Transnational Utopia: Diaspora as Creative Praxis

ing

UTOPI

mana

Sing apore d r e aming Edited by H. Koon Wee & Jeremy Chia F o r e w o r d b y W i l l i a m S .W. L i m

T e r r i t o r y & I m a g i n a t i o n s G e o g r a p h i c a l

Transnational Utopia: Diaspora as Creative Praxis

What might locality mean in a situation where the nationstate faces particular sorts of transnational destabilisation? Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai asks this same question in his influential book Modernity at Large. He contemplates this question by highlighting the “new patriotisms” that involve various “rather puzzling new forms of linkage between diasporic nationalisms, delocalised political communications, and revitalised political commitments at both ends of the diasporic process” (Appadurai, 1996: 178). Discussing the Indian diaspora in the United States, he points out that the work of imagination through which local subjectivity is produced and nurtured is a bewildering palimpsest of highly l ocal and hi ghl y transl o c al co nsi d e rati o ns, to the d e g re e that l ocal i ty i s re nd e re d frag i l e. “ D i asp o ras,” Ap p ad urai (1996: 196) writes, “are changing in light of new forms of electronic mediation.” Projecting into a postnational scenario, philosopher and sociologist Jurgen Habermas puts forth the question of a society that is capable of democratic self-control and selfrealisation beyond the framework of the nation-state. Seeing that the pressure of de-nationalisation in the context of an economically-driven world society is already becoming a

In a somewhat ironic twist of entitlement as a consequence of being away, the Singapore diaspora is forced to contemplate its very condition of voluntary exile. Through navigating the interstitial spaces of the transnational, it acquires a political consciousness. Subject to sustained diasporic conditions of perpetually moving and circulating within the global knowledge network, the Singaporean overseas while being able to access fragments of Singapore, acquire rights that those at home do not yet have, and those other diasporas contracted to the island city-state are excluded from. Preliminarily, one could consider the very predicament of diaspora itself a stance of resistance.

pl ausi bi l i ty vi s-à-v i s a syste m o f sup ranati o nal i nsti tuti o ns and intergovernmental negotiations between member states such as the Eu ro p e an U ni o n, H ab e rmas (2001: 61) ask s “what would a political response to the challenges of the postnational constellation look like?” He alludes to the fact that increasingly interconnected regimes like ASEAN are enough to show why the fundamental action between foreign and domestic policy is growing increasingly blurry for nationstates; and why diplomacy increasingly overlaps with culture s i n g a p o r e

146

d r e a m i n g

E u n ic e M . F . S e n g

or foreign trade policies. In formulating a platform for the Singaporean diaspora, the dual -conce pti on o f the transnati o nal and the p o stnati o nal can be evoked in anticipation of a paradigm of participatory citizenship in the near future. As one who navigates between ci ti e s, the practi ce s o f the transnati o nal c i ti ze nry i nhab i t the i magi ne d mul ti p l e wo rl d s that are co nsti tute d by the hi stori cal l y si tu ate d i mag i nati o ns o f p e rso ns and g ro up s spread around the globe. Could the Singaporean diaspora be

147

T e r r i t o r y

a figure of such a postnational future? To what extent can the actions and activities of those not physically present on the island nation-state be reciprocal and participatory not only in the imagination of the urban development of the city, but

but taking pleasure from the presence of other, different places that are home to other, different people. The cosmopolitan also imagines in such a world not everyone will find it best to stay in their natal patria, so that the circulation

I m a g i n a t i o n s

&

in actual practices and spaces produced within?

to a home of one’s own, with its own cultural particularities,

Previously, in contemplating the question of “Post Traditional E nv ironm ent s in a Post G loba l Wor ld”, the re was an examination of six particular sites in Singapore, namely: 1. Island; 2. Garden; City 3. Housing; 4. Leisure; 5. Travel; and 6. Technology and the endo-colonials (Seng, 2005). These spaces of resistance coexist within, or in some cases, occur

G e o g r a p h i c a l

underneath the veneer of the official nationalist framework, in an attempt to postulate a plausible scenario of purposeful place-making by various collectives with mutual interests. By re-excavating the first three of these six utopias and heterotopias, new contours of the Singaporean diaspora will emerge. Those who reside beyond the physical confines of the island across various time-space can envision other

ISLAND

of people among different localities will involve not only cultural tourism (which the cosmopolitan admits to enjoying) but migration, nomadism, diaspora (Appiah, 1997). Appiah’s point is that in the past, such processes have too often been the result of forces that should be deplored, whe re “the ol d mi g rants we re o fte n re fug e e s, and o l d e r diasporas often began in an involuntary exile.” But he argues that if coerced, what is potentially hateful and undesirable, can be celebrated, when “it flows from the free decisions of individuals or of groups.” What Appiah does not touch upon however, is that for those individuals and communities beyond the realm of

spaces for creative public participation in the environment

“acce ptabl e pub l i c s” (fo r whi c h the e l d e rl y, c hi l d re n,

and social political life of the city.

students and now even women in the general sense) who seek adequate representation in the city, these are more often than not, the product of continual social contestations.

a re liv ing overs ea s . This const it uted 3 .7 p e r ce nt of the

Mul ti pl e othe r co nfi g urati o ns have and are sti l l fo rmi ng

population of 5.312 million population (Tan, 2015). This marked

within the interstices of state control. At present, the island’s

a 27% increase since 2003. However, what these population

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) population,

figures do not reveal is the virtual citizenry that identifies

identified as “Utopians,” is almost equal to the number of

Singapore as home. Based on responses within unmediated

overseas Singaporeans (Elegant, 2003). The first Pink Dot

cyber-forums worldwide, displaced Singaporeans tend to see

SG on 16 May 2009 saw the greatest turnout for a gathering

themselves as “heartlanders,” overthrowing the convenient,

at Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park since its inception.

and rhetorical binary of “heartlanders” versus “cosmopolitan.”

And more recently, reports on the presence of a prostitution

For the international community of Singaporeans who tend

network dwe l l i ng i n p ub l i c ho usi ng e state s thro ug ho ut

to escape accountability by official census, they traverse

the island once again calls into question HDB housing as a

such global spaces as intellectual academies and financial inst it ut ions a s well a s s elf-created a rena s . He re, Anthony Appiah’s notion of the cosmopolitan as the one who moves between the two types offers a momentary way around the t hinking of cit izenr y w it hin t he f ra m ewor k of a nati onal

The cosmopolitan patriot can entertain the possibility of a world in which everyone is a rooted cosmopolitan, attached

148

d r e a m i n g

culture. In his essay “Cosmopolitan Patriots,” he posits:

s i n g a p o r e

As of June 2012, it was reported that over 200,000 Singaporeans

stronghold of the heartland (Chong, 2014; TR, 2015). Concurrently, the island is duplicating itself somewhere else. In 1994, an ope n g ove rnme ntal l eve l co o p e rati o n to o k the form of 80-square - k i l o metre o f the 28 8 - sq uare - k i l o metre Si ngapore -Suzho u Ind ustri al Park (S IP) fo r a p ro j e cte d popul ati on of 1 . 2 mi l l i o n. Co mp l ete wi th tax i s by a Si ngapore Comfo rtD e l g ro sub si d i ary co mp any, fami l i ar hi gh-ri se housi ng b l o c k s and se rv i ce ap artme nts o p e rate d

1 49

T e r r i t o r y

by Singapore-based companies, low-end labour-intensive industries have since been replaced by high-tech and service industries like nanotechnology and finance. It is a piece of Singapore, with the DNA of “administrative efficiency, good

&

infrastructure and a focus on talent,” transplanted onto

I m a g i n a t i o n s

east Suzhou with Singaporean and expatriate professionals tempo rari l y coex i sti n g i n t h i s pl a n n e d co mmu nity a nd sending their children to the Singapore International School (The Straits Times, 2014). Projected for a smaller population of 350,000 in a green township of 30 square kilometres, the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City (SSTEC) is yet another c o o p e ra t i o n

p ro j e c t

b e t we e n

S i n g a p o re

and

Ti a n j i n

G e o g r a p h i c a l

governments. Each holds 50% equity to develop a model sustainable city from a previous polluted wasteland in ten to fifteen years. With 4,000 homes sold and only 20,000 residents have moved there since 2012, the developer claims that it is making “reasonable progress”. It was touted to be a reference for other Chinese cities eager to duplicate some of the eco-city ideas (Koh, 2015).

Si ngapore i nto a co mme rc i al co rri d o r that mo d e l s the Hong Kong-Shenzhen economic zone. It was claimed that the Malaysian planners referenced closely China’s rapid i ndustri al i sati on o f the Pe arl R i ve r D e l ta e co no mi c zo ne. In 2006, authorities in Kuala Lumpur identified the Johor border zone as one of Malaysia’s five special economic corridors, just as Shenzhen was singled out as one of China’s five special economic zones in 1979 (Berriford, 2013). Three times the size of Singapore, Iskandar comprises Kulaijaya, Pontian, Johor Bahru and Sungal Tiram. It makes investment sense to many because it complements the island city-state’s new economic direction, with sharp rises in housing prices and education creating a natural pool of demand for lowcost living within commuting distance. Nusajaya, the central residential zone, overlooks the water towards the Singapore sky l i ne. Wi thi n o nl y a 45 - mi nute d ri ve fro m S i ng ap o re ’s Changi airport, it is planned as a residential metropolis with educational, medical and theme-park infrastructure, to attract resident migrants from Singapore. “The ‘build it and they will come’ model of investment has yielded impressive results

The island city-state, as a model through cooperation or

both in Singapore [and] the synergies between Iskandar and

reference for cities in China and Asia, produces a significant

Singapore [includes] joint government financial commitment

number of individuals and families circulating between

to ensure its success” (Berriford, 2013).

these cities. Serving as technical experts and consultants or In another place where economic inequity prevails, Singapore

or simply just taking up a new post in a familiar company

expe rt companie s e nte r as maste r p l anni ng co nsul tants.

structure but in another city for some overseas living

In Andhra Prasdesh, southeastern India, Surbana International

experiences, they are temporary residents in these other

Consultants (previously part of the Housing Development

Singapore spaces. With a population of 15 million, Shenzhen

Board, HD B) a nd J uro ng Inte rnati o nal are he l p i ng to

“learns a lot” from Singapore, according to the city’s Party

develop a master plan that will transform swathes of farm

Se cret ary Wa n g Ron g . S e e i n g pa ra l l e l s i n t h e two cit ies

and non-farm land into a modern city of high-rise buildings

economic development and infrastructure, he acknowledges

and othe r ame ni ti e s (G anap athy, 2015 ). In i ts new c ap i tal

getting advice from experts in Singapore for Shenzhen’s

city of Vijayawada, a Singapore-based realtor company is

infrastructure development and the “management of society” (TODAY O n l i n e, 2 01 4 ) . N o tw i t h st a n di n g, at 1 , 9 0 0 s qua re kilometres, almost three times the area of Singapore, the city in the Guangdong province is part of a regional schema of rapid industrialisation in the Pearl River Delta.

t o S i n g a p o re w h e n M a l a y s i a b e g a n i t s e f f o r t s o n a n u rbanisati on p roj ect to t ra n sfo r m t h e bo rde r zone nea r

150

d r e a m i n g

This “learning from” another city or region saw a return back

s i n g a p o r e

starting up new headquarters or branches for their offices

planning a 500-hectare amusement island named Sentosa (Rao, 2007; Reddem, 2015). Hyderabad-based development company Malaxmi Group provides the infrastructure and hospitality projects including an integrated luxury residential and commercial project. The targeted demographic for the residents in Sentosa are professional and upper class Indian citizens and diaspora, including those in Singapore who feel that it would be a worthwhile investment.

151

T e r r i t o r y

As a real and imagined place, Singapore is no longer limited to the 718-square-kilometre size of the island, but it spans n a t i o n a l b o rd e r s , u n d e r g o i n g re m a p p i n g a n d ex p a n d i n g through duplication. Aihwa Ong (2006) calls Singapore a

city” travel destination be, a probable explanation for the perpetual diaspora longing for home that in many cases, could never be realised, despite the multiple other Singapore spaces that are simultaneously occurring? “The best thing

&

case that is “larger than the island itself, since the pairing

Could its selection as the “top country” but not the “top

I m a g i n a t i o n s

of ne o lib era l l og i c a n d a u t h o r i t a r i a n co nt ro l i n A s ia ha s produced some of the most radical experimentations with social engineering.” “In Singapore Inc.,” she writes, “we have a case of management theories informing social engineering as policy makers mobilising market expertise and scientific research to transform Singapore into a hub for biotechnicity. Singapore now positions itself as the [knowledge] hub of a

G e o g r a p h i c a l

wider Asian region of 2.8 billion people within a flight radius of seven hours that is also well connected by sea and digital links.” Ong (2006: 179-180) uses the term “baroque ecology” to describe the spatial formation that repositions the citystate as “a hub in an ecosystem created from the mobilisation of diverse global elements – knowledge, practices, and actors – interacting a high level of performance.”

after all, usually comes at a price,” said the Award committee. To put in perspective Singapore’s paradoxical invention of home, another contemplation of the garden city is pertinent.

GARDEN CITY

The Singaporean diaspora is a conundrum. Just as one almost never refer to the Jews as the Israeli diaspora, the imagination of a Singaporean diaspora is also ethnic and predominantly Chinese, notwithstanding its institutionalised multi-ethnic make-up. But if there is one element in which the overseas Singaporean directly relates to and is produced from, it is the appellation of the Garden City. In 2002, National Parks registered an independent charity named Garden City Fund (GCF), with the mission: “Let’s Make Singapore Our Garden.” Thi s i s the State ’s e ffo rt to c al l up o n c i v i c p arti c i p ati o n i n “re al i si ng the v i si o n o f the g ard e n c i ty.” S i nce the n,

Amid overlapping commitments, the identity of the mobile

donati ons from i ts co rp o rate sp o nso rs, mo stl y l e d by the

flexible citizen emerges as a wandering agent carrying superior

heads of the companies, have been directed to four areas:

technical knowledge and capable of transforming his or her

the enhancement of existing spaces or projects, outreach,

surroundings. Back on the island, state authorities continue

conse rvati on an d re se arc h and e d uc ati o n p ro g ramme s.

to privilege the globally marketable subject who has to be

Of the corporate partners, only very few donated more than

induced to spend time in Singapore, through environmental

a hundred thousand Singapore dollars, with Coca-Cola in the

enh ance m ents a n d “ wo r l d c l a ss prov i s i o n s ” i n hous ing,

lead, followed by ExxonMobile, HSBC, OCBC, Sembcorp and

infrastructure and services. The simultaneous occurrence of

Singapore Technologies. Now, one can literally claim a stake

the diaspora and dependence on inflows of “foreign talent”

in public space by owning a tree in a public park. For example,

has complicates the question of home and what “homecoming”

the head of the Shaw Foundation has his own century-

ent ails. O n g i d enti f i es t h i s a s a s pl i t i n de fi n i t ions of

old tembusu tree named after him in the Botanic Gardens

“homeland” and “dwelling” (2006: 193). For those who have

since 2004.

towards the environment and a sensitivity towards the cultural to which they have to adapt or assimilate even if temporarily, the longing for home is perplexing. Lonely Planet awarded Singapore the Best Travel Destination (Mosbergen, 2014). This award came soon after the country was declared the world’s most expensive city in 2014, beating Tokyo, accord i n g to th e Eco n o mi c I nte l l i ge n ce U nit (E I U).

152

d r e a m i n g

Award in 2015: “Singapore is always celebrating something”

s i n g a p o r e

been thrust beyond the tropical isle and cultivated a resilience

The de pl oy me nt o f g re e ni ng to attract fo re i g n i nve sto rs itself is not at all new. It is the modus operandi since the first tree-planting campaign launched by Lee Kuan Yew in 1963, and expanded into a two-prong garden city plan of cleansing the city, and educating and civilising the citizenry since the nation-building years (The Straits Times, 1967). It was also a productive and lucrative strategy to placate the maelstrom of 1960s Independence politics. Ministers and community leaders who had been leading the tree-planting drive, have

153

T e r r i t o r y

since shared the task with heads of corporations. The visible implications of this are consistent with the national strategy of h andli n g of p u b l i c pa rce l s to pr i vate ow n e rship a nd enterprise. The many tree-like, previously wholly State-owned

this trajectory to the end, there will be no public space left. The space of civil society will be completely subsumed by the market. The idea of each citizen having a public stake on the Garden City is overturned.

&

public enterprises including mass transportation and power,

“public” spaces of everyday life are ubiquitous. Following

I m a g i n a t i o n s

and by inference public property, is now owned by a private individual, albeit symbolically. In 2009, the National Environment Agency (MEWR, 2009) rele ase d th e S u sta i n a b l e S i n g a p o re B l ue p r i nt , w hich s et s targets for sustainable development until 2030, specifically in recycling and air quality. That year, architectural firm WOHA

G e o g r a p h i c a l

collaborated with the National University of Singapore (NUS) to explore future scenarios for Singapore, as part of the Icsid World Design Congress, “Design Difference: Designing our World 2050.” They called architects and planners to re-emerge from their “oblivion” and to take an active role in envisioning the future of Singapore. They felt that since Singapore is only a forty-year old invention, it can easily

HOUSING

Nowhere else is this more evident than in housing. Since the introduction of the Home Ownership Scheme in the 1960s, the flat, supposedly the last vestige of private life, has been systematically corroborated in the reproduction of private life in the public arena of the State; its inhabitants sorted out on the basis of income, marital status, family structure, and the unspoken but acknowledged quota of racial distribution. As the i nte ri or sp i l l s o utsi d e, i n the fo rm o f o b j e cts, activities and events, the Housing Development Board (HDB) responds reflexively, developing guidelines to regulate such domestic extensions and incorporate them in the planning of subsequent blocks and estates. Domesticity, a private matter, is a public affair.

be re-invented. WOHA presented a Coastal Protection Ring CPR2100 masterplan, whereby existing housing typologies

Domesticity turns inside out is given full public exposure

are “renovated” through cross-programming to produce new

through the exh i b i ti o n p ro j e ct o f the P i nnac l e at D uxto n

types such as residential power plants, multilevel factory

Pl ai n. The seve n co nne cte d 5 0- sto ry b l o c k s and two sky

c a l l e d a g r i - v i l l a g e s , a n d re s o r t d i ke s . A rc h i t e c t s w i e l d

gardens of 500 meters each was won by Arc Studio with RSP

governmental power in the development of the island. Their

Architects in an international competition that saw over 200

world in 2050 is organised in four continents where Singapore

e ntri e s. Constructi o n b e g an i n 2005 , the same ye ar whe n

is part of a union of states and territories called Australasia.

the Design, Build, and Sell Scheme (DBSS) was announced,

Led by a fictional Resources Redevelopment Administration

allowing private developers to participate in providing public

(RDA) in Singapore, by 2050 the administration of the island

housing. It was suspended in 2011 following protests against

as part of a global environment of landmasses, takes priority

the high sale of a flat. Ironically, the recent resale of flats at

over national sovereignty.

the Duxton Plain public housing project sees prices in the range of a million dollars, superseding the DBSS ones. Yet,

and the Public Environment,” Cindi Katz (2006: 106) argues that privatisation of previously free and public spaces on a world scale speaks of an individualist neoliberal politics of ch o ice rath er th an a ny n o t i o n o f pu bl i c o r collect ive responsibility for social reproduction. She laments that, “as vanishing point, social reproduction is hounded into private space or secured in increasingly privatised “public” spaces of everyday life” (Katz, 2006: 113). In Singapore, such privatised

154

d r e a m i n g

public investment in public outdoor space is deferred to the

s i n g a p o r e

In her essay “Power, Space, and Terror: Social Reproduction

there are no complaints. What seems to be different here is that, despite being a public housing scheme, the Pinnacle i s, from the mo me nt o f the co mp eti ti o n, an i co n b ui l t to celebrate HDB’s housing achievements, a culmination of ideas ranging from the fulfillment of Le Corbusier’s interconnected sky gardens to the dissociation of public housing as working cl ass to provi ng that S i ng ap o re to o, l i ke H o ng Ko ng , c an build high and dense.

155

T e r r i t o r y

As strategically-timed upgrading projects are taking place in older HDB estates under the Major Upgrading Programme (MUP), and pre-emptive multi-generational housing strategies are put in place, a reverse phenomenon of diaspora is taking

&

place at the Pinnacle. A quick review of property sites show

I m a g i n a t i o n s

almost over 10% of the 1800 units are being rented out, which under the HDB regulations, meant that a good number of the owners of these units are most likely to be living overseas. In their place are foreigners, many of whom are expatriate professionals working in the Central Business District. Meanwhile, those who remained and held out for five years have or are becoming millionaires. This is unprecedented.

G e o g r a p h i c a l

When public housing becomes million dollar homes, what are the new challenges for housing policy? A recent historical drawing analysis and research project of the older Toa Payoh New Town by SKEW Collaborative reveals similar contradictions and ideals of the housing policies and forms of Singapore (see Fig. 1). This work was included in a recent exhibition held at Para Site (2015) Gallery in North Point, Hong Kong, bearing the title “A Luxury We Cannot Afford.” This phrase was taken from a speech by former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1968 at the then University of Singapore, and a poetry anthology of the same title printed

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous Overlap lines) with sit plan in 1968 dotted line)lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) of existing site plan(in(continuous EXISTING PLAN OF TOAplan PAYOH WITHNew 1958 SIT PLANwith OVERLAY (DASHED LINE)overlay Fig. 1b SITE Existing site ofNEW ToaTOWN, Payoh Town 1958 SIT plan

by Math Paper Press in 2014. The exhibition uses popular

(dashed lines).

The vertical rectangular inset is shown in Fig. 1a.

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line)

culture, economic and urban planning history, and art of the 1950s/60s and 2000s – two historical moments in which HDB

Singapore was at the brink of economic utopia – to reflect on the formation, development, and paradoxes of the national

LEGEND

HDB

SIT (SINGAPORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST) 1927-1959

ideology. Housing and the Garden City were two visible components and tropes of the exhibition.

HDB

SIT

s i n g a p o r e

Constructed in two phases between 1964 and 1987, Toa Payoh co nt ain s th e m a j ori ty o f h o u s i n g ex pe r i me nt at i o n w it hin the nation-state, especially in terms of the organisation of the land, the introduction of the “neighbourhood principle,” the building of a variety of high-rise typological blocks, a n d t h e a l m o s t c o m p l e t e t ra n s p l a n t a t i o n o f d i a s p o r i c plan comprising a town park and an industrial complex at its heart, and bounded by four major roadways in the cardinal directions, it beckons a utopic spatial analysis. In contrast to

156

Fig. 1a Inset detail of site plan: Void Deck Planned Utopias Toa Payoh

BLOCK

TREES

contour

PUBLIC AMENITY

ROAD

TOPOGRAPHY

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous sit plan in 1968 (in dotted Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines)lines) withwith sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) line) Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line)

HDB (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD) 1960-PRESENT

HDBHDB

HDB

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) contour PUBLIC SERVICES ROAD OPEN SPACE S I T BLOCK W/ VOID DECK BLOCK W/O VOID DECK

d r e a m i n g

communities through resettlement and reallocation. With a

contour

SIT

TOWN PARK

TREES

HDB/MUP (MAJOR UPGRADING PROGRAM) 1990-PRESENT

(Drawings & Diagrams courtesy of Author and SKEW Collaborative)

contour contour SIT

SIT SIT

157

HDB MSCP

SAI

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) LUP PRECINT IMPROVEMENTS

contour

T e r r i t o r y & I m a g i n a t i o n s G e o g r a p h i c a l

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous Overlap lines) with sit plan in 1968 dotted line)lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) of existing site plan(in(continuous

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line)

EXISTING SITE PLAN OF TOA PAYOH NEW TOWN, WITH 1958 SIT PLAN OVERLAY (DASHED LINE)

HDB HDB

Legend LEGENDHDBOverlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line)

LEGEND SIT (SINGAPORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST) HDB

1927-1959

SIT (SINGAPORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST) 1927-1959

HDB

SIT

contour

SIT

HDB

SIT

SIT

contour

contour

contour PUBLIC AMENITY

TOPOGRAPHY

HDB (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD) 1960-PRESENT Overlap of existing site plan (continuous sit plan in 1968 (in dotted Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines)lines) withwith sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) line)

TOPOGRAPHY

BLOCK

TREES

ROAD

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous sit plan in 1968 (in dotted Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines)lines) withwith sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) line) Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line)

BLOCK

TREES

PUBLIC AMENITY

ROAD

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line)

HDB (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD) 1960-PRESENT HDBHDB

HDB

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) contour HDB W/ VOID DECK BLOCK W/O VOID DECK PUBLIC SERVICES OPEN SPACE existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit planROAD in 1968 (in dotted line) S I Overlap T BLOCK of contour BLOCK W/ VOID DECK BLOCK W/O VOID DECK PUBLIC SERVICES ROAD OPEN SPACE S I THDB/MUP (MAJOR UPGRADING PROGRAM) 1990-PRESENT HDBHDB

IT S I T S HDB/MUP

(MAJOR UPGRADING PROGRAM)

TOWN PARK

contour contour 1990-PRESENT SIT

contour contour Fig. 1c Void Deck Narratives & Legend SIT

plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) SAI Overlap of existing site LUP PRECINT IMPROVEMENTS (SPACE-ADDING ITEM (LIFT UPGRADING EG. COVERED WALKWAY, EG. KITCHEN EXTENSION, PROGRAM) PAVILION, ETC. TOILET, ETC.) Overlap of existing site plan (continuous lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) SAI LUP PRECINT IMPROVEMENTS (SPACE-ADDING ITEM (LIFT UPGRADING EG. COVERED WALKWAY, EG. KITCHEN EXTENSION, PROGRAM) PAVILION, ETC. TOILET, ETC.) HDB

TREES

contour contour

SIT SIT

MSCP (MULTI-STORY CAR PARK) MSCP (MULTI-STORY CAR PARK)

TREES

TOWN PARK

158

d r e a m i n g

B

Overlap of existing site plan (continuous Overlap lines) with sit plan in 1968 dotted line)lines) with sit plan in 1968 (in dotted line) of existing site plan(in(continuous EXISTING SITE PLAN OF TOA PAYOH NEW TOWN, WITH 1958 SIT PLAN OVERLAY (DASHED LINE)

s i n g a p o r e

B

Narratives

(Drawings & Diagrams courtesy of Author and SKEW Collaborative)

159

T e r r i t o r y

HDB’s supremely rationalised plan, an unrealised sketch plan of Toa Payoh in 1958 by the colonial Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) showed a large idyllic garden city suburb with no definitive centre or traffic boundaries. Housing blocks were

&

d e sign e d to l i n e th e m e a n de r i n g ro a ds , o r i e nte d i n multiple

I m a g i n a t i o n s

directions in an aesthetic manner. Entitled “Void Deck: Planned Utopias, Toa Payoh,” the drawing is t h e o u tcom e of a re s e a rc h , a n a l y t i c a l a n d s peculat ive process based on the premise of redrawing what Toa Payoh could have been, if it was planned based on multiple paradigms. It is an excavation of the urban social and technological

G e o g r a p h i c a l

ideologies behind Toa Payoh as articulated through the evolution of its plan. It absorbs plans from a variety of m i le sto n e p eri od s i n t h e h i sto r y o f t h e c i ty, co m bining conflicted ideas of picturesque Garden City planning from a colonial planning office, technically and climatically efficient execution from a nationalist government, and politically legitimate and democratic persuasions from a regime trying

de cks carve d out o f the ex i sti ng ho usi ng b l o c k s. G ro und s are reworked and return to more topographic definition with terracing and urban furniture; and roofs are converted into community decks and gardens. Roads are reclaimed for the pe de stri ans as they g et cove re d , p l ante d , ove rg rown and paved. The figures of the SIT low-rise housing flats clustered around small quadrangles and play areas are recalled back as urban ruins, as follies for play and gathering places. The sce nari os p o si te d i n “ Vo i d D e c k : P l anne d U to p i as” are spe cul ati ve rathe r than no stal g i c . The p ro ce d ure o f superimposition makes visible via collisions in the plan, the rationalities behind the housing and planning designs. With the majority of the population already housed, architectural add-ons under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP)  –  also reflected in the drawing  –  which would otherwise seem random, piecemeal and reactionary, gain their raison d’etre i n re i nforci ng t he state ’s p e rsi ste nt stak i ng o f p o l i ti c al legitimacy through housing. The critical questions on housing

to stay in power. Taking the archaeological approach using

are integral to positions on citizenship and migrancy. “Void

the colonial SIT plan of 1958 and HDB subsequent plan (1967-

Deck” calls the status of the housing estate as home and the

75) and the present-day plan (2014), it hypothesises that

limits of domestic and communal spaces to question. Whose

the earliest unrealised plan was imbued with latent humanist

home? Is housing social or political? Whose society, or whose

tendencies that were replaced by a different set of ideas on

politics? When there is no longer any space or desire for

community in the new plan by HDB under the nationalist

contestation between the private and the communal, what

fram e. It p rop oses th at t h e i nte rs e ct i o n s o f t h e two pla ns

place or role is left for the individual in the private and public

instigates particular moments of juxtapositions and collisions

sphere? Perhaps a paradigmatic shift as such is timely.

of co mm u n al sp a ces na r rate d by t h e co nt i n u o u s ground floor void deck, which in this place and time promises new possibilities for the re-imagination of public spaces within the housing setting.

the drawing assembles and narrates architectural plans of the raised pilotis in housing blocks alongside a variety of speculative open spaces to reveal a rich and continuous public ground plane, never before documented in conventional urban plans of Singapore. The humanist elements of the the people, such as more variety of ground surfaces – from colonnade-like void decks to larger overgrown patches and d ive rse pathway typ es a n d text u re s ; a n d c re ate more void

160

d r e a m i n g

aborted SIT plans are deployed to trigger more spaces for

s i n g a p o r e

Using a swath of Toa Payoh that cuts through the town centre,

The housing estate as home is undergoing reconfiguration. For many foreign-born residents, it is clear that the islandstate is just one of several options in their plans. For those locally born and bred who are geographically and economically mobile under the employment of transnational corporations, many have bases or outposts in Singapore. The conception of housing as hotel for them does not seem far-fetched. For the majority of the Chinese and Asian diaspora in Singapore, public housing offers a safe environment that could see them through their employment and children’s schooling years. For Singaporeans back on vacation at their parents’ HDB home, the flat is the place of childhood memories. Moving from home to hotel, and hotel to home, the diaspora confronts the tensions between such classifications as “heartlander,” “local” and “foreign.”

161

T e r r i t o r y

Singapore-based corporation CapitaLand, with 56 properties and over 10,000 units in 20 Chinese cities, owns Ascott Limited w hich ha s t hree bra nds   –  t he prem ier A s cott Re si de nce, Citadines Apartment Hotel and Somerset Serviced Apartment.

&

The serviced residences house mostly foreign guests staying

I m a g i n a t i o n s

between three months to a year. Through the temporal figure of the diaspora, leisure and housing intersects in a way that defies a linear narrative of a nationhood based on housing as st a keholding. Singa porea ns , too, a re a ble to fi nd a fami l i ar 3-room flat configuration on their travels abroad. There is a n integra l relat ions hip between the l ocati on of

G e o g r a p h i c a l

A s cott s er v ice a pa r t m ent s a nd t he regional fl i ght route s of the Singapore Airlines. In China, an Ascott Residence is opened following each of the airline’s destination. With ten more and over twenty Citadines and Somerset Serviced Apartments scheduled to open, the transnational status of the Ascott is irrefutable. At 110 square metres, a twobedroom deluxe is practically the same size as the 104 square

travel narratives documented in Facebook, Instagram, QQ, We chat, bl ogs and twe ets. Its ano ny mi ty affo rd s i t the flexibility to navigate between the regimes of the neoliberal space s of gl obal c ap i tal and the d i sc i p l i ne d i nte ri o ri ty o f the nation. The diaspora-citizen embodies the simultaneous selves of the postcolonised, the excolonised, and the endocol oni se d. The p o stco l o ni al b o d y e mb race s and rewo rk s traces of the colonial, for example, Indians’ love for cricket. The excol oni al re j e cts and i s ave rse to no n- i nd i g e no us impositions. The endo-colonial, as defined by Paul Virilio and Sylvère Lotringer (2002), is the modified technologised body that has undergone, and is still undergoing, modification, likened to a form of training of drill. In social terms, this class of Singapore citizens exhibits the “biopolitical nature of the new paradigm of power ” that is drawn to and controlled by capital, in this case, Singaporeeducated, well-skilled, and state-endorsed. Michael Hardt

metres for a three-bedroom flat at the Pinnacle. Plugged into

and Antonio Negri note that a certain self-disciplinary body

the network of air travel and local traffic infrastructure and

can posse ss a fo rm o f “ b i o p owe r ” that re g ul ate s so c i al

urban development, Ascott’s service apartment appears to

life from its interior, an idea they extrapolate from Michel

be Singa pore’s res pons e to Ma rc Auge’s readi ng of transi t

Foucault. Singaporeans are indeed well known for their well-

spaces as non-places. From the city centre to the Changi

mannered and non-descript disposition when they travel,

International Airport, and to one of Ascott’s home away from

which is an extension of a self-regulated system discipline

home, Auge’s transit spaces of long passages and passenger

and performance. This notion of “biopolitics” implies that the

waiting rooms are somehow crowded out and covered by

task of policing will be left to the individual, who has been

t he t ra ns nat iona l networ k of infor m at ion and acti vi ti e s

disciplined and is expected to exercise correct judgment in

t hat bolster t he lim ina lity of t he dia s pora . The di scourse

the politics of daily life. However, this post-discipline body is

of the airport, a well-traversed space of the diaspora, as

also an empowered subject – highly reflexive to the changes

a conceivable place in which memories and the everyday

and innuendos within a world completely governed by global

are enacted, is no longer new. What is new, perhaps, is the

capital, traversing its interstitial spaces.

162

d r e a m i n g

Confronted with new social contingencies  -  especially the rising discontentment amongst the youths as evidenced by a recent newspaper survey which showed a startling 60% of them wishing to emigrate when they have a chance  -  the G olden Jubilee celebrat ion of a nat ion b ui l ds upon the drea m s a nd des ires of a heterogeneous p e opl e s that i s diaspora by definition, invites a renewed questioning of its fragments. Who speaks in the name of the nation? Can the diaspora speak?

s i n g a p o r e

remaking of places through global travel infrastructure.

DIASPORA AS RESISTANCE

In some ways, t he d i asp o ra has sp o ke n and acte d , i n the

In June 2015, the Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU, 2015) put up a World Map on its website for Singaporeans residing outside the island nation to “keep up to date” and to “locate a SG50 celebration near [them].” The OSU initiated a SG50 “Icons of Singapore” list at the beginning of the year and invited various writers to contribute, including their own onl i ne te am. O f fi c i al l y l aunc he d i n 2006 fro m the P ri me Mi ni ste r ’s O ffi ce (P M O), i t i s p art o f the g ove rnme nt ’s efforts to engage its citizens overseas. The forty-five “icons”

163

T e r r i t o r y

range from places to things to people to stories and ideas. While most of these are iconic mainly in the eyes of those who have grown up in Singapore or at least spent some time living there, at least two have long been participating in the global

in the course of the occupation. An overview of the messages scribbled on the ground and the walls show individuals and groups of many nationalities expressing their support for the students. Within the time-space of illegal occupation

&

Singapore Inc.: the Botanic Gardens and HDB. The Botanic

question of human rights including housing were articulated

of publ i c prope rty, the S i ng ap o re an d i asp o ra, as wi th the

I m a g i n a t i o n s

Gardens (Icon #27) was opened in 1829. It was where South American rubber seedlings were first transplanted in 1877, and also the first UNESCO World Heritage Site in Singapore. The HDB (Icon #12) was founded in 1960 and responsible for the development and housing of 85% of the population. I t wa s la uded a s t he m ost s uccessf ul a nd compre he nsi ve public housing program in the world. Formal analyses of both

Speaker ’s Corner at Hong Lim Park, a space designated for demonstrations, Hong Kongers were only allowed to observe, not participate. The Singaporean diaspora is afforded the choice to decide whether he or she would partake in an illegal activity, but its counterpart is not (see Fig. 2).

G e o g r a p h i c a l

reveal the planning and developmental logic for the garden

others, could move freely and anonymously. Conversely, in

city-state island nation. Whereas the previous analysis in “Utopia and Euphoria” (Seng, 2005: 39-57) discussed the citizens of the Garden City a nd inha bit a nt s of HDB s pa ces a s resi sti ng the pl an and engineered environments, these spaces are now part of

In a somewhat ironic twist of entitlement as a consequence of being away, the Singapore diaspora is forced to contemplate its very condition of voluntary exile. Through navigating the interstitial spaces of the transnational, it acquires a political consci ousne ss. S ub j e ct to sustai ne d d i asp o ri c co nd i ti o ns of pe rpetual l y mov i ng and c i rc ul ati ng wi thi n the g l o b al

a larger global system of places, knowledge and expertise,

knowledge network, the Singaporean overseas while being

reproduced and reappearing in miniature or as duplicates and

able to access fragments of Singapore, acquire rights that

modified versions – other Singapore spaces. Because public

those at home do not yet have, and those other diasporas Fig. 2 Multilingual Posters at Occupy Central, 2014 (Image courtesy of Author).

housing as with all its other major provisions is propped up by state power, Singapore is able to boast of its successful

domestic workers) contracted to the island city-state are

housing program very early on, speeding past Hong Kong, its

excluded from. Preliminarily, one could consider the very

closest rival in terms of economy, development and housing.

predicament of diaspora itself a stance of resistance. If 1965

With HDB as state enterprise and main housing developer,

was a milestone for a Singaporean diaspora, then, to quote

builder and landlord, providing maintenance and upgrading

art curator, poet and writer Okwui Enwezor (2009):

service to homeowners, the lack of housing, one of the main sources of social discontent, is contained. Citizens owning

The formation of a diaspora could be articulated as the

HDB flats could hold on to them when they are temporarily

quintessential journey into becoming; a process marked

residing overseas if they adhere to the subletting regulations.

by incessant re gro upi ngs , re c re at i o ns , a nd re i te rat i o n.

Those who give up their citizenship give up the right to public

Together these stressed actions strive to open up new spaces

housing ownership. I t is per ha ps a pt to clos e w it h a br ief ref lecti on on the prodemocracy movement in Hong Kong in late 2014. For almost three months from September 28, a highway and adjoining families, visitors, journalists, observers and commuters and a myriad other representations. Whereas the right to vote was the main issue of contention, related issues pertaining to the

164

of discursive and performative postcolonial consciousness.

d r e a m i n g

streets were blockaded and filled with protestors, supporters,

s i n g a p o r e

“

I n a somewhat ironic twist of entitlement as a consequence of being away, the Singapore diaspora is forced to contemplate its very condition of voluntary exile.

(such as the So uth Asi an l ab o re rs and S o uthe ast Asi an

165

Singapore Land Authority (SLA). 2015. “Vision, Mission and Values.” Ministry of Law, Government of Singapore, 4 June 2015. Accessed 1 Aug 2015. http://www.sla.gov.sg/AboutSLA/Vision,MissionandValues.aspx#.VbzzhU0w-Hs

G e o g r a p h i c a l I m a gi n a t i o n s a n d T e r r i t o r y

Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). 2014. “Two lose HDB flats for renting them to tourists.” In MyPaper. Accessed 6 Nov 2014. http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/two-lose-hdb-flats-renting-them-tourists

Andaya, Barbara Watson and Andaya, Leonard. 1982. A History of Malaysia. London: Macmillan Publishers.

Sloterdijk, Peter. 2011. Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology. Los Angeles, Semiotext(e).

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 1997. “Cosmopolitan Patriots.” In Critical Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 3, Spring: 618.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 178-9.

Tan, Kok Meng. 2000. Asian Architects Volume 1. Singapore: Select Publishing.

Baratham, Gopal. 1999. Untitled article. In Silver Kris, Official magazine of Singapore Airlines.

Tan, Kok Meng. 2001. Asian Architects Volume 2. Singapore: Select Publishing.

Bassett, D. K. 1960. “The ‘Amboyna Massacre’ of 1623.” In Journal of Southeast Asian History Vol. 1, No.2: 1-19.

Tay, Daniel. 2014. “Evictions? Regulations? Taxes? How can Singapore deal with sites like Airbnb?” In TechinAsia. Accessed 6 Nov 2014. https://www.techinasia.com/evictions-regulations-taxes-singapore-deal-sites-airbnb/

Bastin, John. 2014. Raffles and Hastings; Private exchanges behind the founding of Singapore. Singapore: National Library Board / Marshall Cavendish Editions.

Tierney, John. 2008. “Fanisi’s Choice.” In The Development Economics Reader, edited by Giorgio Secondi. London: Routledge: 18-19.

Berriford, Carl. 2013. “Iskandar follows the Shenzhen Script.” In South China Morning Post, 20 June. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.scmp.com/business/money/markets-investing/article/1257278/iskandar-follows-shenzhen-script

Tng, Serene and Tan, Serene (eds). 2012. “Designing Our City: Planning for a Sustainable Singapore.” URA Skyline Newsletter Supplement, July 2012: 7. Toynbee, Arnold J. 1960. A Study of History. London, NY, Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Borschberg, Peter (ed) and Roy, Roopanjali (tr). 2014. The Memoirs and Memorials of Jacques de Coutre; Security, trade and society in 16 th -17 th century Southeast Asia. Singapore: NUS Press.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (UN DESA). 2014. Concise Report on the World Population Situation 2014: 1-2. Accessed 23 Oct 2014. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Concise%20 Report%20on%20the%20World%20Population%20Situation%202014/en.pdf

Chan, Heng Chee and Evers, Hans-Dieter. 1978. “National Identity and Nation Building in Singapore.” In Studies in ASEAN sociology: Urban Society and Social Change. Edited by Chen, Peter S.J. & Evers, Hans-Dieter. Singapore: Chopmen Enterprises: 123.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (DESA). 2014. World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2014 Revision, CD-ROM Edition.

Chong, Elena. 2014. “Four jailed for vice offences in HDB flats: Two flats in Woodlands used as ‘brothels’ for prostitutes from China.” In The Straits Times, 13 December.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2014. Industry Leaders, including Energy Companies, Forge Partnerships to Advance Climate Solutions and Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Accessed 4 Nov 2014. http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/ uploads/sites/2/2014/05/INDUSTRY-PR.pdf

Christensen, Andreas Egelund and Gough, Katherine V. 2012. “Island Mobilities: Spatial and Social Mobility on Ontong Java, Solomon Islands.” In Geografisk Tidsskrift 112: 52-62.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2014. Description of the Green Climate Fund. Accessed 23 Oct 2014. http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/green_climate_fund/items/5869.php

Coope, A.E. 1936. “The Kangchu system in Johore.” In Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol. 14, No.3: 247-63.

Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA). 1991. Living the Next Lap: Towards a Tropical City of Excellence. Ministry of National Development.

Dobbs, Stephen. 2003. The Singapore River: a social history 1819-2002. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Urban Redevelopment Agency, Singapore. 2015. Streets for People: Guidelines + Application Manual. Singapore: PubliCity Public Spaces in our City, June. Accessed 1 May 2015. https://www.ura.gov.sg/MS/publicity/events/Streets-For-People/Resources.aspx.

Elegant, Simon. 2003. “The Lion in Winter.” In Time Asia Magazine, 7 July.

Van Schaik, Leon, and Watson, Fleur. 2015. “Pavilions, Pop-Ups and Parasols.” In AD No. 235, May/June 2015.

Fernando, M.R. and Bulbeck, David. 2009. “Chinese Traders in the Villages.” In The Indonesia Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Edited by Hellwig, Tineke and Tagliacozzo, Eric. London: Duke University Press. 197-201.

Van Schaik, Leon. 2005. Mastering Architecture. Chichester: Wiley: 106, 234. Van Schaik, Leon. 2014. Against another arts ghetto. Accessed 5 Jan 2015. http://architecture.artshub.com.au/news-article/opinions-and-analysis/ architecture/against-another-arts-ghetto-198137 Van Schaik, Leon. 2015. Practical Poetics in Architecture. Chichester: Wiley. Yoshida, Nobuyuki (ed). 2012. “Feature: Singapore, Capital City for Vertical Green.” Architecture and Urbanism, Special Edition. Yue, Audrey and Khan, Rimi. 2015. “New Approaches to Cultural Measurement: On Cultural Value, Cultural Participation and Cultural Diversity.” In Making Culture Count: The Politics of Cultural Measurement (New Directions in Cultural Policy Research). Edited by MacDowall, Lachlan; Bardham, Marnie and Blomkamp, Emma. London: Palgrave.

Borschberg, Peter. 2009. The Singapore and Malacca Straits: violence, security and diplomacy in the 17 th century. Singapore: NUS Press.

Coe, Neil M. and Kelly, Philip F. 2000. “Distance and Discourse in the Local Labour Market: The Case of Singapore.” In Area 32: 413-22. Curtin, P. D. 1984. Cross-cultural trade in world history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Enwezor, Okwui and Okeke-Agulu, Chika. 2009. Contemporary African Art Since 1980. Bologna: Damiani.

Foucault, Michel. 1997. “Society Must be Defended.” Lectures at the College de France 1975-76. Edited by Bertaini, Mauro and Fontana, Alessandro. Translated by Macey, David. New York: Picador: 239-64. Ganapathy, Nirmala. 2015. “2 S’pore firms to shape Indian state’s capital city: Andhra Pradesh project aims to establish S’pore brand.” In The Straits Times, 13 January. Glick Schiller, Nina. 2012. “Transnationality, Migrants and Cities: A Comparative Approach.” In Beyond Methodological Nationalism: Research Methodologies for Cross-border Studies. Edited by Nergiz, Devrimsel and Thomas, Faist. London: Routledge: 23-40. Goh, Chok Tong. 1997. Global City, Best Home, National Day Rally Speech, 24 August. Accessed 28 Sep 2014. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/1997/240897.htm Goh, Chok Tong. 1999. First-world economy, world-class home, National Day Rally Speech, 22 August. Accessed 25 May 2015. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/view-html?filename=1999082202.htm Goh, Chok Tong. 2001. New Singapore, National Day Rally Speech, 19 August. Accessed 16 Dec 2014. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/view-html?filename=2001081903.htm Goh, Chok Tong. 2002. Remaking Singapore – Changing Mindsets, National Day Rally Speech, 18 August. Accessed 28 Sep 2014. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/view-html?filename=2002081805.htm (date). Goh, Keng Swee. 1972. “Cities as Modernizers.” In The economics of modernization and other essays. Singapore: Asia Pacific Press: 19-30. Habermas, Jurgen. 2001. “The Postnational Constellation and the Future of Democracy.” In The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Edited and translated by Pensky, Max. Cambridge: Polity Press: 61. Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Harper, Timothy N. 1997. “Globalism and the Pursuit of Authenticity in Singapore.” In Sojourn 12: 261-292. Heng, Derek. 2009. “Tan Tai Yong: Singapore’s 700-year history.” In The Straits Times, 6 July. Hui, Weng Tat. 1997. “Regionalization, Economic Restructuring and Labour Migration in Singapore.” In International Migration 35: 109-130. Imran bin Tajudeen. 2005. “Reading the Traditional City in Maritime Southeast Asia: The Port Town of Gelam-Rochor-Kallang 1810-1842.” In Journal of Southeast Asian Architecture Vol. 8: 1-25. Imran bin Tajudeen. 2007. “State Constructs of Ethnicity in the Reinvention of Malay-Indonesian Heritage in Singapore.” In Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review Vol. 18, No.2: 7-27.

326

327

Imran bin Tajudeen. 2011. “‘Spirit of Place’ as a Critique of Tableau: Recuperated Ruins and Re-inscribed Identity in the Expunged Citadels of Melaka, Palembang and Makassar.” In Penser et pratiquer l’esprit du lieu / Reflecting on and Practicing the Spirit of Place. Edited by Forget, Célia. Quebec City: Presses de l’Université Laval: 1-21. Imran bin Tajudeen. 2012. “Beyond Racialized Representation: Architectural Linguæ Francæ and Urban Histories in the Kampung Houses and Shophouses of Melaka and Singapore.” In Colonial Frames, Nationalist Histories. Edited by Desai, Madhuri and Rajagopalan, Mrinalini. Farnham, England; Burlington, USA: Ashgate: 213-52. Institute of Policy Studies (IPS). 2015. IPS Study on Perceptions of Singapore’s History. Accessed 8 Nov 2015. http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/news/ips-study-on-perceptions-of-singapores-history

Rao, Ch Sushil. 2007. “A Sentosa in mana Hyderabad?” In The Times of India, 27 May. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/A-Sentosa-in-mana-Hyderabad/articleshow/2076896.cms Reddem, Appaji. 2015. “It’s Sentosa Frenzy in A.P. capital region.” In The Hindu, 24 Jan. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/its-sentosa-frenzy-in-ap-capital-region/article6817128.ece Reid, Anthony. 1983. “The Rise of Makassar.” In Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, Vol. 17: 117-60. Reid, Anthony. 1990a. “An ‘Age of Commerce’ in Southeast Asian History.” In Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1: 1-30. Reid, Anthony. 1990b. “The Seventeenth-Century Crisis in Southeast Asia.” In Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 24, No.4: 639-59.

Kahn, Joel. 2006. Other Malays: nationalism and cosmopolitanism in the modern Malay world. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Ricklefs, Merle C. 2008. A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1200. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kathirithamby-Wells, Jeyamalar. 2005. Nature and Nation: Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia. NIAS Press.

Seng. Eunice. 2005. “Utopia or Euphoria: Six Sites of Resistance in Disneyland and Singapore.” In Traditional Dwelling and Settlements Review, Vol. 16, No. 2: 39-57.

Katz, Cindi. 2006. “Power, Space, and Terror: Social Reproduction and the Public Environment.” In The Politics of Public Space. Edited by Low, Setha and Smith, Neil. New York: Routledge: 106. King, Russell and Connell, John (eds). 1999. Small Worlds, Global Lives: Islands and Migration. London: Pinter. Koh, Jeremy. 2015. “’Reasonable Progress’ at Tianjin Eco-city: Developer.” In Channel News Asia, 13 May. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/reasonable-progress-at/1844762.html Kratoska, Paul H. (ed). 2001. South East Asia Colonial History, Vol. 1. Imperialism before 1800. New York: Routledge. Kwa, Chong Guan. 2006. “Why did Tengku Hussein sign the 1819 Treaty with Stamford Raffles.” In Malays / Muslims in Singapore; Selected readings in history, 1819-1965. Edited by Khoo, Kay Kim; Elinah Abdullah and Wan, Meng Hao. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications; Singapore: Association of Muslim Professionals/ Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs: 1-35. Kwa, Chong Guan. 2007. “Writing Singapore’s history; From City-State to Global City.” In S Rajaratnam on Singapore; From Ideas to Reality. Edited by Kwa, Chong Guan. Singapore: World Scientific/Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies: 165-177. Kwa, Chong Guan. 2010. “Singapura as a central place in Malay history and identity.” In Singapore from Temasek to the 21 century; Reinventing the Global City. Edited by Hack, Karl; Margolin, Jean-Louis and Delaye, Karine. Singapore: NUS Press: 133-154. st

Kwa, Chong Guan. 2015. “A new generation rewrites history, doubts Singapore’s vulnerability.” In The Straits Times, 31 January. Kwa, Chong Guan; Heng, Derek and Tan, Tai Yong. 2009. Singapore: A 700-Year History - From Early Emporium To World City. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore. Lee, Hsien Loong. 2014. A Tale of Two Cities. Speech presented at Lord Mayor’s Dinner, London. Accessed 1 Dec 2015. http://www.pmo.gov.sg/media-release/transcript-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong’s-speech-lord-mayor’s-dinner-27-march-2014

Sennett, Richard. 2001. “New Capitalism, New Isolation: A Flexible City of Strangers.” In Le Monde diplomatique. Accessed 25 May 2015. http://mondediplo.com/2001/02/16cities Swettenham, Frank. 1906. British Malaya; An account of the origin and progress of British influence in Malaya. London: George Allen & Unwin. Tan, Theresa. 2012. “200,000 S’poreans living abroad, up 27% from 2003.” In The Straits Times, 14 October. Accessed 2 Feb 2015. http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/200000-singaporeans-living-abroad-27-2003-20121014 Temasek Review Emeritus (TR). 2015. “1500 foreign prostitutes living in HDB heartlands.” In TR Emeritus: The Voice of Singaporeans for Singapore. Accessed 2 Feb 2015. http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/21/1500-foreign-prostitutes-living-in-hdb-heartlands/ The Straits Times. 1967. “S’pore to become beautiful, clean city within three years.” In The Straits Times, 12 May. Accessed 2 Feb 2015. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19670512-1.2.20.aspx The Straits Times. 2014. “Suzhou Industrial Park: 10 Things to Know About the China-Singapore Project.” In The Straits Times, 25 October. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/suzhou-industrial-park-10-things-to-know-about-the-china-singapore-project Thomas, G.S.P. 1991. “Geology and Geomorphology of Singapore.” In The biophysical environment of Singapore. Edited by Chia, L.S, Rahman, A. and Tay, D.B.S. Singapore: Singapore University Press. TODAY Online. 2014. ‘Shenzhen looks to Singapore to solve its problems’. In TODAY Online, 13 September. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/shenzhen-looks-singapore-solve-its-problems-0 Trocki, Carl. 1976. “The Origins of the Kangchu System 1740-1860.” In Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 49, No. 2: 132-55. Trocki, Carl. 1987. “The Rise of Singapore’s Great Opium Syndicate, 1840-86.” In Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 18, No.1, Mar: 58-80.

Lee, Kuan Yew. 2000. The Wit and Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet Pte Ltd.

Trocki, Carl. 2002. “Opium and the Beginnings of Chinese Capitalism in Southeast Asia.” In Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2: 297-314.

Legge, J.D. 1992. “The Writing of Southeast Asian History.” In The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume One, Part One, from Early Times to c.1500. Edited by Tarling, Nicholas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1-50.

Trocki, Carl. 2007. Prince of Pirates: the Temenggongs and the development of Johor and Singapore, 1784-1885. Singapore: NUS Press.

Leirissa, R. Z. 1993. “The Structure of Makassar-Bugis Trade in Pre-modern Moluccas.” In Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 27/1-2.

Vos, Reinout. 1993. Gentle Janus, Merchant Prince: The Voc and the Tightrope of Diplomacy in the Malay World, 1740-1800. Leiden: KITLV Press.

Low, Donald. 2013. “Has the ‘global city’ vision reached its end date?” In The Straits Times, 28 August.

Warrington, Edward & Milne, David. 2007. “Island History and Governance.” In A World of Islands: An Island Studies Reader. Edited by Baldacchino, Godfrey. Malta and Canada: Agenda Academic and Institute of Island Studies: 379-427.

Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR). 2009. Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2009. Mosbergen, Dominique. 2014. “Singapore Named Lonely Planet’s Top Country To Visit In 2015.” In The Huffington Post, 21 October. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/singapore-lonely-planet-top-country-travel_n_6019318.html Muhammad Haji Salleh. 1994. Syair tantangan Singapura abad kesembilan belas. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Noorduyn, J. 2000. “The Wajorese merchant’s community in Makassar.” In Authority and Enterprise: transactions, traditions and texts among the Bugis, Makasarese and Selayarese. Edited by Van Dijk, C. and Tol, Roger. Leiden, KITLV Press: 55-71.

Virilio, Paul and Lotringer, Sylvère. 2002. Crepuscular Dawn. Translated by Taormina, Mike. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e): 100-1.

Wild, Chris. 2015. Circa 30,000-0 B.C. Prehistoric sex toys. Accessed 8 Nov 2015. http://mashable.com/2015/01/13/prehistoric-sex-toys/#ERry2252OkqV Wolters, Oliver W. 1999. History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asian Program, in cooperation with The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Wong, Lin Ken. 2003. The Trade of Singapore: 1819-69. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

Ong, Aihwa. 2006. Neoliberalism as exception: mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham and London: Duke University Press: 179-80.

Yeo, George Y.B. 1991. “Civic Society – Between the Family and the State.” In Speeches 91: A Bimonthly Selection of Ministerial Speeches 15. Singapore: Ministry of Information and the Arts: 78-86.

Oswin, Natalie & Yeoh, Brenda S.A. 2010. “Introduction to the Special issue: Mobile City Singapore.” In Mobilities 5: 167-75.

Yeoh, Brenda .S.A. and Chang, Tou Chuang. 2001. “Globalising Singapore: Debating Transnational Flows in the city.” In Urban Studies 38: 1025-1044.

Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU). 2015. “National Day Celebrations 2015: NDP Celebrations Around the World.” Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.overseassingaporean.sg/articles/d/national-day-2015

Yeoh, Brenda .S.A. and Willis, Katie. 2005. State/Nation/Transnation: Perspectives on Transnationalism in the Asia-Pacific. London and New York: Routledge.

Para Site. 2015. “A Luxury We Cannot Afford.” Exhibition Catalogue. Accessed 2 Sep 2015. http://www.para-site.org.hk/en/exhibitions/a-luxury-we-cannot-afford

Yeoh, Brenda .S.A. 1996. Contesting Space: Power Relations and the Urban Built Environment in Singapore. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Yong, Charissa. 2015. “Is Singapore’s History in our Future?” In The Straits Times, 31 January.

Pelras, Christian. 1996. The Bugis. Oxford; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Poelinggomang Edward L. 1993. “The Dutch Trade Policy and its Impact on Makassar’s Trade.” In Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, Vol. 27, No.1-2: 61-76. Proudfoot, Ian. 1993. Early Malay printed books: a provisional account of materials published in the Singapore-Malaysia area up to 1920, noting holdings in major public collections. Kuala Lumpur: Academy of Malay Studies and the Library, University of Malaya. Raffles, Sophia. 1830. Memoir of the life and public services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. London: John Murray. Raja Ali al-Haji Riau. 1991. Tuhfat Al-Nafis: sejarah Melayu-Islam. Translated by Hooker, Virgina Matheson. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Rajaratnam, S. 1972. “Singapore: Global City.” In The Straits Times, 7 February.

328

329