4.1 CRITIQUE

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, itis debatable and can be implemented at the discretion of city planners in terms of viability in Singapore . If Singaporedoes go with the plan, th en 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, i mplementation can be difficult as it is a brown field projectinvolvingscraping and widening roads to incorporate designa ted bus lanes . But once the infrastructure comes in topla y, bus services can improve and frequencies can multiply, thereby saving travel time while keeping pu blic transportation pocket friendly .

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

4.1 CRITIQUE Amongst all the three topics dis cussed 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) , onerealise s that Singapore can fare better in te rms 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 group s and stakeholders only at the beginning for data collection purposes . Inthe in itial stages, inputs ar e important , but public opinion should hold mor e 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 resource s. 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 K ong, 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 endswith citizen control at the very top. Singapore has managed to come somewhere c lose 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 u p 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 -doorplanning process took place

3. Public participation was only seen as a way of infor mation 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 Singapor e can take inspiration from and probably do better than earlierby 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 REC OMMENDATIONS Hong Kong urban planners made sure that the government acted as a bridge between the expert advisory teamand 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

user group. Hong Kong’s road to success in terms of public participation in the development of land use plan 2030 can be summarised in few points:

1. Wide ranging public consultation at every level of planning process for continuous iteration and knowledge of consensus

2. Multiple forms of public consultation by conducting open forum discussions, competitions and training workshops to engage the youth, involving key stakeholders and undertaking focused group di scussions for in depth feedback

3. Stimulating‘what if’ scenarios to encourage critical thinking process

4. Coining objectives of the vision of Hong Kong 2030 b y incorporating public feedback, thereby reaching ‘partnership’ level of public participation

5. Representing the importance of public feedba ck through continuous reference throughout the land use report

6. Conducting three stagesof detailed public consultation pointed out in the appendix of the report highlighting the valuable comments received from the public ’s end

Therefore, looking at how Hong Kong did it right, a f ew points are mentioned below as to how Singapore can improve upon its public participation in the future . Also, the city should not solely rely on the government to conduct extensive public participation activities. In many parts of the world, go vernments takethe help of academicians and NGO workers to connect to the public. Several NGOs, for instance in India and Africa, have grassroot level connect. This means that they know the local people more closely and do not threaten the voice of the co mmons like governments do. NGOs and freelance professionals bridge the gap between the public and the government. In third worldcountries it is the norm since several governments are corrupt and do not connect to the public at large . However, in Singapore , the government can take help not because of trust issues but because of manpower, time and budget issue. Collaborating with them ensuresthat salaries vary , which lessens monetary burden. NGOs work on contractual basis and can help the government bodies to conduct many public participation activities in a quick, efficient and resource saving manner. Therefore, the Singapore government can think of partnerships in making future land use plans. Following are the three recommendations Singapore land use plan can incorporate :

1. Accepting public inputs through active participation across multiple levels of city planning instead o f just in the initial stages. Public participation goes beyond initial information collection .

2. Ensuring public participation from user group and not just expert representatives. Professional input is necessary but so is ground level representation

3. Going up in the Arnstein’s ladder of Public Participation. Just like Hong Kong managed to raise interest in the city planning process by attracting all age groups, Singapore should attempt a similar method. The procedure is more resource consuming but can p rove to be beneficial in the long run .