel cost.60
” Eric Chu
241
In 2012, the city recorded the highest number

of babies born (38,705)61 and Taiwan s fertility
rate rebounded to 1.26 the same year.62 This
increase may have been due in part to the
infant day care initiative.
38,705
NEW BORN BABIES
IN 2012
The Eat with Love (幸福保衛站) programme

provides food for would-be youth shoplifters
who are faced with familial financial stress but
do not receive benefits under the social security
system. The programme is entirely funded
by the private sector and donations. In total,
1,970 convenience stores, including Family
Mart, 7-11, Hi-Life and O Mart, participated
in this programme. The programme gained
positive response in the form of donations and
has successfully reduced delinquency and theft
among the youth.
242
17 New Taipei City, Taiwan

The Eat with Love programme collaborates with convenience stores to provide youths-at-risk with free meals.
Photo courtesy of Mayor Eric Chu
“ So after … this policy accomplished … the leader of [the] convenience

store [came] to my office, I [gave] them a prize and I [said] “Thank you”
to them and everybody was very happy … you should pay back to them.
But not [with] money but some respect.63
” Eric Chu
Through such public-private collaborations, the New Taipei

government successfully reduced its expenditure by US 67,000 from
2012 to 2013 while upgrading social services. More importantly, New
Taipei has built resilience and social cohesion within the community,
ensuring that the city is equipped to meet challenges ahead.
243
CONCLUSION
By 2030, 5 billion people will live in cities, up from 3.6 billion in
2011.64 The challenge of accommodating the thousands that move
to cities every day and providing reliable services that citizens and
businesses need is acute. As the pressure on space and demand
for services increases, urban agglomerations can become hotbeds
of social inequality and fragmentation, dis-economies of scale,
and environmental degradation.
“ I’d like to suggest that we face up to these challenges not tomorrow, not
in the future, not when it’s too late but right now. This is our opportunity
to make the type of history that future generations will recognise.65
”
Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York
Historically, cities that have successfully overcome periods of

decline have had a key tool in common—some broad principles
that guided their development. These principles allowed them to
plan with purpose and develop the systems needed to implement
such plans and function efficiently. Singapore, which managed
to transform itself from a struggling city-state to a highly liveable
economic engine in just a few decades, is one such city. Singapore’s
Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) has distilled the explicit and
implicit principles that guided the country’s development over
the years into the CLC Liveability Framework. This chapter finds
that other successful cities have adhered, to a greater or lesser
extent, to the same principles embodied in the Framework, which
suggests that there are some broad universal principles that are
critical to urban governance.
CLC offers this Framework as a lens through which city leaders

can view their cities and analyse the actions or approaches open
to them to achieve high liveability and sustainability. Naturally,
how these principles can be applied must take account of each
city’s unique governance structures, priorities and resources.
244
Disconnected initiatives, especially those adapted piecemeal from

other cities, may not bring long-term results as long as systemic
principles are absent.
Adopting a sound framework, customised to each city’s unique

circumstances, is the first step. Local governments would then
need to create the conditions for balanced development outcomes
so that the private and community sectors would be incentivised
to proactively participate in the task of determining and achieving
those outcomes.
Such conditions involve laying down a clear and consistent

set of rules and building politically neutral institutions to
facilitate decision making, which would allow for certainty and
predictability: the private and community sectors must have
the assurance that decisions are made in a transparent manner
and are based on facts, not distorted by vested interests. Only
then can cities productively and creatively bring together the
strengths of political leaders, institutions, civil society, businesses
and citizens to undertake complex and far-reaching initiatives
towards achieving a development model that balances economic
prosperity, environmental sustainability and quality of life.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following people for their
contribution to this study: Juan Alayo, Jon Andoni Aldekoa de la
Torre, Jean Chia, Norman ainstein, Susan ainstein, Hee Limin,
Gladys Ng, and Sherrie Wong.
245
ENDNOTES
1. Urban Redevelopment Authority, Cities in Trans ormation: ee uan e orl Cities Prize
(Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2012), 6–9.
2. The Lee Kuan Yew World City Pri e is a biennial international award that honours
outstanding achievements and contributions to the creation of liveable, vibrant and
sustainable urban communities around the world. For more information, see http://www.
leekuanyewworldcitypri e.com.sg/
3. Norman Day, “An Empty, Useless City Centre”, The ge, June, 1978.
4. City of Melbourne, Places or Peo le, http://www.gehlarchitects.dk/files/pdf/Melbourne

small.pdf (accessed August 11, 2013).
5. Australian Census data.
6. City of Melbourne, Places or Peo le, http://www.gehlarchitects.dk/files/pdf/Melbourne

small.pdf (accessed August 11, 2013).
7. City of Melbourne data.
8. ictoria State Government, Plan Melbourne Metro olitan Planning Strategy http://www.
planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0003/209145/Plan-Melbourne-Low-Res.pdf
9. Ho Tong Yen, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, April 20, 2012.
10. “China’s Best-known Eco-city Now Has 6,000 Residents”, inhua, December 3, 2013, http://
www.chinadaily.com.cn/bi china/2013-12/03/content 17148350.htm (accessed February 11,
2014).
11. Lee Kuan Yew World City Pri e submission notes (unpublished document).
12. Lee Kuan Yew World City Pri e 2012 Pri e Forum.
13. Michael Krause, “Michael Krause on Transforming Khayelitsha” (Lee Kuan Yew World City
Pri e Lecture, Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Singapore, July 2, 2012). Also see http://
www.leekuanyewworldcitypri e.com.sg/vid Khayelitsha.htm
15. Ibid.
16. Michael Krause, “Michael Krause on Transforming Khayelitsha” (Lee Kuan Yew World City
Pri e Lecture, Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Singapore, July 2, 2012). Also see http://
www.leekuanyewworldcitypri e.com.sg/vid Khayelitsha.htm
246
17. The City of New York, PlaN C Progress Re ort reener reater Ne or , http://
nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc progress report 2012.pdf
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
21. Reserve Bank of India statistics.
22. Urban Redevelopment Authority, Cities in Trans ormation ee uan e orl Cities Prize
(Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2012), 64.
23. Robert Cervero, The Transit Metro olis lobal In uiry (Washington: Island Press, 1988),
144.
24. World Cities Summit lectures 2012 notes (unpublished document).
25. Justin Gerdes, “Copenhagen’s Ambitious Push to Be Carbon-neutral by 2050”, uar ian
En ironmental Net or , April 12, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/
apr/12/copenhagen-push-carbon-neutral-2025 (accessed February 11, 2014).
26. Ibid.
27. Renjani Puspo Sari, “10 Inspiring Women: Tris Rismaharini”, orbes In onesia, April 16, 2013,
http://forbesindonesia.com/berita-213-10-inspiring-women-tris-rismaharini.html (accessed
February 11, 2014).
28. Mochammad Jasin, “The Indonesian Experience in Addressing Corruption in Public

Procurement” (presentation, Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast
Asian Countries, Bangkok, Thailand, July 23–25, 2008). Also see http://www.unafei.or.jp/
english/pdf/2nd Regional Seminar.pdf
29. Charis E. Idicheria, Alexander Schellong and Jobst Fiedler, Re ie o in Ne or

City, eds. Matthias Kammer, Marie-Therese Huppert and Horst Westerfeld, http://isprat.
net/fileadmin/downloads/pdfs/ISPRAT Projekt Report 311 115 finales Dokument.pdf
30. Tony Kwok Man-wai, “Making Hong Kong an Ideal Place to do Business – ICAC’s Fight
Against Corruption”, http://www.kwokmanwai.com/Speeches/Making HK an ideal place
to do business.html (accessed February 11, 2014).
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
247
33. ICAC Hong Kong, “Mission and Pledges”, http://www.icac.org.hk/en/about icac/mp/index.

html (accessed February 11, 2014).
34. Diego Laje, “What China Can Learn from Hong Kong in Its Fight against Corruption”, Cable
Ne s Net or , October 16, 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/world/asia/china-
hong-kong-corruption/ (accessed February 11, 2014).
35. Tony Cheung, “Timothy Tong Scandal Deals Distressing’ Blow to Anti-Graft Agency: Carrie
Lam”, South China Morning Post February 19, 2014 (accessed April 8, 2014).
36. Transparency International, “Corruption Perceptions Index 2013”, http://cpi.transparency.

org/cpi2013/ (accessed February 11, 2014).
37. Maria Fernanda Sanche , “Evaluation of Changes in the uality of Life in Bogot , Colombia,
from a Civil Society Perspective”, in Voice Eyes an Ears Social ccountability in atin
merica (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2003).
38. World Bank, “Case 3: Columbia, Bogot How Are We Doing’” Bogot C mo amos ,
http://www.worldbank.org/socialaccountability sourcebook/Thematic SectorAppl/
Decentrali ation/dec 5case3.html (accessed February 11, 2014).
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Maria Fernanda Sanche , “Evaluation of Changes in the uality of Life in Bogot , Colombia,
from a Civil Society Perspective”, in Voice Eyes an Ears Social ccountability in atin
merica (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2003).
43. NYC Service Annual Report 2013, http://www.nycservice.org/priorities (accessed February 11,
2014).
44. The Participatory Budgeting Project, “Where Has It Worked ”, http://www.

participatorybudgeting.org/about-participatory-budgeting/where-has-it-worked/ (accessed
February 11, 2014).
45. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, “Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Towards a

Redistributive Democracy”, Politics Society 26, no. 4 (December 1998). Also see http://
www.ssc.wisc.edu/ wright/santosweb.html
46. Ibid.
47. Swarnim Wagle and Parmesh Shah, “Case Study 2 Porto Alegre, Bra il: Participatory Approaches
in Budgeting and Public Expenditure Management”, Social e elo ment Notes March, 2003,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPCENG/1143372-1116506093229/20511036/sdn71.pdf
248
48. A. Schneider and M. Ba uero, “Get What You Want, Give What You Can: Embedded Public
Finance in Porto Alegre”, IDS Working Paper 266 (Institute of Development Studies, 2006),
15.
49. Yves Sintomer, Carsten Her berg, Anja R cke and Giovanni Allegretti, “Transnational
Models of Citi en Participation: The Case of Participatory Budgeting”, ournal o Public
eliberation, Issue 2, ol. 8 (2012), 15–16, http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi article 1234&context jpd (accessed February 12, 2014).
50. Seoul Metropolitan Government, ly or Seoul Partici atory u geting Council by une
(Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2012), http://english.seoul.go.kr/gtk/news/news view.
php idx 18239 (accessed February 12, 2014).
51. Seoul Metropolitan Government, Sync SEOU e elo ing o e or Seoul here Citizens
Share an En oy Together ” (Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2013), 17.
52. Seoul Metropolitan Government, ly or Seoul Partici atory u geting Council by une
(Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2012), http://english.seoul.go.kr/gtk/news/news view.
php idx 18239 (accessed February 12, 2014).
53. Seoul Metropolitan Government, Sync SEOU e elo ing o e or Seoul here Citizens
Share an En oy Together ” (Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2013), 17.
54. Central Park Conservancy, “About Us”, http://www.centralparknyc.org/about/about-cpc/

(accessed April 23, 2013).
55. Centralpark.com, “Central Park Conservancy”, http://www.centralpark.com/guide/general-

info/central-park-conservancy.html (accessed April 23, 2014).
56. Eric Chu, “The Growth of New Taipei City” (lecture, Centre for Liveable Cities Lecture Series,
Singapore, October 18, 2013).
57. Angela Tsai and Kendra Lin, “Subsides Alone Cannot Boost Taiwan’s Low Birth Rate: Minister”,
China Ne s Center, April 15, 2012, http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news content.
php id 1895257 (accessed February 11, 2014).
58. Data from New Taipei Government.
59. Jessica Cheam, “Lessons from New Taipei on Boosting Birth Rates” The Straits Times
Singa olitics, October 24, 2013, http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/lessons-new-taipei-
boosting-birth-rates (accessed February 11, 2014).
60. Eric Chu, “Eisenhower Fellowships Conference Future of Urban Living” (lecture, The
Fullerton Hotel, Singapore, October 17, 2013).
61. Figure extrapolated from Ministry of Interior Republic of China (Taiwan) January to September
2012 birth figures, http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/week10140.doc
249
62. Jessica Cheam, “Lessons from New Taipei on Boosting Birth Rates” The Straits Times
Singa olitics, October 24, 2013, http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/lessons-new-taipei-
boosting-birth-rates (accessed February 11, 2014).
63. Eric Chu, “Eisenhower Fellowships Conference Future of Urban Living” (lecture, The
Fullerton Hotel, Singapore, October 17, 2013).
64. UN statistics, http://esa.un.org/unup/pdf/WUP2011 Highlights.pdf (accessed February 11,

2014).
65. Presentation by The Honourable Adrian Benepe, Commissioner of Parks & Recreation, New
York City, United States, at the World Cities Summit 2012: Lee Kuan Yew World City Pri e
Lecture on 2 July 2012.
250
EPILOGUE
Peter HO
Senior Advisor, Centre for Strategic
Futures
Senior Fellow, Civil Service College
Chairman, Urban Redevelopment INTRODUCTION
Authority of Singapore
Distinguished Advisor, Centre for The Holy Grail for urban planners is the creation of highly
Liveable Cities
liveable cities where residents enjoy a high quality of life.
In the context of this study based on Singapore’s urban
planning and development experience, liveability has been
envisioned along three lines. First, a competitive economy
that attracts investments and provides jobs. Second, a
sustainable environment. Third, a high quality of life for the
urban population. An integrated master planning system has
been a major reason for Singapore’s transformation within
a generation from a third world city into a first world and
modern metropolis. Through good governance, Singapore
has been able to find and make the trade-offs necessary
to combine a competitive economy with a sustainable
environment and a high quality of life. As a result, it is one
of the few high density cities in the world that also has high
liveability standards.
GOOD GOVERNANCE, INTEGRATED MASTER

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Singapore’s approach to urban planning is rooted in basic
principles of good governance. The principles of “think
long term” and “lead with vision and pragmatism” require
urban planners to adopt a future-oriented and long-
251
term perspective in policy formulation. This avoids the pitfall of

making decisions that might be expedient in the short term but
prove costly later on. “Build in some flexibility” is a principle fully
aligned with “pragmatism”. Instead of acting dogmatically and
following plans blindly, Singapore’s urban planners are expected
to question planning assumptions, and even to reverse earlier
decisions if warranted by changing circumstances in a volatile and
uncertain environment.
It took decades and a lot of effort and resources for Singapore

to develop a well-designed and sophisticated drainage system
to eliminate the widespread and prolonged floods that plagued
the country. But the intensity of rainfall has increased in recent
years. Combined with the relentless pressures of urbanisation,
the capacity of the drainage system has come under stress. The
lesson from this experience is that the assumptions underpinning
the solutions adopted in the past must be revisited regularly to
keep pace with changes in the operating environment.
“Cultivate sound institutions”, “fight productively”, “execute

effectively” and “involve the community as stakeholders” are
all principles that necessitate the development of professional
bodies, public organisations and civic groups that are flexible,
responsive, and technically competent. They must be able to
anticipate future challenges, and then to formulate and execute
plans in an unbiased approach that maximises the public good.
Decisions made should be the outcome of robust debates among

all stakeholders. They should be the result of a consensus that is
forged not from fulfilling all the desires of all the stakeholders,
but from finding compromises among all stakeholders. This
approach facilitates buy-in from all affected parties and minimises
stakeholder disenfranchisement. Translating decisions into action
requires highly efficient and effective institutions that prize action
over maintaining the status quo.
Doing things the same way without casting an eye to rapidly

changing circumstances will surely lead to problems down the road.
252
Focusing on policy design, but downplaying stakeholder
engagement and neglecting policy implementation is a clear path
to failure. As we often say in the Singapore public service, “policy
is implementation, and implementation is policy”. “Build a culture
of integrity” ensures that decisions are made for the public good
rather than to further private interests at public expense. This
requires honest officials and incorruptible institutions that resist
the temptation of corruption and confront influence peddling.
Where failures of integrity occur, swift and decisive action to
punish wrong-doers ensures accountability as well as deters others
from following their path. “Work with markets” illustrates the
importance of leveraging open market forces to allocate scarce
resources, rather than relying on closed administrative systems
that increase the discretionary powers of city officials, which in turn
increases the risk of corruption and regulatory capture. Applying
market principles to urban planning and development facilitates
the effective delivery of public services and offers more efficient
allocation of scarce resources. But city officials should also bear in
mind that markets work most of the time, though not all the time.
Finally, “innovate systematically” is a cost-effective solution to

stretching limited budgets and maximising the effectiveness of
scarce resources. Experimenting with creative solutions to pressing
urban challenges requires a nurturing environment that welcomes
innovation and encourages policy entrepreneurship. A willingness
to experiment, to “safe-fail” rather than to “fail-safe”, improves
the resilience of cities in a complex operating environment.
In Singapore, we take this approach in addressing the problem

of congestion on public transport systems. Traditional approaches
of alleviating congestion in public transportation systems often
involve supply side measures such as increasing the frequency
of train and bus services, growing fleet sizes, using vehicles with
larger capacities or building new routes. However, new strategies
are also needed, given the complexity arising from the rise
in ridership and expansion of rail networks, as well as diverse
citizen expectations. Singapore’s Land Transport Authority is
currently experimenting with a palette of behavioural levers to
253
encourage commuters to make changes to their travel patterns

to help reduce transportation demand during peak hours. These
include providing free early morning rail trips into the city on
weekdays, working with various organisations to pilot flexible work
arrangements that stagger reporting hours or enable working off-
site, and cash rewards for making morning off-peak trips on the
rail system. These experiments carry relatively little risk, but enable
us to try out new ways to address the congestion problem. This
governing style of “learning by doing” accords with Lee Kuan
Yew’s advice quoted in an earlier chapter of this book, “If it works,
then do it. If it doesn’t work, change.”
These ten principles of urban governance, integrated master

planning and development provide a guide to action that city
officials facing urban planning and development challenges may
find useful in formulating solutions.
SINGAPORE: CITY, STATE, ISLAND

Singapore’s success in surmounting its spatial and resource
constraints to become a developed state within a generation
makes it an attractive case study for both scholars and
policy-makers. Any study of Singapore, however, needs to take into
account three unique attributes. Singapore is a city. But it is also
a state, and an island. Each of these attributes brings challenges
that need to be managed. Combined, they make Singapore a
very special case in urban planning.
City
Singapore is a city that is powered by a highly competitive,
globalised economy. It is a major global communications
hub—air, sea and telecommunications—not just for the
Southeast Asian region, but also beyond. It serves as the regional
headquarters for many international corporations. It is also a global
254
financial services centre. But it faces urban challenges typical of
all cities, such as keeping municipal services running smoothly
even as the population grows. Over the past decade, providing
adequate and affordable housing for Singapore’s residents and
ensuring functioning transport systems that keep people moving
seamlessly have proved challenging. Singapore’s economy has
also been changing. During the 1960s–1980s, Singapore served as
a highly cost-efficient export manufacturing hub for multinational
companies. Rising costs, however, led to a regionalisation strategy
of relocating manufacturing facilities into the surrounding lower
cost region from the late 1980s onwards. Regionalisation was
complemented by a strategy to attract higher value-added,
technology-intensive manufacturing to Singapore, for example,
in pharmaceuticals. The government also invested heavily in
research and development across diverse fields, including water
and environment technologies, and biomedical science. The
services share of the local economy also began to grow. By the
2000s, Singapore had grown into a major wealth management hub
for the region, while retaining its traditional strengths in logistics
management and trade financing.
However, in recent years, the changes in Singapore’s economy

have been accompanied by rising income inequality. The
wealthy and a highly paid, internationally mobile professional
class are attracted to Singapore’s plentiful jobs, low taxes and
safe streets. Low wage workers have also arrived on our shores
to do jobs that Singaporeans shun, for example in the cleaning
and construction industries. Singaporeans, caught between both
groups—aspiring to but sometimes not qualifying for the higher
paying professional and management jobs, and priced out at the
bottom by lowly paid foreign workers—are feeling squeezed in
the middle. Singaporeans’ rising aspirations towards, as well as
anxiety over their ability to maintain, a middle class lifestyle, their
higher educational levels, and the ability to communicate instantly
through social media, all contribute to growing demands and
rising expectations of government in delivering public services
and correcting for market failures.
255
State
As a state, Singapore needs to allocate resources to building
and maintaining defence capabilities, conduct foreign relations
with countries, and institute immigration controls to manage
talent inflows and outflows at its borders. Singapore is also highly
dependent on external trade, given its small and open economy.
Singapore s trade is more than 3 times the Gross Domestic Product.
Island
As a small island surrounded by much larger neighbours and
without direct access to the high seas, Singapore is in a category of
geographically disadvantaged states. It has no natural hinterland
that it can call its own. There is limited air space. Its seas are
hemmed in by its neighbours’ territorial waters. Singapore cannot
increase its land area except through land reclamation. But this
option is gradually reaching its limits. Singapore can build more
densely upwards, but this option is capped by civil aviation height
restrictions. A recent innovation is building downwards through
the excavation of underground rock caverns, first for the storage
of ammunition, and more recently for oil storage. The use of
underground space promises to release valuable surface land for
other uses. So the urban master planning effort will be extended
into underground space.
IMPLICATIONS
This overview of Singapore’s three unique attributes highlights
that the demands placed on its government go beyond the
normal demands that municipal governments in larger countries
have to face. Every single decision that the Singapore government
makes has impact on multiple fronts. For example, expanding
recreational land use may affect military training areas that are
needed for developing a credible defence capability. Building
roads and highways takes away scarce land for planting trees.
256
The challenge for urban planners is to find a consensus on the
trade-offs between competing needs and requirements. There
are no perfect solutions, as every decision carries downstream
implications.
Given these complexities, a whole-of-government approach is

essential. Instead of sub-optimising at the level of individual agencies,
a whole-of-government approach emphasises coordination
and cooperation among agencies to find policies and plans that
optimise at the national level. But beyond whole-of-government,
there is also whole-of-nation. This involves co-creation, in which
the public, private and people sectors work together to formulate
public policy. Singapore’s Master Plan, outlined in an earlier chapter,
is an example of co-creating policy through public engagement.
The planning authority, the Urban Redevelopment Authority,
depends on public feedback for the Master Plan. Urban planners
produce a draft Master Plan, and then seek public feedback to
further refine it in an iterative process through public exhibitions and
the use of social media. The government also recently completed a
massive public engagement exercise, Our Singapore Conversation.
The Conversation drew out Singaporeans’ views and ideas on the
kind of Singapore they want in the future. The feedback collected
has since been used to design public policies that better reflect
Singaporeans’ needs and expectations.
The complexity of governing Singapore, however, is balanced by

the unitary tier of public administration. Being both a city and
a state, there is little need for the complex systems of larger
countries with municipal levels under state and federal levels
of government. Without having to navigate layers of byzantine
bureaucracies to secure permission to plan and build, planning
and execution cycles in Singapore are considerably shorter than
in most countries. In this respect, the advantage conferred on
Singapore as a city, state, and island is the ability to be nimble,
responsive and decisive.
257
MANAGING FUTURE CHALLENGES

Singapore faces many challenges in the future. The operating
environment is changing fast. Singapore’s economy has evolved
rapidly through the decades in order to be competitive globally.
Starting with a labour-intensive export oriented economy in the
1960s, it transitioned to a more skills intensive economy in the
1970s, evolving into a capital intensive economy during the 1980s.
From the 1990s onwards, the economy became more technology
intensive. During the 2000s, Singapore repositioned itself as a
knowledge and innovation economy. What about the 2010s and
beyond? What are the new economic trajectories that Singapore
should embark on to stay relevant to the global economy and
remain competitive?
Singapore’s society has also been evolving. Our population is

increasingly well educated and affluent. But Singaporeans are
ageing rapidly. Their expectations of government’s performance
are high, and demands for government to do more are growing.
Singapore’s government has recognised that it does not have a

monopoly on wisdom. It has improved its sensemaking efforts
through greater public outreach and engagement. It is re-
examining long-held policy assumptions, experimenting with new
policies, and fine-tuning existing ones. This spirit of openness,
willingness to listen, and readiness to try new ways of doing things
will strengthen good governance in Singapore.
258
Abbreviations
ABC aters Active Beautiful and HDB Housing &
Clean Waters Development Board
ALS Area Licensing Scheme ICAC Independent
Commission Against
AMC Ahmedabad Municipal Corruption
Corporation
TC Jurong Town
BCV Bogot C mo amos Corporation
BIDs Business Improvement PI Key Performance
Districts Indicator
B E Bukit Timah Expressway LTA Land Transport
Authority
BM-30 Bilbao Metropoli-30
MEGA Metrolink Express
BRTS Bus Rapid Transit System for Ghandinagar and
BTO Build-to-Order Ahmedabad
ME R Ministry of the
CAAS Civil Aviation Authority
Environment and Water
of Singapore
Resources
CBD Central Business District
MINDEF Ministry of Defence
CLC Centre for Liveable MNC Multinational
Cities Corporation
CPF Central Provident Fund MND Ministry of National
CPFB Central Provident Fund Development
Board MOE Ministry of Education
DBS Development Bank of MOH Ministry of Health
Singapore
MOT Ministry of Transport
DBSS Design, Build and Sell
Scheme MP Member of Parliament
DGP Development Guide MPC Master Planning

Plan Committee
EDB Economic Development MRT Mass Rapid Transit

Board
MRTC Mass Rapid Transit
EIP Ethnic Integration Policy Corporation
ENV Ministry of the MTI Ministry of Trade and

Environment Industry
259
NAC National Arts Council SARS Severe Acute

Respiratory Syndrome
NCs Neighbourhood
Committees SCP State and City Planning
NGO Non-governmental SCPD State and City Planning

organisation Department
NHB National Heritage Board SIT Singapore

Improvement Trust
NLB National Library Board
SSC Singapore Sports
NParks National Parks Board Council
NRP Neighbourhood SSTEC Sino-Singapore Tianjin

Renewal Programme Eco-City Investment
and Development
NSS Nature Society of Co. Ltd.
Singapore
TBNA Tianjin Binhai New Area
OECD Organisation for
Economic Cooperation TC Town Council
and Development ULURP Uniform Land Use
PA People’s Association Review Procedure
PAP People’s Action Party UN United Nations

UNCED United Nations
PSA Port of Singapore
Conference on
Authority
Environment and
PSI Pollutant Standards Development
Index UNDP United Nations
PRD Parks and Recreation Development
Department Programme
PUB PUB, Singapore's URA Urban Redevelopment

Authority
National Water Agency
URD Urban Renewal
P D Public Works
Department
Department
VPUU iolence Prevention
RCs Residents’ Committees through Urban
REACH Reaching Everyone for Upgrading
Active Citi enry Home
ROV Registry of ehicles
RPA Regional Plan
Association
SAF Singapore Armed Forces
260
About the Contributors
Mark CHEN is Senior Strategist at the Strategic Futures Office, Housing and
Development Board. He was previously Manager at the Centre for Liveable Cities
when he co-wrote the chapter on Urban Governance.
Peter HO is Senior Advisor to the Centre for Strategic Futures and Senior Fellow at the Civil
Service College. He is also Chairman of the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore
and Distinguished Advisor to the Centre for Liveable Cities. When he retired in 2010 after
more than 34 years of public service, he was Head, Civil Service, concurrent with his other
appointments of Permanent Secretary (Foreign Affairs), Permanent Secretary (National
Security and Intelligence Coordination), and Permanent Secretary (Special Duties) in the
Prime Minister’s Office. Before that, he was Permanent Secretary (Defence). He was also
the founding Chairman of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.
HOO Teng Chye is Executive Director of the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore.
Since 2009, he has also served as Chairman of Singapore International Water Week
Pte Ltd. He was formerly Chief Executive of PUB, Singapore’s National Water Agency,
and Chief Executive Officer/Chief Planner at the Urban Redevelopment Authority,
Singapore. He was awarded the Public Administration (Gold) in 1996 and the Public
Administration (Silver) in 1987 by the Singapore government. He was also conferred
the Meritorious Service Award by the National Trades Union Congress in 2008 for his
contributions to the Singapore labour movement.
LIU Thai er is Director of RSP Architects Planners & Engineers. He is also Chairman of
the Advisory Board of the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore. As an architect-planner
and later Chief Executive Officer of Singapore’s Housing & Development Board (1969–
1989), and Chief Planner–Chief Executive Officer of Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment
Authority (1989–1992), he was instrumental in the successful implementation of public
housing and the formulation of a vision for urban development in Singapore.
Elyssa LUDHER is an urban and regional planner with ten years of experience in the
public and private sector, having worked in Australia, China and Cambodia, including
261
Brisbane City Council, CORDE (Cambodian Organisation for Research, Development

and Education) and Sinclair Knight Mer (SKM) consulting. She now conducts research
at the Centre for Liveable Cities to continue to understand and share solutions on how
cities manage increasingly complex social challenges in our globalised world.
Vernie OLIVEIRO is Senior Researcher in the Institute of Governance and Policy, Civil
Service College. Her research focuses on decision-making and public participation in
governance, as well as political narratives.
Phyllis TEOH is currently Assistant Director of Infrastructure Planning at the Early

Childhood Development Agency. She has over 15 years of experience as an urban
planner in Singapore and overseas. She was previously Manager at the Centre for
Liveable Cities when she wrote the chapter on Integrated Master Planning.
TOH Boon wan is Senior Researcher in the Institute of Governance and Policy, Civil
Service College. His research focuses on public governance issues and the history of
the Singapore public service.
Pablo VAGGIONE is dedicated to resolving the challenges of rapid urbanisation.

He was Lead Author of UNHABITAT’s guide Urban Planning for City Leaders. He
has worked on projects for the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, CAF
(Development Bank of Latin America), Asian Development Bank, Siemens AG and the
Economist Intelligence Unit. An architect by training, he studied urban planning at
Harvard and sustainable development at the United Nations University.
262
About the Centre for
Liveable Cities
Set up in 2008 by the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of the
Environment and Water Resources, the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) has as its
mission “to distil, create and share knowledge on liveable and sustainable cities”. CLC’s
work spans three main areas Research, Capability Development and Promotion.
Through these activities, CLC hopes to provide urban leaders and practitioners with
the knowledge and support needed to make our cities better.
clc gov sg
263
About the Civil Service
College
The mission of the Civil Service College Singapore (CSC) is to develop people for a
first-class Public Service. CSC was inaugurated as a statutory board under the Public
Service Division, Prime Minister’s Office, in October 2001. As the public sector’s core
institution for training, learning, research and staff development, CSC provides officers
from across the Public Service with opportunities to learn and share knowledge;
network, dialogue and exchange views; and develop a service-wide ethos and shared
perspectives. CSC’s wide range of activities builds strategic capacity in governance,
leadership, public administration and management for a networked government
in Singapore.
264
In the space of just four decades, Singapore made the leap from
an urban slum to a thriving global city-state. Today, it is a densely
populated metropolis, with more than 5 million people inhabiting
710 km2 of land. In most liveable city surveys, it is rated one of
the few high-density cities that are able to achieve high liveability
standards.
How did Singapore achieve this transformation and balance of

density and liveability hat did it learn in the process
Liveable and Sustainable Cities: A Framework examines the roles

of Singapore s pioneering leaders and their innovative policies and
enabling processes with a view to discerning the broad principles
that contributed to their ability to achieve successful transformation
and balanced development. Beyond discussing Singapore s
experience, this book takes a comparative look at the development
journeys of selected international cities and concludes that there
are broad universal principles of integrated master planning and
dynamic urban governance which underlie successful cities.

CLC CSC Livable Cities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLC CSC Livable Cities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLC CSC Livable Cities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIVEABLE

Centre for Liveable Cities Civil Service College, Singapore

ISBN: 978-981-09-0557-6 (pbk)

For feedback and comments, please email MND_CLC_Enquiries@mnd.gov.sg or

Cover photo: Marina Barrage, Singapore. Photo courtesy of © Toonman | Dreamstime.com

National Library Board, Singapore Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Liveable & sustainable cities : a framework. – Singapore : Civil Service College

251 Epilogue Peter HO

In the midst of rapid urbanisation and development, we

Admittedly, the physical, social and political conditions of each

In the preparation of this book, we were fortunate to be able to

Photo courtesy of AtelierDreiseitl

The CLC Liveability

KHOO Teng Chye

01 Singapore’s City Area at dusk

GENESIS OF THE CLC LIVEABILITY FRAMEWORK

Today, many of the cities considered to be highly liveable exist

02 The CLC Liveability Matrix*

Singapore represents an approach to sustainable urban

Yet, back in the 1960s, it would have been hard to imagine

How did Singapore achieve this balance of density and liveability?

Many cities worldwide, especially those in the process of

CLC’s challenge has been to distil the large body of knowledge

We paid special attention to the roles of key actors, the enabling

COMPONENTS OF THE CLC LIVEABILITY FRAMEWORK

Additionally, what were the processes and mechanisms that

Our investigations show that two elements have been key to

Thus, the CLC Liveability Framework looks at urban development

04 The CLC Liveability Framework

THE LIVEABLE CITY OUTCOMES

For Singapore, how each outcome was assessed, as well as its

Outcome 1: A competitive economy

As Singapore became more developed, having a well-functioning

Singapore’s urban systems have had an integral role in supporting

In general, the existence of a competitive economy has been

Outcome 2: A sustainable environment

When a country is as small as Singapore, environmental

impact on the environment was minimal. Careful thought was even

Generally, environment protection was not assumed to be at odds

Environmental values were therefore embedded into a larger social

Outcome 3: A high quality of life

In the early stages of Singapore’s development, slums, squatters

Singapore became more populated and dense over the decades

Retaining a sense of engagement in the physical landscape was

Since the mid-1980s, city planning in Singapore also tried to give

Balancing three liveability outcomes

Making Singapore liveable involved balancing the three outcomes.

Measures of building safety Percentage of users

Percentage of people satisfied Park provision ratio Percentage of public

Customer satisfaction levels Minimisation of Access to sanitation

Water that meets WHO Number of air and water

While we have described the three as discrete outcomes, the

One other interesting finding was that, in some cases, in solving an

Seizing opportunities in water and waste management

Parallel to these efforts, Singapore also paid attention to the

To remain a liveable city, it was also essential to maintain quality

05 Students at Bishan–Ang Mo Kio Park

INTEGRATED MASTER PLANNING

On a practical level, the policies and plans have to be

At the heart of the integrated master planning approach is