FROM A GOODS CITY TO THE GOOD CITY: PUBLIC CONTESTATIONS OF URBAN SPACE IN SINGAPORE

Abstract

Under the ‘new normal’ of Singapore politics, the unprecedented numbers of urban contestations in Singapore signify a shift from merely materialistic claims to space that appears to be converging on a nascent Singapore right to the city. What is this Singapore right to the city? To what extent can different groups of urban inhabitants in Singapore gain access (material, social and political) to the city in actuality? This dissertation explores these questions through the analysis of five NIMBY-related urban contestations, in particular the communicative processes involved in the negotiation of the contested sites. The NIMBY cases are revealed to be simultaneously LULU cases; therefore they have a spatial dimension that remained unaddressed. Findings point to the inadequacy of the current planning approach of “decide-announce-defend” in meeting the complex demands of urban planning in Singapore. The self-sabotaging deliberative process is unable to address the systemic inequalities of the planning system. It offers only tokenistic citizen participation in a limited sphere of discourse; the application of the model is indiscriminately applied to all types of land contestations resulting in universal solutions that seldom resolve any real issues; and officials remain in rigid bureaucratic roles while reinforcing the materialistic demands of citizens. These are compounded by the pervasive utilitarian ethic of urban planning that is not fully able to address issues of social equity and spatial injustice. Even as state and citizen give every indication to move towards an image of a ‘good city’, in the pursuit of a more equitable city and broader social goals, the underdeveloped and limited planning process is hindering or even reversing these efforts.