fun into cycling as a way of normal life where it is a natural feeder system for last mile connectivity to bus service or even a mode of transport on its own. In terms of BRT system as an alternative to normal bus routes, it is debatable and can be implemented at the discretion of city planners in terms of viability in Singapore. If Singapore does go with the plan, then the single row of trees on many dividers across the city can double as it will run through both sides of the BRT lines, thereby greening the city even further and providing noise barriers at the same time. However, implementation can be difficult as it is a brown field project involving scraping and widening roads to incorporate designated bus lanes. But once the infrastructure comes into play, bus services can improve and frequencies can multiply, thereby saving travel time while keeping public transportation pocket friendly.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4.1 CRITIQUE Amongst all the three topics discussed in this essay, public participation is where Singapore Land Use Plan 2030 fares the least. On comparing this report to Hong Kong’s Land Use Plan 2030 (Government, 2007), one realises that Singapore can fare better in terms of incorporating the inputs of user group throughout the development of the master plan at multiple levels. What Singapore did, instead, was involve key user groups and stakeholders only at the beginning for data collection purposes. In the initial stages, inputs are important, but public opinion should hold more value than just for primary data collection. Singapore involved only experts at the later stages and could manage the completion of the land use plan in the shortest span of time thereby saving resources. Singapore is lucky because a small city state with limited population means single tier government with greater control unlike countries like India where decision making takes ages due to three tier governments (Central. State and City). However, Hong Kong, Singapore’s counterpart, incorporated public participation in a better manner, even though the resources invested were much more in terms of time and money. As per Sherry Arnstein (Arnstein, 1969), the ladder of public participation starts with manipulation at the lowest rung, followed by therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and ends with citizen control at the very top. Singapore has managed to come somewhere close to consultation which is considered as a degree of tokenism by Sherry. However, Hong Kong has fared better by reaching up to partnership level which is mentioned as a degree of citizen power in the paper. The key critiques why Singapore could not match up to Hong Kong are: 1. Only professionals were involved in the planning process 2. The country resorted to top down approach rather than bottom up and more of a closed-door planning process took place 3. Public participation was only seen as a way of information gathering in the beginning rather than continuous consultation all throughout the planning process In the next section, Hong Kong’s best practices are mentioned to point out where Singapore can take inspiration from and probably do better than earlier by applying some of the learnings. Also, a few suggestions are given from my end to point out how Singapore can incorporate public participation in the planning process based on my experience as an intern at an Indian NGO.
4.2 CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Hong Kong urban planners made sure that the government acted as a bridge between the expert advisory team and the public opinion at large. There were two fundamental levels of public participation involved in the master plan. Inputs of experts were taken to ensure technical accuracy and in depth professional knowledge. Without these guiding principles, planning can fail in the long run. On the other end, common citizens were also involved to give on ground information and represent the concern of the
