Commentary: A questionable honour
-
Alexis Ong
inSing.com - 2 hrs 33 mins agoThe 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.)
-
no space for everyone
-
damn stress.
-
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
damn stress.
Damn clones.
-
No worries about the floods. Environment and Water Resources has a new chief, hopefully they will blow their budget for flood prevention!
-
alamak, why nvr mention NO MONEY NO TALK
-
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
Alexis Ong
inSing.com - 2 hrs 33 mins agoThe 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.
-
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
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.
If Singapore becomes a rojak bastard "world city" then it means there won't be anymore Singapore already wah.
U.S got how many cities? Singapore got how many cities?
Harry Lee Kuan Yew and Kishore Mahbubani are both Singapore minorities, they push for "world city".
But the majority chinese, they want fucking world city or not?