Week 9 Consultancy Assignment - Public Participation in Planning FINAL

Public Participation in Planning : Singapore

1

Leandro Nicholas Ranoa Poco MAUD HT075860Y

UD5521 Planning Process 4 November 2007

John Keung

Course Leader Dept of Architecture, SDE

National University of Singapore


2 Introduction The public can be loosely defined as the people of a nation, not necessarily affiliated with the nation’s government; and therefore is a distinct/different entity from the political establishment that crafts and implements policy.1 From this definition, it can immediately be seen that depending on what issue is addressed, national government policy may not necessarily be to the interest of its local or general public. The situation created by conflict between national policy and local interests, in a modern, well‐educated and increasingly open society such as Singapore, necessitates dialogue and public participation in order to galvanise and level‐off different parties together, hopefully, bridging the gap between national and local concerns, creating a co‐creative set‐up wherein both policy makers and the general public have buy‐in for plans. This paper aims to discuss traditional and new paradigms for Public Participation in Planning and then review and analyse Singapore’s current Public Participation model used for the 2001 and 2003 Concept Plans and then discuss a comparable model (Hong Kong 2030’s public participation process), while also talking about how each model fits traditional and new strategies for public participation in planning being implemented elsewhere.

The paper also aims to point‐out key contextual similarities/differences between the two key models (Such as ethnic diversity, geo‐political setup, economic factors, etc. – see Appendix A) and to propose/make recommendations on how to further improve on Singapore’s Public Participation Process in Planning.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public


3

Part I

COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN CURRENT PARADIGMS FOR

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING (IN SINGAPORE, HONG KONG, ETC.)


4 I. Current Paradigms for Public Participation in Planning

Innes and Booher discuss four main models of planning with respect to public

participation and diversity of actors. These include the technical/bureaucratic model, the political influence model, the social movement model; the 3 of which they note as traditional participation models, with the collaborative model, involving higher levels of interdependence and diversity among its actors/stakeholders, as a more forward‐looking, modern and democratic model of Public Participation. The key characteristics of each model is as follows:2

1. Technical Bureaucratic Model:

The first model involves technical and empirical analysis of raw data to serve as underpinnings for the proposed plan. It usually requires strong objectives and key limited goals set by planners and policy makers in order to steer the direction of the plan. It needs logical processing and skilled analysts to cover all grounds.3

Public Participation in this setup is merely procedural at worst and helpful in terms

of gathering more data for the planners at best. In this model, participation involves providing input only during the start of the process, with much of the planning and decision‐making happening behind closed doors. This results to a low diversity of opinions and voices considered, and a low level of interdependence among the actors and the public. This creates a gulf between the planning agency/leadership and the general public, bridged only by limited measures.

In this paradigm, planners are often sceptical as to the public’s ability to contribute

useful raw data for their analysis because oftentimes, the data put forward by the public would end up being too “localized” or “anecdotal” possibly due to the public’s tendency to myopically see only local issues and not the big picture. Conversely, the public would also see the motions toward discussion, and would be more apathetic to the process (except for a few key voices) mostly because motions to take in their input are mostly gestural and do not truly include them into the actual decision‐making process.

2. Political Influence Model:

The second model, which is often popularly referred to as the pork barrel approach, is pervasive in settings wherein planning is seen not as an objective instrument of developmental policy, but as a subjective tool wielded by political leadership.4

2 Booher, David E., and Judith E. Innes. (2000). Public Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century. University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.


5 In this model, the planner — often an agency head or elected official rather than a

trained planner, though some professional planners operate in this mode — chooses what goes into the plan on the basis of what political leaders want. In enlightened or egalitarian political systems, the difference between the Political Influence and the Technical Bureaucratic Models may seem nil, but in more subjective environments where partisan or patronage politics takes place, the political‐influence model morphs into behind‐the‐scenes power brokering among leaders, with planners trying to keep up with their changing loyalties and objectives.

Public participation is virtually zero in the beginning of the process, and is only

undertaken at the end, wherein all the deals have been made, and the public is brought in merely as a procedural step, if at all, considering that this model is tremendously wary of any scrutiny by the public. The irony is, despite the certain “illegitimacy” that the public may see in the process, it may still endorse plans for lack of choice, and for the idea that any plan may indeed benefit the general public.

3. Social Movements Model: This model is born out of the disparities brought about by the first two models.

When the lack of public participation in both models reaches a peak, usually, concerned citizens groups organize and rally around specific causes and raise their voices to be heard. At first glance, this model is galvanised by grass‐roots participation regarding a specific topic, but at closer inspection, it becomes obvious that social movements also cannot cover a diverse populace with a collection of various interests, because to do so would condemn any movement to dissolution. This model leaves almost no room for flexibility on the part of the public, with any motion to compromise by a movement’s leaders condemned as weakness by the greater mass. 5

4. Collaborative Model:

This new and increasingly popular model is a reaction to how the first 3 models dysfunctionally incorporate public participation in planning. It involves high levels of diversity of actors and high levels of interdependence among each party – as such, it is necessary for all involved to take part and come face‐to‐face in active dialogue. 6

This model requires that all parties get to speak freely on equal footing with each

other. Also, key to this model is the collaborative consensus building during discussions, wherein a broad range of issues should be brought up and none made sacred… including the status quo. Because this model is substantially more interactive and is still relatively new, participants need to proceed with respect, openness and the mutual willingness to contribute, learn and grow. The key challenges surrounding this “ideal” model involve the ff.:

a. Educating/enlightening all parties involved in the process b. Finding the middle ground and broad media/channels for interaction c. Ensuring diverse, effective cross‐sectional representation of actors and

stakeholders d. And ensuring efficient, time‐effective processes that do not hinder progress and

development.

5 Booher, David E., and Judith E. Innes. (2000). Public Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century. University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. 6 Ibid.


6 II. Public Participation Process for Singapore Concept Plan 2001/2003

The start of Singapore’s Concept Plan Review Process involves creation of Focus Groups on two key topics: Land Allocation, and Intensity of Use vs. Identity. These focus groups were composed of members selected by the Ministry of National Development and were comprised of 28 or so select high‐level individuals/officials (for each focus group) coming from the nation’s key sectors.7 Each Focus Group was tasked to tackle their assigned topic by immersing themselves within data, discussing several times through closed‐door meetings; pointing out key issues to be raised, and wrapping up these issues in a report to be discussed in a Public Hearing (no attendance statistics available and documentation covering minutes/issues discussed) and then submitted to the MND and the URA, to serve as additional input for the preparation of the draft concept plan.

Parallel to the Focus Group Discussions, internet discussion boards were also opened up along with opening of limited feedback channels (e‐mails, etc.) through which the general public could also send in their comments and suggestions related to the existing Singapore Concept Plan. (Over 200 e‐mails and responses were collected) All the gathered data was then incorporated by the URA in evaluating the current Concept Plan and formulating their Proposed Draft Concept Plan. The Draft Concept Plan is then exhibited to the public, opening the floor for further feedback and responses from concerned citizens (no record on public attendance and issues raised/comments made), from which, the URA then take cues and eventually Finalise the Concept Plan, which is then run through a Final Public Exhibition. When seen through a positive lens, the Singapore process follows the Technical Bureaucratic Model as mentioned earlier, wherein the planning body ensures public participation more as a means of gathering data for their analysis. But, when viewed through a larger context and when seen with a negative light, the Singapore process could also be seen as a blend of the first and second models, wherein for the second model, planning direction is largely driven and directed by strong governmental policy, set behind‐the‐scenes. Because the Singapore model is largely straightforward and linear, the concept plan development process was finished within almost a year‐and‐a‐half. Strongly defining policy and effectively continuing development momentum, while at the same time, being cost‐efficient in producing the concept plan.

7 MND (2000), Concept Plan Review: Focus Group Consultation, Final Report on Land Allocation & MND (2000), Concept Plan Review: Focus Group Consultation, Final Report on Identity versus Intensive Use of Land


7 III. Public Participation Process for Hong Kong 2030 Concept Plan

Hong Kong’s 2030 concept plan was kicked off by running workshops and briefings among the public and planning facilitators in order to identify and set objectives and issues.8 The authorities then published these objectives and directions in booklets and launched public forums to collect various feedback from the public. This feedback is then examined and evaluated by planners to identify key issues, which they then use to set draft scenarios. Planners then discuss these scenarios to the public through successive hearings to point out which scenarios to pursue and to develop further. The planners take the findings and develop these into

working scenarios/strategies and response plans. Upon further developing these strategies, these are then exhibited to the general public from whom the planners aim to gather a strong consensus on what to integrate into the Final Master Plan for implementation. From this it could be seen how drastically more inclusive and interactive Hong Kong’s process is compared to Singapore’s. Hong Kong’s process consulted the public in every stage, from data gathering, to setting of scenarios, and even to selection of scenarios for implementation. The public’s feedback was collected by making use of various channels (media, the internet, booklets, exhibitions, roadshows, etc.) With regards to representation, Hong Kong’s process also aims to cover a much more diverse and representative cross‐section of the populace by integrating targeted subject/focus group discussions with broader public consultations. The Hong Kong process could be classified under the Fourth Model of Public Participation mentioned earlier: Collaborative Planning, wherein there was a collective effort by the planning agency and most stakeholders to build a strong consensus. On the other hand, this did cause protracted and repeated delays in the process. This also contributed a cooling‐off of development momentum largely because of the air of uncertainty surrounding important economic issues. For some, it can be said that the consensus reached was a pyrrhic victory largely because of the significant time and money spent to arrive at a Long Term Plan that at the end of the process, has to be reviewed again because the amount of time spent in formalising the plan did introduce new issues which may not have been addressed in the original process.

8 Hong Kong Planning Department (2007), Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: at http://www.hk2030.gov.hk including the Inception Report, Public consultation and the various working papers


8

Part II

CRITIQUE, PROPOSAL/RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

IN SINGAPORE


9 I. Critique on Singapore’s current model of Public Participation

A. Limited public involvement, with public participation largely compartmentalized to 2

focus groups. With regards to the general public, the process only made use of limited channels of communication to educate the public and illicit feedback regarding the Concept Plan

B. Top‐Heavy Representation with majority of the focus group participants, leaders and expert selected by the government. There wasn’t a very strong initiative to bring grassroots level participants and citizens into the process.

C. Lack of transparency and Public Interactivity in the Process – because majority of the goals, values and decisions were set or decided on behind closed doors by the planning authorities, there is a lack of openness and public interactivity to the process. The public is only involved in data gathering and feedback on the draft plans, which are effectively at the start and end of the process.

II. Proposal / Recommendations

In order to gradually move Singapore’s current participation paradigm from a Technical‐Political mixed model to a more Collaborative model, I believe that several key changes can be made, not by drastically changing or altering the current set‐up, but by expounding on its strengths and reinforcing systems and procedures already in‐place. Hopefully, this process of reinforcement would move Singapore to the Collaborative Paradigm, while at the same time curbing loss of development momentum and also slowly preparing its grassroots local populace for a wider role in participation, not only in planning but in other aspects of national policy as well.

Key Moves: A. To make use of Open Planning Charrettes or planning work groups9 to create a process of collaboration between the planners and the public. This changes the role of the planner from that of a scientist/technocrat or political implementor, to that of advocate, facilitator and consensus builder.10 B. To define 2 Levels of Planning which go hand‐in‐hand and which both employ public participation in varying scales and levels:

1. National Planning Level – to identify macro goals, set wide‐area strategies and to

set regional scenarios based on feedback and responses from political representation (MPs) and interest group heads a. Mobilise the public’s elected representatives (MPs) as effective conduits of

the general population for National Planning Charrettes, to bring to the table issues voiced out during local meetings. MPs now perform their role

9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette 10Booher, David E., and Judith E. Innes. (2000). Public Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century.

University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.


10 not merely as lawmakers or representatives of their constituencies, but also as representatives of the public in the planning process

b. Having a more concerted effort to reach more people and to expand the

topics of discussion on a broad national level. Channels such as TV shows, debates, exhibitions, road‐shows, chatrooms, internet forums, town‐hall/meet‐the‐people sessions, etc. are all additional public avenues to be used for disseminating and collecting information, aside from using their respective MPs.

c. The key topics for focus group discussions also must be broadened in order

to deepen the level of discussion and in order to include much more issues important to a broader cross‐section of the populace. (ex. Elderly, Nature, Education, Tourism Infrastructure, etc.) Steps should be taken to identify and strengthen a broad range of groups and non‐government organizations and the voluntary sector, and to enable them to discuss and report important issues and eventually elect informed and able leaders to take the lead for the group for these key interest issues and to raise these in National Planning Charrettes with the Planning Authorities.

d. Further, the planning authorities have to open up the process more to the

public by empowering the elected representatives (MPs) and representatives of specific‐interest groups (NGOs, etc.) by allowing them access into the goal‐setting and scenario creation/selection process through the National Planning Charrettes.

2. Local Planning Level:

a. The process must also try to incorporate grass‐roots members by providing local venues for discussion about issues close to their heart. This can be done by making use of Meet the People sessions to bring together planners, MPs, their constituents and local special interest groups. The key here is to strengthen and enrich existing avenues for discussion as participatory/collaborative Local Planning Charrettes.

b. These Charrettes would become more locally/contextually sensitive venues to:

i. Educate the local populace about planning and policy ii. Illicit responses about key issues iii. Identify local planning goals iv. Set directions on local planning scenarios v. Gain consensus on specific scenario to be finalised as the locality’s

Development Guide Plan.

III. Summary / Conclusions As part of building a more vibrant economy, countries like Singapore have to strive to build an open and engaging society. This starts manifests itself in the planning process, wherein incorporating strong public participation in itself also builds a unique identity. This can be done by adopting contextually sensitive measures that take advantage of structures already in place as means of forwarding participation in the planning process, and moving from technical/politically‐centered planning into more the collaborative paradigm.


11

APPENDIX A

Contextual Differences between Singapore and Hong Kong

Singapore Hong Kong

Geo‐Political Independent Nation – planning also operates on a national level, will always have a defensive and competitive mindset; will have to balance national and local concerns

“One Country‐Two Systems” as an SAR of China HK planning is anchored on the context that it is part of a bigger picture and will have to move with regards to its neighbouring cities and the country as a whole

Socio‐Historical Earlier autonomy from the British allowed Singapore to create its own brand of civil order or social contract: Capitalist‐Confucian Mindset wherein economic gains are exchanged for a relatively reduced level of liberties… this system relies largely on the integrity and enlightenment of its leaders

HK’s late handover to China allowed it to acquire a more British/liberal civic society wherein the government is required to have a laissez‐faire attitude towards civil liberties… resulting to higher levels of personal freedom, as enshrined in their Basic Law…

Political System A representational democracy, Singaporeans elect their representatives through a GRC system, wherein the PAP is the predominant representative party. The Prime Minister is then elected by the GRC MPs, with the figurehead President elected via popular vote. By virtue of being elected, government/policy legitimacy and pro‐public interest are proven

Despite having a democratically elected legislative and representative body, HK’s Chief Executive is elected and is to be approved by Central Government. There is an underlying need by officials (esp. the Chief Exec) to earn trust and legitimacy through the public’s involvement in affairs: Planning

Freedom of Speech Although largely respectful of its citizens’ rights, Singapore does have strict limitations on enshrined human rights such as the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. These are in line with the government’s policy of maintaining racial harmony and socio‐economic stability… although these policies are often widely viewed by outsiders as means of handicapping/hobbling the political opposition.

In the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, the constitutional document of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, enshrined human rights in Chapter III : Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents in the law.

Planning Process Timelines

Singapore’s 2001 Concept Plan Focus Group Consultations and public hearings were conducted during the peak of its campaign period. Support for government policies were at an all‐time high largely in‐line with the mounting fears brought about by the 9/11/2001 Terrorist attacks.

Hong Kong’s planning process was kicked‐off immediately after handover to China, because of the need to allay fears of Chinese intervention in local policies and to express the incoming government’s intent to prevent mass exodus/capital‐flight by maintain civil liberties amongst its people.


12 References: Booher, David E., and Judith E. Innes. (2000). Public Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century. University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development: at www‐iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/WP‐2000‐07.pdf

MND (2000), Concept Plan Review: Focus Group Consultation, Final Report on Land Allocation MND (2000), Concept Plan Review: Focus Group Consultation, Final Report on Identity versus Intensive Use of Land Hong Kong Planning Department (2007), Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: at http://www.hk2030.gov.hk, Public consultation papers. Davidoff, Paul. (1965) Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners

Web Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/public

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette

http://www.ura.gov.sg

http://www.hk2030.gov.hk

www‐iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/WP‐2000‐07.pdf

http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/participation_tools/community_planning.html

Week 9 Consultancy Assignment - Public Participation in Planning FINAL

Documents

Transcript of Week 9 Consultancy Assignment - Public Participation in Planning FINAL