Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper examines how the concept of participation in planning has been constructed by state and nonstate actors in the politico-institutional context of Singapore. Our objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the political dynamics shaping ideas about participation, and the impact of these contested constructions on the perpetuation of the ruling party's political control. Drawing on strategic-relational institutionalist planning and cultural political economy theories, we analyze 312 documents including government and civil society periodicals, parliamentary debates, and academic publications, focusing on the planning and participatory practices of Singapore's national planning agency from the mid-1980s to 2020. The findings reveal that state-led coalitions continuously reframed participation as an instrument of economic growth, nation-building, and activism-management, while nonstate-led coalitions emerged to transform state-civil society relations through promoting and materializing alternative meanings of participation. These dynamics demonstrate the potentialities and limitations of democratizing urban planning and governance in Singapore's hybrid regime.

Keywords

citizen participation public participation discourse analysis political hegemony planning history

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allmendinger

Phil

Haughton

Graham

. 2010. “Spatial Planning, Devolution, and New Planning Spaces.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28 (5): 803–18. doi: 10.1068/c09163.

Balakrishnan

Vivian

. 2001. Quoted in Urban Redevelopment Authority. “Ideas to Shape our Future.” Skyline, January/February, 2–5. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

Castell

Pål

. 2016. “Institutional Framing of Citizen Initiatives: A Challenge for Advancing Public Participation in Sweden.” International Planning Studies 21 (4): 305–16. doi: 10.1080/13563475.2015.1124756.

Chhotray

Vasudha

Stoker

Gerry

. 2010. Governance Theory and Practice: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chia

Siow Yue

. 2001. “Singapore: Towards a Knowledge-Based Economy.” In Industrial Restructuring in East Asia: Towards the 21st Century, edited by Masuyama

Seiichi

Vandenbrink

Donna

Chia

Siow Yue

, 169–208. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Cho

Im Sik

Križnik

Blaž

. 2017. Community-Based Urban Development: Evolving Urban Paradigms in Singapore and Seoul. Singapore: Springer.

Chong

Terence

. 2006. “Embodying Society's Best: Hegel and the Singapore State.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 36 (3): 283–304. doi: 10.1080/00472330680000181.

Chong

Terence

. 2012. “A Return to Normal Politics: Singapore General Elections 2011.” Southeast Asian Affairs 2012: 283–98. doi: 10.1355/9789814380256-020.

Chua

Beng Huat

. 1995. Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.

10.

Chua

Beng Huat

. 2017. Liberalism Disavowed: Communitarianism and State Capitalism in Singapore. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

11.

CLC (Centre for Liveable Cities). 2014. Liveable and Sustainable Cities: A Framework. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities and Civil Service College.

12.

CLC (Centre for Liveable Cities). 2017. Planning for Communities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities and the Seoul Institute.

13.

CLC (Centre for Liveable Cities). 2018. Engaging Well, Forging Bonds: The Community as Stakeholders in Urban Development. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.

14.

Coe

Neil M.

2003. “Information Highways and Digital Divides: The Evolving ICT Landscapes of Southeast Asia.” In Southeast Asia Transformed: A Geography of Change, edited by Chia

Lin Sien

, 317–54. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

15.

Cornwall

Andrea

. 2008. “Unpacking ‘Participation’: Models, Meanings and Practices.” Community Development Journal 43 (3): 269–83. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsn010.

16.

Davidoff

Paul

. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (4): 331–8. doi: 10.1080/01944366508978187.

17.

Dhanabalan

Suppiah

. 1989. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 53, Sitting 5, col. 317, March 16.

18.

DiMaggio

Paul J.

Powell

Walter W.

. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago (Ill.): University of Chicago Press.

19.

Eusofe

Othman Haron

. 1988. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 50, Sitting 11, col. 852, March 16.

20.

Fairclough

Norman

. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.

21.

Focus Group on Identity versus Intensive Use of Land. 2000. Identity versus Intensive Use of Land: Final Report, December 22. Singapore: Ministry of National Development.

22.

Focus Group on Land Allocation. 2000. Land Allocation: Final Report, December 22. Singapore: Ministry of National Development.

23.

Forester

John

. 2000. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.

24.

Fox

Russell Arben

. 1997. “Confucian and Communitarian Responses to Liberal Democracy.” The Review of Politics 59 (3): 561–92. doi: 10.1017/S0034670500027728.

25.

Geh

Min

. 2015. “Interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities.” Transcript. Centre for Liveable Cities, November 27. Quoted in Centre for Liveable Cities. 2018. Engaging Well, Forging Bonds: The Community as Stakeholders in Urban Development. Urban Systems Studies. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.

26.

Giulio

Moini

. 2017. “Participation, Neoliberalism and Depoliticisation of Public Action.” SocietàMutamentoPolitica 8 (15): 129. doi: 10.13128/SMP-20853.

27.

Goh

Chok Tong

. 1999. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 71, Sitting 4, cols. 347–53, October 13.

28.

González

Sara

Healey

Patsy

. 2005. “A Sociological Institutionalist Approach to the Study of Innovation in Governance Capacity.” Urban Studies 42 (11): 2055–69. doi: 10.1080/00420980500279778.

29.

Hajer

Maarten A.

2003. “A Frame in the Fields: Policymaking and the Reinvention of Politics.” In Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, edited by Hajer

Maarten A.

Wagenaar

Hendrik

, 88–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Hall

Peter

Taylor

Rosemary

. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44 (5): 936–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x.

31.

Haque

M. Shamsul

. 2004. “Governance and Bureaucracy in Singapore: Contemporary Reforms and Implications.” International Political Science Review 25 (2): 227–40. doi: 10.1177/0192512104042314.

32.

Healey

Patsy

. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

33.

Healey

Patsy

. 1998. “Building Institutional Capacity Through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 30 (9): 1531–46. doi: 10.1068/a301531.

34.

Healey

Patsy

. 2006. “Transforming Governance: Challenges of Institutional Adaptation and A New Politics of Space.” European Planning Studies 14 (3): 299–320. doi: 10.1080/09654310500420792.

35.

Hillier

Jean

. 2003. “Agonizing on Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals Can Not Be ‘Real’.” Planning Theory 2 (1): 37–59. doi: 10.1177/1473095203002001005.

36.

Khai Leong

. 2000. “Citizen Participation and Policy Making in Singapore.” Asian Survey 40 (3): 436–55. doi: 10.2307/3021155.

37.

Peter

. 2020. “Planning Together to Emerge Stronger: Reflections from Mr Peter Ho, Chairman, Urban Redevelopment Authority.” Urban Redevelopment Authority Annual Report 2019/2020, 3–5.

38.

Hoe

Su Fern

Liu

Jacqueline

. 2016. “Full Report on Roundtable on Place Management and Placemaking in Singapore.” Research Collection School of Social Sciences (Paper 2215). Accessed September 4, 2019. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2215.

39.

Richard

. 1993. “Speech by Dr Richard Hu, Minister for Finance and National Development, at the Launch of the Publications on Preservation and Conservation.” Speech transcript. National Archives of Singapore, August 11. Accessed September 29, 2020. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/httr19930811s.pdf.

40.

Richard

. 1994. “Speech by Dr Richard Hu, Minister for Finance of the Republic of Singapore, at the World Infrastructure Forum, Jakarta.” Speech transcript. National Archives of Singapore, October 19. Accessed September 4, 2019. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/httr19941019s.pdf.

41.

Huang

Jianli

. 2014. “Resurgent Spirits of Civil Society Activism: Rediscovering the Bukit Brown Cemetery in Singapore.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 87 (2): 21–45. doi: 10.1353/ras.2014.0016.

42.

Huxley

Margo

. 2013. “Historicizing Planning, Problematizing Participation.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (5): 1527–41. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12045.

43.

Ichioka

Sarah

. 2020. “When did Placemaking Become a Private Business Matter?” Indesignlive, November 12. Accessed May 12, 2021. https://www.indesignlive.com/the-ideas/privatised-placemaking-singapore.

44.

Immanuel

Anitha

. 2015. “Improving Public Spaces through Public-Private Partnership.” Skyline Issue 1, 11–14. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

45.

Inch

Andy

. 2012. “Creating ‘a Generation of NIMBYs’? Interpreting the Role of the State in Managing the Politics of Urban Development.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30 (3): 520–35. doi: 10.1068/c11156.

46.

Innes

Judith E.

Booher

David E.

. 2004. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for The 21st Century.” Planning Theory & Practice 5 (4): 419–36. doi: 10.1080/1464935042000293170.

47.

Jalal

Adib

. 2014. “PubliCity for the Public's City.” Justinzhuang.com. Accessed June 21, 2019. http://justinzhuang.com/posts/publicity-for-the-publics-city.

48.

Jayasuriya

Kanishka

Rodan

Garry

. 2007. “Beyond Hybrid Regimes: More Participation, Less Contestation in Southeast Asia.” Democratization 14 (5): 773–94. doi: 10.1080/13510340701635647.

49.

Kausikan

Bilahari

. 1995. “An Asian Approach to Human Rights.” Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 89: 146–52. doi: 10.1017/S0272503700083956.

50.

Kausikan

Bilahari

. 1997. “Hong Kong, Singapore, and ‘Asian Values’.” Journal of Democracy 8 (2): 9–10. doi: 10.1353/jod.1997.0030.

51.

Khaw

Boon Wan

. 2011. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 88, Sitting 1, col. 42, October 10.

52.

Khoo

Cheng Lim

. 2001. “Message from the Chairman.” Urban Redevelopment Authority Annual Report 2000/2001, 7–8.

53.

Khor

Amy

. 2009. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 85, Sitting 15, col. 2866, February 11.

54.

Kong

Lily

Yeoh

Brenda S. A.

. 2003. The Politics of Landscapes in Singapore: Constructions of “Nation”. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

55.

Lane

Marcus B

. 2005. “Public Participation in Planning: An Intellectual History.” Australian Geographer 36 (3): 283–99. doi: 10.1080/00049180500325694.

56.

Leal

Pablo Alejandro

. 2007. “Participation: The Ascendancy of a Buzzword in the Neo-Liberal Era.” Development in Practice 17 (4-5): 539–48. doi: 10.1080/09614520701469518.

57.

Lee

Kah-Wee

. 2010. “Regulating Design in Singapore: A Survey of the Government Land Sales (GLS) Programme.” Environment and Planning C, Government & Policy 28 (1): 145–64. doi: 10.1068/c08132.

58.

Lee

Yi Shyan

. 2012. “Speech by Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Senior Minister of State for National Development & Trade and Industry at the Official Launch of Singapore River One.” Speech transcript. Urban Redevelopment Authority, August 13. Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/2012/pr12-86.html.

59.

Lee

Jack Tsen-Ta

. 2015. “We Built This City: Public Participation in Land Use Decisions in Singapore.” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 10 (2): 213–34. doi: 10.1017/asjcl.2015.15.

60.

Leong

Lena

. 2011. “Developing Our Approach To Public Engagement.” Ethos Issue 10, October 1. Accessed February 22, 2019. https://www.csc.gov.sg/articles/developing-our-approach-to-public-engagement.

61.

Liew

Kai Khiun

Pang

Natalie

. 2015. “Neoliberal Visions, Post-Capitalist Memories: Heritage Politics and the Counter-Mapping of Singapore’s Cityscape.” Ethnography 16 (3): 331–51. doi: 10.1177/1466138114552939.

62.

Lim

Jan H. M.

Yeung

Larry

Van den Broeck

Pieter

. 2022. “Building Communities Through Neighbourhood-Based Participatory Planning in Singapore.” In Emerging Civic Urbanisms in Asia: Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, and Taipei Beyond Developmental Urbanisation, edited by Cho

Im Sik

Križnik

Blaž

Hou

Jeffrey

, 221–244. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

63.

Liow

Eugene Dili

. 2012. “The Neoliberal-Developmental State: Singapore as Case Study.” Critical Sociology 38 (2): 241–64. doi: 10.1177/0896920511419900.

64.

Low

Penny

. 2014. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 91, Sitting 11, URA Master Plan section, para. 1, March 10.

65.

Lowndes

Vivien

Roberts

Mark

. 2013. Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

66.

Mah

Bow Tan

. 2000a. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 71, Sitting 17, col. 2064, March 13.

67.

Mah

Bow Tan

. 2000b. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 71, Sitting 11, cols. 1140–1141, March 6.

68.

Mah

Bow Tan

. 2000c. “Pitching in to Shape Singapore's Future.” Speech transcript. National Archives of Singapore, August 26. Accessed March 16, 2021. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/2000082601.htm.

69.

Mah

Bow Tan

. 2001a. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 73, Sitting 8, col. 960, March 13.

70.

Mah

Bow Tan

. 2001b. “Concept Plan Review: Final Report of Focus Group on Land Allocation.” Land Allocation: Final Report, December 22, 2000, iv. Singapore: Ministry of National Development.

71.

Mah

Bow Tan

. 2002. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 74, Sitting 13, col. 1635, May 18.

72.

Mah

Bow Tan

. 2017. “Interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities.” Transcript. Centre for Liveable Cities, October 10, 2017. Quoted in Centre for Liveable Cities. 2018. Engaging Well, Forging Bonds: The Community as Stakeholders in Urban Development. Urban Systems Studies. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities.

73.

McClymont

Katie

. 2011. “Revitalising the Political: Development Control and Agonism in Planning Practice.” Planning Theory 10 (3): 239–56. doi: 10.1177/1473095211399398.

74.

Metzger

Jonathan

Allmendinger

Philip

Oosterlynck

Stijn

. 2015. Planning Against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance. New York: Routledge.

75.

MND (Ministry of National Development). 1985. “Redevelopment of the Singapore River Area.” Press release. Ministry of National Development, September 8, 1985. Accessed September 29, 2020. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/19850908_0002.pdf.

76.

Mouat

Clare

Legacy

Crystal

March

Alan

. 2013. “The Problem is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory's Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes.” Urban Policy and Research 31 (2): 150–66. doi: 10.1080/08111146.2013.776496.

77.

Moulaert

Frank

. 2005. “Institutional Economics and Planning Theory: A Partnership Between Ostriches.” Planning Theory 4 (1): 21–32. doi: 10.1177/1473095205051440.

78.

Mulchand

Arti

Chong

Wan Ping

. 2012. “Five-Year Plan to Rejuvenate the Singapore River.” Skyline, July/August, 6–10. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

79.

Naidu

Dinesh

. 2017. “Creating Special Bonds with Public Spaces.” Urban Solutions Issue 11, 15–23. Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/urban-solutions/urb-sol-iss-11-pdfs/interview-ng-lang.pdf.

80.

Michelle

Lee

Michelle

. 2017. “Urban Activism is on the Rise.” Skyline Issue 7, 38–41. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

81.

Noh

Abdillah

Tumin

Makmor

. 2009. “Remaking Public Participation: The Case of Singapore.” Asian Social Science 4 (7): 19–32. doi: 10.5539/ass.v4n7p19.

82.

NSS (Nature Society Singapore). 2010. The Green Corridor: A Proposal to Keep the Railway Lands as a Continuous Green Corridor. Singapore: Nature Society Singapore.

83.

Ong

David

. 2014. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 92, Sitting 5, Debate on President’s Address section, May 29.

84.

Ong

Ye Kung

. 2018. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 94, Sitting 63, Productive and Engaged Public Service section, March 1.

85.

Oosterlynck

Stijn

Swyngedouw

Erik

. 2010. “Noise Reduction: The Postpolitical Quandary at Brussels Airport.” Environment and Planning A 42 (7): 1577–94. doi: 10.1068/a42269.

86.

Ortmann

Stephan

. 2019. “The Growing Challenge of Pluralism and Political Activism: Shifts in the Hegemonic Discourse in Singapore.” In The Limits of Authoritarian Governance in Singapore's Developmental State, edited by Zubaidah Rahim

Lily

Barr

Michael D.

, 173–194. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

87.

Paidakaki

Angeliki

Moulaert

Frank

Van den Broeck

Pieter

. 2018. “Exploring the Politico-Institutional Dimension of Social Innovation to Repoliticize Urban Governance Arrangements.” In Social Innovation in Urban and Regional Research, edited by Franz

Yvonne

Blotevogel

Hans-Heinrich

Danielzyk

Rainer

, 11–21. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

88.

Peters

B. Guy

. 2016. “Institutional Theory.” In Handbook on Theories of Governance, edited by Torfing

Jacob

Ansell

Christopher K.

, 323–335. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

89.

Public Service Division. 2020. “The SG Together Guide.” Challenge Issue 7, January 23. Accessed December 30, 2020. https://www.psd.gov.sg/challenge/ideas/deep-dive/singapore-together-pullout-guide-to-citizen-engagement.

90.

Sadoway

David

. 2013. “How are ICTs Transforming Civic Space in Singapore? Changing Civic–Cyber Environmentalism in the Island City-State.” Journal of Creative Communications 8 (2-3): 107–38. doi: 10.1177/0973258613512576.

91.

Sager

Tore

. 2002. “Deliberative Planning and Decision Making: An Impossibility Result.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (4): 367–78. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0202100402.

92.

Schmidt

Vivien A

. 2008. “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 303–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342.

93.

Seifert

Daniel

. 2016. “Power of the Public Space.” Skyline Issue 3, 22–27. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

94.

Seow

Jan

Cher Chee

. 2000. “Consulting the Community on Singapore's Future.” Skyline, September/October, 2-3. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

95.

Servillo

Loris Antonio

Van den Broeck

Pieter

. 2012. “The Social Construction of Planning Systems: A Strategic-Relational Institutionalist Approach.” Planning Practice & Research: International Comparative Planning Methodology 27 (1): 41–61. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.661179.

96.

Shanmugaratnam

Vani

. 2014. “Janice Koh: Championing Culture and the Arts.” Roots: Newsletter of the Singapore Heritage Society, November. https://www.singaporeheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/201411-ROOTS-Nov-2014.pdf.

97.

Shatkin

Gavin

. 2014. “Reinterpreting the Meaning of the ‘Singapore Model’: State Capitalism and Urban Planning.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (1): 116–37. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12095.

98.

SHS (Singapore Heritage Society). 1990. “Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus Complex in the News.” Roots: Newsletter of the Singapore Heritage Society, August, 4.

99.

SHS (Singapore Heritage Society). 1993. “Here Yesterday, Gone Today: Enough is Not Enough.” Roots: The Singapore Heritage Society, May, 3.

100.

SHS (Singapore Heritage Society). 2018. Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore's Modernist Icons. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society.

101.

Singapore 21 Committee. 1999. Singapore 21: Together, We Make the Difference. Singapore: Singapore 21 Committee.

102.

Soh

Emily Y.

Yuen

Belinda

. 2006. “Government-Aided Participation in Planning Singapore.” Cities (London, England) 23 (1): 30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.011.

103.

Sorensen

André

. 2018. “New Institutionalism and Planning Theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, edited by Gunder

Michael

Madanipour

Ali

Watson

Vanessa

, 250–263. New York, NY: Routledge.

104.

Strand

David

. 2018. “Singapore’s Green Corridor Park as a Homegrown Import.” International Communication of Chinese Culture 5 (1): 61–81. doi: 10.1007/s40636-018-0122-9.

105.

Subramaniam

Surain

. 2000. “The Asian Values Debate: Implications for the Spread of Liberal Democracy.” Asian Affairs: An American Review 27 (1): 19–35. doi: 10.1080/00927670009598827.

106.

Sum

Ngai-Ling

Jessop

Bob

. 2013. Towards a Cultural Political Economy: Putting Culture in its Place in Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

107.

Sung

Peter

. 1990. “Speech by Mr Peter Sung, Minister of State (National Development) and (Foreign Affairs), at the Agreement Signing Ceremony for the Clarke Quay Conservation Area.” Speech transcript. National Archives of Singapore, January 22. Accessed September 29, 2020. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/sp19900122s.pdf.

108.

Swyngedouw

Erik

. 2005. “Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-the-State.” Urban Studies 42 (11): 1991–2006. doi: 10.1080/00420980500279869.

109.

Tan

Soo Khoon

. 2002. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 74, Sitting 4, col. 287, April 3.

110.

Tan

Yong Soon

. 2002. “Planning for Our People.” Skyline 20^th Anniversary Commemorative Edition, 2. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

111.

Tan

Kenneth Paul

. 2003. “Democracy and the Grassroots Sector in Singapore.” Space and Polity 7 (1): 3–20. doi: 10.1080/13562570309245.

112.

Tan

Kenneth Paul

. 2007. “Singapore's National Day Rally Speech: A Site of Ideological Negotiation.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 37 (3): 292–308. doi: 10.1080/00472330701408635.

113.

Tan

Chuan-Jin

. 2012. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 88, Sitting 19, col. 1878, March 5.

114.

Tan

Kenneth Paul

. 2012. “The Ideology of Pragmatism: Neo-Liberal Globalisation and Political Authoritarianism in Singapore.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 42 (1): 67–92. doi: 10.1080/00472336.2012.634644.

115.

Tan

See Nin

. 2018. “Co-creating the Rail Corridor's future.” Ethos Issue 19, July 6. Accessed December 28, 2020. https://www.csc.gov.sg/articles/co-creating-the-rail-corridor's-future.

116.

Tan

Judith

Feng

Zengkun

. 2012. “To Keep Rail Track as Green Corridor.” The Straits Times, January 1, 2012. Quoted in Strand, David. 2018. “Singapore’s Green Corridor Park as a Homegrown Import.” International Communication of Chinese Culture 5 (1): 61–81.

117.

Tan

Shin Bin

Low

Donald

. 2019. “Re-Examining Singapore's Urban Planning and Governance Framework.” In Planning Singapore: The Experimental City, edited by Hamnett

Stephen

Yuen

Belinda K P

, 37–62. New York: Routledge.

118.

Tay

Suan Chiang

. 2018. “The Heritage Protectors.” The Business Times, September 14, 2018. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/lifestyle/feature/the-heritage-protectors.

119.

Tay

Simon S.C.

Baharudin

Zulkifli

George

Cherian

. 2000a. “Open Debate—and Open Minds—Needed.” The Straits Times, February 29, 2000, 49.

120.

Tay

Simon S.C.

Baharudin

Zulkifli

George

Cherian

. 2000b. “Role of Civil Service in Civil Society.” The Straits Times, February 17, 2000, 49.

121.

Teo

Ser Luck

. 2010. “Parliamentary Debates Singapore.” Hansard, Vol 86, Sitting 21, Concept Plan 2011 section, para. 4, March 8.

122.

Teo

Eddie

. 2011. "What is the New Normal for the Public Service?" Speech transcript. Public Service Commision, November 5. Accessed May 8, 2019. https://www.psc.gov.sg/resources/news/what-is-the-new-normal-for-the-public-service----speech-by-mr-eddie-teo--chairman-psc--at-the-2011-singapore-seminar-on-5-november-2011-in-london.

123.

Thompson

Mark R

. 2015. “Democracy with Asian Characteristics.” The Journal of Asian Studies 74 (4): 875–87. doi: 10.1017/S0021911815001187.

124.

Thorpe

Amelia

. 2017. “Rethinking Participation, Rethinking Planning.” Planning Theory & Practice 18 (4): 566–82. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1371788.

125.

Tng

Serene

. 2017. “Planning for Uncertainty.” Skyline Issue 7, 9–13. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

126.

Tng

Serene

. 2018. “The Story of Tanjong Pagar.” Skyline Issue 9, 34–40. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

127.

Tng

Serene

. 2020. “What's in a Place?” Skyline Issue 13, 5–10. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

128.

Tong

Suit Chee

. 1987. “Chairman Sets New Goals for URA.” The Business Times, July 24, 1987, 3.

129.

Tooke

Jane

. 2003. “Spaces for Community Involvement: Processes of Disciplining and Appropriation.” Space and Polity 7 (3): 233–46. doi: 10.1080/1356257032000169703.

130.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1986a. Annual Report 1985/1986.

131.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1986b. “A Major Playground—Marina South in the 1990s.” Skyline, May/June, 4-7. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

132.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1987a. “Future Directions—Through the Eyes of Chairman.” Skyline, May/June, 8-9. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

133.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1987b. “Opening the Doors to Unique Opportunities.” Skyline, January/February, 2. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

134.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1988a. “Be a Part of History—Invest in Tanjong Pagar and Chinatown.” Skyline, September/October, 4-5. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

135.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1988b. “Going Public—A Milestone in City Planning.” Skyline, March/April, 2. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

136.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1988c. “Remember 1988.” Skyline, November/December, 4–5. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

137.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1988d. “Restored and Revived… Old Tanjong Pagar Never Dies.” Skyline, November/December, 2. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

138.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1989a. Annual Report 1988/1989.

139.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1989b. “Take the Cue: Tanjong Pagar Means Business.” Skyline, January/February, 2. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

140.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1991a. “Dialogues with the Industry.” Skyline, November/December, 12. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

141.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1991b. Living the Next Lap: Towards a Tropical City of Excellence. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

142.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1995a. “Celebrating Excellence in Public Relations.” Skyline, November/December, 12. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

143.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1995b. “Transforming Singapore's Cityscape.” Skyline, September/October, 6–8. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

144.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1997a. Annual Report 1996/1997.

145.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1997b. “Revitalising Chinatown: The Big Picture.” Skyline, May/June, 10–11. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

146.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2015a. “Making Places Better.” Skyline Issue 2, 18-20. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

147.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2015b. “Making Ripples.” Skyline Issue 2, 13-17. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

148.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2016a. Annual Report 2015/2016.

149.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2016b. “Our Favourite Place—Supporting the Community to Enliven Public Spaces.” Press release. Urban Redevelopment Authority, April 11. Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Media-Room/Media-Releases/pr16-20.

150.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2017a. Annual Report 2016/2017.

151.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2017b. “Moving Towards Stakeholders-Led Place Management.” Press release. Urban Redevelopment Authority, September 5. Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Media-Room/Media-Releases/pr17-58.

152.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1990. “The CHIJ: URA to Ensure the Dignity of the Chapel and Adaptive Re-Use of the Complex that is Sensitive to its History.” Skyline, May/June, 4–5. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

153.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1992. Annual Report 1991/1992.

154.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 1994. “Geylang and Marine Parade: A Total Living Environment for Singaporeans.” Skyline, July/August, 6–8. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

155.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2000. Annual Report 1999/2000.

156.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2001. The Concept Plan 2001. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

157.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2002. “Reclamation Works at Pulau Ubin Deferred.” Skyline, January/February, 12. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

158.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2003. Annual Report 2002/2003.

159.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2004. “Stay Pro-Business to Stay ‘In Business’: New URA Chief.” Skyline, March/April, 2–3. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

160.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2009. Annual Report 2008/2009.

161.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2010. Annual Report 2009/2010.

162.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2014. “Inaugural Award to Recognise Place Management Efforts.” Press release. Urban Redevelopment Authority, February 24. Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Media-Room/Media-Releases/pr14-11.

163.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2018. Annual Report 2017/2018.

164.

URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority). 2019. Annual Report 2018/2019.

165.

Van den Broeck

Pieter

. 2011. “Analyzing Social Innovation Through Planning Instruments: A Strategic-Relational Approach.” In Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts for Change, edited by Oosterlynck

Stijn

Van den Broeck

Jef

Albrechts

Louis

Moulaert

Frank

Verhetsel

Ann

, 52–78. London: Routledge.

166.

Van den Broeck

Pieter

. 2019. “Mythes Over Participatie in Wijkontwikkeling: Het Antwerpse Schipperskwartier als Case.” In Participatiegolven: Dialogen Over Ruimte, Planning en Ontwerp in Vlaanderen en Brussel, edited by Kuhk

Annette

Heynen

Hildegarde

Huybrechts

Liesbeth

Schreurs

Jan

Moulaert

Frank

, 73–98. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

167.

Wee

H. Koon

. 2020. “The Emergence of the Global and Social City: Golden Mile and the Politics of Urban Renewal.” Planning Perspectives 35 (4): 689–718. doi: 10.1080/02665433.2019.1581835.

168.

Wee

Yeow Chin

Hale

Richard

. 2008. “The Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore's Nature Areas.” Nature in Singapore 1: 41–49. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/app/uploads/2017/06/2008nis41–49.pdf.

169.

Wilson

Japhy

Swyngedouw

Erik

. 2014. The Post-Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Poilitics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

170.

Wong

Lawrence

. 2017. “Speech by Mr Lawrence Wong, Minister for National Development and Second Minister for Finance, at the Launch of the ‘Making Places Great’ Exhibition and Seminar.” Speech transcript. National Archives of Singapore, September 5. Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20170905001/Delivered%20Speech%20by%20Minister%20for%20Making%20Places%20Great%20Exhibition_final.pdf.

171.

Wong

Lawrence

. 2018. “Speech by Mr Lawrence Wong, Minister for National Development and Second Minister for Finance, at the Place Management Seminar 2018.” Speech transcript. Urban Redevelopment Authority, September 17. Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Media-Room/Speeches/speech18-56.

172.

Yuen

Belinda

. 2009. Guiding Spatial Changes: Singapore Urban Planning. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Producing and Contesting Meanings of Participation in Planning: The Case of Singapore (1985–2020)

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material