doi:10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.

011
www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Cities, Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 3043, 2006 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0264-2751/$ - see front matter

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore

Emily Y. Soh and Belinda Yuen
Available online 19 December 2005

School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore

This paper explores various dimensions of public participation in urban planning in Singapore: the changing nature and attitudes towards citizen participation, the players and methods of participation, and the means of evaluating their impact. Singapores urban planning has been characterised by its top-down approach until recent years. In the current context of the global competition, a well-planned city no longer equates to a functional and efcient city but also one that supports a good quality of life where citizens could take a more active role in shaping the urban environment. The planning authority is experimenting with various avenues of participation, and rening methods and implementation of the participatory process. In the absence of a robust civil society in Singapore, the planning authority can have a positive role in not only encouraging public participation in planning but also actively convening voluntary citizens to form focus groups to interface between the state and citizens at large. Looking beyond participation processes, this paper will explore some methods and issues involved in evaluating participation outcomes, and make a case for why public participation is set to gain ground and become a permanent feature in Singapores urban planning arena.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Civil society, globalization, focus groups

Introduction
Much has been written about the need for public participation in the planning process (Davidoff, 1965; Fagence, 1977; Douglass and Friedmann, 1998), and the literature abounds with arguments of how the incorporation of public participation in the planning process, if implemented correctly, can potentially yield a variety of benets (Healey, 1997; Innes, 1998). For some, such as Innes (1998), participants bring with them a wealth of local knowledge that helps to ensure that policies are tailored to meet local needs and conditions. For others, a common benet revolves around the opportunities for planners and citizens to collaborate and deliberate over planning policies that could help towards building consensus and generating political legitimacy and support (Burke, 1968; Glass, 1979). As Creighton (1992) explains, when citizens are given an active role in plan-making, a sense of ownership can be fos-

Corresponding author. E-mail: rstbyuen@nus.edu.

tered and potential controversy and conicts may be reduced as participants share responsibility for planning decisions. Put simply, collaborative planning allows for social and policy learning for both planners and citizens when they jointly go through the processes of tackling problems, clarifying and adapting goals to local circumstances and exploring innovative ideas for planning policies and implementation, all of which can contribute to the enhancement of plans and planning outcomes (Creighton, 1992; Healey, 1997; Burby, 2003). The public scrutiny that a rigorous participatory process opens up to a planning process compels planners to be more scrupulous in plan-making. At the same time, as Burby (2003) and Innes (1996) note, the trust, credibility and commitment generated with the engagement of citizens in planning can result in the strengthening of social capital. Public participation is not without its drawbacks and limitations. The involvement of various interest groups is a move towards a more pluralistic outcome that, if not well managed, can result in excessive competition that is detrimental to the policy-making process. There may also be 30

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

instances when some groups are more interested in advancing their own agenda then they are in advancing real public interest. The problem of genuine representation by interest groups also comes into question as the most inuential group, or the one with the greatest bargaining power, or that which is best organised, may not necessarily be representative of a wide spectrum of citizens. Despite these limitations, the importance and benets of including citizens in the planning process cannot be overemphasised, and they should prompt policy planners to improve on the techniques and management of public participation. A good portion of the early literature on civil society is founded on the assumption that social capital is a bottom-up phenomenon, whereby civic involvement of individuals in associations and grass-root level participation can have a potentially positive effect for a democratic and inclusive government (Kornhauser, 1960; de Tocqueville, 1968; Granovetter, 1973). Putnam (1993, 1995), a central exponent of social capital thinking in his earlier work, reinforces this bottom-up perspective. He argues that civic involvement is an underlying foundation for a genuine democratic state and an essential ingredient for the strengthening of good governancestrong society, (leads to) strong economy; strong society, (leads to) strong state (Putnam, 1993, p. 173; words in parenthesis added). Critics have pointed out that Putnams view of a one-way causal relationship has two obvious omissions. First, he has neglected the inherent political climate that supports or inhibits civil society, particularly the government structures and policies in local contexts that determine the latitude of civil involvement (Tarrow, 1996; Levi, 1996; Foley and Edwards, 1996; Newton, 1999). Second, he does not address the role that the state has in actively shaping civil society (Maloney et al., 2000; Akkerman et al., 2004). Using more contextualised case studies, some recent works have taken a top-down perspective on how civil societies function within the framework of government, and how the latter can have an active and positive role in building up a strong civil society. Maloney et al. (2000) highlight the connection between social capital and governance in their Birmingham study on the role of its city council in sustaining civic vibrancy. Selles (1999) study on the voluntary sector in Norway notes that the voluntary sector is, and has always been deeply inuenced by government. Local spontaneous processes cannot be understood by leaving national public policies out of the picture (p. 146). The work of Akkerman et al. (2004) on state-initiated participation in policy making in the Netherlands further points out that the conventional view of a bipolar model of statecivil relationship can be misleading. In Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, where corporatism has been enabled to a large extent by the state, there is a tripartite form of consultation

that exists between the state, corporate associations, and citizens at large. A similar situation seems to prevail in Singapore where there is a history of the dominance of the state in the making of public policy and the lack of a strong civil society. Unlike many other cities, the dominance of the state in Singapore may be attributed to the long governing history of the government, which has repeatedly been voted into power since the rst self-governing citizen election in 1959, almost without the shadow of an opposition party until the late 1980s. Riding high on the success and delivery of its various social and economic programs, the political legitimacy thesis has been extensively argued elsewhere (see, for example, Chua, 1997). However, increasing globalisation and a more educated populace in recent years have seen a gradual interest in civil society. The government has been actively encouraging the growth of civil society to provide alternative voices and greater stakeholding in policy debates. There appears to be a widening of civil society activism across Asia in the 1990s with the rise of globalisation and a world civil society (see, discussions in Yamamoto, 1995; Wapner, 1996; Tay, 2001). Cast against this background, this paper will make a case for how the city planning authority has an essential role, not only in passively providing a conducive climate to encourage citizens involvement in planning, but also in activating citizen participation and contributions to plan-making processes. This paper will evaluate the effectiveness and implications of using focus groups as a means of government-aided participation to interface between the state and citizens at large. If properly implemented and held in conjunction with other participation methods to engage ordinary citizens, focus groups have the potential to add rigor to the participatory process and to improve planning outcomes. This paper will offer some insights into Singapores experiment with public participation in urban planning. Such experiences in activating greater civil engagement in the shaping of its urban environment can serve as a point of reference for other cities seeking to re-open the agenda on participation.

Public participation practice in Singapore

Singapore is a highly urbanised and planned city (Perry et al., 1997). Its spatial planning operation is largely modelled on the British development plan and control system. On an ofcial level, in the plan making process, the planning authority is required under the Master Plan rules (subsidiary legislation) to publish a notice specifying a period of not less than 6 weeks within which objections and representations to the Plan proposal may be made. As within England, Singapore has a two-tier development plan: the strategic Concept Plan and local Master Plan (or development guide plans). The Concept 31

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

Plan is a long-term land use and development strategy plan that identies the broad goals of Singapores urban development. The intentions of the advisory Concept Plan are translated into the statutory Master Plan, which is a detailed land use plan that is gazetted. Up until 1991, these plans are prepared by planners within the planning authority and statutory participation primarily involves submitting objections, as mentioned above. Singapores planning process bears a strong semblance to the rational comprehensive planning model, which was rst expounded by Meyerson and Baneld (1955), whereby goals of planning are well dened and the benets and tradeoffs of alternative means are evaluated before the best alternative is selected for implementation. The technical information, such as the data and analysis upon which the plans are based are usually not released into the public domain. On the development control front, representatives from the planning and architecture professional bodies are invited to be members of the Development Control Committee. The ambit of the Committee was to consider and make recommendations on major private sector development applications (the Committee has since been dissolved and replaced by the Public Ofcers Working to Eliminate Red Tape Scheme (POWER) initiated in 2002, which conducts regular dialogue sessions with industry players with a view to review development control guidelines and suggest changes). Private individuals (from academe, public and private sector planners) are appointed as planning appeals inspectors to preside over planning hearings. Compared with western city public participation experiences and advocacy (e.g., Arnstein, 1969; Douglass and Friedmann, 1998), it would appear that public participation in Singapores urban planning process has been largely minimal, especially prior to 1991. A prevalent view that explains the subdued scene of citizen participation is that the state has been able to satisfy the demands and expectations of citizens (Almond and Verba, 1963; Ho, 2000a). Political legitimacy traditionally gained through citizens mandate, stake-holding and participation in policy making has instead been earned by Singapores ruling government through the efcient delivery of urban policies contributing to political stability of the country and economic prosperity of the population to the extent that community involvement would not have any value-added in policy formulation (Chua, 1997; Ho, 2000a). Stubbs (2001, p. 37) terms this the performance legitimacy, which he identies as a major cause of the lack of attention to the development of a robust civil society to counter-balance the dominance of the state. A discussion on Singapores civil society is seldom mentioned without boundaries and the limited space that it has been accorded. It has been often described as underdeveloped and constrained. 32

Chua (2000) elucidates the unequal halves of Singapores civil society: the better performing half tends to be apolitical in nature and comprises groups such as welfare or charitable organisations, while the other half that leads an insecure and tenuous existences (p. 74) contains organisations that hold alternative stances that may be critical of, or contend with the governments policies. Others, such as Singam (2000), comment on the disinclination that Singapore citizens have of airing their opinions, for fear of censure. The outcome is an impression of the average Singaporean being primarily on the receiving end of administrative decision to which their consent is sometimes sought, rather than citizens with the capacity, motivation and opportunity to inuence decisions that shape their lives (Tan and Chiew, 1990, p. 329). However, since 1991, in parallel with the beginnings of more consultative governance, there has been a widening of public participation outreach. The tone of public involvement was set by Mr. Goh Chok Tong when he took political ofce as Prime Minister in November 1990: The style of the next Government will have these three components: participation, accommodation, consensus, whereby, participation would mean having as many Singaporeans involved in the political process as is practical; accommodation would mean that alternative viewpoints to the Government will be heard with an open mind and changes made to accommodate valid views; and efforts will be made to achieve consensus between the government and the people on the major issues that affect (the citizens) lives (The Straits Times, 28 November 1990). Following the political impetus, the ideas of active citizenship and public stake-holding in the social-political arena soon began to feature in various arenas, such as political involvement and policy making, civic-consciousness and volunteerism, and in the liberalisation of the economy (Ho, 2000a,b). It was a period of learning for both (see, various papers in Koh and Ooi, 2000) and one important lesson gained was perhaps the much needed clarication in perspective, that government and civil groups need not take on adversary stances because collaborative and communicative approaches can often yield better outcomes. When it comes to inuencing urban policy decisions, civil society seemed to have scored a mixed bag of several failures but also some important successes. In the effort against the massive revitalisation plan for Chinatown, the civil group Singapore Heritage Board (SBH) presented a clear stance on the irreparable loss of heritage and collective memories that were at stake if authorities went ahead with the regeneration proposals (The Sunday Times, 1998). This unleashed a torrent of responses from both the lay citizens and professionals. Yet, despite the opening up of more channels of public feedback, the revised plan was held up as unsatisfactory, as

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

the advice of civil groups and the concerns of the public were not sufciently heeded (Asiaweek, 2000). In contrast, there are several instances of success in the Singapores civil society, such as can be seen in the work of the Nature Society (Singapore)one of the countrys most established civil groups. The societys expertise in environmental protection has made it a group that is frequently consulted for issues and policies on nature conservation and environmental impact on land uses. Under its advice, the government set aside Sungei Buloh as a bird sanctuary and nature park. In the early 1990s, concerned that a proposed golf course in Lower Pierce reservoir would wipe out its rich natural heritage, the society carried out an independent environmental impact assessment that managed, amid heated public debates, to persuade the government to shelve plans for development of the golf course (Tan, 2001). More recently, reclamation plans were reversed for Chek Jawa, located on the island of Pulau Ubin. The decision for Chek Jawa to be retained and preserved in its natural state for as long as possible came after reports that document the wealth of diversity of marine life were submitted by the Nature Society, National Institute of Education, the Rafes Museum of Biodiversity Research and other individuals (Channelnewsasia, 2002).

While urban planning requires much technical knowledge in forecasting future needs, the planning authority has recognised, especially in recent years, the importance of garnering the publics opinion and their aspirations for the development of an urban environment that has a sense of place. The public voice has become important, prompting multisector involvement in the plan making, and active public engagement. Departing from convention, for the rst time the private sector was invited to prepare the draft master plan in the 1990s. Access to the plan-making process is not limited to those who are directly affected by the plan. The community is invited to familiarise itself with the proposals in the 2001 Concept Plan and 2003 Master Plan and to comment. The public involvement in this planmaking process is summarised in Figure 1. A critical route of participation is, as stated in the draft 2002 Identity Plan exhibition brochures (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2002)
We need you (the public) to play your part. Please share your views, opinions and ideas to help rene the plans. Based on your feedback, we will rene and develop the. . .Identity Plan further. The implementation of the ideas and possibilities will require the joint partnership of public and private sectors with the community.

Strategic Review, Dec 1999-Aug 2000 8 sub-committees from various government agencies formed to identify key land requirements and collate data

Public consultation, Aug 2000-May 2001 Focus groups---2 focus groups formed to study Singapores future land needs and give ideas to shape the Concept Plan Ideas from public---URA opened feedback channels for public to give their ideas and comments. More than 200 ideas through letters and website were received Public forum---a public forum was held on 8 Dec 2000 to discuss the recommendations of the focus groups. The public gave more feedback and comments Draft Concept Plan exhibition---further feedback was invited through the exhibition Public dialogue---Minister for National Development chaired the public dialogue to hear public feedback and comments

Final Concept Plan---all ideas and comments were carefully considered when drafting the finalised Concept Plan

Realising the vision---the Concept Plan strategies.. translated into detailed planning parameters through the Master Plan review and gazetted in the Master Plan 2003.

Figure 1 Public consultation in Singapore Concept Plan 2001. Source: Urban Redevelopment Authority (2001, p. 53).

33

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

Although of recent development, public participation is clearly on the urban agenda, granting the public not just an opportunity to be heard but also be a part of the implementation process. Government-aided participation Although an inherently political process, urban planning in Singapore has been relatively depoliticised. The limitations of being a city-state have led to tight public control over land and spatial development, reinforcing the dominance of wider national interest arguments (Chua, 1997). In questioning the motivation for public participation, the primary argument of conducive environment for public involvement still holds. To participate, people need to have condence that their opinions are valued and solicited. Public participation as a positive externality requires special efforts on the part of individuals or civil groups to get acquainted with the planning issues involved. While the participant takes responsibility for his/her comments, and may have to suffer brickbats for the feedback, any benet derived from the participation process goes to the general public. Thus, the absence of a conducive environment for public participation may not necessarily refer just to that which punishes the participants for their views, but also that which punishes the participants time and effort in getting involved in the planning process by engaging in what Arnstein (1969) terms as tokenism or pacistic participation. In the case of Singapore, the subdued nature of civic participation has brought forth calls for the state to take the rst step to make the environment more conducive for active citizenship. To quote the leading local newspaper, a state-supported active citizenry may sound like an oxymoron, but given the current attitudes of Singaporeans, it seems to be the only way to breed a self-help culture here (The Straits Times, 13 June 1999). Conventional means of state support include tax exemption and provision of subsidies for voluntary and civil groups, and the participation of such groups for their expert opinion in consultations, advisory boards and public forums (UNDP, 1997). The use of such methods to support the sustenance of civil groups and their engagement in policy-making presupposes the existence of a functioning civil society composed of a variety of organised civil societies. Such methods of passive state support may however not be sufcient to inculcate active citizen participation in what Ho (2000a) describes as an underdeveloped and fragmented civil society. Active state stimulation of citizen involvement may be necessary to jumpstart the local process of public participation. One common measure is for the state to take on the organisation of civil groups. As Ho (2000a) has highlighted, the Singapore state has convened para-political institutions through which citizen can inuence policy making through 34

feedback. Such grassroots institutions include the Community Centres, Community Centres Management Committee, Citizens Consultative Committees, Residents Committees and town councils. However, limitations to these local organisations exist: council members in these organisations are appointed instead of elected and elected opposition members are barred from holding ofce in such organisations. As such, the paradigm of state-initiated participation can be regarded with suspicion as state organised associations can be vulnerable to shifts in public policy (Hirst, 1995), and those participation processes, imposed from above, can often be skewed to conformity in the direction of the state (Akkerman et al., 2004). This poses a challenge for the proper implementation of state-aided participation. In the arena of urban planning in Singapore, a parallel may be drawn with respect to the need for the planning authority to convene civil groups to facilitate the engagement of a wide spectrum of the public to participate in the planning process. The rest of this paper will explore the use of focus groups as an expression of government-aided participation in the eld of urban planning. The contention is that limitations aside, the authority-initiated focus groups may yet present an effective interface between the planning authority and the citizens that may add rigor to the planning process by challenging the authority on urban planning issues.

Methods of participation
One of the crucial factors for the success of public participation in urban planning is the availability of a variety of easily accessible channels that the public could use to interface with the planning authority. Healey (1997) and Forester (1999), among others, have attested to the resulting lack of involving different segments of the population in the planning process where the participation means are inadequate. The channels for participation are many (Arnstein, 1969), and may include NGOs or grassroots politics (Giddens, 1998), task force or focus group (Fagence, 1977), collaborative groups (Innes and Booher, 2000). The strategies of public outreach are equally varied and may range from public exhibitions on draft plans, inviting feedback through letters or web portals such as the Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authoritys e-consultation, and formal public consultations, which can take various forms such as public forums, dialogues with the public or private stakeholders, and ministerial dialogue sessions. Experimenting beyond the more passive public participation method of objecting to development plan proposals, the Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority has employed focus groups in the recent plan making endeavours of the Concept Plan 2001 and Master Plan 2003. Focus groups are also an

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

integral part of the participatory process in the making of the Singapore Green Plan 2012 (SGP 2012), which charts Singapores approach to environmental sustainability over the next 10 years. This plan was presented to the world community at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. Focus groups are formed, usually of experts, stakeholders and/or interest groups, to tackle specic problems. The groups are asked to consider planning options and examine detailed plans before submission. The methods of participation of focus groups, and formal public consultation through public forums, will be elaborated. Focus groups Fagence (1977) documented the pioneering use of a task force in the urban planning of a district in Portland (Oregon). The rationale for the use of a task force was to redirect participants stance of opposition into one that was more constructive and striving towards conict resolution that would establish a systematic method for the exchange of ideas and information between the city council and the district. The council-selected task force represented a diversity of city-wide interests, had various competences and could set its own rules. The task force was charged with dening planning problems and issues, and the responsibilities of various participants in the planning process. It was also to elicit views of both the organised groups and the wider and unorganised general public. The use of task forces (also commonly called focus groups) has since become a popular and effective way to garner citizens inputs in urban planning and for the identication and resolution of crucial planning issues. In the context of Singapores urban planning, the use of focus groups is almost ideal in the case of long term, strategic planning where focus groups are set up to tackle specic issues and oriented to problem solution. The use of focus groups that are empowered to set a discussion agenda and engage with the wider community presents a potentially rigorous public participation process for broad based consultation, as seen in the preparation of the Singapore Concept Plan 2001. Public forums Hendriks (2002, p. 64) has argued that the inclusion of politically unorganised individuals in the participatory processes via public forums helps to bring new perspectives. Her study postulates the positive outcomes of interfacing between interest groups and individual members of the public through the setting of a public forum. First, it compels interest groups to bring their technical or scientic arguments and assumptions to the test of relevance to the real world, in particular, whether their proposals make a genuine difference or improvement for the ordinary citizen. Second, interactions between interest groups at a public forum can cause individual

groups to be more reective of their own positions by listening to others, in the knowledge that these positions must be justied in terms that others can accept (Dryzek, 2000, p. 79). Third, it compels interest groups to be more socially accountable, as they present their case in a public space, which encourages presenters to argue their claims in socially rational terms (Hendriks, 2002, p. 70). Before the ndings of the focus groups were ofcially incorporated into the Singapore Concept Plan, a public dialogue (alongside a public exhibition and feedback via internet and survey forms) was organised for the general public to preview the proposals in the draft Concept Plan. A forum was held to invite public feedback on the focus groups interim planning report. Although focus group members participate as citizens in their private capacity, their convention and access to resources were initiated and made possible by the Urban Redevelopment Authority. Consequently, there may be an inevitable impression of association with the state. The public forum and the public dialogue session were thus important as additional tiers of inquiry and public approval process, whereby the proposals of the focus groups were put to the test by ordinary citizens as to the accuracy of their interpretation of the planning problems and the proposed approaches to solving such problems. More critical to the form of participation is the question of who participates, which has implications for the effectiveness of challenging power/knowledge relationships in the participation process.

Who participates?
In the analysis of participants and their level of inuence in participation processes, there is a need to distinguish between the different groups or types of participants. Barnes et al. (2003) frame the question of who participates? by reference to the characteristics and motivations of participants whether they have volunteered, been invited, been appointed, were encouraged or even have been coerced into participationwhich may have the propensity to affect the perceived legitimacy of contributions. Individuals or groups may participate for a variety of reasons, such as having vested interests in the planning issue or for altruistic reasons in seeking improvements for others or to develop skills and gain experience by partaking in a participation process. Distinctions can also be made of participants ability to organise into civil groups, as this would affect their level of empowerment, which in turn has a bearing on their capacity to access crucial resources such as funding, their level of publicity and the ability to present their case. Another factor that affects the extent of participation is the participants skills and knowledge of the subject matter of the urban planning issue. Research on social exclusion of weaker or marginalised groups 35

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

is prevalent in the literature of participation (see, Swain et al., 1993; Sibley, 1995; Purdy and Banks, 1999). There is also the acknowledgement that such exclusions are sometimes unintentional and may be even inevitable because of the inherent lack of skill and knowledge of such groups in particular planning issues and their inability to take up their opinions through the appropriate channels result in under-representation or misrepresentations of their position. Barnes et al. (2003) analyse various exclusionary processes that affect the way the public is constituted, and include a case study on the representation (or rather, the lack of) of older people. A parallel case can be seen in a recent example in the hotly debated regeneration of Singapores Chinatown, which is a historical area where a sizeable proportion of elderly citizens resides. One result of the 100 million dollar regeneration effort is gentrication, whereby existing communities who could not afford the rent move out and the spirit of the neighbourhood is lost. Critics noted that the participatory process had primarily included business stakeholders and the national tourism board had failed to sufciently include the local community that resides in the area (Singapore Institute of Planners, 2000). In consequence, the authority had to open up more feedback channels as damage control when public response to the redevelopment plan drew stronger and more emotional response than anticipated (The Straits Times, 25 February 2000). Hendriks (2002) study makes a distinction of the different roles individuals and interest groups play in the participatory process. The role of interest groupsalso referred to as stakeholder groups, pressure groups, lobby groups, representative organisations or secondary organizationsis to provide a focal point for dening public interest, and their key functions are to provide information and perspectives to lay citizens and to legitimise the planning process and outcome (Hendriks, 2002, p. 64). Public interest is however an elusive subject and difcult to dene. Hendriks (2002, p. 68) and Yiftachel (1995) note the problems of becoming too dependent on interest groups to reect public opinion at the expense of individual citizens, whereby there is the danger of interest groups becoming exclusive elite stakeholder networks that excludes other members of the public who do not share the same interest or vision of the group, or possess similar expertise. There is often no pre-condition for interest groups to be constituted of members from the grassroots level, or for them to have extensive contact with grassroots level. This brings to question how far, if at all, interest groups represent the interests of the public at large. The existence of a few interest groups with bargaining power can lead to a pluralist outcome. The importance of active participation of lay citizens is that they challenge existing power structures between the state and interest groups, and among interest groups, and they are 36

the ultimate legitimation of the public participation process. Following this line of argument, the working committee or focus groupif properly constituted of ordinary citizenshas the function of scrutinising the agenda and proposals of the interest groups, and acting as a check against the power and potential dominance that the planning authority may have over the planning process. Focus group participants and the super citizens: participation of the elites? To understand Singapores public participation process, we need to reect on the existing roles and power relationships between the state and citizens. Since Singapores early nation-building years in the 1970s, there were primarily two main players in the urban development arena: the state and the private land developers. These have dramatically transformed the urban landscape of Singapore much at the expense of the involvement of the ordinary citizen (Dale, 1999; Wong, 2001). However, with globalisation, there is a greater focus on city attractiveness and identity which is increasingly reframed beyond meeting the needs of corporate investors to include a broad cross section of lay citizens perspectives for dening the dynamic, distinctive and delightful future city (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001). To enlarge the scope of participants in urban planning decisions, a variety of different channels are opened to draw the involvement of players from diverse backgrounds. These include not only the corporate investors, the experts with technical knowledge such as the private sector architects, planners and academics, but also non-government organisations (NGOs), interest groups and citizens. In the latest Concept Plan 2001 making, for the rst time focus groups were appointed by the planning authority to provide input to the plan-making process. Who are the focus group participants? What is their role? Are they skilled participants whom Ho (2000a, p. 213) has termed super citizens? What are their impacts on the participatory process in Singapore? In Singapores context of public participation, the contention on the issues of citizens involvement does not revolve around the lack of representation of marginalised groups but the lack of participation from the working and middle classes that form the vast majority of the Singaporean population. As Ho (2000a) identies, there are three factors that Singaporeans must take into consideration if they want to exert inuence in (political and social) policy making. First, participants have to observe the conditions and boundaries set by the state, especially on sensitive issues on ethnicity and religion. Second, citizens must participate with the strategy and purpose of consensus instead of contention, whereby views and criticism should be constructive, logical and persuasive (p. 213). Third, participants must be ready to have their views scrutinised and

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

challenged. Such stringent considerations serve primarily to put a curb on frivolous, malicious or unqualied criticisms, but they are also enough to discourage ordinary citizens who are less informed or unskilled in participation. Citizens who meet the implicit requirements are referred to by Ho (2000a) as super citizenscharacterized as well informed on public affairs and committed to playing by the democratic rules of the game. The super citizens who participate in the urban planning process are likely to be practitioners, investors or academics in the elds of urban planning, architecture, and the real estate industry. Super citizens, having the expert knowledge, enhance their capacity and resources that can allow them to make a potentially stronger, and hopefully, positive impact in the participatory process. For instance, as an architect, the super citizen could design alternative plans and thus provide a more varied perspective on tackling planning problems. Figure 2 provides a summary of how super citizens differ from the lay citizens in their roles and methods of participation. As summarised in Figure 2, within the Organised citizens/Groups category, there may be a further classication between groups that spontaneously form (for example, a typical interest group) and those whose members are appointed (for example, a focus group). The distinct difference between the two, especially in Singapores urban planning context, is that focus groups are assisted by the planning authority, and thus construct their proposals with national goals in mind. While this means that the focus groups may have a broader understanding of a wide spectrum of issues, it can also mean that they may be more susceptible to undue inuence by the state. The difference between the lay and super citizens is that the latter is in a stronger position to present an alternative expert opinion, and may even ally themselves with interest groups or institutes with which they have membership. The unbroken twoway arrows in the diagram indicate that the organised citizens/groups can strengthen the interface with the planning authority and lay citizens. The dotted arrows represent the weaker interface that the planning authority has with the ordinary citizens, absent a functioning civil society. This is represented by the generic model in Figure 3. In the making of the Concept Plan 2001, focus groups formed an integral element of the participatory process. There were two focus groups that tackled the issues of land allocation and of identity versus intensive use of land. The focus group members participated in ways such as research, comment and correcting the presented information and perspectives. More importantly, they were charged with the responsibility of actively engaging a wider spectrum of the public through means that include public forums and in-depth discussions with professionals, interest groups, grassroots leaders, industrialists and businessmen (Urban Redevelopment Authority,

2000a). The focus groups were focal points for feedback and suggestions from the general public. They play a role that is to some extent different from a typical interest group. One of the distinguishing features of the local focus groups is that members are appointed (invited) by the planning authority, instead of spontaneously formed as a civil group. This means that there is a selection and nomination process, carried out by the planning authority and the invited organisations for suitable and qualied (perhaps according to the tacit criteria for super citizens as discussed above) individuals. The prole of the focus groups for the preparation of the Concept Plan 2001 is characterised to comprise a good balance of members from diverse organisations (The Straits Times, 26 August 2000). They play an instrumental role in the unique government-aided participation environment, where each focus group comprising of almost 30 individuals representing members of the public, interest groups, professionals and experts in the relevant elds. . .and from different sectors of society to analyse the dilemmas from every angle, presenting fresh insights and alternative ideas (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2000a). A closer examination of the focus group composition will show that the members are predominantly, though not exclusively, of an elite groupseveral are leading gures in the profession and industry that went on to hold public ofce. However, individual residents are not excluded, as illustrated in the Concept Plan 2001 focus groups summarised in Table 1.

Quality of participation: measuring the extent, depth and effectiveness of participation

The most perceptible measure of civil society is perhaps participation in the planning process, which can be seen from the number of channels and incidences of public participation. This indicates whether the participation process is able to reach out to a large cross-section of the population. If based on this measure alone, public participation in Singapores urban planning has been accorded increasing signicance. This can be seen particularly over recent years, when the Urban Redevelopment Authority has been actively encouraging involvement from expert groups, interest groups and members of the public, and opening up a spectrum of avenues through which a wider cross-section of the public could participate. Take the making of the Concept Plan 2001, which involved about 5000 Singaporeans: in involved two focus groups of about 30 members each, 400 people who attended the public forum, 300 people who attended the public dialogue, 300 who provided survey feedback, 2000 people who viewed the exhibition of the draft plan and another 2000 who visited the website (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001a,b). In the making of the Master Plan 2003, 54 37

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

State/Planning Authority
Role: Define scope of participation Stimulate citizen participation

Organised citizens/ Groups

Groups formed spontaneously. i.e. Interest Groups Role: Define public interest but groups private interest may not be representative of wider public Provide information and shape perspectives for state and general public Can legitimise and enhance planning process if interest groups are many and diverse Check the power of planning authority, holding a more adversarial position Groups formed by appointment. i.e. Focus Groups Role: Define public interest and balance them with national goals with focus on problem identification and solution on specific issues Charged with duty of actively engaging the wider public and consolidating their inputs Can legitimise and enhance planning process if able to maintain a level of autonomy from state and engage broad base participation Check the power of planning authority but holding a more collaborative stance Methods of participation: Discussions within focus groups Engage wider public through stakeholders discussion, public meeting, etc.

Methods of participation: Advisory committees Roundtable discussions Lobbying

Unorganised citizens/ Individuals Lay Citizens Role: Feedback/ provision of local knowledge beyond what interest/focal groups know Scrutinise the agenda of interest/focus groups mainly through feedback, such as the extent that the proposals of interest/focus groups are relevant and representative of the citizens at large Methods of participation: Public forums Exhibitions Surveys Feedback Super Citizens Role: Feedback/ provision of alternative expert knowledge Scrutinise the agenda of interest/focus groups and the planning authority through more rigorous means, such as interpreting planning perspectives and verifying information Methods of participation: Submission of alternative proposals Obtaining support and resources from interest groups, organisations or institutions to strengthen their proposals Public forums involvement as members of the panel

Figure 2 Interface between planning authority and groups/individuals.

people participated in three subject groups, 11 dialogues were heard with stakeholders, 4500 instances of public feedback were received and the draft plan exhibitions attracted more than 50,000 people (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2003b, 2004). 38

While there is no doubt that the quantity of participation has increased, it is the quality of participation that has a greater bearing on assessing the depth and effectiveness of public involvement in urban planning issues. Depth refers to the level of involvement

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

Planning Authority

Civil Society (represented by organised citizens)

Lay Citizens

Figure 3 A generic model of the interface between the planning authority, civil society and common citizens. Note. Downward arrows represent the top-down engagement/facilitation of participation Upward arrows represent the bottomup contribution to planning and the scrutiny of agenda. Unbroken arrows represent interface that is enhanced by civil society. Broken arrows represent weaker interface when civil society is bypassed.

Table 1

Focus group participation in the Concept Plan 2001 Members 2 chairmen 27 members (8 are women; 8 with PhD; 1 member of Parliament) Nominated member of parliament and university professor Chief executive ocer of leading property developer 4 4 9 3 3 1 1 2 Members 2 chairmen 29 members (9 women; 3 with PhD; 2 subsequently elected as member of parliament) Partner of architecture practice Chief executive ocer of hospital (subsequently elected as member of parliament and appointed minister) 2 9 1 8 3 6

Focus group on identity versus intensive use of land Chairmen Members University professors Professional bodies/societies (architects, developers, taxis, heritage) Residents/citizens consultative committees (grassroots organisations from dierent locations) Feedback groups Non-government organisations (environment, heritage, international community) Statutory board Policy think-tank Private sector (consultancies) Focus group on land allocation

Chairmen Members University professors Professional bodies/societies (planners, architects, developers, landscape architects, surveyors, retailers) Student oce (university) Feedback groups Non-government organisations (environment, youth, trade) Statutory board Sources: Urban Redevelopment Authority (2000b,c).

and inuence of participants over specic planning issues. Effectiveness refers to the impact that participants have on participation outcomes. This is an

important aspect of participation that can often be overshadowed by the emphasis placed on the process or methods of participation. 39

40
Table 2 Selected planning issues shaped by public participation in the planning process Draft Concept Plan (Participatory process: after focus group consultations and a public forum) Concept Plan 2001 (Participatory process: after draft plan exhibition, feedback and a public dialogue)  High density living: public responded with general receptivity  More homes to be built in city: public raised concerns about affordability and pace of residential development in the city centre  Publics request for more homes in mature estate was incorporated into plan  Public request for greater exibility of new business zoning to be quickly implemented has been incorporated into plan Master Plan 2003 (Participatory process: after subject group consultations, discussion with stakeholder, feedback and draft plan exhibitions) Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen  Higher density living planned for many areas  An additional 114,000 homes planned for in Central region, with a variety of housing types to cater to different income groups and preferences  More homes in mature estates planned for in greater detail  Detailed plans for exible zoning incorporated into Master Plan, which allows for more choices of locations for businesses and employment opportunities in residential estates  Numerous areas identied to be gazetted as nature areas  Extensive network of park-connectors that covers entire island is in the pipeline  Several measures to enhance accessibility of nature areas  Subject groups wishlist of buildings to be gazetted for conservation to be considered  Identity Plan drawn up to include places beyond the historical areas but to new towns and familiar places as well  Further scal incentives to engage private sector to carry out their own conservation to be considered  Guidelines drawn out for new developments to maintain ne grain, low-rise character in some neighbourhoods Residential  High density and integrated developments  Taller buildings in the city centre with plot ratios reaching 8.0 in the new downtown Businesses  More mixed-use developments such as industrial and business parks for integrated worklive-play environment  Continue with decentralisation strategy but review the number of regional centres  Public requests to retain and gazette all nature areas  Expand network of green corridors  Weaving nature into built environment by means of indoor and rooftop gardens  Public in put especially on specic ways to implement plans on identity such as: Drawing up a heritage guide plan to guide efforts in conservation Identifying areas for conservation of built heritage and nature areas Farming out conservation to private sectors  Conservation of entire neighbourhoods (instead of individual buildings) to be considered Sources: Urban Redevelopment Authority (2000b,c, 2001, 2003a, 2003b). Recreation  Identication of several areas to be kept rustic  Expand network of green corridors  Creation of more green spaces and make them accessible Identity  Many ideas taken into consideration as Identity is one main thrust of the Concept Plan  Identity map to be made to activity nodes, landmarks, etc.

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

Measuring the level of actual implementation is one of the assessments of the effectiveness of public participation. In a recent review of the participation process, Sam (2004/05) conducted interviews with a random sample of the 54 Master Plan 2003 subject group members; She concluded that the consultation process was indeed a two-way process, and moves away from top-down hierarchy involving a broad range of stakeholders. The advantages of public participation (including providing information on peoples needs and more scrutiny of plans) seem to signicantly outweigh the disadvantages (such as causing delay, lengthening the plan-making process and issues of condentiality of information). The greatest impact may yet be the opportunity for alternative voices to be heard, and checks and balances to be inserted into an otherwise highly planned scenario. In the Concept Plan 2001, as illustrated in Figure 1, the focus groups interim recommendations went through a further two rounds of public inquiries and a public exhibition of the draft plan before the Concept Plan was nalised. The consultation saw two-thirds of the focus groups recommendation being incorporated into the plan (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001a). Broad strategies of the Concept Plan have been translated into the detailed land-use Master Plan 2003, which provides a framework for actual implementation. The Master Plan itself went through extensive public consultation through focus groups, discussions with stakeholders, draft plan exhibitions and feedback channels including an art competition for school children. More than participation opportunities, Table 2 presents a more qualitative evaluation of participation in planning outcomes. It summarises a selection of the planning issues that the public participation process has shaped from the point when the focus groups for the Concept Plan were rst convened in 2000, to the nal gazette of the statutory Master Plan in 2003. The public has participated in various ways to improve the plan, when they voice their concerns on issues such as affordability of city centre living. Their voices allowed planners insight into the peoples acceptability level of higher density and very high-rise living. The public has also provided local knowledge on specic neighbourhoods and the natural heritage that they wanted to be conserved. Creative solutions and ideas have also been brought up, such as the farming out of conservation to private sectors through tax incentives, and the proposal for a heritage guide plan which have since seen fruition in the Identity Plan that complements the current Master Plan (2003).

Conclusion
As with many other cities, Singapores legacy of highly centralised, top-down decision-making and execution in its public policies has contributed to

the lack of the conducive environment needed for the ourishing of civil society and civic involvement in various socio-political arenas, including that of urban planning. Notwithstanding, with the wave of globalisation and world civil society, the city has actively reached out to the community to participate and bring its voices and suggestions to the plan-making process. Beyond making the case for a more inclusive planning process in which a wider spectrum of the public could participate, more importantly this paper argues for the institution of more rigorous and practical methods to ensure citizens have genuine engagement with urban planning issues, so that public input becomes an essential component that contributes towards policy decisions. There reects the heritage of the literature on the need for public participation in the planning process. In particular, this paper illustrates Singapores recent experience of deliberative citizen participation in the plan-making process in the Concept Plan 2001 and Master Plan 2003, which attempts promoting broad-based community participation through citizens forums and focus groups. In the absence of a strong civil society, the government-aided focus group method of participation offers one way of introducing and including the community in the planning process deliberation. Through the focus groups and forums the community is called to play a greater role in dening the vision of the future city. This technique of public participation garnered appreciation from the participants and the public (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2001), because it was scrupulously executed, with the deliberate decision by the planning authority not to dominate the plan-making process, but to play the supporting role by providing the focus groups with the latitude and resources needed. This is an important aspect of the process design that offers lessons to cities seeking public participation in planning. It is a vital part of consensus building and collaborative learning and partnerships that can build what Randolph (2004, p. 34) terms social capital (networks), intellectual capital (mutual understanding), and political capital (constituencies). Inevitably, as with all deliberative democratic processes, tensions remain over issues such as the inclusivity of focus group consultations, the autonomy of the focus groups, the scope of issues tackled, and the depth of participation itselfeach may be vulnerable to changes in subsequent plans if the implementation of public participation is not formally structured into the planning process through planning guidelines. The formalisation of citizen involvement through ways such as drafting guidelines for the evaluation of the depth and effectiveness of public participation would go some way in setting the tone and environment for enhanced public participation, add further rigor to the participation processes and improve participation outcomes. In the spectrum 41

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen

of public involvement as described by Arnstein (1969), these methods would help serve up authentic participation. References
Akkerman, T, Hager, M and Grin, J (2004) The interactive state: democratisation from above? Political Studies 52, 8295. Almond, G A and Verba, S (1963) The Civic Culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Arnstein, S R (1969) A ladder of citizen participationJournal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 216. Asiaweek, 2000. The people know best: In Singapore, planners dont always get it right. Barnes, M, Newman, J, Knops, A and Sullivan, H (2003) Constituting the public in public participationPublic Administration 81(2), 379399. Burke, E M (1968) Citizen participation strategiesJournal of the American Planning Association 34, 287294. Burby, R J (2003) Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government actionJournal of the American Planning Association 69, 3350. Channelnewsasia (14 Jan 2002), Government defers land reclamation at Pulau Ubin. Available from: <http://habitatnews.nus.edu.sg/news/chekjawa/articles/defer/22.htm>. Chua, B H (1997) Political Legitimacy and Housing: Stakeholding in Singapore. Routledge, London. Chua, B H (2000) The relative autonomies of the state and civil society. In State Society Relations in Singapore, (eds.) G Koh and G L Ooi. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur. Creighton, J L (1992) Involving Citizens in Community Decision Making. A Guidebook. Program for Community Problem Solving, Washington, DC. Dale, O J (1999) Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur. Davidoff, P (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In A Reader in Planning Theory, (ed.) A Faludi. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Douglass, M and Friedmann, J (eds.) (1998) Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Golden Age. Wiley, Chichester. Dryzek, J S (2000) Discursive democracy vs liberal constitutionalism. In Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association, (ed.) M Saward. Routledge, London. Fagence, M (1977) Citizen Participation in Planning. Pergamon Press, New York. Foley, M W and Edwards, B (1996) The paradox of civil societyJournal of Democracy 7, 3852. Forester, J (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Giddens, A (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Polity Press, Cambridge. Glass, J J (1979) Citizen participation in planning: The relationship between objectives and techniquesAmerican Planning Association Journal 45, 180189. Granovetter, M (1973) The strength of weak tiesAmerican Journal of Sociology 78, 13601680. Healey, P (1997) Collaborative Planning: Making Frameworks in Fragmented Societies. Macmillan, London. Hendriks, C (2002) Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: roles, tensions and incentivesAustralian Journal of Public Administration 61(1), 6475. Hirst, P Q (1995) Can secondary associations enhance democratic governance? In Associations and Democracy, (ed.) E O Wright. pp. 101114. Verso, London. Ho, K L (2000a) The Politics of Policy Making in Singapore. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ho, K L (2000b) Citizen participation and policy making in SingaporeAsian Survey 40(3), 436455. Innes, J E (1996) Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive idealJournal of the American Planning Association 62, 460472.

Innes, J E (1998) Information in communicative planningJournal of the American Planning Association 64, 5263. Innes, J E and Booher, D E (2000). Network power in Collaborative Planning. IURD Working Paper Series, Paper WP-2000-01. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Koh, G and Ooi, G L (eds.) (2000) StateSociety Relations in Singapore. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kornhauser, W (1960) The Politics of Mass Society. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Levi, M (1996) Social and unsocial capital: a review essay of Robert Putnams Making Democracy WorkPolitics and Society 24, 4555. Maloney, W, Smith, G and Stoker, G (2000) Social capital and urban governance: Adding a more contextualised top-down perspectivePolitical Studies 49(4), 802820. Meyerson and Baneld (1955) Politics, Planning and the Public Interest. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Newton, K (1999) Social capital and democracy in modern Europe. In Social Capital and European Democracy, (eds.) J W Deth, M Maraf, K Newton and P F Whiteley. Routledge, London. Perry, M, Kong, L and Yeoh, B (1997) Singapore: A Developmental City State. Wiley, Chichester. Purdy, M and Banks, D (1999) Health and Exclusion. Routledge, London. Putnam, R D (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Putnam, R D (1995) Bowling alone: Americas declining social capitalJournal of Democracy 6, 6578. Randolph, J (2004) Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Island Press, Washington, DC. Sam, W L (2004/05). Public Participation in the Singapore Planmaking Process, unpublished BSc dissertation, Dept of Real Estate, National University of Singapore. Selle, P (1999) The transformation of the voluntary sector in Norway. In Social Capital and European Democracy, (eds.) J W Deth, M Maraf, K Newton and P F Whiteley. Routledge, London. Sibley, D (1995) Geographies of Exclusion. Routledge, London. Singam, C (2000) Civic traditions in Singapore: A feminist perspective. In StateSociety Relations in Singapore, (eds.) G Koh and G L Ooi. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Singapore Institute of Planners (2000). Liveable cities: public expectations and expressions. Planews. Available from: <http://www.sip.org.sg/Planews/main1.htm>. Stubbs, R (2001) Performance Legitimacy and Soft Authoritarianism. In Democracy, Human Rights and Civil Society in Southeast Asia, (eds.) A Archaya, B M Frolic and R Stubbs. pp. 3754. Joint Centre for Asia Pacic Studies, York University, Toronto. Swain, J, Finkelstein, V, French, S and Oliver, M (1993) Disabling BarriersEnabling Environments. Sage, London. Tan, T K (2001). Social capital and statecivil relations in Singapore. IPS Working Papers, 9. Institute of Policy Studies. Available from: <http://www.ips.org.sg/pub/wp9.pdf>. Tan, E S and Chiew, S K (1990) Citizen orientation towards political participation in Singapore. In Understanding Singapore Society, (eds.) J H Ong, C K Tong and E S Tan. Times Academic Press, Singapore. Tarrow, S (1996) Making social sciences work across space and time: a critical reection on Robert Putnams Making Democracy WorkAmerican Political Science Review 90, 389 397. Tay, S S C (2001) Business and sustainable development in Southeast AsiaJournal of Business Administration and Policy Analysis 29, 629657. de Tocqueville, A (1968) Democracy in America. Fontana, London. The Straits Times, various issues. The Sunday Times, (22 Nov 1998). Chinatown as a theme park?. UNDP (1997). Empowering People: A Guide to Participation, United Nations.

42

Government-aided participation in planning Singapore: E Y Soh and B Yuen Urban Redevelopment Authority (2000a). Press Release, Speech by Mr. Mah Bow Tan, minister for national development, at the launch of the public consultation phase of the Concept Plan 2001. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2000b). Concept Plan Review Focus Group Consultation Final Report on Land Allocation, URA, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2000c). Concept Plan Review Focus Group Consultation Final Report on Identity versus Intensive Use of Land, URA, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2001). Concept Plan 2001. Available from: <http://www.ura.gov.sg/conceptplan2001/>. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2001a). Skyline, January/February 2001, URA, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2001b). Skyline, July/August 2001, URA, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2002). Parks and Waterbodies and Identity Plan public exhibition pamphlets, URA, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2003a). Master Plan 2003. Available from: <http://www.ura.gov.sg/ppd/gazettedmp2003/ index.htm>. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2003b). Skyline, January/February 2003, URA, Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2004). Skyline, January/February 2004, URA, Singapore. Wapner, P K (1996) Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. State University of New York Press, Albany. Wong, T C (2001) The transformation of Singapores central area: from slums to a global business hubPlanning Practice and Research 16(2), 155170. Yamamoto, T (ed.) (1995) Emerging Civil Society in the Asia Pacic Community: Nongovernmental Underpinnings of the Emerging Asia Pacic Regional Community. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. Yiftachel, O (1995) Planning as control: policy and resistance in a deeply divided societyProgress in Planning 44, 116187.

43