Alexis Ong
inSing.com - 2 hrs 33 mins ago
The Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize is the quaintest little thing
to cross my Facebook newsfeed in a while, and will probably be the
quaintest new paperweight on New York mayor Bloomberg's desk.
Not just because I (and I dare say most people) have never heard
of the prize – but the way in which Singapore positioned itself to
dish out self-proclaimed prestigious accolades.
Having lived in both cities, I agree that recent public
refurbishments in New York, including public park expansion (the
High Line is pretty spectacular at sunset) and rezoning efforts
have been wonderful examples of thoughtful urban renewal and
attractive urban design.
But isn't it remarkable how these qualities are so
hypocritically ignored in Singapore?
Remember the quiet green oasis on the corner of Orchard and
Scotts Road, the one that allowed pedestrians a nice cool reprieve
from blocks and blocks glass-fronted concrete? Boom! Gone and
replaced by a squat, giant architectural eyesore blasting cold
air-con everywhere, streaming out of open mall doors. And what
about Bukit Brown, let's not even start on that.
Unlike New York, Singapore is hardly a "walking" city; it's hot
and fetidly humid outside, so people crowd indoors, underground,
where pedestrian congestion gets downright claustrophobic. When it
rains, Liat Towers goes swimming. Problems with public transport,
especially the deteriorating taxi situation, are a whole other
gripe.
The S$300,000 prize money should be better spent actually
improving the flood drainage system on Orchard Road so it actually
works.
This leads me to Professor Kishore Mahbubani's remarks about
immigration and how we must learn from New York as a "World City".
Conveniently, the award criteria leaves out certain unsaid
prerequisites – things like civil rights and personal freedoms –
markedly absent from Singapore, which makes this whole award even
more amusing.
One criterion says the city should be experienced in facing
"urban problems". For me, this infers problems beyond structural
and environmental planning and delves well into social issues and
engineering.
For instance, take the issue of public parks. New York expands
public parks and gets a reward. Singapore reduces park acreage in
favor of a third designer store and deems itself worthy of giving
out awards.
The park where ION now squats was a haven for foreign workers to
gather on the weekends. Public sentiment suggested that many
Singaporeans didn't like these congregations.
In New York, cultural enclaves and unique neighborhoods spring
up because the government there is aware that immigrants need their
enclaves, need places to socialize, and deserve to carve out a
place in society.
One of the World City Prize criteria is "creating and
maintaining a cohesive, endearing and involved community." I'm
pretty sure that we can all agree that Singaporeans are trained
from birth to focus on their own educations, careers, and immediate
environments. Professor Mahbubani says that Singapore made a
mistake in thinking that cultural openness and immigration would be
easy, and he's right. It's not.
If we want Singapore to become an admirable Asian capital city,
we have to overcome a few personal prejudices first. New York is a
"vibrant, liveable" city because multiculturalism goes beyond a
national policy.
It's fine to say that Singapore is a cultural melting pot, but
we all know that that's just PC-speak. Professor Mahbubani speaks
of a partnership between citizens and the government. I wonder when
that description could ever describe the dynamic between the
average Singaporean and our government?
My main complaint isn't that Singapore shouldn't give out awards
to much older and established cities around the world. It is that
we don't deserve to have that kind of authority – no city is,
because no city is perfect.
Here's my two cents: if however we're going to name ourselves
experts in city improvement, start small, and start at home.
(Alexis Ong is a freelance writer who's previously written
for Time Out Magazine and CNNGo.)
Why Compare?
Poetic justice.
You are only talking about the good points about New York. Civil
rights and personal freedom? You mean ethnic fiefdoms? New York is
breeding ground for crimes. For years the Italian Mafia have been
dominating the city with construction rackets, protection rackets,
labor rackets, prostitution rackets and extortion rackets.
Every month, the Mafia would kill some rival, cut them into pieces
and bury their body somewhere. Police are corrupted and known to be
mafia henchmen. You forget the Bronx and Queens - not
exactly the liveable parts of New York - in fact the parts that
many people would like to forget. Central Park? Nobody dares to
venture into dare after dark because joggers get raped and people
get robbed.
