Thông tin tài liệu
Acknowledgments
The process of writing this thesis has been an invaluable journey. This is thus a brief
attempt to thank all those who have helped me along the way and made this experience
an unforgettable and precious one.
Dear Papa and Mummy, thank you so much for believing in me and providing me with
your enduring love and concern. This would not have been possible without the support
of my dearest family members.
A/P Maribeth Erb, thank you for your supervision and for taking the effort to read
through my countless drafts.
Many thanks to the wonderful people I have met in the graduate programme, and who
have make the experience a bearable one with all your laughter, smile, kind words,
encouragement and support.
Pam, thanks for the encouragement and insightful help along the way, and of course, the
panic sessions we had towards the end were wonderful.
Daniel Tham, you have been a great help, allowing me to go to your room and offering
your little red chair for consultations and brainstorming.
Eugene Liow, thank you for all the books off your overloaded shelves and the bouncing
off of ideas for my thesis.
Thomas Charles Alexandra Barker, cheers to the squash sessions and the random talks.
Seuty, Audrey, Chand, Mel, Mamta, Johan and Fiona, thanks for the countless laughter
we have shared and for the constant support and encouragement.
Sahoo, for the insights about state and society.
Manuel and Trin, thank you for being such wonderful friends and classmates.
Allan, Chris, Fadzli, you have been a great company to have in school.
Jialing, GeYun, HuiHsien, QiongYuan, LiHui, ZhenYi, MingHua, for the nice chat
sessions and allowing me to patrol the other room as my break.
Vincent, my tutor for SC2101, though we met again only after so long and for such a
short while, you had been a great help in listening to my thesis ideas and helping me
make sense of it.
And of course, many many thanks to any others who I might have left out.
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i
Table of Contents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
Abstract --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv
List of Tables --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v
List of Diagrams and Pictures------------------------------------------------------------------- v
List of Abbreviations------------------------------------------------------------------------------ v
Chapter 1 – Urban Water and Power Relations -------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.2 The Relationship between Society and Urban Water Resources ------ 3
1.2.1 Understanding Power Dynamics within Water Politics ---- 3
1.2.2 The Flow of Urban Water as a Politicized Process ---------- 5
1.3 The Research Framework --------------------------------------------------- 7
1.3.1 Contextualizing the Research Problem: Discourses
Surrounding Water Management for a ‘Small Island with
Limited Water Resources’ --------------------------------------- 7
1.3.2 Theoretical Framework: The Flow of Urban Water and
Power Relations ------------------------------------------------- 12
1.4 Methodology: Discourse Analysis of Urban Water Management ---- 16
1.4.1 Studying Discourses and Making Sense of Them ----------- 16
1.4.2 Methods: Making Sense of the Managing of Water
Resources in Singapore ----------------------------------------- 18
1.5 Outline of Chapters -------------------------------------------------------- 21
Chapter 2 – Urbanizing Water and Sanitation in Colonial Singapore ---------------- 24
2.1 Developing Urban Water for a Colonial Municipal Town------------- 24
2.2 Constructing and Contesting the Urban Water System ---------------- 26
2.3 Dealing with Water and Sanitation for an Expanding Population ---- 27
2.4 The Beginning of Singapore’s Water Relationship with Malaysia---- 29
2.5 Making Sense of the Colonial Implication ----------------------------- 31
Chapter 3 – Water as a Precious Commodity: Development and Growth in the
1960s-1970s ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 34
3.1 Industrialization and Urbanization: Constructing Public Utilities as
Resources -------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
3.2 Interpreting Demand and Supply: Developing Singapore’s Urban
Water Management System ----------------------------------------------- 38
3.3 Managing an Independent Singapore: Urban Renewal and
Reorganization -------------------------------------------------------------- 42
3.4 Constructing a Boundary of Social Responsibility in a ‘Clean’
Singapore -------------------------------------------------------------------- 47
3.5 Anti-Pollution Campaign: Dominating Urban Water and Urban
Environment ----------------------------------------------------------------- 49
3.6 Debating Wastage: The Subjectivities of Water Scarcity-------------- 54
ii
3.7 Controlling Domestic Consumption: Water as a Limited Resource—58
Chapter 4 – “Don’t Use Water Like There’s No Tomorrow”: Changing Ideas
About Water in the 1980s-1990s ---------------------------------------------- 62
4.1 Increasing Affluence and Economic Restructuring in the 1980s ----- 62
4.2 Water Conservation Campaigns in the Early-1980s ------------------- 66
4.3 Promoting Efficiency in the Non-Domestic Sectors-------------------- 71
4.4 Engaging the Ideology of Possibilism------------------------------------ 73
4.5 Engaging Ideals of Sustainable Development: Conserving Water
for the Future ---------------------------------------------------------------- 76
4.6 The Asian Financial Crisis ------------------------------------------------ 84
4.7 Overcoming Crisis: Embedding a Discourse of Ecological
Modernization --------------------------------------------------------------- 87
Chapter 5 – Developing Water Technologies and Creating a ‘City of Gardens
and Water’ in the 2000s -------------------------------------------------------- 90
5.1 Constructing Singapore’s ‘Four National Taps’: Technological ----- 90
Development as National Development
5.2 ‘Mind Over Matter’: Legitimizing NEWater as a National Tap------ 95
5.3 Closing the Water-Loop: Totalizing Control over Urban Water---- 101
5.4 Developing Singapore’s Water Industry-------------------------------- 107
5.5 Managing Urban Water, Managing People ---------------------------- 112
5.6 Consuming a ‘City of Gardens and Water’ Lifestyle ---------------- 116
Chapter 6 – Conclusion ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 126
6.1 Urban Water and Governance ------------------------------------------- 126
6.2 Making Sense of Discourses Surrounding Urban Water Management
in Singapore -----------------------------------------------------------------129
6.2.1 Developmentalism ----------------------------------------------- 129
6.2.2 Pragmatism ------------------------------------------------------- 130
6.2.3 Environmental Possibilism ------------------------------------- 131
6.2.4 Ecological Modernization -------------------------------------- 132
6.3 Urban Water Politics: Policies Implications and Further
Development --------------------------------------------------------------- 134
Bibliography ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 136
iii
Abstract
Water as a resource is crucial for the survival of human beings and the subsequent
formative development of human civilizations. Such an attestation of the importance of
water however is not to suggest that there is any intrinsic value of water per se. Instead, it
is more appropriate to argue that the relevance of water facilitates its politicization, and it
is in fact such processes of politicization that shape and affect the relationship between
the society and water resources. Hence, within the urban context, urban water is
inevitably even more complicated, as it is further subjected to the dynamism of the
society, polity and economy of the urban context. Accordingly, urban water is invariably
bounded with the power relations of the urban context, and comes to be affected by as
well as is influential to the flow of everyday life within the urban condition. In the case of
Singapore, the state has often brought up the claim that Singapore is a small country with
limited water resources. Such a claim however is not a fixed one, and has been
discursively engaged in different ways during different periods. From more overt
punishment to discipline the population and to ensure sufficient water for development in
the earlier years of independence, the focus has been shifting towards that of regularizing
the relevance of an integrated urban water management system where the population
have come to identify strongly with the consumption of a ‘City of Gardens and Water’
lifestyle. This thesis adopts a discourse analysis of urban water management in Singapore
from the 1960s to the 2000s. In order to facilitate such a study, this thesis adopts Michel
Foucault’s conceptualization of power and knowledge alongside Zygmunt Bauman’s
postmodern engagement of the aesthetic of consumption to explain the power relations
related with urban water. This thesis argues that the discursive shift in urban water
management in Singapore has been characterized by an increasing softening of the state’s
rhetoric of control over the years which allows for the developmental state to continue its
interventionist style of governance within everyday life.
iv
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 1965-1980 ---------------- 44
Table 3.2: Singapore’s Reservoirs and Storage Capacity ----------------------------------- 61
Table 4.1: Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 1980-1989 ---------------- 64
Table 4.3: Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 1990-1999 ---------------- 76
Table 4.4: Water Tariff and Water Conservation Tax in 1997 ----------------------------- 86
Table 4.5: Water Price Restructuring 1998-2000 -------------------------------------------- 87
Table 5.1: NEWater and Industrial Water Sales, 2004-2009 -------------------------------- 98
Table 5.2: Non-Domestic Water Consumption in Singapore, 2000-2009 ----------------- 98
Table 5.3: Domestic Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 2000-2009 -- 106
List of Figures and Pictures
Figure 3.1: Poster for Singapore’s Anti-Pollution Campaign in 1973 -------------------- 51
Figure 5.1: Singapore’s Water-Loop ---------------------------------------------------------- 102
Figure 5.2: Artist Impression of Waterfront living at Punggol Town ------------------ 119
Picture 5.1: Water Sports at Marina Basin --------------------------------------------------- 121
Picture 5.2: Water Sports at Marina Basin (2) ---------------------------------------------- 121
Picture 5.3: Family Outing at the Marina Barrage ------------------------------------------ 122
Picture 5.4: Picnicking and Outdoor Activities for the Family at the Marina Barrage - 122
Picture 5.5: Firework Celebrations around the Marina Barrage Area -------------------- 122
Figure 5.3: Marina Barrage: Sustainable Singapore Gallery ------------------------------- 124
List of Abbreviations
ABC Waters Program--------------- Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters Programme
DTSS ---------------------------------- Deep Tunnel Sewerage System
EDB ----------------------------------- Economic Development Board
ENV ----------------------------------- Ministry of Environment
GDP ----------------------------------- Gross Domestic Product
HDB ----------------------------------- Housing and Development Board of Singapore
ENV ----------------------------------- Ministry of Environment
MEWR -------------------------------- Ministry of Environment and Water Resources
MTI ------------------------------------ Ministry of Trade and Industry
NRF ------------------------------------ National Research Foundation
NSS ------------------------------------ Nature Society (Singapore)
NWC ----------------------------------- National Wage Council of Singapore
PAP ------------------------------------ People’s Action Party
PUB ------------------------------------ Public Utilities Board of Singapore
SIWW---------------------------------- Singapore International Water Week
WEH Program------------------------ Water Efficient Homes program
WELS---------------------------------- Water Efficiency Labeling Scheme
WHO ---------------------------------- World Health Organization
WCT ----------------------------------- Water Conservation Tax
v
Chapter One
Urban Water and Power Relations
Often major water innovations leveraged the economic, population, and territorial
expansion that animated world history. Those unable to overcome the challenge of being
farthest removed from access to the best water resources, by contrast, were invariably
among history’s poor.
Steven Solomon
Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power and Civilization
1.1 Introduction
Water, as a resource, has been critical to not just the survival, but also the
formative development of society (Wittfogel 1957; Leach 1959; Adams 1966; Price
1994; Frug 1999; Dolatyar and Gray 2000; Boomgaard 2007). On the most fundamental
level, adequate access to sufficiently clean water is needed to keep a population alive and
healthy. At the next level, water is crucial for the cultivation of agriculture and livestock
to feed the human population. At the third level, water has often been engaged as a
crucial resource for various further developments within the globalised capitalist system,
such as using it within the process of mass production and manufacturing, the subsequent
processes of storage and transportation, and also increasingly for consumption purposes
in the service and tourism sectors. Hence, water resources are of high importance to all
societies, and have always been a key concern for management, with this tending to be
even more so for those with limited or constrained access to a sufficient supply of water
(Swyngedouw 2004; Varis 2006; Lemos 2008; Whiteley et al. 2008; Miller 2009). Such
attribution of the importance of water, however, does not mean that subsequent process
of water management is merely an issue of supply and demand, as the relevance lies more
within the process of accessing, engaging and mobilizing water in tandem with the larger
social, economic and political dynamics.
As Staddon (2010:6) identifies, “water has long been elemental not only to the
human imagination, but also to survival, [and] beyond that, social order and spatial
organization”, where much of the history of successful civilizations has often been
organized around their abilities to secure sufficient access to water resources. With water
1
being an important resource for developmental purposes, its subsequent management,
especially within the urban context, tends to be highly politicized, and is often affected
by, as well as influential towards, existing power relations (Swyngedouw 2004; Ekers
and Loftus 2008). The complexities of politics surrounding urban water thus take place
on various levels, including that of securing water sources, managing and distributing of
water supply, and the ideological engagement of discourses surrounding the management
process. The processes involved in water politics are not mere technical issues, nor are
they neutral objectivities. Instead, the relationships that have come to exist between
societies and water are and always will be embedded within the complexities of the
society, polity and economy. As Luke (1997:xi) argues, “nothing in nature is simply
given within society, environmental terms must be assigned significance by every social
group that mobilize them as meaningful constructs”.
This thesis seeks to shed light on the complexities surrounding the formation of
urban water, and shows how it is a politicized process within a dialectical relationship
with society, polity and economy. Through a discourse analysis of Singapore’s water
management system, this thesis attempts to explore how discourses surrounding urban
water management in Singapore have been constructed and represented over the years
since the country’s independence, and studies how the discourses have been affected by,
and have themselves affected the country’s political economy. Subsequently, this thesis
seeks to further deliberate on the power relations associated with urban water. This thesis
plans to show how social control has been enacted by the developmental state as it
developed its urban water management system, alongside the consequent formation of an
increasingly consumerist and anthropocentric relationship between society and urban
water in Singapore. It is the argument of this thesis that the discursive shift in urban water
management in Singapore has been depicted within an increasing softening of the state’s
rhetoric of control over the years, and it is precisely because of such engagement that the
state is able to continue its interventionist style of governance within everyday life.
2
1.2 The Relationship between Society and Water Resources
1.2.1 Understanding Power Dynamics within Water Politics
The significance of the relationship between water and governance has been
discussed by Wittfogel (1957) in his historical study of the ‘hydraulic society’, where he
hypothesized that power relations of the early Chinese civilization largely existed through
an intricate system of water management that adopted a complex irrigation scheme. He
argued that the Chinese state was a despotic one, where control over the population was
maintained through the state’s overt centralized system of handling the civilization’s
water supply amidst arid conditions. Wittfogel places a strong emphasis on the
centralized management dimension, and it is arguably correct to acknowledge the
relevance given to the power of the state in terms of control over the flow of water.
However, Wittfogel’s claim that the Chinese state was despotic overly emphasizes the
authority of a centralized management system to control water resources, while
neglecting much of the varying nuances of other variables of the polity, society and
economy.
The social and political relevance of water was also highlighted by Staddon
(2010), who argues that much of the development of human civilizations was organized
around access to waterways for water supply, transport and trade. Historically, it has been
widely acknowledged that much of the capacity to gain access to adequate water supply
was important to the development and expansion of human conquests, and much
contestation and struggle has been centred on issues related to water (Lowi 1993;
Greaves 1998; Dolatyar and Gray 2000; Whitely et al. 2008). Staddon notes that water
resources were increasingly crucial to social and economic dimensions of nations, and
argues for the need to manage water resources appropriately as this would be important to
ensuring a continuing development of the European countries that he was addressing.
Staddon managed to acknowledge the complexities involved in water resource
management, but stopped short at actually developing the intricacies of the processes
involved within the water management system.
3
More often than not, the very process of securing water further involves
interactions between different parties with various vested interests, including those from
local, regional, and international arenas. With the increasing global concern towards
environmental problems, there have been many debates and policies surrounding
environmental issues that have led to an increasing politicization of the environment
(Hajer 1995; Yearly 1996; Weller 2006; Sassen 2006). With the impacts and
complications of globalization, water issues, alongside the focus on environmental
concerns have also been further complicated by the intricacies of the global political
economy. Despite such global development, Dolatyar and Gray (2000), in their study on
water politics in the Middle East, argue that it is impossible to have any universal
explanation for water conflicts, and there is a need to engage and understand the
contextual conditions surrounding water politics. As Dolatyar and Gray (2000:207)
further suggest, water scarcity issues have increasingly been globalized, but the global
conflict over water is inevitably embedded within the context of other ongoing “political,
legal, economic and cultural factors”. The focus of environmentally and ecologically
charged new policies that have gained popularity is not only about resolving the
environmental problems; they are often means of contesting political control of the
environment and/or legitimacy of a state in regulating the environment and
environmentally related concerns (Rutherford 1999; Forsyth 2003).
Urban water politics is often complicated by complexities of access, ownership,
distribution and management of water resources which cannot be resolved by mere
engagement of demand and supply. Even the idea of scarcity cannot be divorced from the
social context, and as Johnston and Donahue (1998:2) relate, “water scarcity is more than
a matter of decreased supply or increased demand. Water scarcity is influenced by a
variety of factors, including topography, climate, economic activities, population growth,
cultural beliefs, perceptions and traditions and power relations”. Much debate
surrounding water issues is often premised upon controlling the flow of water, where
various political, economic and social actors contest over the ownership and distribution
of the water supply (Barlow 2007). Notably, the idea of scarcity is often an inter-
4
subjective one where the concern tends to be shaped by the perceived significance of
relative scarcity and subsequent engagement with that issue.
1.2.2 The Flow of Urban Water as a Politicized Process
The complexities surrounding water resources are significantly complicated by
the effects of the rapidly expanding urban context; as Harvey (1973:22) notes, “the city is
manifestly a complicated thing”, where the effects of the urban condition cannot be
comprehended in a universal or unilateral manner. The significance of water in the urban
context is highlighted by Swyngedouw (2004:37) who argues that “the urbanization
process is predicated upon the mastering and engineering of nature’s water, with the
ecological conquest of water as a necessary prerequisite for the expansion and growth of
the city”. Despite the tendency to take water for granted within the process of urban
development, it is undeniable that water plays a critical role in the dynamics of the urban
context, and is often a key part of the existing power relations of the city. It is therefore
necessary to approach urban water as a socially constituted concept; how it is used,
perceived and understood are invariably affected by and influential towards the
dynamism of power relations existing within the city. These power relations affect the
management of urban water (Bennett 1995; Buttel 1997).
The political economy of water is crucial to the further development of the city.
No matter how naturalized water may seem, it is always politicized within the urbanized
context. Furthermore, Swyngedouw (2004:1) argues that “urban water is necessarily
transformed, ‘metabolized’ water, not only in terms of its physico-chemical
characteristics, but also in terms of its social characteristics and its symbolic and cultural
meaning”. Therefore, the meanings attributed to water consumption within the urban
context can differ accordingly, and as Shove (2003a:198) suggests, “the vast majority of
environmentally significant consumption is not just a matter of individual choice... It is
instead bound up with, and constitutive of, irredeemably social practices ‘governed by
norms like respectability, appropriateness, competence and excellence’”. Apart from
water being a physical product, the consumption of urban water is also about consuming
the meanings associated with urban water (Featherstone 2000; Bauman 2005).
5
The complexities of urban water in the contemporary context is also further
engaged by Gandy (2004), who argues that with the evolving engagement of water
networks within cities, there exists an emerging dynamic of ‘fragmentation’ and
‘differentiation’ in relation to which urban spaces are being constantly shaped and
reshaped. The idea of fragmentation and differentiation, as Gandy argues, is based upon
how water management has increasingly become more complicated and diversified, with
different private and non-governmental agencies entering the picture as water shifts from
being a public good towards a marketable commodity. It is arguable that regulating the
flow of urban water is a crucial component for further development of urban conditions.
However, an understanding of such developments is not as simple as attempting to
improve any sort of water infrastructure; it is also about engaging the discursive
dimensions of a water management system to understand the formation and impacts of
urban water.
The formation and implementation of policies surrounding urban water
management are dependent on the socio-political and historical context of the urban
condition (Asthana 2009). Even though policies with regards to the management of water
for the urban context are most commonly seen as mere technical solutions to water
issues, the reality is often much more complex. Existing policies surrounding waterrelated concerns are largely the result of the dynamic interactions between various actors
and vested interests, and are often depicted within the discursive representation of the
management of urban water as a naturalized process. Yet, such naturalized
representations are inter-subjectively constituted, and as Christoff (2000:210) argues,
environmental policies are not simply reactions to solve environmental issues but are
reactions to the constantly “evolving international discourse in response to commonly
perceived environmental problems [and] …reflect an increasingly sophisticated political
response by government and industry to[wards] popular mobilization such as nuclear
power, acid rain, biodiversity preservation, ozone depletion and induced climate change”.
Often, urban water is handled by a centralized system of sorts in which water supply is
managed for the urban city. Accordingly, the concern is largely about controlling and
6
dominating the flow of water, and subsequently controlling the flow of everyday life
(Swyngedouw 2004).
This thesis suggests there is thus a need to move beyond the apparent benevolent
perceptions of environmental policies, especially the taken-for-granted aspect of urban
water management, and to go deeper to examine the significance of associated discourses
to better understand the complex relationship between society and environment. Within
the larger political economy of the environment, that “the new environmental conflict is
not just [an] environmental problem but one which is a complex and continuous struggle
over the definition and the meaning of the environmental problem itself” (Hajer
1995:14). The very idea of urban water management is not simply about a reaction
towards any objective concerns about water issues, but it is also a process that has been
problematized and politicized within the larger dynamics of the urban context. Hence,
this thesis suggests, there is a need for a more critical review of discourses surrounding
urban water management to understand how water has been constructed and valued, and
how this is related to how water is managed in the context of the city.
1.3 The Research Framework
1.3.1 Contextualizing the Research Problem: Discourses Surrounding Water
Management for a ‘Small Island with Limited Water Resource’
During the British colonization in the 1800s and with the rapid industrialization
and urbanization adopted by the post-colonial developmental state after independence,
the management of urban water in Singapore has long been an important component of
the country’s administration (Yeoh 2003; Tortajada 2006). Even though rainfall tends to
be plentiful and consistent, there exists a physical limitation in terms of capturing,
retaining and storing much of this rainwater; without intervention much of this potential
water supply is easily lost (Lee 2003).1 With a land area of only 710.2 square kilometers,
Singapore’s geographical limitation has historically constrained the local water supply as
1
Historically, Singapore has had limited local water supply as local means of water catchment have been
largely constrained by land space concerns; it is only more recently that technological breakthroughs have
allowed Singapore to overcome this concern. In 2008, Singapore captured a total rainfall of 2,325mm and
this is representative of figures over the past five years. The highest annual figure in the past five years was
2,886 mm in 2007 and the lowest at 1,931mm in 2005 (Singapore Yearbook of Statistics. 2009).
7
the country could only retain minimal water supplies through the island’s few natural
sites of water catchment (Lee 2005).2 Recently these limitations have been compounded
by a heavy population density, which reached 6,814 per square kilometer in 2008.3 The
already limited land spaces and the ensuing development thus further constrained the
island’s capacity for creating more water catchment areas. Dense population in Singapore
also means water demand far exceeds what the country can locally supply. 4
In order to accommodate the population’s demand for water, Singapore‘s urban
water management system has been shaped and affected by its geopolitics. Much focus
has been invested in the negotiations of buying water from neighboring countries such as
Malaysia and Indonesia. The contentious debates over the pricing of water with Malaysia,
the end of the first of two water agreements with Malaysia in 2011, and the unfulfilled
talks of buying water from the Riau Islands in Indonesia have had considerable impact on
Singapore’s water supply and its ensuing water management system. Such issues of
limited local water resources, alongside the contentious international relationships over
water concerns, have not stopped the small city-state from developing, however, and
increasing its consumption of water (Tortajada 2006). On the contrary, Singapore has
managed to adopt various strategies to develop rapidly while expanding the country’s
consumption of water over the years, and has even turned water resources into one of its
strategic investments towards the twenty-first century through its successful
technological developments. The discursive component in
constructing the varying
capacities of the state as being able to overcome the supposed problem of potential water
shortages over the years, and to push for the idealized notion of growth and development,
is therefore a significant one worth examining.
Over the years, the developmental state has managed to create an urban water
management system which has adopted various measures to deal with the shortage of
water during different periods. The policies surrounding urban water management have
been successful in dealing with the various concerns surrounding Singapore’s water
2
Singapore Yearbook of Statistics. 2009.
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
3
8
resources, alongside the developmental state’s striving for growth and development. As
Hajer (1995:15) argues, “policies are not devised to solve problems; problems also have
to be devised to be able to create policies”. The management of urban water is not a mere
outcome of water management policies, but the policies are also in turn part of the
interactive process embedded within the discursive formation of urban water. Amidst the
developmental state’s urban water management system, the claim that Singapore is a
‘small island with limited water resources’ has consistently been adopted over the years,
and has significantly affected and shaped much of the flow of urban water in the citystate. The persistence of such a claim, however, does not mean that the position of the
state has remained unchanged over the years. Instead, considerable relevance lies in how
the developmental state has successfully manipulated varying understandings and
interpretations of a discourse of “smallness” and “limited resources”, and managed them
with other concordant discourses to construct and validate a continual legitimacy of its
governance over the years.
Such reflections about urban water as being discursive are not to suggest that the
issues surrounding water-related concerns have not really existed in Singapore, and/or
were simply constructed by the developmental state for overt purposes of dominating the
population. Instead, I am suggesting a more nuanced understanding with reference to
Goh’s (2001:23) conceptualization of nature as one which is “inalienable from the intersubjective realm”. It would be problematic to simply see nature as being intrinsically
meaningful, as it is largely subjected to normative forces; this idea is aptly highlighted by
Turner (2008:196) who argues that “nature exists as an external, objective reality, but is it
also transformed by labor and socially appropriated, becoming an internal reality of
human development”. How water as a resource is being engaged and experienced is what
matters to a society.
How water is integrated within everyday life in Singapore has changed over the
years. Water has shifted from being seen as a limited resource threatening Singapore’s
survival in early independence to a strategic resource for economic investment and the
realization of a sustainable and livable city. In contrast to most authoritarian governments
9
in developing countries, governance by the developmental state in Singapore has not
been a mere case of outright or coercive authoritarianism, but has been largely discursive
(Castells 1988). Most of the state’s actions have been based upon hegemonic governance
through strategic management of social and political apparatuses, and not overtly
oppressive or violent acts (Chua 1995). Amidst the underlying developmentalist rhetoric
adopted since independence, the focus on developing the environment for the progression
of Singapore has persisted with the engagement of the logic of pragmatism that the state
has adopted and has convinced the society to adhere to. Chua (1995:58) identifies, such
adherence to pragmatism adopted in Singapore as “a conscious formulation of its leaders
as an explicit ideology”, which allows the developmental state to push for much action in
the name of pragmatic developments for Singapore.5 “Pragmatism” focuses not only
what is being done, but on what can be done. In such a context, Kong and Yeoh
(1996:402) also reflect on the logic of pragmatism amidst the conceptualization of
‘nature’ in Singapore; they argue that nature has in fact been socially constructed “to
satisfy human needs and purposes by colonial and post-colonial state agencies”.
The ideological relevance of the capacity to deal with pragmatic concerns was
further reinforced as Singapore became increasingly affluent from the 1980s onward.
With this the political rhetoric began to shift towards ideas of “possibilism”, where the
focus was on the possibility of overcoming limitations and achieving development.
Savage (1997), who discusses the ideological dominance of ‘environmental possibilism’,
acknowledges that ‘anthropocentrism’ is a determining factor for environment-related
actions. Savage defines ‘anthropocentrism’, as an awareness of the inevitable
consequences of human interactions on the environment because of development, which
eventually leads to the necessity of mitigation. The ideological significance of
environmental possibilism is that a need is constructed for the state to overcome natural
environmental constraints for the economic and social betterment of Singapore. The
developmental state thus manages to retain relevance by reifying the capacities of it’s
environmental policies to provide for the continual development of Singapore. In this
5
Such development has been prevalent since the early years of independence, and has also been reflected
by Ooi (1995), who talks about the relevance of pragmatism to the environmental planning process of
Singapore, albeit in a more condescending manner.
10
context, “environmental possibilism” becomes a passive and reactionary ‘fact’ that is
inevitable, and supports a conviction of the state’s capacity to react to the country’s
adverse conditions.
However, as a post-industrial economy began to develop in Singapore, the
reactionary account of possibilism was enhanced by a discourse of ecological
modernization. According to Hajer (1995:32), “ecological modernization is basically a
modernist and technocratic approach to the environment that suggests that there is a
techno-institutional fix for present problems … [and is often premised upon concepts of]
efficiency,
technological
innovation,
techno-scientific
management,
procedural
integration and coordinated management”. The significance of the discourse of ecological
modernization is that it departs from possibilism’s reactionary mode, and is in itself, an
active component. Under the discourse of ecological modernization, the ecology is
defined and construed as a significant realm of its own within the context of progress
under the ideals of modernization (Christoff 2000; Spaargaren and Vilet 2000; Pello et al.
2000; Mol and Sonnerfeld 2000). The state has constructed its position as one that not
only ensures Singapore’s progress amidst environmental constraints, but also embeds
Singapore, through its management system, within the ideals of modernization. The
discursive relevance lies in how Singapore not only negotiates environmental constraints,
but actively engages in defining a mutually reinforcing relationship between the society
and the surrounding ecology.
In attempting to make sense of the subsequent development of the urban
environment, there is the need to be critical of taking normalized nature for granted, and
“challenging [a view] which simply objectif[ies] nature as the Other outside of [the]
social/ human” (Vogel 1996:9). In order to better understand the developments of
Singapore’s urban water management system in with the context of the broader political
economy, it is necessary to critically explore and make sense of the intricacies of the
discourses surrounding the management of the urban water system, where changes are
being closely tied with the development of both the nation and the state.
11
1.3.2 Theoretical Framework: The Flow of Urban Water and Power Relations
In this thesis, I suggest that urban water resource management in Singapore has
been discursively shaped by the developmental state to help legitimize its position of
power. As Swyngedouw (2006:118-119) argues, “environmental and social changes codetermine each other”; there is a need to understand that “questions of socioenvironment(al) sustainability are therefore fundamentally political questions”. In order
to better address the complexities of power relations existing within the management of
urban water, there is a need to further engage the intricacies of power formation. I utilize
Foucault (1995:194) who highlights that “power produces, it produces reality; it produces
domains of objects and rituals of truth” to understand how urban water is embedded in
everyday life and is not a straightforward object, but is interdependent with the power
relations existing within the city.
In order to make sense of the capacity of urban water management to legitimate
not just development, but also power relations in the urban context, it is necessary to
move beyond the technicalities of water management to engage the discursive shifts and
discursive structures embedded within urban water management. To further an
understanding of discourses surrounding urban water, I engage with the idea that the
relation between power and knowledge is a fluid one; Foucault (1995:265) elaborated
“we should be trying to study power not on the basis of primitive terms of the
relationship, but on the basis of the relationship itself, to the extent that it is the
relationship itself that determines the elements on which it bears”. My concern in this
thesis is to study how power relations have been created and maintained during different
time periods of Singapore’s history, within the framework of a governance that has been
legitimated to control and manage the flow of urban water.
One way of gaining an insight into governance in Singapore is to examine the
way the state has discursively engaged the population within the narration of a successful
water management system. Through attempts at controlling and manipulating the flow of
urban water, the state has also been constantly renegotiating its hegemonic position
through an active process of discursive engagement within the society. Over the years,
12
the legitimacy of the Singapore state has been discursively enacted through varying forms
of control. In the early years after independence, more overt moralizing as a justification
for punishment was associated with concerns for survival; this gradually shifted towards
more internalized disciplining premised upon an ideological engagement of efficiency
and possibilism. This shift therefore imitates the type of change documented by Foucault
in early modern Europe; where control shifted from a system buttressed by punishment to
one managed by surveillance and internalized self discipline (Foucault 1995). More
recently there has been a further shift towards naturalizing a form of control by engaging
the society in its capacity as consumers. This mirrors the argument of Zygmunt Bauman
who suggests that the ‘post-modern’ condition is one where persons as citizens are
engaged by the state no longer as workers and producers, but instead as consumers
(Bauman 2005). An “ethic” of work and discipline was gradually replaced by an aesthetic
of consumption; people are encouraged to cultivate “life-styles” and fulfill themselves
through a constant pursuit of consumer desires.
In newly independent Singapore the task of the state was to shape a Singapore
population that embraced the notion of a ‘work ethic’ and hence embedded a moralistic
understanding of work, so they would take pride in their capacity to work and partake in
productive labor. Bauman (2005:7-8) argues in regards to the creation of a workforce in
industrial England during the 18th-19th centuries that, “the work ethic was, basically,
about the surrender of freedom”, where “it was a power struggle in everything but name,
a battle to force the working people to accept, in the name of the ethical nobility of
working life, a life neither noble nor responding to their own standards of moral
decency”. Much of the concern was about getting people to accept work as a moral
responsibility, where they would feel compelled to place work before anything else. The
focus was on controlling the working population through constructing a paradigm where
work was upheld as “the main factor of one’s social placement as well as of self
assessment” (Bauman 2005:17). Control was enacted through overt means of engaging
the public to accept a moralistic interpretation of what was supposed to be good for the
self and for the larger society. I argue that similar processes were apparent in postcolonial Singapore. Additionally there was a moralistic engagement of the notion of
13
“cleanliness”, where the idea was propagated Singapore could only survive and progress
if the ‘brown’ issues of Singapore were dealt with through authoritarian measures.
However, as pragmatism became more entrenched as the means of economic
development within the popular imagination, increasingly the more punitive dimension of
urban water management began to lose hold. As illustrated by Foucault (1995:187),
disciplinary power is largely “exercised through its invisibility; at the same time it
imposes on those whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility. In discipline, it is
the subjects who have to be seen. Their visibility assures the hold of the power that is
exercised over them.” Complexities of power relations move beyond overt punishment
towards making the population aware of their position within a larger framework. This
compels them to internalize control and discipline themselves. Alongside the adoption of
pragmatism and environmental possibilism, the political ecology in Singapore came to be
focused on how water shortage could be overcome, and how the state’s urban water
management system has could provide a clean, convenient and comfortable lifestyle.
With an increasing internalization of the developmentalist rhetoric, accepting the state’s
management and long term integrated planning then appeared to be inevitable.
This, however, does not provide adequate explanation of the continuing
authoritarian governance of the Singapore state, albeit by softer means, in the twenty-first
century. With a shift towards a post-industrial economy, the focus has increasingly
moved from industrial concerns towards a service dimension and knowledge formation in
the global economy. Accordingly, meanings of nature have also transformed, as urban
water is also further entangled within the shifting complexities of the larger political
economy, and has increasingly become more significantly consumed as lifestyle
amenities; at the same time there have been technological developments to deal with
various water related concerns. The focus has shifted to getting people to regularize
control as part and parcel of everyday life through engaging them as consumers who can
aspire to an increasing quality of life. Subsequently, a discourse of ecological
modernization focussed on the successes of technological development within
Singapore’s urban water management system towards the twenty-first century, and
14
became a key rhetoric of an increasingly technocratic state as part of legitimating its
continual totalizing dominance over the flow of urban water within everyday life. The
emphasis has shifted towards a focus on the capacity to identify and construct the
environment in a consumer-able form to satisfy the population as consumers. The
hegemony of the state has been further renewed, as lifestyle and ecological concerns
came to be integrated and seen as inseparable from the planning of a strong and stable
government.
As Chua (1998:986) attests, “national economic growth becomes meaningful in
the everyday life of its people when it translates into expansions and improvements of
people’s material lives”; in this way there has been a shift to an inculcation of the values
of consumer culture, which has been supported by technological developments and has
allowed the continued legitimacy of the state. Parallel to Bauman’s (2005:22) argument,
such development “has also shifted human motivation, and the craving for freedom,
firmly and thus irretrievably into the sphere of consumption”. Control is focussed on
engaging the population as consumers, and getting them to internalize a belief in the
state’s capacity to push for and allow continuous consumption. Bauman (2005:26) further
discusses the notion of desire and satisfaction in a ‘consumer society’, and he argues that
“to increase their capacity for consumption, consumers must never be given rest. They
need to be constantly exposed to new temptations in order to be kept in a state of a
constantly seething, never wilting excitation and, indeed, in a state of suspicion and
disaffection”. The significance of consumption lies not in any end achieved by the
process of consumption, but is in fact one that is significant within the very process itself,
where meaningful engagements are being produced and reproduced within the
perceptions of what can be attained.
In this thesis, I argue that to gain an understanding of the contemporary flow of
urban water, it has to be done in the context of consumer society. As identified by Sutton
(2004), there is a need to understand that consumption has also been ecologized.
However, this understanding needs to be further complemented by a broader
understanding of the context of managing such consumption. In the case of Singapore,
15
water management is predicated upon not just satisfying consumers but also shaping and
aligning their desires with the state’s discourse. Hence, there has been a softening
rhetoric of the authoritarian state in the shift towards focusing on the aesthetic demands
of consumers; more importantly, there has been an emphasis on the ability of the
technocratic state to construct water as a lifestyle (Bauman 2005). The significance of the
controlling of urban water is construed in relation to the knowledge surrounding
perceived scarcity instead of any absolute engagement of scarcity; thus it is important to
understand how water scarcity has been constructed, engaged and manifested and how
this matters to the power relations and controlling the flow of urban water. Hence, a
discourse analysis of urban water management is about studying why urban water has
been managed as it is and the accorded implications of how it comes to be interpreted and
understood within everyday life.
1.4 Methodology: Discourse Analysis of Urban Water Management
1.4.1 Studying Discourses and Making Sense of Them
As Milton (1996:166) explains, an understanding of discourse can be seen as one
where “knowledge is constituted through communication”, but it is also in particular
about exploring how meanings are attributed within the process of communication within
a specific context. Language is “both a social product of the faculty of speech and a
collection of necessary contentions that have been adopted by a social body to permit
individuals to exercise that faculty” (Saussure 1985:29). Continuing from this, discourse
analysis is a critical engagement of how communication becomes meaningful within the
formation of knowledge in the context of the social (Howarth and Stavrakakis 2000;
Mills 2004; Potter 2004). In taking this into account, discourse analysis has also
increasingly been adopted as an important method to study society.
Studying discourses sociologically involves engaging the relevance of language,
where meaningful knowledge is produced and sustained in relation to the dynamics of the
society. Foucault (1976:76) advocates a focus on studying discourses to understand
society, and argues that:
16
Discourse and system produce each other – and conjointly – only at the crest of
this immense reserve. What are being analyzed here are certainly not the terminal
states of discourse; they are the preterminal regularities in relation to which the
ultimate state, far from constituting the birth-place of a system, is defined by its
variants. Behind the completed system, what is discovered by the analysis of
formations is not the bubbling source of life itself, life in an as yet uncaptured
state; it is an immense density of systematicities, a tight group of multiple
relations…One remains within the dimension of discourse.
Discourses are not simply an end product of any particular historical development, but
are in themselves part and parcel of a concurrent social reality. There is the need to be
careful to take note that “discourse must not be referred to the distant presence of the
origin, but treated as and when it occurs” (Foucault 1976:25). Discourses are also not
just formed as a result of historical development, but are more dependent on how existing
power relations have come to make use of history and to construe knowledge in
supporting existing power relations (Foucault 1990; Moriaty 1991). Making sense of
history in any totalizing manner is more often the attempt at restoring an epistemological
balance of the contemporary subject, whereby one would come to believe that there is a
natural and normally evolving truth to hold on to.
Hence, the study of discourses goes beyond seeing them as depictions of any
definite truth, and is about engaging discourses as part of the existing social reality.
Fundamentally, “a shared way of apprehending the world embedded in language,
discourses construct meaning and relationship, helping to define common sense and
legitimate knowledge” (Dryzek 2005:9). Presentations of discourses are intersubjectively constituted, and what matters more is to engage how the discourses are
produced, interpreted, and become meaningful within a particular context. Instead of
trying to claim any objectivity, the significance of an object of discourse is in fact the
exploration of the inter-subjective relations that have come to formulate the object
(Foucault 1976). Such an approach towards discourse analysis is thus not so much
interested in discourses as specific interactions, but is focused more intricately “on how a
discourse, or a ‘set of statements’, come to constitute objects and subjects” (Potter
2004:608).
17
Discourses are enacted as products of institutional and cultural forces which have
come to shape the world that people in a society come to engage and understand (Dryfus
and Rabinow 1984). In this sense, discourse analysis seeks to engage and study the
discourses to uncover the formative relations behind them, and to explain the apparent
taken-for-granted common sense of the everyday within the society. As Jaworski and
Coupland (2006:5) note, “discourse analysis offers a means of exposing or deconstructing
the social practices that constitute ‘social structure’ and what one might call conventional
meaning structures of social life”. Eventually, discourses are meaningful in how they are
interpreted and engaged, and not simply within the semantic of the language itself
(Dreyfus and Rabinow 1984). With reference to C. Wright Mills’s (1967) concept of the
‘sociological imagination’, Silverman (1993:75) states that “meaning never resides in a
single term … and consequently understanding the articulation of elements is our primary
task” for a sociological analysis of discourses. The use of discourse analysis is thus an
approach to sieve through the variances of the discourses, and identify the underlying
logic behind the discursive structures that have come to dominate the construction of
reality (Mills 2004).
1.4.2 Methods: Making Sense of the Managing of Water Resources in Singapore
This thesis adopts a discourse analysis approach to critically examine the water
management system in Singapore, and to subsequently explore the relationship between
society and the environment. According to Howarth and Stavrakakis (2000:4), “discourse
analysis refers to the practice of analyzing raw materials and information as discursive
forms”; I will be looking at the discourses surrounding Singapore’s water management
system, as a way of understanding the inter-subjectivity of the social system. Instead of
simply assuming that the claims of the state with regards to the management of urban
water in Singapore are absolute or fixed, this thesis seeks to examine the dynamics of the
discourses surrounding such claims to better understand the complexities involved within
what Foucault (1995) identifies as the complex relationship between knowledge, power,
and the consequent controlling and shaping of society. In order to do so, this thesis is
primarily based upon the analysis of archival data covering issues and concerns related to
18
the management of water resources by the state, from the time the dominating party, the
People’s Action Party (PAP), came into power in 1959, up until 2009.
The archival data involved in this thesis include various official texts and
documents covering water management in Singapore, such as newspapers, newsletters,
annual reports, special reports, government press releases, national reports, national blueprints, national master-plans, project brochures and website content. These materials are a
rich source of data of how the state has dominated urban water in Singapore, as they are
key representations of the state’s approach in managing its water resources. As this study
seeks to further explore and understand the relationship between power and knowledge
within Singapore’s water management system, what is of interest to me are the discourses
that have been adopted by the state, and more importantly, how they have been put forth
and presented. Most of the data originate from institutions such as the Public Utilities
Board (PUB) of Singapore and the Ministry of Environment (ENV) (which was later
renamed as the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR)), as these are the
key apparatuses of the state within the water management system in Singapore. Thus,
much of the analysis in this thesis is also closely focussed on the PUB and ENV/MEWR.
The abovementioned archival materials provide this study with discourses
associated with water management that were commonly adopted during varying time
periods that I am focussing on in this thesis (Mautner 2008). A stringent and meticulous
process was involved in the collecting, collating, organizing, coding and analyzing of
these archival data (Mason 2002). In the earliest stage, collection of data was facilitated
through the identification of where the discourses covering water management were
located. I systematically searched the newspaper archives for articles covering water
related issues and concerns in Singapore. This involved exploring various key search
terms such as ‘water and Singapore’ and ‘water conservation and Singapore’. However,
in order to have a more comprehensive and encompassing coverage, there was also the
need to understand the various indirect engagements of the water management system in
Singapore. This required a further understanding of the historical development of
Singapore’s water management system, and the ways the state addressed water related
19
issues over the years. In order to understand how the water management system has been
discursively constructed, various official accounts of water management were identified
for review. These included the systematic review of various official documents, such as
the MEWR and PUB’s annual reports and monthly newsletters, national blueprints, and
national master-plans. On top of the organizational accounts depicted in the official
documents, further detailed accounts by governmental officials were also examined from
governmental press releases.
The collected materials provided an overview of the state’s accounts and statements of its
actions towards water management. Various additional search terms for news articles
such as ‘public utilities’, ‘water catchment’, ‘water and wastage’, ‘water and international
relations’, ‘NEWater’, ‘desalination’, ‘water cycle/ loop’ and so on were further
identified. The reviewing of official text and documents provided a substantial amount of
data for analysis. Together with the newspaper articles representing the water
management system of Singapore, a substantive amount of data covering discourses
surrounding Singapore’s water management system over the past four to five decades
was available for analysis. A systematic and organized manner of going through, sorting
out and codification of the data was then critical to make sense of the extensive amount
of texts, pictures and diagrams. This led to an identification of the main themes,
directions, focuses and concerns that was highlighted in the discourses by the state
throughout the years as it developed its water management system alongside its
governance. I actively focussed on the “little things” a style of analysis suggested by
Flyvberg (2001: 133) to highlight the various ways the state addressed water related
concerns; through these various bits and pieces the larger themes were subsequently
identified, bringing to attention the manners through which urban water has been
discursively constructed and engaged over the years.
In attempting to understand and make sense of how discourses surrounding water
management in Singapore have been organized since independence, I structure this thesis
chronologically. I divide my data and analysis into three main parts covering different
periods: the 1960s and 1970s, the 1980s and 1990s, and the 2000s. After collecting,
20
collating and organizing the data as such, I scrutinized and coded the data to identify the
discourses involved during each period. Finally, I organized the coded materials into a
more integrated and holistic analysis of the discourses (Potter 2004). Although such a
chronological approach might not be the most efficient manner, it was an effective way to
better understand the development surrounding the discourses of water management over
the years. Through this understanding, it provides for a more holistic overview and
understanding of the discursive management of the flow of urban water in Singapore and
its socio-political significance.
In addition to using archival data as a primary source of data, this study also uses
multiple additional sources of data such as national and international statistics, involving
information such as population size and growth, water sales, and national economic
growth and developments to facilitate a broader and more in-depth context to better make
sense of the water management system (Mason 2002). This information provided the
contextual knowledge for actual water related events, and set up the background in which
to engage with the discourses; it helped to prevent the study from falling into a relativist
trap where everything is seen as unsettling and ever-changing (Shapiro 2004). Finally, I
also include reference to existing literature relating to the environment and water resource
management as well as on the politics and environmental concerns affecting Singapore. I
follow Potter in feeling that it is important when engaging with texts and language within
discourse analysis to be able to understand and relate to the necessary context in order to
further understand the discourses (Potter 2004).
1.5 Outline of Chapters
In attempting to undertake a discourse analysis of Singapore’s urban water
management system, Chapter 2 briefly traces the history of the introduction of a
municipal system where urban water was first introduced under British colonial rule. .
This included the development of modern piped water and sanitation systems, as well as
the construction of reservoirs for local water run offs and purchased water from Malaysia.
21
In Chapter 3 I discuss how the post colonial developmental state in the early years
of independence in the 1960s and 1970s attempted to shape a civilized, developed and
obedient citizenry to accept its developmental plans. The strategy of the post-colonial
developmental state was to adopt a welcoming stance towards foreign investment, while
further improving the utilities and infrastructure of Singapore to facilitate plans for
industrialization and urbanization. Hence, the ensuing developing of water supply
became a crucial tool for such development. Accordingly, a logic of pragmatism was
constantly highlighted alongside the ideological engagement of Singapore’s position as a
young, small, vulnerable country, lacking in natural resources. The belief was
perpetuated early on that in order to survive Singapore would need a government which
adopted strong measures, which arguably often appeared paternalistic and autocratic.
Much of the water management during the 1960s and 1970s was largely centred on antipollution and urban renewal measures, and the city-state’s development was organized
around stringent urban planning, population resettlement and social engineering.
In Chapter 4 I explore the discourses surrounding water management of
Singapore in the 1980s and 1990s. In the 1980s, Singapore was becoming increasingly
affluent and the earlier ideologies of vulnerability and survival were losing relevance.
The state thus had to move towards more subtle means of appealing to the public such as
organizing water conservations campaigns and increasing water prices. The state
attempted to position its role as more supervisory, and to get people to internalize the
state’s control as inevitably beneficial for the individual. The logic of pragmatism was
subsequently readapted, and efficiency became a dominant rhetoric as water management
measures adopted by the state were premised upon maximizing water consumption and
reducing water wastage through technical means, such as regulating the flow rate and
conducting stringent checks for leakage. By the 1990s, what was in place was the
adoption of an ideology of environmental possibilism, where the ensuing development of
additional water sources, alongside rhetoric of efficient management, was adopted to
legitimate the developmental state’s persisting interference in much of everyday life.
Subsequently, the attempt at internalizing the relevance of the supervisory role of the
state was furthered, at the same time as the global discourse of sustainable development
22
was also adopted and engaged accordingly to fit within the country’s developmental
agenda. The discourse of sustainable development justified the state’s action as being a
necessary step for the country’s current and future well-being.
Chapter 5 then examines the positioning of the power dynamics of a technocratic
state moving towards and into the twenty-first century, where the focus was on
developing alternate sources of water supply through technological research and
development. The ideology of environmental possibilism was pushed to new heights as
the state legitimated itself as a technocratic state; with claims by the state that Singapore
would move beyond the constraints of the natural water cycle, there was a totalizing
rhetoric of a “closed water-loop”, where urban water would be efficiently maximized.
The significance of the ideology of possibilism was further perpetuated with the adoption
of the discourse of ecological modernization, where technology was constructed as a way
to deal with environmental concerns, at the same time as furthering the country’s wider
vested interests. With this there was a softening of the state’s rhetoric surrounding water
management, through the discourse of a lifestyle around water, embodied in the image of
a ‘City of Gardens and Water’. Urban water management now engages the population
within the context of this new style of water control.
23
Chapter Two
Urbanizing Water and Sanitation in Colonial Singapore
Singapore’s history as a British colony in the 1800s has had major impacts on
much of the shaping of modern Singapore’s urban landscape. The integrated system of
piped water supplies and sewerage that has been so crucial to the formation and
maintenance of urban living in present day Singapore can be associated with the
introduction of the municipal systems during the colonial era . The formation of urban
water under the British administration is one that has largely been related to the attempt
to develop Singapore into a key trading port. The development of the infrastructure for
urban water supply has been premised upon the context of providing potable water for the
functioning and development of a colony. Yet, such development is not merely an
inevitable process, and has been one that is construed upon the discursive formation
adhering to the British’s conceptions of urbanizing and civilizing its colonies. Alternate
understandings and engagements of water resources were deemed improper and
primitive, with much contestation occurring amidst the formation of the country’s urban
water during the colonial period (Yeoh 2003).
2.1 Developing Urban Water for a Colonial Municipal Town
Back before the British set foot on Singapore, local inhabitants numbered less
than a thousand, and they were able to survive on water supply from the sources on the
island (Turnbull 1977), and thus the local indigenous population existed within a
sustainable relationship with their surrounding environment. However, when the British
East India Company colonized the small island in 1819, Singapore faced unprecedented
changes that completely transformed life on the island. Over the next two hundred years,
the once sparsely populated island was transformed into a bustling port city in the
nineteenth century, and later in the twentieth century was filled with migrants from all
over the world; in the twenty-first century Singapore has become a first-world
cosmopolitan city-state (Turnbull 2009). As Singapore opened up as a port city, the
population expanded as migrants from various parts of the world came in search of
employment in the flourishing trading industry. It was in such context that a rapid process
24
of urbanization took place, most significantly in areas around the Singapore River where
commerce and trading activities took place (Tregonning 1967).
Inevitably, the economic boom placed significant stress on the small island, and
Singapore’s capacity to support the rapidly expanding population was pushed to its
natural limit (Jayakumar 1988).6. Drinking water supply on the island was fast being
outpaced by the escalating demand for water, and this was made worse by deteriorating
sanitation and health care standards caused by overcrowding within the municipal town
areas (Baker 2008:178).Yet, issues of urban planning and management of the municipal
town under the British administration were not straightforward, as Singapore was then
only an appendage of the East India Company and not a crown colony (Hallifax 1991).
The implication of this was the dominance of autocratic governance, and persistence of
highly inefficient bureaucracy, where priority was to reduce cost and maximize profit.
Amidst such organization, appropriate public works and efficient administration needed
to keep up with the fast expanding and thriving trading port were largely neglected
(Turnbull 1977:68).
The political ecology of Singapore during the colonial period was one which
shaped usage and control of natural resources and public utilities in favour of the British
colonizers and the needs of the trading port over that of the non-British migrants and
local population. Even when government surveyor, J. T. Thomson proposed the
construction of an improved water system to better the water supply in 1852, it was left
unanswered due to lack of support and funding from the British East India Company
(Yeoh 2003:177). The formative process of urban water was one caught up within the
political web of the British administration. On the one hand, the provision of potable
water (especially for the growing urban population) was deemed essential to the
6
According to the historical analysis of water supply in colonial Singapore by Jayakumar (1988), wells
were the main mode of water supply in Singapore in the 1800s. With the expanding trading and shipping
industry, private wells were started up to provide water supply to the trading vessels, and this was later
supplemented by the opening of private reservoirs. However, water supply to the local population was not
privatized due to the prohibitive cost of building infrastructures and the lack of expectation of profitable
returns from a poor local population. It was only later towards the early 1900s that the demand rose to an
extent that the reluctant British government had to step in to do something about it.
25
development of the trading port; on the other hand, it was being impeded by the
bureaucratic viscosity of the colonial system.
2.2 Constructing and Contesting the Urban Water System
In 1857, a wealthy Chinese merchant, Tan Kim Seng, offered a donation of
$13,000 to fund the construction of Singapore’s first piped waterworks to transport
freshwater to the town (Singapore’s Water Supply 1985). Due to administrative
reluctance and bureaucratic viscosity, the first project of the waterworks, the Impounding
Reservoir at Thomson Road, was completed only in 1868, with the pumps and
distributing works taking another ten years to be finished (Yeoh 2003:178). However, the
completion of such a project did not mean that water supply issues were resolved
immediately, as problems of quality and quantity of the water supply remained
contentious. Ironically, a discursive construction that a clean and stable supply of
drinking water was a key part of civilization and modernization was often undermined.
Water supply remained highly inefficient, and was not well received by the public as
water distribution planning was poorly managed. Water quality was often dubious with
frequent complaints of the presence of suspicious sediments. Furthermore, the urban
water system was unequally skewed towards the advantage of the British households and
the wealthy elites, and resulted in much disparity in terms of access to drinking water.
Additionally, there was not a universal understanding of the significance of piped water
nor the usage of urban water.
Hence the idea of clean piped water was not one that everyone on the island could
relate to. The discourse of urban water as a modern and clean source of water was not
commonly accepted during the colonial period, and was highly contested by the island’s
varying occupants. This water issue was complicated by the fact that most inhabitants on
the island were used to getting water for free from self-dug wells, and were wary against
paying for piped water (Jayakumar 1988).7 There were also contentions over the fact that
7
Much of the non-British and local population remained nonchalant towards a piped system and carried on
getting their own water from self-dug wells. They often saw the new piping system as a ploy by the
municipal council to exploit them and earn additional revenue. Even when the British administration
enacted regulations to close polluted and contaminated wells, the “Asiatics” would still reopen the existing
26
public standpipes were not always necessarily located in close proximity to where people
stayed, and additional cost was incurred from the need to pay water-carriers to transport
the piped water (Yesterday and Today, 1985; Yeoh 2003:185).
However, the fundamental issue of a rapidly expanding population concentrated
within the municipal town area resulted in greater demand for drinking water and public
sanitation. The situation was further intensified by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869,
as Singapore’s position as a strategic trading port was brought to new heights and “the
economic life of all the islands, with the exception of Java, was focused upon Singapore”
(Tregonning 1972:87). In order to meet the increasing demand of the growing population,
the embankment of the Thomson Road reservoir was raised by 1.5 meters in 1905 to
expand its storing capacity. The water supply was further reinforced by the construction
of the Kallang River Reservoir in 1910, a project spearheaded by Robert Pierce, the
Municipal Engineer.8 Despite such additions, the problem of water scarcity remained a
persisting reality, as the attempts to increase water sources were unable to keep up with
the escalating demands that has been created and identified as a crucial component for the
colony. 9 Eventually, the island’s inability to sustain the burgeoning urban population with
sufficient clean water supplies pushed for the sourcing of alternative water sources which
led to the beginning of a long and often contentious water relationship between Singapore
and Malaysia (Lee 2005).
2.3 Dealing with Water and Sanitation for an Expanding Population
Besides the need to deal with supplying water to the municipal town, the other
crucial concern was sanitation and public health concerns (Tan et al. 2008). With the
rapid population boom and subsequent urbanization, issues of public health were also fast
wells or dig new ones (Yeoh 2003:183-186). At the same time, despite the claims of contaminated wells,
the water system during the 1910s remained largely inefficient and sanitation problems persisted to make
matters worse (Jayakumar 1988).
8
The Kallang River Reservoir was renamed Pierce Reservoir in 1922 after Robert Pierce. In 1975, it was
further renamed to Lower Pierce Reservoir after the Upper Pierce Reservoir was constructed.
(http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_visitorsguide&task=naturereserves&id=50&Itemid
=75 Accessed on 20 June 2009).
9
The escalating demand in the 1900s was exacerbated by the “adoption of sanitary fittings such as washbasins and baths, the establishment of rubber factories requiring heavy water consumption and increased
demands from shipping” (Yeoh 2003:186).
27
becoming a problem for Singapore. Up till the 1880s, human waste disposal were
manually handled, with Chinese syndicates taking charge of the night-soil business,
going about at night using wooden buckets to transport human waste from the municipal
town to gardens and plantations to be used as fertilizers (Yeoh 2003:190). However, such
a system soon became unsustainable as the population in Singapore was expanding too
rapidly and there were not enough agricultural or plantation spaces within Singapore to
absorb the night-soil. Furthermore, the cramping of excessive migrant workers into
housing in the municipal town, the massive production of human waste, together with an
inappropriate sanitation system and insufficient clearing mechanism, resulted in a filthy
environment of cesspools, waste piles and pungent waste smell that was becoming a
breeding ground for diseases such as typhoid and enteric fever (Yeoh 2003; Tan et. al
2008). Public health was becoming a serious issue that was in dire need of a proper and
adequate system of waste disposal.
In 1890, James MacRitchie, a municipal engineer, made a proposal to improve the
waste disposal system and suggested that an improvised pail system would be the best
solution (Singapore’s Water Supply 1985). However, other than some minor attempts to
prevent accumulation of cesspits through the replacement of privies with movable
buckets that was supposed to facilitate the waste disposal process, nothing else was
actually done until the end of the first decade of the twentieth century. Concerns of
sanitation and public health remained highly contentious, and were increasingly creating
more problems for the British administration. Finally, because of the public health issues
that were accumulating and the growing autonomy of the Chinese syndicates who were
able to extort the European residents with their capacity as waste disposers, the municipal
commissioners decided that something had to be done about the sewerage system (Yeoh
2003).
In 1906, Professor W.J. Simpson submitted a report advocating an automated
sewerage system, and in 1911, Robert Pierce submitted another proposal to construct an
underground pipe sewerage system that would create a water-borne sewerage system
(Hallifax 1991). By 1917, the first sewerage system was completed with the Alexander
28
Road Sewerage Disposal Works collecting, treating and disposing of waste in the
municipal areas. However, progress remained slow and by 1920, only about two percent
of houses in the municipal area were connected to the sewerage system (Yeoh 2003). The
pail system remained the key means of waste disposal and was only phased out
completely on 24 January 1987 (Tan et al. 2008). Additional pumps and sewerages were
built later on, but were slowed down by the Second World War (WWII). After the war,
sewerage works resumed, and in order to deal with the demands of the growing
population, the Ulu Pandan Treatment Works was completed in 1961 to replace the
Alexandra Sewerage Disposal Works. By 1985, more sewerage treatment works in
Bedok, Kranji, Seletar and Jurong were built to handle the waste disposals of the different
estates springing up around Singapore. Even though apparent inefficiency and
ineffectiveness dominated the early sewerage system, it was nonetheless the precedent for
Singapore’s integrated sewerage system, from which the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System
(DTSS) was later developed, and this facilitated Singapore’s waste disposal and waste
water recycling efforts that were developed later.10
2.4 The Beginning of Singapore’s Water Relationship with Malaysia
The significance of Singapore as a key strategic trading port of the British had
also allowed the island-state to successfully obtain part of its water supply from
Malaysia, and this has significantly shaped the consequent development of Singapore’s
water management system. In 1912, in the hope of sourcing for potential water supply
from Malaysia, R. Pierce conducted a preliminary examination of the Pulai district in
Johore. In 1920, S.G. Williams, a water engineer, obtained permission from the Johore
government to explore the possibility of drawing freshwater supplies from the Gunong
Pulai area (Singapore’s Water Supply 1985). An agreement between the Sultan of Johore
and the municipal commissioners of Singapore was signed on 5 December 1927, marking
the beginning of one of Singapore’s most crucial relationships with Malaysia.11
10
The DTSS is a complex sewerage system that will enhance the sanitation system of Singapore, and is
also a key player in the country’s move towards building up its recycled used water program.
(http://www.waterandwastewater.com/www_services/news_center/publish/article_001689.shtml Accessed
on 22 June 2009).
11
The Agreement as to Certain Water Rights in Johore between the Sultan of Johore and the Municipal
Commissioners of the Town of Singapore was signed on 5 December 1927 (Administration Report of the
Singapore Municipality for the Year 1927. 1927).
29
Subsequently, the Gunong Pulai Scheme was taken up, and was completed on December
1929 with the construction of the Sultan Ibrahim Reservoir which was later joined by the
Pontian Kechil Reservoir, and was completed in 1931 to provide Singapore with a
combined total daily supply of 15.5 million gallons of freshwater (Yeoh 2003:181).
These two reservoirs that were built under the British administration were the origins of
the water relationship between Singapore and Malaysia as Singapore has since been
getting the bulk of its water supplies from Johore. Yet, at the same time, this relationship
has also been a major source of contention between the two countries over the years (Lee
2005; Kog 2001).
In order to accommodate water supply from Malaysia, the Fort Canning Service
Reservoir, with a holding capacity of 30 million gallons, was completed in 1928
(Singapore’s Water Supply 1985). In 1940, Seletar Reservoir was built and joined the
ranks of Singapore’s reservoirs (Water Department 1982). However, plans to further
expand water draw-offs from the Johore River Scheme were obstructed by WWII (Lee
1994; Warren 2002). During WWII, due to inappropriate war strategies and the lack of
leadership, the British were defeated by the Japanese troops that swiftly swept through
Malaya (Turnbull 1977:175). By the time the Japanese landed on the northwest coast of
Singapore on 8 February 1942, they had already cut off Singapore’s water supply from
Johore (Lee 1994). Eventually, the Japanese troops took full control of Singapore’s water
supplies as they occupied the reservoirs in Singapore on 14 February 1942. However,
water supply from the reservoirs was not cut off as the Japanese army was cautious of the
possible problems with reinstating the water supply which had already been disrupted due
to the prior bombings (Warren 2002).The subsequent lack of water and sanitation further
complicated the war situation as perceptions of looming epidemics threatened to make
matters worse amidst the fighting (Warren 2002; Turnbull 1977). Eventually, with the
dwindling water supply, threat of massive casualties, lack of ammunition and
inappropriate war strategies, the British surrendered Singapore to the Japanese on 15
February 1942 (Lee 1994).
30
After the Japanese surrendered and left Singapore in 1945, plans to enhance
Singapore’s waterworks projects in Johore soon resumed. Eventually, to deal with the
increasing demand for water in Singapore, a new source of supply at the Tebrau River
was chosen, with the construction being completed in January 1953 (Water Department
1982). Involved in this project was the construction of a steel pipeline which extended
from Singapore over the Johore Straits through the Johore Bahru Town to the Tebrau
River (Singapore’s Water Supply 1985).
2.5 Making Sense of the Colonial Implications
Colonialism had undeniably affected the subsequent development of Singapore,
and as Goh (2008:260) puts forth within the realm of postcolonial studies, “the question
is how the momentum of history and culture established by colonialism has driven the
trajectory of the post-colonial nation into the age of neoliberal empire”. The British
presence in Singapore sparked significant social and political changes with subsequent
impositions of the colonizer’s belief systems of public health and hygiene alongside their
municipal planning and management. Under the British administration, massive changes
were induced as Singapore rapidly flourished and urbanized through the trading industry.
Western standards of aesthetics, lifestyle, health beliefs, science and technology were
subsequently introduced and imposed upon the island. Urban water has been discursively
constructed as a main source of drinking water, whereby piped water under a centralized
system was noted to be a marker of the colony’s progression and development. The result
was a subversion of the prior notion of the surrounding natural environment of the
colonized, and the introduction of the colonizer’s construction of the environment (Yeoh
2003).
Alongside the introduction of the colonizer’s urbanized conceptualization of the
environment, what took place was the institutionalization of the ‘natural’ environment of
the colonized community by the post-colonial developmental state (Perry et al. 1997;
Dobbs 2003; Yeoh 2003). In choosing to adopt certain logic set forth by the colonial
municipal administration, the management and control of public utilities was then
consolidated under a centralized state administration. Singapore was thus able to further
31
expand, industrialize and urbanize accordingly, and has continued to do so after the
British left (Drysdale 1984; Chua 2008). Building on the water system started by the
British Municipal Government, the developmental state has further expanded the
institutionalization of the water system to create the appropriate environment to rapidly
develop Singapore. Urban planning alongside utilities management was set in place
where large numbers of high-rise public housing were built to reorganize the country’s
population, and industrial infrastructures were constructed to attract foreign investments
(Rodan 2006). Subsequently, this set forth a snowballing effect which has led to the
context of the present day integrated water management system.
This however is not to argue that there was a linear or straightforward physical
enforcement by the colonizer on the colonized, or that the water system in contemporary
Singapore is to be simply credited to the British colonizer. It is important to note that the
colonial influences were not simply homogenous effects; much of the population during
the colonial period, especially those living outside the urban municipal town, actually
retained much of their own ‘traditional’ knowledge and practices with regards to water
and sanitation (Yeoh 2003). During the colonial period, the attempt at municipalizing the
town’s water supply and sanitation facilities was not implemented overnight; there was
also much resistance. In light of what Chatterjee (1993) argues, though we cannot deny
the influence or ignore the impacts of colonized presence, it does not simply mean that
we are doomed to a mere subjugation to the colonized version of social reality.
Instead, the water management system that Singapore possesses today would be
better understood as a negotiated process which has led to a subsequent context of
accumulated knowledge formation affecting various aspects of the lived reality, such as
the physical, social, political, cultural and even economical (Chua 2008). As Kong and
Yeoh (1996:402) put forth, “nature has been constructed to satisfy human needs and
purposes by colonial and post-colonial state agencies …(and) this vision of nature has
been translated into policies which have resulted in different material forms.” Even
though the cornerstone of water development in Singapore was largely related to British
colonialism, to better understand the relationship between the society and its environment
32
would require deeper understanding and engagement of the discursive intricacies
surrounding water politics in post-colonial Singapore. There is a need to understand how
the developmental state in post-colonial Singapore has come to adopt the water system,
and discursively engaged such a system to facilitate its governance and shape the social,
political and economic significance of water over the years.
33
Chapter Three
Water as a Precious Commodity: Development and Growth in the
1960s-1970s
This chapter will try to make the case that urban water is an important lens
through which to understand the actions of the Singapore government in developing the
nation, and shaping the populace into civilized, developed and obedient citizens. Water is
an essential tool of development, and the discourse of urban water management became
an important tool with which the “developmental state” constructed ideas about
cleanliness and discipline in the earlier years of Singapore’s independence.
3.1 Industrialization and Urbanization: Constructing Public Utilities as Resources
The Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore was formed in May 1963 to take
over the responsibilities of providing water, electricity and piped gas from the City
Council under the British administration. 12 In terms of managing urban water, PUB
became an important and strategic national institution, not just because there were limited
water sources in Singapore, but because of the subsequent values that were attributed to
urban water by the post-colonial developmental state.13 A main concern of the People’s
Action Party (PAP), the single dominant party of Singapore’s government when they
came into office in 1959, was to stabilize its position and to develop the country’s
economy. Water was a key resource for Singapore as it was a necessary resource for
basic human survival, and it was also a crucial resource for the country’s economic
development. Within this context, the management of urban water was an essential
component of the post-colonial developmental state’s attempt at managing and
developing Singapore.
12
PUB was formed under the Prime-Minister’s Office and was given the task of managing the public utility
services for Singapore as the country embarked on a process of decolonization (Singapore PUB Annual
Report. 1963).
13
PUB noted that the role of its Water Department was to “maintain its steady progress and certain capital
projects were undertaken in order to cope with the increased demand for water both from the domestic and
the industrial sector” (Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1963:17). This marked the institutionalization of
water as a resource for public utilities, as well as national economic development in the Republic of
Singapore.
34
Towards the 1960s, the possibility of a mounting unemployment rate arising
from the impending increase in the working population due to the post-war baby boom of
the late 1940s was noted by the government to be a potentially serious problem for
Singapore (Drysdale 1984). The young government had to find means to deal with this
issue alongside the potential economic void that could worsen with the exit of the British
Administration. Industrialization was proposed as the ‘indispensable’ move for the
country to develop and alleviate potential unemployment problems (Milne and Mauzy
1990; Turnbull 2009).14 With the consultation of Dutch economist Dr Albert Winsemius,
the State of Singapore Development Report 1961-1964, a four year development plan,
was produced by Finance Minister, Goh Keng Swee (Turnbull 2009).15 The development
plan sought to push industrialization and urbanization through the building of “a large
industrial estate… in Jurong for an iron and steel plant” alongside removal of squatters
and the ensuing organizing of the population within the available land-space (Drysdale
1984:255). The report further wrote that the situation in Singapore, with “a very good
port, financial institutions, good power and water supply and good communication
services – can be developed to service industrial development”.16 It was also identified
that one of the foremost “government’s contribution [that can be made] to industrial
development… is to provide adequate supply of cheap power and water”.17 The ability to
provide cheap power and water supply allowed for rapid industrialization and massive
urbanization, but such progress also meant that the country’s demand of water resources
was concertedly pushed up.
14
The PAP had envisaged a “commodity common market – a pan-Malayan market for mutually agreed
commodities” which was deemed necessary to support Singapore’s proposed program for industrialization
(Drysdale 1984:253).
15
In the report, it noted population growth to be potentially problematic as the country’s population was
expanding at an average annual increase of 4.3% per year between 1947 and 1957. Population control was
deemed a necessary long term solution at that point of time, but what was more pressing for the
government was to deal with the existing economic and social problems of the post-war population boom.
Employment was seen as an urgent issue to be dealt with, alongside much needed social services such as
housing, education and health. With the population boom and the plan to embark on industrialization,
further urbanization of a national scale was also inevitable. On top of the existing entrepot trade, the report
suggested industrialization as a necessary step for Singapore to provide its population with increased
employment opportunities, and that the government would have to take charge of starting up this process.
16
State of Singapore Development Plan 1961-1964. 1961:16.
17
Ibid.
35
With the focus on development, the State of Singapore Development Report 19611964 also noted that the process for developing industrialization in Singapore would have
to be supported by both a disciplined and educated population and the services and
amenities that were already in place for Singapore’s entrepot trade.18 In tandem with the
claim of the need for a disciplined and educated workforce, a major developmental
concern for the state in the early 1960s was that of social development – to provide
appropriate accommodations for its working population alongside public health,
sanitation and sewerage concerns (Ooi 1995). The Housing and Development Board
(HDB), which was established in 1960, started a five-year Building Program and was
“entrusted with extensive powers in land acquisition, resettlement, town planning,
architectural design, engineering work and building material production” (Chua
1995:129). Under Lim Kim San, the chairman of HDB, the five-year Building Program
was noted as the state’s attempt at providing affordable public housing for the lower
income segment of the population.19 However, what was more significant was the
reorganizing capacity of such urban development, as this marked the beginning of the
state’s ambitious plan to manage, control and dominate the built environment.
The significance of urbanization in Singapore was inseparable from the state’s
developmental focus, where the key aim was to reorganize the population for the
maximization of land-space and to organize a disciplined and efficient workforce. One
main aspect of the widespread adoption of modern public utilities amidst the rapid
urbanization process through public housing provision by the state was that the
population would then be free from the hassle and labor of obtaining water personally,
and could spend their time and effort on work that was perceived to be productive. The
very creation of such ‘modern’ lifestyle further highlighted the emphasis that the
developmental state placed on productive economic activities, and was an important
component of the country’s attempt at engineering a ‘disciplined work force’ for the
industrialization program (Gandy 2004).20 With the public housing program the
population was ushered towards a lifestyle where they were greeted by neatly constructed
18
State of Singapore Development Plan 1961-1964. 1961:16.
Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1960.
20
State of Singapore Development Plan 1961-1964. 1961.
19
36
residential units furnished with modern utilities such as electricity, piped water and flush
sanitation systems. Such developments also pushed the population towards an
increasingly modern lifestyle premised on cleanliness and convenience, where water was
to become an easily accessible and cheaply available resource (Hill and Lian 1995; Foster
1999; Macnaghten 2003). Just as Chua (1995:139) relates, “the materially tangible blocks
of building are powerful symbolic monuments to a government’s efficiency”; and in a
similar light, though more subtly, urban water in Singapore has also been construed by
the state as a marker of a modern lifestyle, one that came to be located as a key signifier
of the success of the developmental state. It was highlighted in the PUB Newsletter in
1971:
“Water is also the lifeblood of industry…without water, industries would bleed
dry and nothing would come out from the assembly lines”. 21
The focus was one which tied the country’s development to its industrialization
programmes, and the role of urban water was also being construed as an inevitable
component for such development. What is significant is the perpetuation and
normalization of the lifestyle attached with the materially tangible symbols of success of
the state in ‘modernizing’ the country.
To meet the increasing demand for water, it was projected that about $64.4
million was to be spent on increasing water supply between 1961 and 1964.22 Notably,
much of the budget for increasing water supply was to be spent on building up the
capacity for getting water supply from Malaysia.23 Public utilities, especially water
resources, were depicted as important components for the development of the country’s
economy as it could strategically facilitate rapid industrialization within the country. 24 It
was in the State of Singapore Development Report 1961-1964 that:
21
Singapore PUB Newsletter 1971:2.
State of Singapore Development Plan 1961-1964. 1961:35-36.
23
By 1965, Singapore was getting about 80.24% of its water supply from 3 reservoirs in Malaysia (Gunong
Pulai, Tebrau and Scudai) and only 19.75% of its water supply from local catchment areas (Bukit Timah,
Woodleigh and Bedok) (Water Department Annual Report. 1965).
24
When PUB took over the management of the public utilities in 1963, ground works for lying pipe to the
Jurong Industrial Complex were already in progress and “as at 21.12.63, about 9000 feet of 30 inch pipes,
8000 feet of 24 inch pipes and 800 feet of 18 inch pipes had been laid in Jurong” (Singapore PUB Annual
Report. 1963:16).
22
37
“In general terms the problems of trade and industry have to be solved by
enlarging the port facilities, improving means of communication, laying out of
industrial estates, expanding electricity and water supplies, and creating the
financial institutions that can aid in industrial development”.25
The issue of securing adequate public utilities resources by PUB was noted as vital for
the development of the economy of Singapore. It was within this context that the flow of
urban water under the developmental state was being legitimated through such claims of
industrial development for the young nation’s growth and progress.
3.2 Interpreting Demand and Supply: Developing Singapore’s Urban Water
Management System
Within the State of Singapore Development Plan 1961-1964, the issue of securing
additional sources of water was reiterated as a critical part of Singapore’s plan for
industrialization.26 The claim of having limited natural water sources in Singapore was
not merely about having inadequate water supply for the local population’s physical
consumption, but was more about not having enough water resources in Singapore for the
ensuing economic and social development.27 In order to ensure that industrialization
could take place smoothly, the practical reality for the developmental state was the need
for appropriate infrastructure with sufficient availability of public utilities alongside a
readily available supply of a disciplined and skilled labor force.
In 1961 and 1962, Singapore and Malaysia signed two of the most important and
significant agreements with regards to long term water sales. In 1961, the ‘Tebrau and
Scudai Rivers Water Agreement’ allowed Singapore to get up to eighty-six million
gallons per day from the Pontian Reservoir, Gunang Pulai Reservoirs, Tebrau River and
the Scudai River for the next fifty years at three cents (ringgit) for every one thousand
gallons of water.28 In the following year, the ‘Johore River Water Agreement’ further
25
State of Singapore Development Plan 1961-1964. 1961.
State of Singapore Development Plan 1961-1964. 1961:76-78.
27
The signing of the 1962 Water Agreement with Malaysia was reported in the newspaper as the means to
“provide for increased water supply to Singapore to meet the growing needs of an increasing population”
(“Council signs for Johore River water” 30 September 1962. Straits Times).
28
“The Tebrau and Scudai Rivers Water Agreement between the Johore State Government and City
Council of Singapore on 1st September 1961”. 1961. Tebrau and Scudai Rivers Water Agreement.
26
38
ensured that Singapore would be able to get another two hundred and fifty million gallons
of water per day from the Johore River for the next hundred years till 2061 at the same
price as the 1961 agreement.29 Alongside the belief that Singapore would be joining the
Malaysia Federation, Malaysia was then depicted as a possible hinterland for a commonmarket and a potential source of resources. Therefore, most of the water developments in
1963 and 1964 noted by the PUB’s water department were largely premised upon
building the necessary waterworks in Johore.30
It can be said to a certain extent that the Singapore we see today has been largely
affected by those two water agreements, which were important markers that allowed
Singapore to further expand its water capacity. Subsequently, when Singapore became
independent in 1965, what was crucial was the signing of the separation agreement which
ensured Malaysia would continue to sell water to Singapore.31 On August 1965, a
‘Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act’ was signed, and the water
agreements of 1961 and 1962 were officially recognized as legal international
documents.32 This agreement was integral to Singapore’s subsequent economic growth
and development since by the end of 1965, Singapore was getting almost 80.25% of its
water from reservoirs in Johore.33
After separating from Malaysia, Singapore turned towards export-oriented
industrialization, and went on to further develop the country’s economy as the state
“exploited the sense of crisis [of sudden independence] and indeed contributed to it”
(Rodan 1989:85). As opposed to the trend towards protectionist economic policies
popularly adopted by other developing countries around the region during that time,
Singapore’s approach was to prioritize economic development by opening up to foreign
29
“The Johore River Water Agreement between the Johore State Government and City Council of
Singapore signed on 29 September 1962” (1962 Johore River Water Agreement. 1962).
30
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1963; Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1964.
31
It was stated in the Independence on Singapore Agreement 1965 that the PUB of Singapore would
continue to abide by the terms and condition of the water agreements signed with Malaysia in 1961 and
1962. In return, the Government of Malaysia shall also guarantee that the Government of the State of
Johore would also abide by the terms and conditions of the water agreements. (9 August 1965.
Independence of Singapore Agreement. 1965:17).
32
9 August 1965. The Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act. 1965; No. 53 of 1965.
33
Water Department, Annual Report. 1965.
39
investments and building its economy to become “a financial centre and major hub for
international traffic” (Turnbull 2009:302).34 Along this line, PUB was then presented as
the key institution for securing resources for Singapore, noting that:
“…with the independence of Singapore, the Board assumed a greater role of
responsibility in assisting the overall economic growth of the public. This is
evident from the fact that the Board kept ahead of the increased demands arising
from the accelerated rate of national industrial expansion and extensive housing
development”.35
It was also noted in PUB’s annual report in 1966 when it revised utility services
rates that:
“in revising the rates for the utility services, the committee was guided by the
Board’s principle that the increases should be spread over all sectors of
consumers, and in order to assist the economic development of the Republic,
undue burden should not be imposed on industries”.36
In order to further attract foreign investment, pragmatic measures prioritizing industrial
development were put forth as necessary and inevitable measures for Singapore’s
progress. Accordingly, the increase in tariff for the domestic sector was kept at a
relatively similar rate for the industrial, commerce and shipping sectors. On 1 November
1966, water tariff increased from $3.75 per thousand gallons to $4.00 per thousand
gallons for shipping; $0.60 per thousand gallons to $0.80 per thousand gallons for
domestic; $2.00 per thousand gallons to $2.50 per thousand gallons for water based
manufacturing.37 Within this context, as identified by PUB, urban water was portrayed as
a public good to be managed and provided by the government not just for social welfare,
but also as a necessary resource to develop the nation’s economic basis for the benefit of
the nation’s well-being. As Chua (1995:59) argues, “the economic is privileged over the
cultural because economic growth is seen as the best guarantee of social and political
stability necessary for the survival of the nation”. Rapid economic expansion and
34
As noted in the revised master-plan in 1965, the lack of water supply was acknowledged and it was noted
that Singapore would be seeking to fortify its water supply from sources in the Johore State. In line with the
country’s development plan for its economy, there was a strong focus on seeking foreign investment and
support, and the money for developing water supply from Johore was financed by with the assistance of the
World Bank. (State of Singapore Master Plan, First Revision. 1965).
35
PUB Annual Report. 1965:7.
36
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1966:7.
37
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1966:65.
40
industrial growth marked Singapore’s early years of independence, and was eventually
underscored as the marker of the success of the developmental state (Castells 1988; Huff
1995).
The significance of the politics of water resources does not simply lie in mere
concerns of supply and demand, but more so in how it is being managed and engaged
(Swyngedouw 2004). Noticeably, the discursive significance of development was further
highlighted in a series of news reports which talked about the success of Singapore in
getting loans from the World Bank for further developing Singapore’s water-related
projects.38 Accordingly, the loans for financing the project to further develop waterworks
at the Johore River was presented in the news in a manner depicting the loans as a means
to “help finance a water supply project that will meet the island’s requirements into the
mid 1970s and permit future expansion”. 39 The focus on development was thus
highlighted as an impending reality for Singapore that was being backed by interactions
with global institutions as the state furthered its justification of its domination over urban
water.
Later on, the significance of state intervention was put forth by the Law Minister,
E.W. Barker, who proclaimed in 1965 after the opening of the Sultan Ismail waterworks
that:
“Singaporeans could live without fear of water rationing provided there was no
prolonged period of drought”.40
Embedded within such a statement was the relevance of the developmental works taken
up by the state, as increasing demand for water brought about by urbanization and
industrialization was being normalized as necessary consumption that could be
accommodated. On top of justifying industrialization and urbanization, what was also
significant was the presentation of the state’s capacity to deal with the increasing demand
38
“World bank agrees to $20 million loan for Singapore project” 4 December 1964. Straits Times.
“Singapore gets World Bank loan for water project” 3 March 1965. Straits Time; “Water -loan” 4 March
1965. Straits Times.
39
“Singapore gets World Bank loan for water project” 3 March 1965. Straits Time
40
“Fading fast- that fear of water rationing in Singapore” 4 April 1965 Singapore: Straits Times.
41
for water brought about by such development. Consequently, there existed the selfproclaimed need of the state to ensure that the limits of natural constraints would be
expanded to further perpetuate the developmental state’s logic of economic growth. E.W.
Barker even went on to publicly note “a tribute to the PUB”, claiming that:
“since its establishment in 1963, the PUB has not only maintained an efficient
supply of water, electricity and gas, but also showed courage and imagination
when planning for future expansion”.41
This was a strong statement with regards to portraying the significance of PUB’s effort at
improving life for Singaporeans through pushing for and dealing with rapid economic
growth and development in the country. The legitimacy of the state was being reiterated
through its capacity to handle such development, which in turn acted to perpetuate the
developmental state’s control over urban water and the consequent legitimating of its
position as a centralized authoritarian planner.
3.3 Managing an Independent Singapore: Urban Renewal and Reorganization
Consequently, the development of urban water alongside the urban environment
for the flourishing of Singapore was further engaged within the discourse of ‘urban
renewal’, where claims for urban renewal were often brought up to justify the state’s
attempt at land acquisition and population resettlement.42 The notion of urban renewal
was adopted by HDB in 1962 where it was noted that the role of its Building Program
was to pay more attention to revamping the central city areas while clearing the slums
around these areas. 43 Slums were depicted as negative features hindering the development
of Singapore, and the need to clear the slums and clean up the country was portrayed as
essential for Singapore’s ensuing development and progress. Subsequently, an Urban
Renewal Plan was officially released in 1963, claiming to be a strategy to “rebuild and
41
“A tribute to the board” 10 August 1969. Straits Times.
The HDB amended the Land Acquisition Act in 1966 and this allowed the government to “acquire any
land deemed necessary to the interest of national development” (Chua 1995:130). What is significant is that
the rate of compensation was determined by the government itself and this often allowed the state to
acquire land easily and relatively cheaply. The government would justify that this was necessary for a landscarce Singapore and that the subsequent development of the land would be for the betterment of the
country on the whole (Chua 1997).
43
Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1962.
42
42
rejuvenate the central city area”. 44 By 1965, after completing the first Five Year Building
Program, the plan of HDB had then expanded beyond providing public housing for the
poorer segment of the population towards a more ambitious plan of housing the nation.45
‘Urban renewal’ was thus normalized as a crucial part of Singapore’s development
through claims which deal with issues of “general improvement of the whole
environment including roads, car parking facilities, the provision of amenities and the
construction of a variety of commercial buildings which necessitated the investment of
private capital”.46
Through replaying the importance of economic development and the subsequent
management of urban water as a key utility to facilitate such development for urban
renewal, much of the concern was about overcoming the existing limits to allow for the
idealized notion of growth and development. Such development and organization of the
population acted to further the initiation of the state’s control over urban water, while
resulting in a population which has increasingly come to take piped water system for
granted. As the state furthered its developmental programs for industrialization and
urbanization from 1965 to 1975, domestic water consumption per capita per day
increased by 40.2%, from 75.4 liters/capita/day to 105 liters/capita/day (Table 3.1). At
the same time, the shipping, commerce and industrial water consumption per capita per
day also rose by 101.7% over this ten year period (Table 3.1). In noting how water
consumption had risen as Singapore gained independence, despite the claims of it being a
scarce and limited resource, the actual concern with resource politics revolved more
around the intertwining issues of access, ownership, distribution, and usage (Vaccaro
2008; Whiteley et al. 2008; Irwin 2001; Luke 1999).
44
Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1963.
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1965.
46
Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1966:64.
45
43
Table 3.1: Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 1965-1980
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
(Thousands)
Population
Size
Mid-year
estimate
(%)
Rate of
increase
for
Populati
on size
1,886.9
1,934.4
1,977.6
2,012.0
2,042.5
2,074.5
2,110.4
2,147.4
2,185.1
2,219.1
2,262.6
2,293.3
2,325.3
2,353.6
2,383.5
2,413.9
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
Domestic
Consumption of
Water
51,905.5
55,920.9
54,656.1
60,243.7
66,139.9
71,024.0
71,546.4
78,970.3
76,726.7
78,826.1
87,295.2
89,830.9
95,038.5
101,640.6
106,504.5
113,478.1
(Thousand cubic meters)
Commerce,
Total
Industrial and
Consumption
Shipping
of Water*
Consumption of
Water
23,802.0
25,981.5
26,382.4
30,774.2
33,705.0
37,995.2
40,962.8
49,106.4
53,860.1
54,923.5
58,100.1
58,995.3
63,066.1
66,028.8
73,203.5
79,338.1
123,897.8
136,026.6
136,968.6
150,247.8
156,588.5
165,505.7
161,017.7
175,503.7
174,949.0
176,482.3
192,655.5
199,465.8
211,844.6
225,596.3
239,477.1
258,083.2
Average
Consumpt
ion per
day
339.4
372.7
375.3
411.6
429.0
453.4
441.1
480.8
479.3
483.5
527.8
546.5
580.4
618.1
656.0
707.1
*Total Water consumption is inclusive of water sold to Malaysia, water consumed by Armed Service and
Singapore Government and Statutory Bodies.
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Liters per capita per day)
Total
Domestic
Shipping,
water
water
Commerce and
consum consumpti
Industrial
ption
on per
water
per
capita per
consumption
capita
day
per capita per
per day
day
179.9
192.7
189.8
204.6
210.0
218.6
194.8
223.9
219.3
217.9
233.3
75.4
79.2
75.7
82.0
88.7
93.8
92.9
100.8
96.2
97.3
105.7
34.9
36.8
36.5
41.9
45.2
50.2
53.1
62.7
67.5
67.8
70.4
(%)
Rate of
increase
for total
water
consumpti
on per
capita per
day
Rate of
increase
for
domestic
water
consump
tion per
capita
per day
Rate of
increase for
shipping,
commerce
and industry
water
consumption
per capita per
day
Rate of
increase
for total
water
consump
tion
7.1
-1.5
7.8
2.6
4.1
-10.9
14.9
-2.1
-0.6
7.1
5.0
-4.4
8.3
8.2
5.7
-1.0
8.5
-4.6
1.1
8.6
5.4
-0.8
14.8
7.9
11.1
5.8
18.1
7.7
0.4
3.8
9.8
6.9
9.7
4.2
5.7
-2.7
9.0
-0.3
0.9
9.2
44
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
238.3
249.6
262.6
275.2
292.9
107.4
112.0
118.3
122.4
128.8
70.5
74.3
76.9
84.1
90.0
2.1
4.7
5.2
4.8
6.4
1.6
4.3
5.6
3.5
5.2
0.1
5.4
3.5
9.4
7.0
3.5
6.2
6.5
6.2
7.8
Taken and consolidated from Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 1965-1980.
Under the housing policy of the 1960s, it was highlighted in HDB’s annual report
in 1962 that “all the Board’s housing estates are [to be] provided with essential services,
namely piped water, electricity, gas and modern sanitation”.47 Accordingly, the logic of
HDB was that the flats would provide occupants a self-contained residential unit “with its
own kitchen and bath/toilet cum wash area” (Wong and Yeh 1985:59). It was also
announced that HDB would work closely with the public utility department responsible
for providing such services to ensure that these “essential services” were installed without
delay. 48 The framing of such utility facilities as ‘essential’ was part of the developmental
state’s approach at normalizing urbanization, and had resulted in the incorporation of
residential piped water and sanitation as part of everyday living. The significance of
modern sanitation was also further glorified as an inevitable component of modern living
in the news which noted that:
“With the rapid progress made in Singapore, the obsolete method of cleansing by
buckets is slowly vanishing and being replaced by modern sanitation. With the
growing pace of housing development both by public and private efforts, the
demand for modern sanitation has also increased. In fact, modern sanitation has
become something which people expect to have”. 49
Urbanization adopted by the state was thus portrayed as a necessary means for
development and modernization. In turn, the state proceeded to justify such processes as
being demanded by the public, and claiming that it was the people who were now
‘expecting’ to have such facilities. In contrast to the negative depiction of the older
manners of sanitation as ‘obsolete’, modern sanitation was being presented as something
that everyone wanted and should have, thus setting forth a circular engagement of a selfreifying argument about the need for a centralized system of managing urban water.
47
Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1962:4.
Ibid.
49
“50 years if modern sanitation in Singapore” 16 October 1965. Straits Times.
48
45
It was even noted in the updated master-plan released by the Ministry of National
Development (MND) in 1970, that the term ‘residential flat’ was explicitly defined as
“any separate dwelling used or constructed or adopted to be used wholly or principally
for human habitation for a single family, where the kitchen and lavatory, bathroom or
water closet are contained within the separate dwelling and that dwelling is contained in a
building comprising two (joined vertically) or more such dwellings”. 50 The residential
flat in Singapore defined as such has thus been deemed inseparable from a lifestyle with
access to integrated piped water system; the lack of such facilities connecting the
household with piped water would be seen as an incomplete residential unit. By the end
of the first Five-Year Building Program in 1965, 23% of the population was already
living in public housing. 51 As HDB began to intensify its public housing program amidst
its claim for urban renewal, the percentage of population living in public housing
subsequently rose to about 34.6% in 1970, 53.8% in 1975, 72% in 1980, and 84% by
1985.52
The result of the adoption of the discourse of urban renewal was the subsequent
elevation of a lifestyle of convenience in the renewed urban setting, where the promise of
comfort, convenience and cleanliness through urban renewal was put forth to the
population as a necessary move. The significance of urban renewal thus lies not merely
within the physical improvement, but more so within how it has allowed the state to
adopt a large scale nation-wide urban planning and management, alongside the
reorganizing of the population. As Low (2009:128) argues, the idea of a clean
environment is a cultural and political product, one where sanitary “intervention was
deemed necessary as a result of associating dirt and filth with particular groups; namely
the poor and those who were considered ‘different ’ or of a lower hierarchical standing”.
Embedded within the discourse of urban renewal was thus a concern about organizing
Singapore for the pragmatic purpose of developing the economy and the management of
the population with a similar mindset. In turn, the power of the developmental state
50
Singapore Master Plan: Written Statement to accompany updated Master Plan. 1970.
Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1965:10.
52
Singapore Yearbook of Statistic. 1983; Singapore Yearbook of Statistic. 1975; Singapore Yearbook of
Statistic. 1985.
51
46
would be further justified with its capacity to fulfil the provision of the modernist
requirements of the population, while keeping the population relatively satisfied by
further maintaining the general population’s standard of living above the lower hierarchal
standing now associated with grime and filth.
3.4 Constructing a Boundary of Social Responsibility in a ‘Clean’ Singapore
In keeping up with the discourse of urban renewal, the state went on to organize
its first ever ‘Keep Singapore Clean’ Campaign in 1968 as part of the imaging of
Singapore as a ‘clean’ city. 53 This ‘Keep Singapore Clean’ rhetoric was reiterated by
HDB in 1970 as being part of their goal of building ‘cleaner and greener [housing estates]
with more recreational and communal facilities’.54 Prime-Minister Lee Kuan Yew also
reiterated ‘cleanliness’ as a marker of development in his inaugurating speech for the
“Keep Singapore Clean” campaign in 1968:
“We must create a public awareness of everyone’s duty to keeping Singapore
clean… As standards of social behavior rise, so social pressures will increase
against anti-social behavior of the unthinking or the incorrigible. The road shall
not be littered. Drains are not dumping grounds for refuse. The public park is your
own garden, and must be kept spruce and green for your own and everybody’s
enjoyment. Lifts, staircases, passageways of either homes or offices are
extensions of the home. Everybody can learn and acquire the habit of treating
common user areas as one’s own home, to be kept clean and maintained. And new
laws have been passed to assist in inculcating these new habits even on the erring
few…We have built, we have progressed. But no other hallmark of success will
be more distinctive than that of achieving our position as the cleanest and greenest
city in South Asia. For, only a people with high social and education standards
can maintain a clean and green city… And it requires a people conscious of their
responsibilities, not just to their own families, but also to their neighbors and all
others in the community who will be affected by their thoughtless anti-social
behavior. Only a people proud of their community performance, feeling for the
well-being of their fellow citizens, can keep up high personal and public standards
of hygiene…. we shall be enforcing the discipline on those who do not respond to
social suasion. We shall establish better conditions of community living – norms
which will make for a pleasanter, healthier and better life for all. These standards
will keep morale high, sickness rate low, and so create the necessary social
53
http://app2.nea.gov.sg/news_detail_2009.aspx?news_sid=20091020132078482349 Accessed on 31 May
2010.
54
Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1970:19.
47
conditions for higher economic growth in industry and in tourism. This will
contribute to the public good and in the end to everyone’s personal benefit”.55
In line with the discourse of urban renewal, building a ‘clean city’ was thus portrayed as
an attempt to turn Singapore into a modern nation, with an image of cleanliness and
greenery to improve the material life of the locals while attracting foreign investments
and tourism.
What is significant is how the message was being put forth, which depicted the
state’s control measures as being established in the best interests of everyone, where the
government was to step in to ‘discipline’ those who did not do what was ‘best for the
young nation’ and partake in ‘thoughtless and anti-social behaviors’. The portrayal of the
‘few erring and anti-social individuals’ was not necessarily depicting any particular
people but was discursive in constructing a boundary of morality and responsibility.
Accordingly, those who fell beyond this boundary and were seen as ‘dirtying’ the country
were identified as perpetrators compromising the nation’s development. As the attention
was on creating a clean environment alongside a high quality of living as the desirable
outcome for the young nation, the legitimacy of the state’s control over urban water and
environment was thus being premised upon its ability to maintain that boundary
discursively. In a manner similar to Bauman’s (2005) discussion of the significance of
work ethic in industrial society, the justification of cleanliness for developmental
purposes was a form of control and subordination, where the notion of ‘cleanliness’ was
being identified as a moral responsibility for the development of the well-being of
Singapore.
In proclaiming “Singapore to become [a] beautiful, clean city”, Prime-Minister
Lee Kuan Yew talked about punishing those who would foil the country’s effort, as they
were further identified as “lack[ing] of civic consciousness and apathy” and should be
fined as a punishment.56 The idea of cleaning up was not simply an inevitable natural
55
“Speech by the Prime-Minister Inaugurating the “Keep Singapore Clean” Campaign” 1 October 1968
(http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/lky19681001.pdf Accessed on 31 May 2010).
56
“PM announces two-stage plan: Singapore to become beautiful, clean city within three years” 12 May
1967. Straits Times.
48
process, but was one which was adopted based upon the notion of control, and one which
allowed for the state to further its developmental agenda while setting up social
boundaries to dictate the actions of the population. As Low (2009:152) correctly argues,
the significance of the clean body is not just about casting aside dirt, but it is a process of
“continuously maintain[ing] cleanliness, thereby ensuring order”. The idea of cleanliness
adopted in the 1970s was thus one premised upon the policing of social boundaries,
where the concept of cleanliness has become a minimal marker of modernity and civility,
while filth has turned into the repulsed enemy beyond the boundaries of social order and
acceptability (Elias 2000; Otter 2004).
3.5 Anti-Pollution Campaign: Dominating Urban Water and Urban Environment
The significance of cleanliness was even further incorporated into national
policies to justify the need for a totalizing management of the country, and this was
brought up by Prime-Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who attempted to rationalize the
developments of the management of urban water as part of the pragmatic importance of
creating a decent ‘livable’ environment. In his New Year message in 1971, the PrimeMinister identified the importance of a centralized planning alongside that of enforced
control and discipline when he noted that:
“We must develop our water resources to the full. We should be able to collect
and use between 25-35 percent of the daily average of 700 million gallons of
rainfall by 1977-80. This requires stiff anti-pollution measures to reduce mineral
particles and acid fumes in the air, and extensive sewerage works. All sullage
water from toilets, kitchens and bathrooms must go into the sewers. Then the runoff water can be pumped into reservoirs. Sewerage works, reservoirs, and
filtration works all cost a lot of money and use up limited and valuable land”.
(Lee Kuan Yew quoted in Josey 1980:2)
The talk about pollution concerns became another key discourse towards the 1970s,
where the focus was on attempts to maximize what Singapore had. This was noted as
something which was only possible alongside appropriate management of pollution
issues. Accordingly, this allowed for the developmental state to further justify its
interventionist stance, which was about prioritizing growth and development.
49
Associated with the earlier discourse of urban renewal, the idea behind antipollution can be aptly understood as a strategy of the state in taking over the control of an
integrated centralized planning, where every bit of space had to be properly managed for
the sake of national development. Environment Minister Lim Kim San even:
“urged Singaporeans not to pollute rain water that flows into the Republic’s
catchment areas …[so as] to ensure that we will continue to enjoy sufficient good
potable water, every citizen has the responsibility to see that he does not pollute
the water which will flow into the reservoir and which he will ultimately drink”. 57
The focus was eventually about reiterating the state’s control over management and
planning of the urban city, through which the public should be cooperative and receptive
of the state’s intervention in ensuring that their standard of living would not be
compromised. An anti-pollution campaign was adopted in 1973, calling for the public to
“keep our water clean”, and it was presented by Lim Kim San that:
“the call to keep our water clean and to prevent wasteful use of it is not only for
this campaign but for all times as we need water throughout our island…if we
succeed and succeed we must, life will be more pleasant and we will be able to
continue to enjoy good clean water”.58
The focus was on the creation of a modern lifestyle, one where the society can have a
certain standard of living while maximizing the constraints of natural limits.
Subsequently, a picture in a poster used for the anti-pollution campaign presented an
image of the coexistence of nature and industrial development, with factories being
located beside a water-body (Figure 3.1). The significance embedded within such a image
was not just about coexistence between human beings and the environment, but was one
depicting development as that of industrialization, where potentially polluting activities
often associated with industrialization were being represented as something that could be
and would have to be accommodated within the limits of Singapore’s environment.
57
58
“Lim urges Singaporeans: Don’t pollute rain water you will drink” 6 June 1973. Straits Times.
Singapore PUB Newsletter. 1973. (9)2:2.
50
Figure 3.1: Poster for Singapore’s Anti-Pollution Campaign in 1973
Taken from PUB Newsletter 1973. 9(2).
In 1971, a Water Planning Unit was set up, and subsequently, the first ever Water
Master-plan was formulated in 1972 (Tan et al. 2008). In the 1970s, much attention was
turned towards local catchments as Singapore sought to increase its local water storage
capacity. According to Tan et al. (2008), the Water Master-plan was drawn to maximize
local water capacity through stringent urban and catchment planning, so as to avoid the
pollution of the country’s key catchment areas. 59 More reservoirs and catchment areas,
alongside the development and construction of supporting pumping stations, waterworks
and connecting drainage and canals were planned and constructed. According to an oral
historical account by Tan Gee Phaw, the current PUB Chairman who was in the Water
Planning Unit in 1971, the Water Master-plan formulated in 1972 was an attempt by the
state to further expand the local water capacity of the country. 60 Tan noted that the
problem identified within the Water Master-plan was pollution, and highlighted that the
state was conscious of the need to develop water sources in manners that allowed
unprotected catchment areas to be developed:
59
Under The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore, Revised Edition of Acts 1970. 1970, chapter 295, the
Nature Reserves Act, Section 3 allowed for the allocation of lands to be designated as’ Nature Reserves’
for “purposes of the propagation, protection and preservation of the indigenous fauna and flora of
Singapore and the preservation of objects and places of aesthetic, historical or scientific interest.” In
Section 7, it was noted that reservoirs that are located in these natural reserves are also under the purview
of PUB. Noticeably, most of the central water catchment areas of Singapore are located in the nature
reserves areas located in the “Mukims of Sembawang, Mandai, Ulu Kalang, Bukit Timah and Toa Payoh”
and are being protected under the legislation of the Nature Reserves Act.
60
Oral History of Tan Gee Paw from the National Archives of Singapore.
51
“there were propositions for development of other water reservoirs but there was
the problem of it being unprotected, and so there is a need for cleaning up and to
go in and prevent pollution”.61
Subsequently in the Water Master-plan, heavy industrial sectors and factories
were re-located to Jurong and Tuas, and residential areas were organized so as to avoid
the risk of polluting the central catchment areas (Ooi 2005). In 1975, this was legislated
with the passing of the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act 1975, whereby under
Section 13 it was noted that unauthorized extraction of water from Singapore territory
could be fined up to five thousand dollars or up to three months imprisonment. At the
same time, under Section 14, any person who causes pollution to the water sources in
Singapore would also be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.
Further development, both of urban water and the urban environment, then came
to be premised strongly upon the state’s discourse of anti-pollution, where the focus was
that Singapore needed proper planning to further grow and expand its economy.
However, more subtly, such discursive usage of anti-pollution was one which perpetuated
the legitimacy of the state over water and the environment in a sort of moralistic manner.
As depicted by Encik Sha’ari Tadin, Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister for Culture
at the ‘Keep our water clean and preventing of water wastage’ campaign on 28 June
1973:
“It is clear that our environment can absorb very little pollution. Therefore, if we
in Singapore are to enjoy this good life, control of the environment becomes a
matter for priority, more so than in countries with massive land areas that can, to a
certain extent, neutralize man-made pollution. Being compact and small,
Singapore is capable of being fully developed. Every acre counts and must be put
to planned use – industrialization, housing, recreation etc….[but] there is a
corresponding disadvantage in being small in geography - Singapore is easily
pollutable…A clean environment provides good catchment for potable water. The
water problem is in fact one facet of the environmental problem – here again;
Singapore has very limited catchment areas to trap the abundant rain that falls
throughout the year. Currently, the public have responded to the call to conserve
water. It is the hope that it will not be necessary to impose compulsory water
61
Ibid.
52
rationing in Singapore…. It is better for each and every one of us to voluntarily
put a quota on his or her consumption of water, for there should be no wastage”.62
This was noticeably a continuation of the discourse on urban renewal, and the focus on
cleanliness through stringent measures against pollution was furthered by the state as
attempts at both national development and nation-building. As part of the state’s attempt
at increasing the capacity and efficiency of local catchment, rigorous urban-planning and
water management became key focuses of the developmental state. During this period,
the paternalistic style of governance of the single-party government became evermore
fortified, and an underlying idea depicted by the state was that the government had no
other choices but to step in while reiterating the Prime-Minister’s earlier opinion about
how common people often did not necessarily know what was best for them (Pang 1993;
Chua 1995; George 2000). Noticeably, the claim by Encik Sha’ari Tadin hinted at this by
noting that the state would not impose water rationing if people would control their own
behavior in the first place.
With such rhetoric, the state further attempted to justify its domineering attempt
to dominate the flow of urban water in everyday life. As Lim Kim San, the Environment
Minister in 1973 said:
“To ensure that we will continue to enjoy sufficient good potable water, every
citizen has the responsibility to see that he does not pollute the water which will
flow into the reservoir where he will ultimately drink… by educating the public,
by the provision of the necessary equipment, by enforcement of the anti-pollution
laws against the minority which still indulge in sheer irresponsibility… If every
member of the public will show as much concern for his surroundings as he does
for his own home, then we would have gone a long way towards preserving for
ourselves the bounty which nature provides”.63
The concern here was that the state was once again depicting the need for direct
intervention as beneficial for the nation, where water as a key public resource could not
be compromised if it was to remain abundant or even sufficient for national growth. The
claim for “enforcement of the anti-pollution laws against the minority which still indulge
in acts of sheer irresponsibility” was thus adopted and portrayed as a necessary safeguard
62
“Speech by Encik Sha’ Ari Tadin, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture and MP for KG.
Chai Chee, at the ‘Keep Our Water Clean and Prevention of Water Wastage’ Campaign” 28 June 1973.
Singapore Government Press Statement 1973. MC/Jun/47/73.
63
“Lim urges Singaporeans: Don’t pollute rain water you will drink” 6 June 1973. Straits Times.
53
for Singapore’s development.64 The presentation was that control was necessary even
though the claim was not all Singaporeans were wasteful, but with some ‘irresponsible’
individuals, Singapore could still easily be at risk. The need for an authoritative
government was thus justified through the depiction of the fear of the risks and threats
that pollution can create for Singapore. Public cooperation, or more aptly, public docility
and acceptance of the state’s actions was reiterated by PUB as the best means of antipollution measures, and it was highlighted by PUB that:
“…no matter how elaborate and how far seeing our plans are, we cannot implement them
without the full cooperation of the public. It is the mental attitude of the public, in fact
that of the individual, that is the primary factor in solving our water pollution
problems”. 65
3.6 Debating Wastage: The Subjectivities of Water Scarcity
Another component of the developmental state’s interventionist discourses in the
1970s was the discourse of wastage, alongside that of anti-pollution, as part of its attempt
to justify its control over the urban water. With the continued focus placed on economic
growth and development of the country, water demand was on the rise but the attempts to
increase water supply were restricted by constraints such as the time taken to build the
needed water infrastructures and extended periods of dry spells. In order to meet the
increase in demand brought about by urbanization and industrialization, the concern of
PUB in the late 1960s was thus to build up the water supply capacity for Singapore, both
local and foreign. Plans to increase water supply from Malaysia proceeded after
independence, with the Johore River Project being completed in July 1967.66 In 1969, the
Seletar dam was constructed as an initial attempt to further increase local catchment
supply. 67 In 1970, plans were made to increase local catchment and storage capacity
through the Kranji-Pandan Scheme which would take five years to complete.68 However,
with the continuous emphasis on development, demand for water continued to soar from
the late 1960s into the 1970s (Table 3.1), and consequently, the discourses surrounding
64
Ibid.
Singapore PUB Newsletter 1973. (9)2:3.
66
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1967.
67
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1969.
68
A loan of $25.4 million was obtained from ADB (Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1970:5).
65
54
water in the early 1970s also began to shift towards a more overt focus on the limitations
of the country’s water resources.
However, such focus on limitations was not one which challenged the realm of
development. The notion of scarcity was a subjective negotiation that went beyond mere
concerns with supply and demand where water was an increasingly limited resource
amidst an almost insatiable demand of a growing capitalist economy (Low 1997).
Consequently, as with the discourse of anti-pollution, the claim was that Singaporeans
needed to be responsible, and the Chairman of PUB, Ong Swee Law, went on to identify
water as a “precious commodity” when he noted that:
“While we look for ways to meet this increasing demand, I think it is necessary
for me to point out that this should be accompanied by action to prevent
wastage…It is time that Singapore should concern itself with detecting and
preventing wastage”.69
The focus on controlling the population was thus further legitimized as a form of control
necessary for the people’s own well-being. The state attempted to justify its control over
various aspects of everyday life in a relatively paternalistic manner, noting it as measures
to ensure the continuity of the idealized development and growth of Singapore. The
discourse of wastage was thus adopted to reify the actions of the authoritarian state, as the
focus was placed upon Singaporeans to be responsible for ensuring that water remained
sufficient for Singapore’s continuous development.
With the extended period of dry spell in the earlier part of 1971, PUB even openly
issued warnings to the public to conserve water, while noting the dry spell to be fast
depleting local water-stocks.70 During this period, a punitive tone was adopted alongside
the call against wastage of water, whereby the public was asked to reduce their
69
“Singapore open Seletar reservoir” 11 August 1969. Straits Times.
Under Chapter 211 of The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore, Revised Edition of Acts 1970, the
Public Utilities Act 1970, Section 18, the PUB is allowed to “without incurring any liability …reduce as it
deems fit the quantity of water, gas or electricity supplied in any case, if at any time it is of the opinion that
its supply of water, gas or electricity is insufficient for purposes of normal supply to the public”.
70
55
consumption or face the possibility of water rationing and fines.71 Accordingly, Lim Kim
San, the Chairman of PUB went on to publicly announce that:
“… if the public are able cut down consumption, we shall defer a few days more
and the weather may break… whether we have rationing depends firstly on the
public and secondly on the weather. We cannot control the weather, but the public
can be controlled”. 72
This statement was a strong representation of the autocratic state, whereby the limitations
caused by the dry spell were presented as negotiable through the controlling of the public.
PUB even went on to normalize its punitive discourse through contextualizing the risk
associated with wastage of water as a legal issues through claims such as “taking
action… to convince water wasters that squandering water is a crime punishable by a
$500 fine”. 73
The idea of wasting water was thus associated with undesirable individuals who
did not care and were putting the well-being of the country at risk, and thus had to be
punished. The idea of punishment was depicted as a measure against “people who
continue to waste water and are thwarting the efforts of the majority to save water”.74
This was highlighted in a case where PUB won against a woman who allegedly ‘wasted’
water by using a hose to wash a taxi when it was claimed that she could have used less
water by using a bucket. It was publicly presented as a “test case on water wastage”,
where the public was warned of a “critical water situation”, the “using [of] more water
than necessary could mean waste in [in terms of the nation’s] law”. 75 The idea of wastage
was not so much an objective one with a consistent and absolute definition of what
wastage is, but was based upon the idea of inappropriate usage of water during periods of
‘crisis’, and was discursively located within the controlling and disciplining of the
71
“Singapore may introduce water rationing: ‘Cut down consumption’ warning by PUB”. 6 May 1971.
Straits Times; “All is set for water cuts” 9 May 1971. Straits Times; “Cutting down on water consumption
by compulsion: it’s the only way to stop wastage” 12 May 1971. Straits Times.
72
“Rationing may come sooner than is necessary” 22 May 1971. Straits Times.
73
“The time has come for the PUB to read the law to habitual wasters and those who do not care. Section
73 (c) of the Public Utilities Ordinance provides that any person who “wastes or unlawfully draws off,
diverts or takes any water…may be fined up to $500” (“PUB warns of action against water waste” 28 May
1971. Straits Times.).
74
“PUB warns of action against water waste” 28 May 1971. Straits Times.
75
“Woman fined $50 for washing taxi with a hose: PUB wins water waste test case” 8 July 1971. Straits
Times.
56
population for national development. As it was noted, for those who had not reacted as
the PUB hoped, punishment and regulation were needed, and it was noted that this was
because “[Singaporeans who ‘waste’ water] respond best to arm twisting.”76 The
underlying concern was not so much about the actual limitedness of the resource, but
about the state’s capacity to gain access to it, domination over it and control it
accordingly.
The focus on controlling domestic consumption continued even when the drought
ended, as the notion of furthering and continuing the state’s control over water utilities
persisted. It was noted that Lim Kim San, PUB’s Chairman publicly:
“called on the people not to relax in their efforts to save water, and warned that
there was still a danger that rationing may have to be introduced”.77
The purported sense of crisis presented was about focusing on the relevance of
vulnerability due to Singapore’s constraint to provide urban water from within for its
developmental agenda, which was subsequently presented as something that could only
be managed by a strong authoritarian state alongside a disciplined and responsible
population. The significance of water management, then, is a politicized one, where the
depiction of authoritative governance of the developmental state was justified in an
implicit and subtle manner, where the public was ‘rewarded’ for responding to the state’s
directives. The consequent reaction by the public to reduce consumption was then
represented as “a demonstration of public consciousness of the water situation and a
willingness to cooperate”, and was significantly presented as a marker of virtue of the
public.78 This was also noted in the news stating that:
“although more rain will help to defer rationing longer, it is the collective action
of the public that can help to minimize the water crisis”.79
Significantly, there were many subsequent depictions of the need to conserve, noting that
Singapore was “still far short of target: Don’t waste water”, where reduction in water
consumption was highlighted to be possible only “if the people will act with a greater
76
Ibid.
“Don’t relax water effort: Lim” 12 July 1971. Straits Times.
78
“Keep it up. Don’t waste water” Another 6 million gallons saved” 16 May 1971. Straits Times.
79
Ibid.
77
57
sense of urgency”. 80 Eventually, the discourse of wastage sought to individualize
problems associated with urban water, while normalizing the state’s ensuing control over
it. Within this context, the population was being identified as key actors that have to work
together under the state’s directive to ensure that Singapore could survive, grow and
progress as a young nation.
3.7 Controlling Domestic Consumption: Water as a Limited Resource
The direction of Singapore’s development strategy was a political one, and as
Rodan (2001:144) notes, “not all fractions of capital are equally capable of participating
in the Singapore government’s embrace of globalization, and uneven reward will more
generally ensue from it. The management of these tensions was becoming an increasingly
important issue in the political economy of Singapore”. The early 1970s was a period
marked by limited growth in water supply due to the fact that the time taken to enhance
local catchment supply was struggling to keep up with pace that the demand was
increasing at. This was also further compounded by the extended periods of dry spell in
the early 1970s. Despite such claims of water shortages, it was evident that the discourse
of wastage was one which was focused upon the domestic sector, while urbanization and
industrialization continued to grow without much constraint.
Even after enlarging Seletar reservoir in 1969, Singapore was still getting 82.5%
of its water supply from Malaysia and the local reservoirs were only providing 17.5% of
the total water supply. 81 In 1971, the draw-off of water from the local catchment dropped
to 13.0% due to decreasing water stock alongside the PUB’s call for water
conservation. 82 With the bulk of its water coming from Malaysia, the shortage of local
water stock due to the dry spell would not have necessarily resulted in the dramatic
widespread threat of water shortage or water rationing. However, a further exploration
would show that the discourse of wastage during this period was one which mainly
targeted domestic consumption. This could be seen in widespread efforts by PUB to
‘convince’ the public to reduce consumption, such as PUB officers actively going about
80
“Still far short of target: Don’t waste water” 20 May 1971. Straits Times.
Water Department, Annual Report. 1969.
82
Water Department, Annual Report. 1971.
81
58
checking on water consumption patterns and taking down particulars of those “found
…allegedly wasting water by washing cars with gushing hose or those making equally
liberal use of potable water to hose their floor”.83 In line with the earlier discussion of the
construction of water scarcity as relative in relation to the developmental state’s focus on
industrialization, the construction of water wastage in the early 1970s was evidently
construed mainly for the domestic sector, where excessive usage of water for nonproductive activities was deemed problematic.
By the end of 1971, water conservation efforts were noted to be a success, and for
the first time ever after independence, the rate of total water consumption of the country
went down by 2.7% (Table 3.1). However, what is significant was not the drop in total
water consumption, but a comparison of the rate of increase for domestic water
consumption per capita per day with that of the shipping, commerce and industry water
consumption per capita per day. Even though the rate of the former went down by 1.0%,
the latter increased by 5.8% (Table 3.1). Even when the public managed to respond to the
warnings of water rationing, the non-domestic sector remained less affected and their
consumption continued to increase. The portrayal of water shortage as an urgent issue to
the domestic population was not so readily reflected for the non-domestic sectors as their
rate of increase rose by an average of 6.7% per year from 1970 to 1975 (Table 3.1).
Turning back to PUB Chairman Lim Kim San’s appeal to the public to reduce
consumption during dry spells, the focus inevitably constructed water wastage as mainly
a problem of the (domestic) public. Consequently the public was claimed as having to
learn to be responsible:
“Water rationing can be put off for at least a fortnight if the public will reduce
their daily consumption by twenty-five percent. If during this respite, the rains
come, then rationing can be postponed even longer….. The situation is still
retrievable… it depends on how much restraint the public will impose on
themselves”. 84
83
“Wasting water: PUB officers act” 30 May 1971. Straits Times.
“Cutting down on water consumption by compulsion: It’s the only way to stop wastage” 12 May 1971.
Straits Times.
84
59
The notion of control was further highlighted within PUB’s claim to “step up
drive on water waste”, whereby the public was asked to go “easy on water”, noting that
“the best time to fight a water crisis is before it has happened”.
85
The state was thus
seeking to further legitimize its control over urban water through attempting to further the
path for its paternalistic governance. Such paternalism was being justified as preventive
and cautionary measures for national well-being. However, as the sense of threat was
toned down and started to lose hold in 1972, domestic consumption also went back up.
Despite continuing but less frequent calls to reduce water wastage, the rate of increase for
total water consumption per capita per day of 1972 went up by 14.9%, with both
domestic and non-domestic water consumption per capita per day also on the rise (Table
3.1). Subsequently, towards the end of 1972, the discourse of wastage was once again
publicized by PUB, where it was noted that “water consumption [was] too high…. [and
that] water-saving habit must become a way of life with Singaporeans if they are to be
assured always of a ready supply of clean water”.86
Later in December 1972, Lim Kim San went on to officially launch the country’s
first water conservation campaign with the official tagline depicting “Water is
precious”.87 The relevance of such a campaign was however temporary, with domestic
consumption per capita per day dropping by 4.6% in 1973, only to go back up again from
1974 onwards (Table 3.1). The eventual focus was still on development, and the ensuing
furthering of urbanization meant that more and more people were gaining access to a
modern water system. At the same time, with the fact that the Upper Pierce Reservoir and
Kranji-Pandan Scheme were completed in 1974 and 1975 respectively (Table 3.2), the
risk associated with water rationing was also rendered less significant, and the discourse
of waste also began to lose its explicit significance. Eventually, the focus of the
developmental state was located upon its ability to exert control over urban water and the
environment through its propagation of the provision of a modern lifestyle. As the sense
of crisis lost hold, the discursive significance engaged within the discourse of wastage
85
“PUB to step up drive on water waste” 3 February 1972. Straits Times.
“Consumption too high-“cultivate water saving habit” call” 22 November 1972. Straits Times.
87
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1972.
86
60
also shifted towards one based upon the state’s capacity in ensuring that clean water
would remain plentiful. As Prime-Minister Lee Kuan Yew noted:
“Water rationing may be a thing of the past in Singapore when the four new
reservoirs in the Western Catchment Water Scheme are completed in 1981”.88
Table 3.2: Singapore’s Reservoirs and Storage Capacity
3
Name of Reservoir
Year Completed
Storage Capacity (million m )
MacRitchie
Lower Pierce
Seletar
Upper Pierce
Kranji/Pandan
Western Catchment
Bedok/Sungei Seletar
Total
1867 (enlarged in 1894)
1912
1935 (enlarged in 1969)
1974
1975
1981
1986
4.2
2.8
24.1
27.8
22.5
31.4
23.2
142.0
Taken from Lee (2005)
Therefore, the discourse of limited resources in Singapore was in fact one
representing the economic and infrastructural expansion of the country more than the
actual limitations of not having enough water locally. Even when the water issue was less
urgent, the call to save water continued, albeit in a less intense manner. The focus was
placed upon the idea of conserving water as something that needed to be done to prevent
‘complacency’. It was even claimed by PUB that it was:
“often forgotten that on a small island where space is precious and sources of
water are limited, water has to be painstakingly collected and treated, and areas
ear-marked for collecting purposes have to compete with other uses just as vital
like industry and housing”. 89
This was once again a reiteration of the developmental stance of the country, and the
focus on Singapore’s limitation as a small island with limited resources was played up
accordingly to perpetuate a justification of the state’s intervention in much of everyday
life.
88
89
“No fear of dry spells by 1981” 28 February 1977. Straits Times.
Singapore PUB Newsletter. 1976. (12)1:1.
61
Chapter Four
“Don’t Use Water Like There’s No Tomorrow”: Changing Ideas About
Water in the 1980s-1990s
This chapter will show the discursive shift of urban water management in
Singapore in the 1980s and 1990s. As Singapore became increasingly affluent with its
rapid economic growth and development, the state’s control over the population with
regards to its management of urban water also shifted from a more overt notion of
punishment towards a more subtle approach of disciplining. Instead of threatening the
population with water rationing and legal fines, the focus shifted towards the discursive
engagement of efficiency and possibilism, where the controlling of the flow of urban
water was an attempt at getting the populace to gradually internalize and normalize the
state’s control. The focus also shifted towards one where a discourse of sustainable
development was then adopted as a means of reiterating the goals of the developmental
state amidst its justification of the need for long term integrated planning for the wellbeing of both the individual and nation. Towards the end of the 1990s, the ideological
significance of efficiency and possibilism were also reiterated within the state’s focus on
crisis. Accordingly, much of the legitimacy of the governance over urban water shifted
towards reinforcing the hegemony of the state by getting the population to internalize the
relevance of an increasingly technocratic state.
4.1 Increasing Affluence and Economic Restructuring in the 1980s
Towards the beginning of the 1980s, Singapore experienced strong economic
growth and rapid social development. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was
picking up after a brief decline in the mid 1970s and was at 9.7% in 1980, with GDP at
$13,366.5 million. 90 According to Rodan (2001), unemployment worries of the early
years of independence had been resolved by industrialization programs, which were
doing so well that labor shortage was even becoming a problem. In order to deal with the
problem of labor shortage, the state embarked on a ‘second industrial revolution’ to
90
Singapore Yearbook of Statistics. 1981.
62
reduce labor intensive industries, and moved towards more technologically intensive
sectors (Wilkinson 1986; Rodan 1985). Such restructuring showed signs of economic
success as Singapore’s “growth rate after 1979 continued to be high despite generally
depressed international conditions following the second oil-shock” (Kng et al. 1988:60).
The relevance of the governance of the PAP in improving the economic
conditions of Singapore and providing for the material basis of the population after
independence was evidently reproduced in its subsequent 1980 election victory, which
“was the high-water mark of the party’s power and self-confidence, and in 1981 the
economy recorded its best growth rate in eight years” (Turnbull 2009:333). However,
there existed certain “structural limits to the expansion of the manufacturing sector in
Singapore” as manufacturing growth rate remained relatively low and got even worse
with the economic recession in the mid 1980s (Rodan 2001:150). Consequently, the
government reacted by shifting the focus of Singapore’s economy toward the service
sectors. As a result, Singapore managed a relatively fast and stable economic recovery
after 1987, and went on to position itself as a “provider of high value-added services for
the region” (Rodan 2001:151). The success of Singapore’s transition to a service-based
economy after the mid 1980s subsequently led to even more prominent economic growth
and invariably facilitated an “explosion in the culture of consumption” in Singapore
(Chua 1998:985).
As a result of successful rapid industrialization and urbanization programs, the
standard of living increased accordingly, and people’s material expectations also rose.
The population began to shift towards more affluent and materialistic lifestyles brought
about by the pragmatic strategies implemented by the developmental state. Alongside
high GDP and GDP-growth, total consumption expenditures also grew at a significant
rate of 8.0% in 1980, and private consumption went up by 7.7% in 1980.91 At the same
time, as part of the second industrial revolution, the National Wages Council (NWC) of
Singapore also restructured national wages in order to deter labor intensive industries,
91
Singapore Yearbook of Statistics. 1982.
63
and to encourage more capital and technological intensive industries (Wilkinson 1986).92
As a result, compared to the average increase of about 6.0% annually for average weekly
earnings over the five years from 1975 to 1979, average weekly earnings increased by a
significantly larger range of 13% to 15% annually between 1980 and 1983. This resulted
in a significant increase in the purchasing power of the population during this period.93
Alongside the state’s earlier successful attempt at urban renewal, where 73% of
the population was already living in public housing by 1980, HDB went on to carry out
further environmental upgrading to improve the quality of living. Such upgrading works
included the construction of 382 wash facilities/areas around various void decks in 1979,
and further technical improvements to the water distribution system of the housing
blocks.94 As the population became further incorporated into a clean, convenient and
comfortable lifestyle, it also meant that they were increasingly inclined towards relating
to urban water in everyday life as a taken for granted utility (Shove 2003b). Notably,
despite messages of water conservation being present in the early 1980s, domestic water
consumption per capita per day continued to increase by an average of 2.0% annually
between 1980 to 1989 (Table 4.1). The rate of increase for domestic water consumption
per capita per day was also rising by 0.3% in 1981 (Table 4.1). The rate of increase for
domestic water consumption per capita per day only went down by 0.4% in 1982 after the
national water conservation campaign held towards the end of 1981, and continued to
increase from 1983 onwards till 1989 (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 1980-1989
Year
1980
(Thousands)
Population
Size
Mid-year
Estimate
(%)
Rate of
increase
for
Populatio
n Size
Domestic
Consumption
of Water per
year
2,413.9
1.3
113,478.1
(Thousand cubic meters)
Commerce,
Total
Industrial and
Consumption
Shipping
of Water per
Consumption of
year*
Water per year
79,338.1
258,083.2
Average
Consumption
per day
707.1
92
Under the NWC memoranda to the Prime-Minister in 1973, the logic of productivity was invoked to
support the restructuring of wage where it was highlighted that “wages must therefore be allowed to rise to
reflect market forces and stimulate the most efficient use of manpower” (National Wages Council 1979
Memorandum:79). This was noted by the NWC as the “Corrective Wage Policy”.
93
Singapore Yearbook of Statistic. 1982.
94
During 1979 and 1980, HDB further improved the water distribution system to 1502 existing blocks
(Singapore HDB Annual Report. 1979/1980.)
64
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
2,532.8
2,646.5
2,681.1
2,732.2
2,736.0
2,733.4
2,774.8
2,846.1
2,930.9
4.9
4.5
1.3
1.9
0.1
-0.1
1.5
2.6
3.0
119,436.8
124,233.5
132,438.2
136,217.8
141,706.5
144,547.6
151,772.7
159,657.5
165,439.0
87,912.2
89,806.6
96,802.7
97,475.7
91,568.1
89,464.4
96,940.7
101,772.5
109,816.3
278,216.1
290,034.6
309,002.0
317,942.0
322,677.7
324,664.3
334,679.7
344,073.8
355,635.5
762.2
794.6
846.6
871.1
884.0
889.5
916.9
942.7
974.3
*Total Water consumption is inclusive of water consumed by Armed Service and Singapore Government
and Statutory Bodies, and water sold to Malaysia
Liters per capita per day)
(%)
Year
Total
water
consump
-tion per
capita
per day
Domestic
water
consumption
per capita
per day
Shipping,
Commerce
and
Industrial
water
consumption
per capita
per day
Rate of
increase
for total
water
consumpti
on per
capita per
day
Rate of
increase
for
domestic
water
consump
-tion per
capita
per day
Rate of
increase for
shipping,
commerce
and industry
water
consumption
per capita
per day
Rate of
increase
for total
water
consump
tion
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
292.9
300.9
300.2
315.8
318.8
323.1
325.4
330.4
331.2
332.4
128.8
129.2
128.6
135.3
135.6
141.9
144.9
149.9
153.7
154.5
90.0
95.1
93.0
98.9
97.7
91.7
89.7
95.7
98.0
102.7
6.4
2.7
-0.2
5.2
0.9
1.3
0.7
1.5
0.2
0.4
5.2
0.3
-0.4
5.2
0.2
4.6
2.1
3.5
2.5
0.5
7.0
5.6
-2.2
6.3
-1.2
-6.1
-2.1
6.7
2.4
4.8
7.8
7.8
4.2
6.5
2.8
1.5
0.6
3.1
2.8
3.4
Taken from Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 1985 – 1990 and Trend in Singapore Resident Population
1990-200
On the one hand, such an increase could be associated with the further expansion
of public housing during this period, where the percentage of the population living in
public housing had increased to 89% by 1989.95 On the other hand, this was also a further
reflection of how the population had increasingly come to accept the convenience and
comfort associated with urban water as part and parcel of everyday life. As PUB noted:
“these consumers [whom PUB identified as having a tendency to consume a
disproportionate amount of water in Singapore] can easily reduce water use
without inconvenience or hardship”.96
95
96
Singapore Yearbook of Statistics. 1990.
“Carrot and stick way to save water” 30 July 1981. Straits Times.
65
The idea of efficiency was gradually being introduced, whereby it was believed that
consumers could easily change their water usage habits without much change to their
daily lives. Even amidst PUB’s call for water conservation in the early 1980s, the
position was focused on legitimizing the state’s capacity to provide for a certain standard
of living as it evidently sought to ensure that any compromises of comfort and
convenience would be avoided or minimized. This was followed by the claim of:
“’soft –selling’ save water message …(where) persuasion is (now) the approach
the PUB hopes will bring home its save water message… Letters, including tips
on how to save water, have already been sent to the 7500 consumers identified as
excessive users”.97
Accordingly, as with Featherstone’s (2000) discussion of Baudrillard’s notion of
consumption, the issue with consumption is not just about the use value but also the sign
value. In the case of an increasingly affluent society, the consumption of urban water is
not just about the physical usage of water, but about consuming the meanings associated
with urban water. Instead of looking at the direct use value of water per se, I suggest that
the consumption of urban water during this period became much more significant as a
signifier of the success of Singapore, and consequently of the management capabilities of
the state (Mort 2000; Hajer and Fischer 1999).
4.2 Water Conservation Campaigns in the Early 1980s
In seeking to increase water supply in the early 1980s, local water storage
capacity in Singapore was further augmented with the completion of the Western
Catchment Area in 1981, and the Sungei Seletar/Bedok Reservoirs in 1986 (refer to Table
3.2 in Chapter 3).98 Despite such measures adopted to increase water supply, the use of
the discourse of wastage continued, albeit less focused on a sense of crisis as compared to
the 1970s. Instead, a discursive shift was seen in the early 1980s, where the idea of
wasting water was further supplemented by the state’s engagement of the notion of
efficiency. This was reflected within PUB’s attempt at promoting “saving water the
thimble way”, where the use of water-saving devices such as a thimble (a button-like
97
98
“‘Soft –selling’ save water message” 22 September 1981. The Straits Times.
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1981; Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1986.
66
device installed in taps to reduce the flow rate of water as a measure to increase more
efficient usage of water) was underlined as a crucial measure to prevent water wastage.
The significance of such a claim was based upon the notion of saving water through
maximizing efficiency and minimizing wastage, where PUB also noted:
“We want everybody to benefit from this water-saving device and not waste water
unnecessarily”. 99
The significance of the idea of not wasting water ‘unnecessarily’ was thus more subtly
associated with the dominance of an autocratic state which depicted what was necessary
and unnecessary in everyday life, and hence was not simply about wasting water. Such
dominance has been legitimated through claims of the ability to ensure the continuous
flow of water and the associated efficient standard of living, where “efficiency” was not
only technical, but also implicitly demarcated the success of the existing management
and governance.
With the rhetoric of water efficiency, the use of water-saving devices was
presented as one that can facilitate water conservation with minimal changes to the
existing lifestyle. As it was noted by PUB later on:
“Singapore’s water supply is limited by the scarcity of land and water catchments
and contending land use. To curb high demand growth rate, the board will
continue to pursue its long term water conservation plan to ensure that water
resources will be more efficiently and effectively utilized to support Singapore’s
growing economy”. 100
Adopting a discourse of efficiency was a means of gradually shifting the focus away from
a directly punitive stance towards a more subtle form of controlling the flow of urban
water by discouraging water wastage through maximizing usage. Hence, PUB’s
persistent reiteration of limited water resources in Singapore did not linger upon the
image of a vulnerable young country, as was the case in the 1960s and 1970s, but shifted
towards a more subtle attempt of disciplining the population through aligning social
consciousness with the state’s action; efficiency was then depicted as an inevitable mode
of development for both national and individual well-being. Within such a context of
99
“Saving water the thimble way” 10 October 1980. Straits Times
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1984:6.
100
67
urban water management in Singapore, there existed no means of conceiving any
conditions whereby the economy could be compromised, and the hegemony of the
developmental state was extended based upon the continual process of legitimizing its
position based on normalizing economic goals as individual and national aspirations.
Within such rhetoric, it was also publicly noted by PUB that it “plans to revise
water tariffs so as to induce more efficient usage and to reduce waste”.101 The imposing
of a water tariff was accepted readily in the 1980s as Singapore was becoming more
affluent. The justification for the increasing of the tariff was noted by Trade and Industry
Minister Tony Tan Keng Yam, as a measure to help improve efficient water
consumption:
“PUB will monitor water usage closely after the [tariff] revision. The frequency
and extent of future revision will depend on how successfully we can hold down
water usage”.102
The state was beginning to gradually shift away from direct to more indirect control,
namely that of an economic means whereby wastage was subjected to surveillance by the
state through its tariff system. As opposed to the more overt punishment by fines, the
focus had shifted towards disciplining the population through strategic monetary
measures, and this attempt to economize water usage for the practical need to save water
was highlighted by Tony Tan Keng Yam in 1981, as he noted that Singaporeans had to:
“save water or pay the price … [as] Singapore’s limited resources cannot sustain
high rates of increase in consumption”. 103
Such a message of telling Singaporeans to “don’t use water like water” was also
reproduced in the news, noting that “unless consumers are able to economize on water
consumption on their own, they should welcome the PUB’s efforts to help them curb
wastage”.104 Such attempts at furthering the state’s interference in daily behaviors were
also noted in PUB’s announcement that in order to further maximize water conservation,
it would “send officers knocking on doors to give a pointer or two on how to save water –
101
“Revision of water rates to reduce wastage” 25 July 1981. Business Times.
Ibid.
103
“Save water or pay the price, says Dr Tan” 17 October 1981. Straits Times.
104
“Don’t use water like water” 4 November 1981. Business Times.
102
68
if they fail to heed the board’s postal advice [to reduce water consumption]”. 105 The
underlying meaning was to depict water beyond a mere natural resource, but as a
commodity to be organized under the watchful eyes of the state for the well-being of
Singapore.
Engaging with water within the power dynamics of the city was becoming less
about directly enforcing laws and punishing the population as it tended to be in the 1960s
and 1970s, and more about instilling a sense of “discipline” and creating a form of
regularizing the control of the state towards the use of water within everyday life
(Foucault 1995). This was also reflected in the “Water Conservation Plan” drawn up by
PUB in October 1981, with Tony Tan Keng Yam highlighting the significance of water
conservation:
“I am sure that we do not wish to go through the inconvenience and trauma of
water rationing experienced in 1961 and 1963…. Very few of us are deliberate
water-wasters. I think most of us unconsciously use more water than is necessary,
in our daily activities. Water tariffs were increased last month to pay for higher
cost of production of water and to encourage frugal use of water. The PUB will
monitor closely the rate of increase in water consumption. The frequency and
extent of future tariff increases will depend on how successfully we can hold
down water usage”.106
Wastage was more subtly constructed as unintended oversight, as opposed to being
portrayed as out-rightly anti-social behaviors as in the 1970s. Direct threats of possible
water rationing became less common as the focus shifted towards disciplining the
population through reinforcing the embedded economic rationale that had been
increasingly dominating much of the public consciousness. The next step was to get
Singaporeans to internalize that control, through which they would come to understand
and accept the idea that excessive usage of water would have to be accounted for by
increasing cost of paying higher utilities bills.
The mode of control has thus shifted from exerting direct control on the body to
what Foucault (1995:137) would argue as a mode of discipline of “the economy, the
105
“PUB to tap on doors of errant users” 17 September 1981. Straits Times.
“Speech by Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, Minister for Trade and Industry, at the launching of the water
conservation campaign” 16 October 1981. Singapore Government Press Release.
106
69
efficiency of movements, their internal organization; [where] constraint bears upon the
forces rather than upon the signs; [and] the only truly important ceremony is that of
exercise”. It is not merely about getting the population to feel compelled to reduce water
consumption due to increasing cost, but the attempt was to get the population to further
accept that increasing tariffs would be a necessary component for a country depicted to
be always facing potential water shortage problems. It was even further identified by
PUB in 1985 that in order to raise awareness of the benefit of water conservation, “water
consumers will get two bills this month: one saying how much they have to pay; the
other, a handbill, telling them in effect that they need not pay so much in the future”.107 In
this case, the increasing normalization of the notion of efficiency depicted the role that
Singaporeans would have to play in order for the nation to benefit. Accordingly, the
population would thus come to see the control of the state through its effective
management of urban water as a legitimate form of governance (Foucault 1995).
In 1983, the national water conservation campaign was launched again, where
Tony Tan Keng Yam went on to note that Singaporeans were becoming complacent and
“hence there is the need for water conservation campaigns to be held from time to time to
remind us of the importance of saving water”.108 The role of the PUB was thus being
reiterated as a supervisory one, which acted as a means of reemphasizing urban water as a
public good that had to be managed by the paternalistic state so as to ensure the wellbeing of Singaporeans. The supervisory role was further noted whereby “water
users…will be reminded to stop drips by closing the tap tightly, shorten showers, wash
food and dishes efficiently, and check for leaks”. 109 Eventually, the significance of the
focus on efficiency was premised upon the logic of a cost-balance analysis for an
increasingly demanding and affluent population; the significance was in depicting how
individuals could benefit from the state’s intervention.
Alongside the significance of this increasing logic of pragmatism, the idea of
water conservation was also discursively engaged via the idea of “saving” rather than that
107
“Hints on how to save water with your bill” 8 June 1985. Straits Times.
Singapore PUB News. 1983. 19(4):1.
109
“Move to curb water wastage at public places” 12 November 1983. Business Times.
108
70
of “wastage”. This was reflected in the national water conservation campaign in 1985,
where the tagline changed from the previous ‘Let’s Not Waste Precious Water’ to ‘Let’s
Save Precious Water’.110 Eventually, the issue of controlling urban water was not just
about supply and demand, but was invested with how water was being managed and
made sense of within the existing urban conditions (Johnston and Donahue 1998). The
discursive engagement of ‘saving’ used in tandem with the idea of “efficiency” was about
justifying the need to do so for individual benefits, often from an economic standpoint.
The focus was not framed as ‘waste’, but as ‘saving’ to further appeal to the economizing
dimension of the increasing affluent and pragmatic society. The hegemony of the state
was then being reified through its ability to provide individuals with the necessary
conditions needed for fostering economic growth and development.
4.3 Promoting Efficiency in the Non-Domestic Sectors
Following the water conservation campaign in 1983, PUB’s discursive
engagement of efficiency was expanded to include the non-domestic sector as part of its
attempt to further reinforce its stand on the relevance of efficient water usage. Tony Tan
Keng Yam, Minister for Trade and Industry noted that:
“Such campaigns provide us with the opportunity to explore ways to minimize the
use and avoid wastage of water in our homes, workplace and public areas. There
is of course a basic minimum quantity of water which each family needs for its
daily drinking, cooking, washing and bathing. Those who are already using the
minimum cannot be expected to use less. Even for the non-domestic use, there is a
basic minimum that we need for the economy to function. But, PUB’s studies
have shown that there is still room for water saving among the larger users of
water in the homes and in industry and commerce”.111
It was noted publicly in the news in the early 1980s that “commerce and industry was
also a ‘big drinker’ of water, accounting for nearly one-third of total consumption…”,
and more efficient measures could be introduced to further reduce water wastage.112 In
line with the focus on the commerce and industrial sectors, PUB and the Economic
Development Board (EDB) moved on to encourage industries and firms to adopt more
110
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1985.
“Speech by Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, Minister for Trade and Industry, at the launching of the water
conservation campaign” 1 September 1983. Singapore Government Press Release.
112
“Drinking problem in commerce and industry?” 29 March 1982. Straits Times.
111
71
efficient means of maximizing their water usage, such as recycling water and/or using
industrial water through a series of incentives and disincentives which they depicted as a
“carrot and stick approach”. 113 However, such an increasingly explicit inclusion of nondomestic sectors within the water conservation message did not mean that the state was
actually intending to restrict industrial or commercial development. On the contrary,
there was a reemphasis on the importance of the economy, and in turn, extending the
message of water-saving to the non-domestic sectors was advanced as an important part
for the further advancement of economic development.
As industrial development stabilized, on the one hand, it became more practical to
get industrial sectors to partake in more efficient usage of water; on the other hand, the
extension of the ideal of efficiency was also about reinforcing the ideological relevance
of pragmatism, where the control of industrial and commercial water further legitimized
the state’s increasingly enveloping control of urban water and the urban environment. As
PUB noted in its annual report in 1984, the issue of limited resources in Singapore was
not just being portrayed as a mere constraining condition, but as one that needed to be
and could be appropriately engaged through an ‘efficient and effective’ management of
urban water alongside the management of the nation and its growing economy:
“Singapore’s water supply is limited by the scarcity of land and water catchment
and contending land use. To curb high demand growth rate, the Board will
continue to pursue its long term water conservation plan to ensure that water
resources will be more efficiently and effectively utilized to support Singapore’s
growing economy”. 114
The widening usage of a discourse of “efficiency” towards the industrial and commercial
sectors thus acted to further the state’s integrated management approach towards urban
water. In constantly attempting to embed the historical relevance of Singapore’s fragility
and vulnerability due to its limited natural water resources on the island, the interference
of the domineering state was thus legitimated as being inevitable through such
attestations of evermore efficiency and efficacy of the management system.
113
“PUB and EDB team up to cut water use: Carrot and stick approach to firms” 22 June 1983. Straits
Times.
114
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1984:6.
72
4.4 Engaging the Ideology of Possibilism
Water consumption in Singapore continued to grow in much of the 1980s, and
even with the economic recession in the mid 1980s, the rate of increase for total water
consumption per capita per day continued at 1.3% in 1985 and 0.7% in 1986 (Table 4.1).
With the onslaught of the economic recession, the change in water consumption was
markedly more significant for the industrial, shipping and commerce sectors. While the
rate of change for water consumption for the shipping, commerce and industry sector per
capita per day went down significantly by 6.1% and 2.1% in 1985 and 1986 respectively,
the rate of increase of domestic water consumption per capita per day continued at 4.6%
and 2.1% respectively (Table 4.1). Subsequently, as Singapore tided over the economic
recession relatively rapidly, the rate of increase of water consumption per capita per day
continued to increase for all sectors as Singapore made a remarkable economic recovery
by 1987, followed by a restructuring of Singapore’s economy to focus on service
industries (Chua 1998; Rodan 2001). In turn, PUB also continued to further its depiction
of itself as the integral institution to manage urban water in order to support the growth of
Singapore. This was evident in how PUB constructed its role as an essential one in its
annual report in 1987 when it presented how:
“the responsibilities of providing a reliable and efficient supply of electricity,
water and piped gas at the most economic price has necessitated that the Board
constantly kept abreast with technological progress and plan expeditiously for
future utility needs”.115
In accordance with such a claim, while PUB considered the growth in utilities
consumption as an integral part of national economic growth, the other important step
being taken was the emphasis of the ability and capacity of the management system to
accommodate such growth. In espousing its role in managing urban water, a key
component of the state’s significance lay in its capacity to deal with and make
accommodations for the country’s limited water resources over the previous twenty years
or so, while continuing the focus on economic growth. There was a continual reiteration
of the success of the state in its management of the water resources for the country’s
development in its early years of independence, and this was in turn reemphasized as an
inevitable role of the state necessary for the country’s future betterment.
115
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1987:3.
73
There was, however, a lingering sense of the limit of what Singapore could supply
in response to the rapidly increasing demand; and the subsequent reliance on one country,
Malaysia, for much of the water supply was also potentially problematic. The necessity to
overcome such constraints and limitations was subsequently brought up to legitimize a
need for the authoritative position of the state. When Ahmad Mattar, the Environment
Minister, attempted to push for advancement of water technological development in
1987, he noted that:
“A breakthrough in new and cheaper ways of treating water is urgently needed …
[as] technology in this field had not kept pace with economic development”.116
A deeper engagement would show that this was not a mere statement attesting simply to
the limitations of the urban water system, but was in fact a reverberation of the need of
the state to further its advances in managing urban water. It was actually about furthering
the position of the state, as Ahmad Mattar also claimed that Singapore was seeking “to
find effective and practical solutions to water-management problems”. 117 In view of this,
it was a reflection of an engagement of the logic of environmental possibilism, which was
becoming increasingly ideologically significant alongside the notion of efficiency.
Environmental possibilism depicts the relationship between human beings and the
environment as an active anthropocentric intervention, and as Savage (1997:187) argues,
the ideological significance of environmental possibilism in Singapore is one where
“Singapore’s success as an environmentally friendly city is a product of the political
leadership’s pragmatic environmental ideology that is hinged on possibilistic and
anthropocentric human-nature relationship”. The discursive rhetoric was thus justifying
the capacity of the state to expand the country’s water supply based upon the possibilities
of growth and development, to overcome its natural constraints and limitations.
As Singapore grew into a country where consumption was increasingly becoming
a key feature alongside the idealization of middle-class values in the 1990s, much of the
state’s subsequent actions were also based upon seeking to satisfy the ensuing material
116
“‘Cheaper ways to treat water needed’: Technology lagging behind, says Mattar” 9 December 1987.
Straits Times.
117
Ibid.
74
needs and wants of the increasingly affluent society (Chua and Tan 1999). Alongside
escalating economic growth from 1987 to 1994, the rate of increase of total water
consumption rapidly expanded at an average of 4.5% annually. 118 From 1987 to 1994,
GDP more than doubled from $50,899.9 million to $118,077.8 million, and at the same
time, total consumption per capita per day also increased at an annual rate of 1.25%
within this seven year period (Table 4.1 and Table 4.3).119 In order to further meet the
growing demand for water consumption in the early 1990s, the state responded by
searching for alternate sources to increase the supply. It was highlighted by Environment
Minister, Dr Ahmad Mattar:
“we need to step up on other technical aspect such as development of water
catchment, step up programme for waste water collection, treatment and proper
disposal and stringent water pollution control and conventional treatment”.120
Towards the end of the 1980s, the state began announcing plans for possibilities
of exploring new means of water sources, such as developing better technology and
finding additional sources of water supply. 121 The rhetoric of possibilism became even
more relevant within such context, where technical developments were highlighted as a
key step towards overcoming the country’s limited water supply. This was also further
reflected by Prime-Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who opined that as Singapore would
inevitably have to increase its needs for water consumption, additional sources of extra
water supply would have to be procured:
“Our needs by the year 2011 will probably exceed 350 million gallons per day…
so it is safer, in case Johore does not agree to further dams, that we have an
alternative supply when we need more than 350 million gallons”.122
118
Singapore Yearbook of Statistics. 1995.
Ibid.
120
“‘Cheaper ways to treat water needed’: Technology lagging behind says Mattar” 9 December 1987.
Straits Times.
121
“Plan to extend use of recycled water in factories” 1 December 1987. Straits Times; “Sparkling tap water
from drains: Rain water is collected in mini reservoirs in some estates” 28 April 1989. Straits Times.
122
“Singapore wants to buy water from Indonesia because of greater need” 18 October 1989. Straits Times.
119
75
Table 4.3: Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 1990-1999
(Thousands)
(%)
Year
Population
Size
Mid-year
estimate
Rate of
increase for
Population
size
Domestic
Consumption
of Water per
year
Commerce,
Industrial and
Shipping
Consumption
of Water per
year
Total
Consumption
of Water per
year*
Average
Consumption
per day
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
3,047.1
3,135.8
3,232.1
3,315.4
3,421.1
3,525.6
3,670.4
3,793.7
3,922.0
3,950.9
2.4
2.9
3.1
2.6
3.2
3.1
4.1
3.4
3.4
0.7
177,343.3
187,659.1
197,368.7
205,251.1
215,840.5
217,889.1
224,979.9
231,758.8
234,563.1
234,638.4
116,063.0
120,880.7
128,207.5
137,357.3
149,455.0
155,640.3
166,464.0
179,623.1
177,644.5
177,342.8
374,222.5
399,013.2
419,565.6
433,940.5
455,866.2
468,972.0
481,327.0
494,661.5
491,430.8
487,664.6
1,025.3
1,093.2
1,149.5
1,188.9
1,248.9
1,284.9
1,318.7
1,355.2
1,346.4
1,336.1
1999
(Thousand cubic meters)
*Total Water consumption is inclusive of water sold to Malaysia, water consumed by Armed Service and
Singapore Government and Statutory Bodies
Liters per capita per day)
(%)
Year
Total water
consumption
per capita
per day
Domestic
water
consumption
per capita
per day
Shipping,
Commerce
and
Industrial
water
consumption
per capita
per day
Rate of
increase for
total water
consumption
per capita
per day
Rate of
increase for
domestic
water
consumption
per capita
per day
Rate of
increase for
shipping,
commerce
and industry
water
consumption
per capita
per day
Rate of
increase
for total
water
consump
tion
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
336.5
348.6
355.7
358.6
365.1
364.4
359.3
357.2
343.3
338.2
159.5
164.0
167.3
169.6
172.9
169.3
167.9
167.4
163.9
162.7
104.4
105.6
108.7
113.5
119.7
120.9
124.3
129.7
124.1
123.0
1.2
3.6
2.0
0.8
1.8
-0.2
-1.4
-0.6
-3.9
-1.5
3.2
2.8
2.0
1.4
1.9
-2.1
-0.8
-0.3
-2.1
-0.7
1.7
1.1
2.9
4.4
5.5
1.0
5.2
6.6
5.2
3.4
5.1
2.9
2.6
2.8
-0.7
-0.8
2.8
4.3
-4.3
10.9
Taken from Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 1995 - 2000
Singapore managed to increase its water draw-off from Malaysia with the signing
of the Memorandum of Understanding on 28 June 1988, which allowed Singapore to
76
build a dam on Sungei Linggui. 123 By the end of 1989, it was also publicized that
Singapore’s intention was to turn to Indonesia as a source of water supply. 124 It was
publicly noted in the news by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew that:
“Singapore wants to buy water from Indonesia because its water needs are
expected to escalate and Johor, now the main supplier, has not agreed to build
more dams for the time being”. 125
The main concern was to increase the capacity of Singapore to secure additional
sources of water that was perceived as necessary to cater to the escalating need for water
as Singapore continued to develop its economy. The focus on furthering the external
sources of water was also reflected in the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and
Finance George Yeo’s response at a dialogue session to “view water as a vital
commodity”, where on top of inculcating a consciousness of water as a precious
commodity, he also noted that Singapore’s main concern would be to further develop
alternate sources of water supply with Indonesia.126 George Yeo also went on to affirm
the possibilities of overcoming any associated problems with buying water from
Indonesia, as he claimed that:
“he did not foresee any problems in transporting water from Indonesia to
Singapore as this could be done by underwater pipes or even barges”.127
Possibilities of developing sources of water from Pahang and Indonesia were also further
reported in the earlier part of 1991, where Deputy Prime-Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted
as ongoing measures to develop additional sources where:
“our [Singapore’s] aim is to diversify our water supplies to the maximum
possible”. 128
Singapore signed a water pact with Indonesia in 1991 as part of their bilateral
agreements, where Singapore would help the Riau islands develop their water resources
123
This agreement is part of the 1962 Johore River Water Agreement and allow Singapore to further draw
off the stipulated amount of water from the Johore River (Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1988).
124
“Singapore plans to buy water from Indonesia” 7 October 1989. Straits Times; Times; “Singapore bid to
buy Indonesia water ‘a matter of concern’” 24 October 1989. Straits Times.
125
“Singapore wants to buy water from Indonesia because of greater need” 18 October 1989. Straits Times.
126
“View water as a vital commodity, BG Yeo urges” 9 April 2009. Straits Times.
127
Ibid.
128
“Government ready to talk to Pahang about supplying water to Singapore: BG Lee; Formal pact with
Jarkata about Riau supply also being discussed” 21 March 1991. Straits Times.
77
for their own provinces, while securing part of it for sales to Singapore.129 This brought
about the prospect that the nearby Riau islands could possibly become an additional
source of fresh water supply, and two more water-related agreements between the two
countries were subsequently signed in 1992 and 1993 respectively. 130 The signing of the
water agreements coincided with the ‘Growth-Triangle’ program, an economic
integration between Singapore and its two neighboring countries, Indonesia and
Malaysia, as Singapore was seeking for alternate measures to further develop and expand
economically and politically (Perry et al. 1997). Arguably, part of this attempt was also to
further expand the possibility of getting additional water supply from both neighboring
countries as part of the program. 131
There existed constant messages of self-congratulation by the state, where the
recognition and subsequent praising of the role of PUB in the increase in sales of public
utilities were common in PUB’s annual reports, noting how “PUB has done well in
1990”; “1991 was an eventful and rewarding year”; and “PUB was able to meet
customers’ demand for energy and water in 1992”.132 The notion of possibilism was
constantly invoked by the state as a reflection and presentation of what it could do as it
expanded the economic development of Singapore. Eventually, the call for water
conservation that had been more prominent before was being increasingly overshadowed
by the ideological engagement of environmental possibilism during this period. The
issue of urban water management is thus more concerned with how urban water has been
managed as an inevitable point of continuing the success of the state’s authoritative
governance.
This need to ensure the maintenance of an effective and efficient management
system for Singapore’s water supply was reflected in the actions of Nature Society
(Singapore) (NSS), a nature conservation group, in the early 1990s. During this period,
129
Singapore PUB Annual Report 1991; “Singapore signs water pact with Indonesia: Landmark agreement
to provide water from Bintan for 50 years” 29 June 1991. Straits Times.
130
“Singapore, Indonesia sign pact to develop water resources in Bintan” 17 March 1992. Straits Times;
“Singapore and Indonesia to sign water pact today” 29 January 1993. Straits Times.
131
The Growth Triangle: Singapore-Johor-Riau (A Guide for U.S. Investors). 1994.
132
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1990:9; Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1991:4; Singapore PUB Annual
Report. 1992:8.
78
the PUB brought up a controversial plan to turn a part of the central catchment area at
Lower Pierce Reservoir into a golf course (Goh 2001). In contesting against the plan to
turn the reservoir area into a golf course, NSS managed to successfully overturn the
decision through claims of biodiversity degradation, environmental pollution and water
depletion. As NSS put forth:
“Singapore is confronting a possible future water supply crisis. More golf courses
are hardly the route to go if we are really concerned about water. How many golf
courses in Singapore have water recycling and treatment systems? The average
daily water use for an 18 holes golf course would be enough in many countries to
supply 2000 families, something like 3000-5000 tonnes of water a day”133
The prevention of the construction of the golf course is arguably one of the biggest
victories for NSS. This is, however, not necessarily a failure or a contradiction of the
state discourse towards its management of the environment. On the contrary, the claims
made by NSS even further reinforced the state’s notion of environmental possiblism, and
set the stage for further engagement of sustainable development. Discursive engagement
of environmental possiblism is, after all, reactive, where natural limitations are identified
to be constraining; the capacity to deal with limitations is glorified, while the incapacity
to do so is often sidestepped as technical limitations. In this case, NSS highlighted the
limitations of Singapore’s environmental conditions, and argued that golf courses are
environmentally unfriendly and water intensive. Eventually, this returned the focus to a
justification of the need for an integrated water management system that could deal with
urban water issues.
4.5 Engaging Ideals of Sustainable Development: Conserving Water for the Future
In 1993, PUB adopted an organizational philosophy of “Keeping one step aheadplanning today for tomorrow utility’s needs”.134 This was in tandem with the sustainable
development discourse that had gained much attention globally after the Rio Earth
Convention held in 1992, where much of the focus was given to environment-related
concerns. The expression “sustainable development” was one which had been adopted by
the Brundtland Commission in 1987 as an ideal goal; the Commission defined sustainable
133
134
“In response…” 3 August 1993 Straits Times.
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1993.
79
development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. 135 Subsequently, the idea of
“sustainable development” has undergone much change and adaptation, and has been
interpreted in varying ways. In Singapore, the significance of the idea of sustainable
development was that it allowed the developmental state to further justify its intervention
in the management of urban water, as well as the urban environment, by claiming that it
was doing so for the sake of the ‘future’ of the country. As it was put by Prime-Minister
Goh Chok Tong in 1995:
“Water is a scarce commodity in Singapore. We have to curb the upward trend in
consumption of water, and make its prudent use an ingrained hit [among
Singaporeans]…if not, we will be short of water in 15-20 years’ time”. 136
This focus was one premised not upon an immediate problem of water shortage
(or even in the near future), but was depicted as a concern for the country fifteen to
twenty years down the road. This time frame could be understood as simply a concern for
having enough water in the future. However, the fifteen to twenty years mark could also
be related to the country’s regional relations with Malaysia, since the first water
agreement signed with Malaysia would end in, what at that time, was almost sixteen
years in the future, that is, in 2011. For Singapore, the discursive engagement of
sustainable development allowed for a further engagement of the state’s authoritative
stance while reiterating its earlier inclination towards justifying the possibilities of further
overcoming the constraints. Instead of being reliant on external sources of water, such as
having to buy water from neighbouring countries, the focus shifted to a means to be self
sufficient. In constructing such a discourse of sustainable development, the significance
lay with legitimizing the state’s concern for a more centralized and totalizing
management system as the solution for the idealized claims of growth and progress.
On top of the more direct attempt to justify the relevance of a centralized system,
the significance of engaging sustainable development reiterated the need for
individualized responsibilities, where claims of legitimating control were based upon
135
United Nations. 1987."Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development." General
Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987.
136
“Use less water or face shortage: PM Goh” 19 February 1995. Straits Times.
80
shaping individuals to be responsible for ensuring the sustainability of the environment,
along with the sustained well-being of one’s family, community and nation (Chua 1995).
In putting the water concern within a temporal dimension, and focusing on the water
needs of the country for the present generation, and just as importantly for future
generations, the sustainability of water was construed as a critical concern. As the
Minister of Trade and Industry Yeo Cheow Tong emphasized:
“So, if we don’t sound the alarm bells now, when do we sound the alarm? In six
years’ time when water rationing is being introduced?”137
Such a creation and perpetuation of future risk became relatively common in the mid
1990s, when with a spate of global developments that were not so favorable for
Singapore in terms of its global water politics, the attention once again returned to talks
of water conservation. The possibility of political and economic challenges for Singapore
within the region was highlighted by Prime-Minister Goh Chok Tong, who warned
Singaporeans that even though Singapore may at that time be prosperous, all of that could
be challenged and threatened if Singapore did not have enough water; other countries
could then challenge Singapore’s economic position for investment in the region.138
As with the case of the Riau Islands, despite the earlier signing of agreements in
1991 and 1992 to develop water resources, little progress was actually made over the
years, and even by 1997, there was little to show for, as the supply of water to Singapore
from the Riau islands remained an unfulfilled task (Peachey et al. 1999).139 In contrast to
the more overt ideological engagement of environmental possibilism of the early 1990s,
the mid 1990s were filled with more doubts and uncertainties, as the pace of economic
development was slowing down, and the possibilities of developing additional foreign
water sources were also becoming increasingly uncertain. In response to the effects of the
137
“Water: Cause for alarm –Raising water tariffs helped lower water consumption” 18 March 1995. Straits
Times.
138
“Use less water or face shortage: PM Goh” 19 February 1995. Straits Times.
139
According to Peachey et al. (1999: 43), “as of October 1997 there had been little progress on the water
projects. Information on these projects is regarded as sensitive by Singapore officials and the reasons for
the delay have not been made public. One possibility is that issues of land compensation and resettlement
have not been resolved, or that the financial contributions of the participants are still to be agreed upon?
Alternatively, because of the caution that Singapore must exercise in developing an alternative supply to
Johore (it risks Johore raising their charges or curtailing supply) it may not be that Singapore requires
greater confidence that there will be no adverse reaction from the Malaysia authorities”.
81
regional political economy, the state then reacted by adapting its earlier engagement of
the discourse of sustainable development, with PUB starting month-long national ‘Save
Water’ campaigns in 1995 and 1996, and noting its two main objectives as “building
awareness that water is scarce” and “conservation is vital to our future”.140
Scarcity was once again reemphasized, but with a focus that was placed strongly
upon the call for ensuring the continuity of existing lifestyles and standards of living into
the future through proper and stringent planning. The water conservation campaign held
in 1995 noted that Singaporeans needed to learn to “Turn it off: Don’t use water like
there is no tomorrow”.141 This highlighted the emphasis on conserving water for the sake
of the future, or more aptly, to maintain and even better the existing standard of living for
all Singaporeans, present and future. Such a call for cautionary consumption for the sake
of the future was also made by Minister of Trade and Industry Yeo Cheow Tong, noting
that:
“if we continue to use 6 percent more water a year, we will run short of water in
six years’ time…”. 142
Subsequently, Yeo Cheow Tong also further identified the pricing of water as a
means to ensure that there would be sufficient water for the future:
“There would be no question that the water problem would be solved… the
question was the price to be paid…. By planning well ahead, by boldly taking the
necessary tough decisions, we will ensure that all Singaporeans will have
adequate water to maintain our quality of life for many years to come”. 143
The portrayal of an increasing price of water utilities was not merely one of simplistic
economic rationale, but was being fortified by ensuing discursive engagement of the
concept of sustainable development, which sought to justify not just the current
efficiency and efficacy of the managing state but the long term ‘benefit’ of an
authoritative developmental state. In this case, it was about the state’s capacity to portray
the possibility of continuously maintaining the idealized level of quality of living even
140
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1995:9.
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 1995.
142
“Singapore’s water charges to rise sharply in coming years” 14 March 1995. Straits Times.
143
“All-out action for water” 14 March 1995. Straits Times.
141
82
into the future through ‘planning well ahead, [and] by boldly taking the necessary tough
decisions’.144
The message that PUB subsequently put forth when they introduced
neighborhood water rationing exercises to increase awareness was that of “Save water
now or live with the hassles of rationing in future”.145 The concern of sustainable
development was about getting the public to relate to the notion of water conservation,
and claiming legitimacy based upon ideals of preventing water shortages in the future. In
this way, Singaporeans would then ideally continue to enjoy the convenience and comfort
of clean water. The state was not hesitant to further reinforce its position as an inevitable
one, as it was noted by the Minister for National Development Lim Hng Kiang that:
“If we have to spend our reserves to create water for ourselves, we will do so…
The government would not let the water problem hinder the growth of the
country”.146
At the launch of the National Save Water campaign in 1995, Trade and Industry
Minister Yeo Cheow Tong once again reiterated the sustainable development rhetoric:
“…the hard fact is that today, much of our water already has to be supplied from
Johore. And there is a maximum amount of water that we are entitled to get from
Johore…I appeal to every Singaporean to make a personal commitment to use
water wisely. Let us protect our future generations by making prudent and careful
usage a way of life. All we need is the resolve and discipline to change our
mindsets and cultivate good water-saving habits that become second nature to
us…As the campaign slogan says: ‘It is in your hand. Use water wisely and
generations will benefit’”.147
The focus was invariably placed upon the future, and the benefits of future generations
were the key focus within the country’s water management system to persuade the
population to adopt more caution in their water consumption. This sense of overcoming
water limitations in the perceived long run was affirmatively summarized by Chan Yoon
Kum, Director of PUB’s Water Department, that:
144
Ibid.
Ibid.
146
“Government prepared to use reserves to get enough water for Singapore” 17 April 1995. Straits Times.
147
“Address by Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, Minister for Trade and Industry, at the Launch of the National Save
water campaign 1995” 24 June 1995. Singapore Governmental Press Release.
145
83
“provided Singaporeans conserve water, these long-term measures will ensure
that we always have enough water for our essential needs. Then, even in an
emergency, we will not go thirsty”. 148
In highlighting the possibilities of a water crisis, the issue of long term planning was
consistently reiterated as a necessary measure, one which was also a key marker of the
developmental state in dealing with urban water. In this way, the state thus retained
legitimacy during periods of crisis, and further pursued its developmental goals through a
centralized manner of governance.
4.6 The Asian Financial Crisis
The possibility of Indonesia as an alternate source of water supply became less
viable as Indonesia declined economically and politically in the late 1990s (Emmerson
2005).149 Alongside the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 disrupting the regional economic
development, the situation was made even worse by the litigious relationship between
Singapore and Indonesia’s new President in 1998, Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, whose
earlier experiences with Singapore over the development of Batam and the aerospace
industry had already been contentious. Relations between the two countries also
worsened due to the untactful remarks by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who
questioned the suitability of Habibie to lead Indonesia alongside a series of political and
economic clashes between the two governments during this period (Singh 2000).
With the loss of the possibility of turning the Riau islands into a potential source
of alternate water supply, the state had to move on to search for other means to manage
water resources for the country’s development. As such, the strong re-emphasis on water
conservation continued into the late 1990s. Towards the mid 1990s, water consumption
had already been dropping and by 1997, the rate of change of water consumption per
148
“We will not go thirsty” 4 April 1997. Straits Times.
The stability of Indonesia’s New Order government under President Suharto was already showing signs
of faltering by the early 1990s (Kingsbury 2005). Much of Indonesian economic growth was being over
shrouded by rampant practices of corruption, as much of the capital going into Indonesia was “flowing into
banks owned by Suharto-backed conglomerates, much of it was spent on unproductive or speculative
enterprises, and a substantial proportion of it was transferred directly out of the country” (Kingsbury
2005:96). The economy of Indonesia was increasingly being hollowed out and as a result, the country was
heavily hit by the Asian Financial Crisis, which was subsequently followed by the resignation of Suharto.
149
84
capita per day for total and domestic sectors went down by 0.6% and 0.3% respectively
(table 4.3). This was in part the result of the continual increase in water tariffs and Water
Conservation Tax (WCT) (which had been introduced in 1995), where the focus was a
reiteration of the significance of pricing water (Table 4.4). The introduction of WCT was
then noted by Finance Minister Richard Hu as an attempt to:
“restrain the growth in water consumption and encourage conservation amongst
households and industries”.150
In the following years, the pricing of water continued to increase (Table 4.4), and in
attempting to further justify the decision to increase water tariffs and WCT, Trade and
Industry Minister Lee Yock Suan noted that:
“pricing is an important and effective mechanism to get consumers to conserve
water”.151
Together with the impacts from the Asian Financial crisis of 1997, and the
uncertainties of getting additional foreign water sources, water consumption per capita
per day, both for the domestic and non-domestic sectors, managed to go down even more
significantly (Table 4.3). However, such decline in consumption was apparently
conveniently overlooked when Lee Yock Suan continued to problematize the water
situation in 1998, as he pushed for the need for continual water conservation efforts:
“Despite the PUB’s efforts to remind Singaporeans of scarce natural water
resources here and the critical need to save water, consumption has continued at a
faster rate”.152
A further engagement of such a claim of increasing consumption would instead show that
absolute water consumption was selected as the focus, instead of per capita per day usage
(Table 4.3). If domestic water consumption per capita per day had been considered, it can
be seen that it had been on the decline ever since 1995, and hence it is not the case that
consumption had really been continuing at a faster rate as claimed (Table 4.3). Such a
representation of urban water in Singapore would be better understood as a discursive
attempt to position and problematize consumption within the context of an economic
150
“Water conservation tax targets water guzzlers” 2 March 1995. Straits Times.
“Water rates to go up: Consumption still rising despite PUB effort” 27 June 1998. Straits Times.
152
Ibid.
151
85
crisis and declining regional relations, so as to further the sense of crisis and attempt to
get people to further internalize the relevance of the state’s management within the
developmentalist context.
In relation to such a context of crisis, the focus presented by the state was
evidently returning to a concern with the control of domestic consumption, and the
ensuing measure was to attempt to increase the tariff for the domestic sector to match that
of the non-domestic sector more closely (Table 4.4 and 4.5). Such actions were justified
by Lee Yock Suan, Minister for Trade and Industry, when he noted that:
“pricing is an important and effective mechanism to get consumers to conserve
water….This year, despite the economic downturn, we must press on with our
water conservation efforts and raise water tariffs and conservation tax as
planned…. There will not be any increase for non-domestic consumers as they are
already paying close to the target rate of $1.52 per cu m…”.153
The logic of such a move was justified by the need to price water to reflect its ‘scarcity’.
This was done through raising the prices of domestic water to that of the non-domestic
level (4.4). Interestingly, this also reflected the state’s anti-welfare position, since the
governments’ dominant claim was that by prioritizing the economic development of the
country, everything else would supposedly subsequently fall into place along an
economic rationale.
Table 4.4: Water Tariff and Water Conservation Tax in 1997
Domestic
Block
1st
2nd
4th
Amount (cubic meter/ month)
1-20
20-40
Above 40
Others
Type of Usage
Shipping (flat rate)
Non-Domestic (flat rate)
Cost (cents/
cubic meter)
73
90
1211
Cost (cents/
cubic meter)
199
117
WCT (%)
10
20
25
25
25
Taken from Singapore PUB Annual Report 1997
153
“Speech by Mr Lee Yock Suan, Minister for Trade and Industry, at the launch of the 1998 save water
campaign” 26 June 1998. Singapore Government Press Release.
86
Table 4.5: Water Price Restructuring 1998-2000
Domestic
Block
Amount (cubic meter/
month)
1st
2nd
4th
1-20
20-40
Above 40
Type of Usage
Shipping (flat rate)
Non-Domestic (flat rate)
Cost (cents/ cubic meter)
1998
87
98
124
1999
103
106
133
2000
117
117
140
WCT (%)
1998
20
25
35
Others
Cost (cents/ cubic meter)
1998
199
117
1999
199
117
2000
192
117
1999
25
30
40
2000
30
30
45
WCT (%)
1998
25
25
1999
30
30
2000
30
30
Taken from Singapore PUB Annual Report 1998-2000
4.7 Overcoming Crisis: Embedding a Discourse of Ecological Modernization
In the later part of the 1990s, the significance of “crisis” did not actually threaten
the state’s hegemony, as the ideology of environmental possibilism was re-engaged to
reposition the state’s capacity to manage urban water and the environment, thus
effectively overcoming the crisis itself. The portrayal was thus of how Singapore could
survive the constantly self-depicted conditions of limitation through the state’s
dominating management. Furthermore, the state was also beginning to advance the idea
of building up water-related technology as a key step forward, and this was reflected by
the Education Minister, Teo Chee Hean, in 1997 as he noted that Singapore could
overcome its adversity:
“Singapore will [be able to survive if Malaysia cuts off its water supply], even if it
has to build seawater desalination plants and look elsewhere for water…We may
have to pay more for water but we will survive”. 154
Also reiterated by Acting Prime-Minister Lee Hsien Loong who noted that Singapore’s
plan was to have its first desalination plant by 2003, was that Singapore could afford
desalination if it had to.155 This sense of the possibility of the state to overcome the
problem was represented strongly within the Prime-Minister’s short but assertive
statement that:
154
“No water from Johor: We’ll survive, says Minister” 4 June 1997. Straits Times.
“Making sea water fit to drink” 1 May 1998. Straits Times; “Reverse osmosis may cut price by onethird: Desalination may be cheaper in 5 years” 1 May 1998. Straits Times; “PUB to study alternative
method: Yock Suan – Desalination ‘could cost less’” 12 March 1999. Straits Times.
155
87
“If we need to do it, we can do it”.156
At the same time, the dominance over urban water by the state was even further
represented by the way the state re-emphasized its position as the central management
that would control every aspect of water and the urban environment. This was shown
when PUB presented the idea of controlling ‘unaccounted for water’, as part of its
reiteration of efficient management. Trying to detect and control all of the water that was
lost through burst pipes and leakages was one of the ways they dealt with water losses
that are often unaccounted for within the water management system. As shown in the
news of the meticulous effort taken by the state in ensuring that water would not be
wasted unnecessarily, it was reported that:
“in water scarce Singapore, no effort is spared to ensure that the precious liquid
does not go to waste. The PUB employs a 50-strong team of “leak doctors” to
seek out leaks …to minimize water loss through leaks”.157
The discourse of ecological modernization was evidently being picked up towards
the late 1990s, and this was one of the signs of a proactive government in ensuring
efficient water usage. It was noted publicly that “unlike other countries, we take an active
approach”.158 This “active approach” was not just simply legitimizing PUB as a water
agency, but was also part of the state’s attempt to justify its position by constructing its
identity as an efficient and effective government. Under such a discourse of ecological
modernization, the focus was not only about overcoming ecological limits, but alsof
defining ecology as an inevitable realm to be accounted for amidst the progress of
modernization (Sutton 2004). The discursive engagement of ecological modernization
was one which further reiterated the state’s prior stance on pragmatism, and was
attempting to legitimize its governance within its capacity to ensure a high quality of
living for the country. The idealized quality of living was closely constructed to be one
that would be achieved through an integrated and stringent long-term management to
overcome Singapore’s water concerns at the same time as ensuring socio-technical
development. As highlighted by PUB “Singapore’s long term water supply remains our
156
“Singapore’s first desalination plant to be ready in 2003” 11 June 1997.Straits Times.
“Here come the PUB’s ‘leak doctors’” 3 July 1998. Straits Times.
158
Ibid.
157
88
top priority”, the significance of ecological modernization was thus premised upon
improving urban water and environment as the underlying justification for furthering the
state’s intervention.159
The shift towards developing water-related technologies in the late 1990s was not
simply about increasing the water supply of the country, but it was also about the
ideological implications involved. On the one hand, it was about the search for alternate
or additional water sources to ensure adequate supply for the demand brought about by
the country’s ever-growing development; on the other hand, it was also a strategy
adopted by the state, marking its growth as an increasingly technocratic state, as it sought
to provide the necessary fixes to the perceived problems (Bell 1974; Rempel and Clarke
1997; Rutherford 1999). Prime-Minister, Goh Chok Tong, in announcing plans to
develop desalination plants in Singapore, said:
“There is no water crisis at all at the moment. But the water agreement that we
have with our neighbor, Malaysia which provides us with water now, will expire
in 2061….so of course they may give us water, but it may not be to the volume
that we want, or the price that we want. So we are on the lookout for cheaper
sources of water… This is a long-term problem for Singapore. There’s no crisis at
the moment. But we plan ahead, 50 years ahead…”.160
The rhetoric adopted was then one which resonated well with the state’s earlier stand on
sustainable development, where the accountability for urban water in Singapore was not
necessarily based upon any immediate water crisis, but was presented as an ‘insurance’
taken by the state to deal with any potential problems in the present or in the future.
159
PUB Annual Report. 2000:3.
“Florida method may help Singapore cut water costs: Cheaper desalinated water is possible if it applies
the reverse osmosis technology used by a project in Tampa” 2 June 1999. Straits Times.
160
89
Chapter Five
Developing Water Technologies and Creating a ‘City of Gardens
and Water’ in the 2000s
This chapter argues that a fundamental shift occurred towards the twenty-first
century in terms of the Singapore state's discourse about water, with ecological
modernization becoming the dominant discourse of the technocratic state. This shift was
predicated upon the realization of several major technological achievements with regards
to the creation of alternate water sources. At the same time as the technology allowed for
some respite in terms of concern for water, it also allowed the state to further forefront its
success in terms of the management of urban water. Trumpeting this success has not,
however, foreclosed a continuing cautious approach towards water usage, which this
thesis argues has in fact been much of the basis of the legitimacy of the domineering and
authoritarian nature of the Singapore state. While the growing success is best illustrated
in the idea of the construction of “four national taps”, that allow for the claim of “selfsufficiency”, the total control is best depicted in the imagery of the “closing of the waterloop” where the state claims responsibility for and control over every drop of water. A
softening of the rhetoric surrounding water, however, is visible in the twenty-first
century, and has been supported because of technological successes. This softening, as
well as success, are both visible in the creation of a discourse of “lifestyle” around water,
embodied in the image of a “City of Gardens and Water”. This discourse is one shaped to
both include and embrace the population of Singapore in a consumerist lifestyle, at the
same time as supporting the state’s continuing intervention via domination over the flow
of urban water.
5.1 Constructing Singapore’s ‘Four National Taps’: Technological Development as
National Development
Towards the twenty-first century, technological development increasingly
dominated much of the process surrounding urban water management in Singapore, with
recycling of used water and desalinating seawater being discursively engaged within the
90
state’s control over urban water management. In 2001, PUB Chairman Tan Gee Paw
claimed that:
“2002 was the year of NEWater and the new sources of water, hitherto out of
reach, could be developed because new technology brought the cost to an
affordable level. A significant leap in the progress of diversifying our water
resources through alternate sources of water was attained”. 161
Such importance attributed to NEWater, the official name for Singapore’s recycled water,
marked the technocratic state’s affirmative stand towards adopting the development of
alternate water sources to support Singapore’s future development. Technological
development was highlighted as a successful feat of the technocratic state in diversifying
its water sources and overcoming the water problems long claimed to be confronting
Singapore.
The focus of a closely-knit system of developing and utilizing alternate water
sources through technological development became a key part of the discourse of
ecological modernization adopted by the state in the start of the twenty-first century. The
significance of such a discourse of ecological modernization is premised upon the idea of
resolving ecological issues through the intensive engagement and management of technoscientific development (Hajer 1995; Christoff 2000). Accordingly, PUB attempted to
advance the dominance of the state over the flow of urban water through an institutional
restructuring in 2001 to become what it claimed to be “a comprehensive water
authority”.162 Such a claim was premised upon PUB adopting an integrated approach to
its water management system as it went under the charge of the Ministry of Environment
(ENV).163 PUB was subsequently tasked to take charge of drainage and sewerage
management, which was integral to its attempt at an even more integrated management
involving the development of Singapore’s recycling water advances alongside an
integrated urban storm-water management system.164
161
Singapore PUB Annual Report.2002:2.
Ibid:2.
163
“Recycling to meet 15% of water needs by 2010” 13 January 2001. Straits Times.
164
Singapore PUB Annual Report 2001; “Going to great depth to treat sewage here” 30 January 2001.
Straits Times.
162
91
Subsequently, it was publicly noted in the news in 2002 that “more reservoirs,
and new technology to treat reclaimed and seawater will help Singapore to ensure
supplies to meet demand” as the country will soon have “four big taps” to provide the
necessary water supply. 165 The idea was that Singapore would be diversifying its water
sources through four national taps, with the first two being Singapore’s original main
sources of water from local catchment areas and Malaysia. On top of that, the claim for
the possibility of furthering a sense of water self-sufficiency for Singapore was engaged
with the development of the third and fourth national taps through technological
development, which was that of NEWater and desalination respectively. 166
Alongside the four national taps, there has also been substantial focus by PUB on
improving the “reliability of the water-network” in the early 2000s, where the idea of a
water-network was part of its attempt at further reifying its manipulation of urban water
within the flow of everyday life.167 The idea was of depicting water as an integral part of
the city, where it was construed as a ‘network’ to ensure the continual well-being and
progress of the nation alongside increasing attention given to aesthetic and communal
dimensions associated with water bodies.168 This was largely an attempt to cater to the
demands of an ever increasing consumer society, where the focus was largely premised
upon improving the water network amidst rising standards of living. PUB claimed to
have spent almost $280.5 million between 2000 and 2003 on the expansion and
upgrading of the water supply network, in order to “enhance network reliability and meet
customers’ demand for water”.169
Consequently, the significance of ensuring that Singaporeans could continue to
enjoy a relatively high standard of living in the early 2000s could also be identified in the
165
“Four big taps will keep water flowing” 23 May 2002. Straits Times.
“Four national taps provide for water for all” (http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/default.aspx Accessed
on 1 September 2010).
167
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2003
168
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2000-2003.
169
Ibid.
166
92
persistence of PUB’s motto of “keeping one step ahead: planning today for tomorrow’s
utility needs”.170 It was noted by Environment Minister Lim Swee Say that:
“with NEWater, we can better assure that Singapore will, now and in the future,
have enough water at an affordable cost to meet all our needs”.171
The logic of long-term planning amidst the adoption of technological development was
thus being further construed as an inevitable step for the future of Singapore, where the
state strongly presented its technocratic capacity as Singapore’s only way forward. The
relevance of such developments was as solutions to not simply the wants but the needs of
the society, as it was noted by PUB that its strategy of diversification of water sources
would ensure that it is “optimizing our water resources to meet the needs of the nation”
through developing alternate water sources.172
Within this context, the engagement of the discourse of ecological modernization
also became even more relevant during the early 2000s amidst increasingly contentious
bilateral debates between Singapore and Malaysia, with considerable focus placed on the
sale of water from Johore to Singapore (Lee 2003). The Singapore state however
managed to take on a relatively strong stand, and was determined not to give in to
Malaysia’s call to increase the price of water despite its dependence on Malaysia for a
significant amount of its water supply (Lee 2005). There were many complications over
how the pricing of water should be worked out as both parties were unable to agree on an
exact new pricing, and this was further complicated by other bilateral concerns such as
airspace and railway land issues, withdrawal of Central Provident Funds (CPF) for westMalaysians, immigration facilities concerns, and deliberations over the Causeway.173
Noticeably, within this debate over the pricing of water, the construction of NEWater and
desalinated water as the third and fourth national taps became evermore prominent and
significant, with the capacity of the technocratic state being highlighted even further.
Technological development then became a key point of leverage for the state as it was
170
Singapore PUB Annual Report 2003.
“NEWater to start flowing in February” 26 September 2002. Straits Times.
172
Singapore PUB Annual Report 2001:1.
173
“Bilateral issues- Singapore waits for KL reply” 6 March 2002. Straits Times.
171
93
even widely claimed that Singapore would be willing to accept an increase in water price
from Malaysia but on the condition that it should be “pegged to NEWater cost”.174
The technocratic state was attempting to reify its position by ensuring that
Singapore would not remain too reliant on Malaysia for its water supply. It was even
noted explicitly by the Prime-Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2002 that it was:
“…high time to take a new approach…and if it has to, Singapore can move on to
desalination and recycled water projects”.175
The construction of the four national taps, or more appropriately, the institutionalization
of NEWater and desalination as the third and fourth national taps, was being strongly
rooted within the ideological sense of possibilism, where possibility for water selfsufficiency acted as a critical component within Singapore’s continual quest for growth
and progress. In portraying a situation where Malaysia could stop selling water to
Singapore anytime, the Environment Minister Lim Swee Say even claimed that:
“If Singapore needs to be completely self-reliant, it can… Singapore is an island
surrounded by seawater. And today, with the advancement in membrane
technology, with the cost of desalination coming down, with the ability to
multiply water sources through water reclamation… Singapore certainly can
become completely self-sufficient after 2061, if need be”. 176
Such a portrayal of the technocratic capacity of the state to be ‘self sufficient’ was
thus being picked up to further the state’s totalizing control over the management of
urban water, one which was often based upon overcoming constraints, natural or
political. It was even noted in the media that “it may be better for bilateral relations if we
[Singapore] start to move a little away from our reliance on Malaysia for water”.177
Consequently, Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar reemphasized the significance of
technological development where:
“water supply from Malaysia will no longer be a source of strategic vulnerability
for this country”. 178
174
“Singapore wants water price pegged to NEWater cost” 24 July 2002. Straits Times;
“Water-Singapore to rely less on KL” 6 April 2002. Straits Times.
176
Ibid.
177
“High time for a new approach to water” 6 April 2002. Straits Times.
178
“Water- A Toast to more comfortable bilateral dealings” 29 July 2002. Straits Times.
175
94
The development of alternate sources of water through technological advancement was
not merely premised upon any direct environmental concerns, but was more significantly
located within a political and social context - one that was to a large extent contextualized
as a necessary strategy against the perceived ‘threats’ to Singapore’s sovereignty and
well-being.
Many of the complexities associated with the formation and control of urban
water are premised upon constructing the boundaries of the problem (Hajer 1995)., There
was an attempt to regularize the desires of the population to ensure the relevance of the
government rather than simply catering to the needs of the population (Foucault 1995;
Bauman 2005). As Environment Minister Lim Swee Say presented:
“Singaporeans don’t need to worry about whether we’ll have enough drinking
water in the future… [as] the PUB has enlarged water catchment areas in
Singapore, planned more NEWater plants, and awarded a contract for the supply
of desalinated seawater…even before the earlier of the Singapore’s two water
agreements with Malaysia expires”.179
The significance of the state’s control of urban water is thus about how the state
manipulated the relevance of urban water within the city and subsequently positioned
itself within that engagement that inevitably contributes to its hegemonic governance.
The discursive focus adopted in the twenty-first century construed the notion of
limitations not so much within the context of doing less or maintaining the status quo, but
was more about forging ahead with technocratic advancement, and doing more amidst the
constraints.
5.2 ‘Mind Over Matter’: Legitimizing NEWater as a National Tap
However, to get the public to accept NEWater as drinking water was a
challenging issue; cultural distaste towards drinking what was once sewage water was a
very real concern. Such distaste was reported to be a “psychological barrier” by Professor
Tay Joo Hwa, director of the environmental-engineering research centre at Nanyang
Technological University, who noted that:
179
“Government assurance on long-term water supply” 9 February 2003. Straits Times.
95
“When you mention recycled water, people are put off by the thought of drinking
toilet water”.180
PUB treated this distaste seriously, and was careful to exclude overt signs of introducing
NEWater for direct drinking purposes in the earlier phases. However, in adhering to such
a claim that such distaste was a ‘psychological barrier’, it also meant that the state was
inclined towards seeing the distaste as something that could be and should be changed by
getting people to overcome that barrier. Accordingly, it was noted publicly in the news
that:
“for those who baulk at drinking treated sewage, this will not happen, at least not
for several years, until the long term-safety effects are tested fully at a Bedok
treatment plant”.181
One way to confront this psychological barrier was by publicizing NEWater as
‘ultra-clean water’; PUB claimed that NEWater could even substitute distilled water in
industrial usages.182 This idea of being ‘super clean’ was disseminated through the news
that such “ultra-pure recycled water, NEWater, will be sold to Singapore’s electronics
industries”.183 PUB thus attempted to re-conceptualize recycled water as not just clean,
but beyond clean, even ultra-pure, so as to re-position NEWater as a ‘clean’ source of
water within the public mindset. This was not about changing the meaning or even the
significance of cleanliness within the society, but it was about pushing the boundaries
surrounding the concept of cleanliness. The public would subsequently come to relate to
the concept of cleanliness and make sense of what it means to be clean, rather than any
actual objective cleanliness involved (Shove 2003a). The state was thus attempting to
redefine the legitimacy of NEWater as a ‘clean’ source of water that should not be
abhorred, but should be consumed as part of the country’s larger water network.
In attempting to foster a better imagery, NEWater had also been reframed and
presented to the public as ‘reclaimed water’ instead of recycled water or treated
180
Ibid.
Ibid.
182
“Super clean water at lower price” 27 January 2000. Straits Times; “In the pipeline- More recycled
water plants” 21 January 2001; “Wafer-fab plants opt for recycled water” 31 August 2001. Straits Times;
“30 million gallon a day to drink from the sea” 22 March 2001. Straits Times.
183
“In the pipeline- More recycled water plants” 21 January 2001. Straits Times.
181
96
sewage.184 The process of producing NEWater was presented as a process of ‘water
reclamation’, where the concept of ‘reclamation’ was based upon the rhetoric of
controlling the flow of the water-cycle, and the idea was to reclaim water which would
otherwise be lost outside the water-cycle. This would become integral to the technocratic
state’s subsequent discursive engagement of the idea of closing the water-loop for the
continual development of Singapore. Subsequently, the official name of NEWater was
introduced, and it was claimed by PUB that “after it is passed through very fine
membranes to extract impurities, the water gets a ‘new lease of life’”.185 This notion of
giving waste water a ‘new lease of life’ was highly reflexive of the state’s attempt at not
just securing additional water supply, but also legitimizing its capacity through
naturalizing and normalizing its subsequent attempt at dominating and overcoming the
constraints of the water-cycle.
Consequently, the strength of the technocratic state was then further reified in its
ability to dominate the management and manipulation of the flow of urban water. For
example, it was claimed by PUB that they would be extending the usage of NEWater to
the “offices and shopping centres for air-condition systems, [and thus] freeing more
drinking water”.186 Environment Minister, Lim Swee Say, further presented the case for
the state’s ever increasing integrated approach to managing urban water as part of the
larger whole ecological system of Singapore, where he noted:
“what this means is that if we look at the water consumption in Singapore as a
whole, up to twenty percent of the water will no longer be competing with our
domestic consumption because they can come from the recycling of this sewage
water”.187
With the initial introduction of NEWater as a key alternative for industrial usages, the
production of NEWater rose sharply after it was officially launched in 2003, and
increased from 156.0 thousand cubic meters/day in 2004 to 257 thousand cubic
meters/day in 2009 (Table 5.1). In turn, the consumption of PUB’s potable water for nondomestic purposes dropped significantly as water intensive industries, such as wafer184
“Four big taps will keep water flowing” 23 May 2002. Straits Times.
“NEWater is like distilled water, ‘too clean’” 23 May 2002. Straits Times.
186
“PUB sees more uses for NEWater” 27 August 2002. Straits Times.
187
20% of sewage water can be recycled” 30 January 2001. Straits Times.
185
97
fabrication industries, were getting their water supply straight from NEWater plants
instead of from the PUB’s tap linked to the reservoirs.188 Hence, both absolute and per
capita per day for non-domestic water consumption fell throughout the 2000s as
NEWater plants directly supplied NEWater to the non-domestic sector (Table 5.2).189
Table 5.1: NEWater and Industrial Water Sales, 2004-2009
Sales of NEWater
(‘000 cubic meter/
day)
Sales of Industrial
Water
(‘000 cubic meter/
day)
Total
(‘000 cubic meter/
day)
2004
52.0
2005
73.0
2006
81.0
2007
134.0
2008
180.0
2009
197.0
104.0
107.0
112.0
80.0
65.0
60.0
156.0
180.0
193.0
213
245
257
Taken from Singapore Key Environmental Statistics 2007-2010
Table 5.2: Non-Domestic Water Consumption in Singapore, 2000-2009
Liters per capita per day)
Year
Total water
consumption
per capita
per day
NonDomestic
consumption
per capita
per day
(Thousand
cubic meters
per day)
NonDomestic
Consumption
of water per
day
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
308.1
301.4
301.5
297.5
288.7
282.7
279.5
271.5
143.5
136.8
137.0
129.8
124.1
120.0
120.0
113.5
578.0
566.0
572.0
534.0
517.0
512.0
528.0
521.0
(%)
Rate of
increase for
total water
consumption
per capita per
day
Rate of
increase for
non-domestic
water
consumption
per capita per
day
Rate of
increase for
total average
water
consumption
per day
-2.2
0.03
-1.3
-2.9
-2.1
-1.1
-2.9
-4.7
0.1
-5.3
-4.4
-3.3
0.0
-5.4
0.5
1.0
-2.8
-1.7
0.2
2.0
1.3
188
Even though NEWater is under the management of PUB, most of the NEWater supply however is
channeled straight to the non industrial sectors. Even though NEWater was depicted as one of the four
national taps, it did not mean that they were being included in the statistic on non-domestic water
consumption which is actually statistic on potable water (Key Environmental Statistics. 2009).
189
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2001-2003.
98
2008
2009
260.8
257.0
107.7
104.4
521.0
520.8
-3.9
-1.5
-5.1
-3.1
1.3
1.6
Taken from Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 2000-2009 and Singapore Key Environmental Statistics 2010
Much of the focus of PUB was to attempt to get people to “look at the water
consumption in Singapore as a whole” to further an ever more integrated governance.190
PUB’s Chairman, Tan Gee Paw, further attempted to justify the integrated water
management system, and proceeded to note the role of PUB in the early 2000s to be:
“ensuring an adequate and sustainable supply of good drinking water to meet the
needs of households, industries and businesses, is the major challenge for the
Board as the cost of developing new water sources becomes more expensive …
The Board has responded to this challenge with a well-planned, integrated water
resource management strategy”. 191
Even though NEWater was introduced initially as a water supply supplement for the
industrial sector, the engagement of NEWater within the urban water management system
was not just about providing more water for industrial usage. Instead, the relevance of
the integrated management was more significantly identified with its efficient means of
managing
and
redistributing
clean
drinking
water
through
its technological
advancements.
The state was not going to stop at using recycled water for industrial purposes
only. As Environment Minister Lim Swee Say stated:
“But over time, we are not going to confine ourselves to the wafer-fab industry.
So the technology is not the constraint, the supply of sewage water is not a
constraint but, really, the full potential depends a lot on what kind of usage we
can maximize”. 192
In seeking to justify the relevance of the new source of water supply, the strategy adopted
by the state was about advancing a supply of good drinking water. In this sense, there
then existed a not-so-subtle hierarchy of different water sources, where ‘good water’ was
marked as one that could possibly “meet the needs of households, industries and
190
20% of sewage water can be recycled” 30 January 2001. Straits Times
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2003:2.
192
20% of sewage water can be recycled” 30 January 2001. Straits Times.
191
99
businesses”. 193 Hence, within the presence of such a hierarchy, the technocratic state was
attempting to get the public to accept NEWater as ‘good drinking water’ before it could
actually be fully incorporated into Singapore’s water system.
The attempt to move NEWater up the hierarchy as ‘good drinking water’ was
borne out as it was publicized that “ministers and senior government official have been
leading by example by downing bottles of it for the camera”, alongside claims that
astronauts in outer-space programs were also consuming such recycled waste-water.194
Within such a context, the significance of technological possibilism was then enacted
with the claim that the cultural distaste with NEWater was just a case of “mind over
matter”.195 It was claimed that NEWater should instead be seen as what Trade and
Industry Minister George Yeo publicly noted as:
“common and natural….[and] that this is a common response to the problem of
over-population and urbanization”.196
The main concern of the state was to project NEWater within an imagery that could
appeal to the public - in this case, through combining scientific justifications with
authoritative accounts as an attempt to ‘naturalize’ NEWater within the public
imagination. Accordingly, the relevance of ‘cleanliness’ then “involves the simultaneous
reproduction of all kind of values, experiences and socio-technical systems”, and has
increasingly been adopted as a form of social control to justify the technocratic state’s
capacity to facilitate further consumption processes (Shove 2003a:191). Prime-Minister
Goh Chok Tong also attempted to further such an engagement through justifying the
‘goodness’ and ‘safety’ of NEWater, as he publicly drank NEWater and claimed that it
was:
“very good … [and it was] not just good to drink, but safe to drink… it is almost
the same as PUB water. That is my assessment…”.197
193
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2003:2.
“Yam… Seng… with NEWater” 4 August 2002. Straits Times.
195
“NEWater- It’s mind over matter” 20 July 2002. Straits Times.
196
“Water recycling is common and natural - BG Yeo” 12 August 2002. Straits Times.
197
“NEWater debut on National Day” 2 August 2002. Straits Times.
194
100
Subsequently, PUB further attempted to legitimize the introduction of NEWater
for potable uses when it reported that “NEWater was ‘too clean’… exceed[ing] World
Health Organization (WHO)’s standards, [and] has to be mixed with reservoir water to
regain lost minerals”.198 It was presented publicly that “the reclaimed water is not
pumped directly to homes but is first discharged into reservoirs, because it becomes like
distilled water after treatment and is ‘too clean’”. 199 The significance of conceptualizing
NEWater as a source that is ‘too clean’ was an attempt to present the cleanliness of
NEWater as beyond that of the normal drinking water supply where it should then be
conceivable within the boundaries of acceptable drinking water. Eventually, NEWater
was officially introduced for human consumption in 2003 for “indirect potable use”,
where it was pumped into the local reservoirs to make up what was claimed to be ‘less
than one percent’ of the total reservoir stock.200 The attempt at totalizing control was also
further reiterated, with the state remaining careful to reinforce its dominating stand of
adhering to the boundary of cleanliness it had highlighted, with Environment Minister,
Lim Swee Say, reiterating a sense of professionalism of the water management system,
noting that:
“Not a single drop of NEWater goes into the reservoirs unless we are 100% sure it
exceeds the drinking water standards”.201
5.3 Closing the Water-Loop: Totalizing Control over Urban Water
In attempting to further its totalizing control over urban water, the concern was of
justifying the technocratic state’s legitimacy through its ability to expand its water
sources. This was advanced through further domination over the flow of urban water by
engaging the idea of a broader ecological loop, including the collection, management,
treatment, distribution and re-collection of water. Such an attempt at totalizing its control
over urban water through closing and controlling the ‘water-loop’ was highlighted by
Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo, as part of a necessary development for optimal
usage when he announced the restructuring of PUB in 2001:
198
“NEWater is like distilled water, ‘too clean’” 23 May 2002. Straits Times.
Ibid.
200
“NEWater to start flowing in February” 26 September 2002. Straits Times; “NEWater flows into
reservoirs” 22 February 2003. Straits Times.
201
“NEWater becomes drink of choice” 29 October 2002. Straits Times.
199
101
“This [restructuring of PUB] will close the loop for water and allow us to take full
advantage of advances in water-treatment technology… Our rivers, reservoirs,
drainage systems and water-treatment works should all be managed in an
integrated manner to optimize the use of our water resources. They are all parts of
the same water cycle”.202
The technological success of the state was highlighted within its capacity to
hasten and interrupt the processes involved within the natural cycle of the water-loop
(Figure 5.1). The state’s totalizing control through closing the water-loop was not merely
about controlling the inflow of water, but more importantly, it was also about the capacity
to control and regulate the flow out of Singapore’s water cycle. The significance of
closing the loop was thus located within the state’s ability to increase new sources of
water from seawater, and more so, the claim to maximize the existing water supply by
reusing it through recycling processes. As Lim Swee Say, Acting Environment Minister,
noted:
“Singapore must make better and fuller use of its natural resources. For example,
every drop of water can be used more than once and every piece of product or raw
material can also be used more than once…”. 203
Figure 5.1: Singapore’s Water-Loop
Taken from Public Utilities Board of Singapore
202
203
Ibid.
“10 year plan to keep Singapore green” 22 August 2001. Straits Times.
102
The significance of closing the water-loop and controlling the flow of urban water
was also further replicated to the extent that even rainwater was overtly identified as
belonging to the nation and needing to be regulated. The state had even enacted a “ban on
diverting rainwater to private collection tanks to ensure the nation’s supply”.204 Amidst
such a ban was the idea that rainwater was a critical part of the water cycle, and it was
claimed that such a ban was necessary as “water could be wasted, as there is no water
conservation tax on rainwater”, and that private collection of water could actually
compromise the larger national well-being. 205 Within the construction of the water-loop,
the state attempted to dictate the definition of the whole water process, and in
highlighting its capacity to close this loop, was also attempting to naturalize its governing
capacity within the cyclical nature of the loop. Instead of being subjected to the whims
and fancies of the natural water cycle, the closing of the water-loop was then presented as
a success of the technocratic state in overcoming the constraints Singapore faces, and was
an integral ideological part of the state’s totalizing control over the flow of urban water.
The significance of control was not just about controlling any particular individuals, but it
was about regularizing this control as an inevitable part of everyday life (Foucault 1997).
Within such a context, Singapore’s development would supposedly no longer be
compromised by water issues as the technocratic state dominated the flow of urban water.
According to Chairman of PUB, Tan Gee Paw, the ideological testimony of possibilism
was highlighted once more as he noted:
“Today we can handle anything that concerns water. From rain water to used
water to salted water to NEWater and we take care of all of them because we are
integrated this way”.206
Such a totalizing imagery of the state dominance of urban water is especially significant
as the technological success was being pushed beyond the technical realm into the social
and political realms. This further allowed the technocratic state to justify itself as one that
could accommodate the members of a consumer society, and allow Singaporeans to
204
“Before you build that water recycling tank…” 9 December 2002. Straits Times.
Ibid.
206
“Marina Barrage to add 10,000 hectares of water catchment area” 19 March 2005. Straits Times.
205
103
further enjoy the luxuries accorded to a lifestyle of abundant water supply as an
increasingly taken for granted part of their everyday life (Bauman 2005).
In 2004, the focus given to managing of water resources was officially constituted
as ENV was renamed the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR).207
Prime-Minister Lee Hsien Loong then commented on the state’s focus on water as a
strategic resource for national development:
“For the MEWR, the change is to reflect its significantly expanded role in charge
of a strategic national resource … Aside from ensuring a clean and hygienic
living environment, it will now be responsible for managing the complete water
cycle – from sourcing, collection, purification and supply of drinking water, to
treatment of used water and turning it into NEWater, as well as drainage of storm
water…”.208
Subsequently, the logic of filtration and the concept of membrane filtration used in
desalination and NEWater production were even introduced within the Ministry of
Education’s syllabus for lower secondary science in 2005, with a remark titled “Infusion
of National Education message” noting that:
““No one owes Singapore a living”-- Singapore must find our own way to
survive. NEWater is treated used water that has undergone stringent purification
and treatment process using micro-filtration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet
technologies”.209
. The ecological dimension of resource management has been pushed to the forefront of
discussion. The concept of self-sufficiency has become a key focus, where ecological
development is not just an end in itself, but a means upon which the society builds . The
significance of the successful closing of the water loop has been discursively engaged as
being a technical advancement to integrate society with its environment. Such
development was further engaged as part of nation building, where the identified success
of creating a ‘self sufficient environment’ has been noted to be a result of an effective and
efficient government. The Prime-Minister even went on to present NEWater as an
integral part of the “Singapore Success Story” in 2007, noting that:
207
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2004.
“Singapore: More focus on water and youth” 12 August 2004. Straits Times
209
http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-secondary-2005.pdf Accessed
on 21 July 2010.
208
104
“it [NEWater] allows us to use each drop of water more than once, and so
multiply our effective supply of water. It is a key pillar of our effort to become
self-sufficient in water”.210
Eventually, the closing of the water-loop was highly relevant as part of the
attempt of the authoritarian state to further present its control as an increasingly
inevitable step for Singapore’s continual development. As Foucault (1995:185) argues for
the case of power and control, “it is not simply at the level of consciousness, of
representation and in what one thinks one knows, but at the level of what makes possible
the knowledge that is transformed into political investment”. The relevance of the control
of the state is not simply about direct development per se, but it is the ability to engage
and embed the significance of development within the populace that mattered. A
softening of the rhetoric surrounding urban water management was thus possible through
getting the populace to view the control of the state as a taken for granted aspect of
everyday life. This is especially significant within how Environment and Water
Resources Minister, Yaacob Ibrahim reiterated the idea that regardless of dry spells that
usually occur in the earlier part of every year, there was no need for Singaporeans to be
worried. Accordingly, he noted in 2007 that:
“Singapore won’t be parched, thanks to NEWater”.211
And he further repeated such an inclination in 2009 that:
“Singapore has enough resources to meet the water needs of the public”. 212
The totalizing control over urban water is invariably discursive as the focus was
on constructing a paradigm where successes of the urban water management system were
selectively engaged and highlighted. The success of the closing the water-loop and
managing the supply side was then subsequently accompanied by claims for managing
the demand for water. Accordingly, the efforts at pushing for water conservation have
also been glorified as a national success at managing urban water for the sustainable
development of Singapore, where domestic water consumption per capita per day had
been claimed to be on a declining trend ever since 1994 (Table 5.3, and refer to Table 4.3
210
“NEWater to meet 30% of needs by 2011” 16 March 2007. Straits Times.
“Singapore wont be parched, thanks to NEWater” 16 April 2007. Straits Times.
212
“Dry weather, but no cause for concern” 10 February 2009 Straits Times.
211
105
in Chapter 4). However, a careful reflection shows that though domestic water
consumption per capita per day has been dropping, it still remained relatively high at
152.6 thousand cubic meters/capita/day in 2009 (Table 5.3), and this did not include
indirect consumption of water through commercialized sources of water such as imported
food sources, bottled drinks and mineral waters.
Table 5.3: Domestic Water Consumption and Population Patterns from 2000-2009
(Thousands)
(%)
(Thousand
cubic meters
per day)
Liters per
capita per day)
(%)
Year
Population
size
mid-year
estimate
Rate of
increase
for
population
size
Domestic
water
consumption
per capita per
day
Rate of
increase for
domestic water
consumption
per capita per
day
Domestic
consumption
of water per
day
Thousand
cubic
meters per
day
Total
consumption
of water per
day
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
4,027.9
4,138.0
4,176.0
4,114.8
4,166.7
4,265.8
4,401.4
4,588.6
4,839.4
4,987.6
1.7
2.7
0.9
0.2
1.3
2.4
3.2
4.3
5.5
3.1
164.6
164.6
164.5
167.7
164.6
162.7
159.5
158.0
153.3
152.6
0.0
-0.06
1.9
-1.8
-1.2
-2.0
-0.9
-3.0
-0.5
663.0
681.0
687.0
690.0
686.0
694.0
702.0
725.0
742.0
761.1
1,241.0
1,247.0
1,259.0
1,224.0
1,203.0
1206.0
1230.0
1,246.0
1262.0
1282.0
Taken from Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 2000-2009 and Singapore, Key Environmental Statistics 2010
The issue of water consumption is one which is often highly malleable and
contentious, and how the state defines the water cycle is never a fixed reality, as
Singapore was also involved in various forms of indirect consumption of water within its
participation in the global economy (Yearley 1996).) As Singapore does not grow most of
its own food, it is also extremely reliant on imports of food and beverages which further
complicates the significance and impacts of urban water management and discursive
significance of water conservation efforts. In 2008, S$8,330.8 million was spent on ‘food
and non-alcoholic beverages’ under ‘private consumption expenditure’.213 At the same
time, Singapore was also involved in exporting up to S$7827.0 million worth of food and
213
Singapore Yearbook of Statistic. 2009.
106
beverages.214 It was also noted in a report on ‘Per Capita Bottled Water Consumption, by
Country 1999 to 2004’ that the consumption of bottled water in Singapore has also been
increasing in the early 2000s, as consumption increased from 17.4 liter per person in
1999 to 23.6 liter per person in 2004 (Gleick et al. 2009). What all this eventually meant
was that much water consumed in Singapore is often unaccounted for in water statistics,
since it does not fall into the more normative direct consumption of water.
However, such considerations do not fall within the state’s realm of
responsibilities as what are defined as water resources to the state are those that are
directly under the control of PUB. The key agenda of PUB’s water management system
was to further manage the production and consumption of direct water supply, and it was
even presented as PUB’s aim to reduce the domestic water consumption to 147 thousand
cubic meters/capita/day by 2020, and 140 thousand cubic meters/capita/day by 2030.215
Even though such a claim could be seen as a form of determination to conserve water, a
more critical view shows that the targeted consumption level is actually only similar to
that in the mid 1980s (refer to Table 4.1 in Chapter 4), which was a consumption level
that Singapore had more than twenty years ago. At the same time, Walsh et al. (2006:49)
argue that 50 thousand cubic meters/capita/day is what is needed to cover basic human
water needs, but Singaporeans are easily consuming two to three times or more of that
figure currently (Table 5.3). Accordingly, the capacity to close the water-loop is much
more symbolically relevant as the main concern eventually goes back to one reiterating
the state’s capacity to provide sufficient water for various forms of consumption within
the modern context.
5.4 Developing Singapore’s Water Industry
Alongside the attempt at dominating the flow of urban water, the discourse of
ecological modernization adopted by the state also placed considerable focus on
justifying the position of the technocratic state in engaging the economic development of
the country’s water industry within the global market. This was identifiable within how
214
215
Ibid.
“A Lively and Liveable Singapore” Sustainable Blueprint 2009:41.
107
Khoo Teng Chye, PUB’s Chief Executive, called NEWater “the jewel of Singapore’s
water supply diversification strategy” in 2006, and Prime-Minister, Lee Hsien Loong,
constructing NEWater as a “major milestone in Singapore’s water supply history and an
engineering feat … [depicting it as] how a vulnerability is now a strength”.216 Eventually,
the main focus was upon ensuring that Singapore’s economic position would not be
compromised because of water supply problems, and that the problems could even be
overcome to work in Singapore’s favour through engaging its technological successes. As
Environment Minister, Lim Swee Say, noted:
“…we do not allow the lack of natural endowment to determine our fate. We do
not leave anything to chance”. 217
Such a consistent focus on the state’s capacity for environmental possibilism was
even presented to the public as ‘The Singapore Water Sustainability Story’ in 2005,
where Yaacob Ibrahim, Environment and Water Resources Minister highlighted the
success of Singapore’s water system:
“Our ability to ensure water sustainability is the result of both political will and
careful planning”. 218
The ideological relevance of focusing on environmental possibilism was thus being
associated with an overt justification of the relevance of the state’s management skill, and
was presented as a result of strong ‘political will’, which was deemed a crucial
component as Singapore sought to work towards the ideals of sustainable development. It
would however be fallacious to assume that the incorporation of environment related
components into national policies were mere straightforward indications of any absolute
environmental stance on the part of the society and/or the polity (Hamilton-Hart 2006;
Neo 2010).
Instead, the claim of the need for ‘strong political will’ in the name of
environmental management and sustainable development was a further attempt to reify
the authoritative position of the state amidst its ability to engage the global economy
along the global focus on environmental concerns. The acknowledgement of a need for
216
“Biggest Toast to NEWater” 14 September 2005. Straits Times.
“Speech by Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister for the Environment at the Launch of the Singapore Green Plan
2012” 24 August 2002. Singapore Governmental Press Release.
218
“Opening speech by Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Environment and Water Resources at the 1st IWAASPIRE conference” 11 July 2005. Governmental Press Release.
217
108
strong governance was even proudly reiterated by Prime-Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, in
2008:
“Good governance is vital in tackling this challenge [of sustainability and
liveability,] and achieving the right balance between economic growth,
environmental protection and high quality of life for urban dwellers”. 219
Within the state’s continual dominance over urban water and environment in Singapore,
it was inevitably a case of reiterating the need for management of water resources and the
environment
alongside expanding the economic aspects of its technological
developments. This was also further explicitly identified in a sustainable blueprint
published in 2009:
“Sustainable development for Singapore means developing in a way that allows
us to give our current and future generations both good jobs and a good living
environment”.220
The significance of the economic dimension within the discourse of ecological
modernization was one which had already been identified by PUB since 2001, as it was
noted that “the Board’s vision is for Singapore to be a world-class Water-Hub in the
2000s, a gateway to the region and a heartland where research and development for water
technology thrives”.221Accordingly, the development of water-related technology was
located within attempts to reinforce Singapore’s water supply, while allowing the state to
renew its vested interest within the global economy (Yueng 2000). As identified in the
news:
“there might be a lack of water in Singapore but the country’s skill in wringing a
lot out of a little is allowing it to exploit the rich revenue stream flowing from the
hydro industry”. 222
The concern was not so much of water supply but engaging the knowledge economy
surrounding water technology as the state sought to further develop Singapore’s
economic interests in the increasingly lucrative water industry. This was reflected by
PUB as it noted that:
219
“Speech by Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime-Minister at the joint opening of the Singapore International
Water Week, World Cities Summit and East Asia Summit Conference on Liveable Cities” 24 June 2008.
Governmental Press Release.
220
A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Development. 2009:33.
221
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2001:15.
222
“Singapore to tap into $414b world hydro industry” 24 November 2004. Straits Times.
109
“the Board took action to profile Singapore as a global Water-Hub, and to turn
Singapore into an international test-bed for water and waste water research,
technologies, training and services”.223
The further development of the water industry was noted as one of the “areas in
which Singapore has a competitive advantage and which are growing”. 224 Such
development of the water industry was reified as a necessary step for the growth of
Singapore’s economy, and was reflected as being a key area contributing to the country’s
economic development, with “jobs in water sector to double to 11,000”.225 Accordingly,
the technocratic state’s claim of closing the water-loop was also significant within the
attempt at overcoming economic constraints.226
This in turn further reiterated the
materialist stance of the developmental state, and perpetuated the ideological stronghold
of the state as it sought to ensure continual materialist development.
At the same time, in developing its position within the global water industry,
Singapore has also construed its position as an ‘expert’, and has moved towards turning
this condition to its advantage. It was noted by Trade and Industry Minister, George Yeo,
that:
“with Singapore’s move towards desalination, the country should [even] aim to be
a regional leader in this field”. 227
As the state attempted to push its success in water management towards the international
scene, it was also consistently attempting to construct its position as an ideal type.228 As
Environment Minister, Lim Swee Say, noted:
“the global picture [with regards to water supply and sanitation issues] is not
looking good, unless the global community and individual countries take speedy
and concerted actions to address the global water challenge… Here in Singapore,
even though we are in good shape, we continue to strengthen our water and
sanitation system over the years. Looking ahead, our challenge is to make sure
223
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2003:3.
“Mega Research and Development funds for two new sectors” 4 January 2006. Straits Times.
225
“Jobs in water sector to double to 11,000” 18 July 2006. Straits Times.
226
“Singapore to tap into $414 billion world hydro-industry” 24 November 2004. Straits Times.
227
“Desalination project gets second bidder” 22 April 2000. Straits Times.
228
“Singapore becoming wellspring of water expertise” 12 September 2005. Straits Times; “Learning from
Singapore’s Recycled Water Project”. 20th December 2006. The Jakarta Post.; “Showcase Singapore’s
water expertise: Expert” 17 January 2006. Straits Times; “Asia can Tap Singapore’s Water Expertise”. 6th
December 2008. Straits Times; “World Bank- Singapore Urban Hub Launched” 24th June 2009. Business
Times Singapore.
224
110
that every drop of water, every dollar invested in water supply and sanitation, and
every idea related to water management is put to best use”.229
The state has been quick to play up such successes at the global level, and even
proceeded to offer its knowledge with regards to water-related technologies and
management to other nations, while portraying itself as a key player of knowledge
production within the global water industry.230
Subsequently, the reification of the state’s dominance over urban water was
reinforced within the National Research Foundation’s (NRF) allocation of a research
budget of $13 billion for environmental and water technologies in 2006; it was hoped that
this would enhance the competitive advantage of Singapore’s economy towards the later
part of the 2000s. 231 The focus was once again on developing the water industry for
Singapore’s developmental well-being, and as noted by Teo Min Kian, Chairman of the
Economic Development Board (EDB):
“If we do it [research and development in water and environmental sectors] well,
we will be able to shape and influence the economic landscape of Singapore into
the future”.232
Subsequently, Singapore’s water industry began to gain a lot of global recognition
towards the end of the 2000s, with PUB winning many coveted water awards, including
the prestigious Stockholm Industry Water Award in 2007.233 By 2008, Singapore pushed
its position within the global water industry even further, marking its position as a key
industry player and knowledge producer, with the launch of the Singapore International
Water Week (SIWW) and its own water award, the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize.234
Accordingly, the main focus was placed upon the production and consumption of
229
“Speech by Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister for the Environment, at the Official Oepning of Seletar
NEWater Plant” 18 June 2004. MEWR News Release.
230
“Singapore number one in managing water resources: Expert” 23 August 2006. Straits Times;
“Singapore’s water management ‘a model for others’” 24 May 2006. Straits Times; “Singapore aims to
wake water know-how to China” 18 April 2007. Straits Times; “Turning waste water into a fountain of
wealth” 4 November 2006. Straits Times.
231
““Singapore poised to ride growth in new sector” 4 January 2006. Straits Times; “$40 million to flow
into water and environment research” 28 March 2007. Straits Times; “$18 million for water, environment
research proejcts” 12 April 2007. Straits Times.
232
“Mega Research and Development funds for two new sectors” 4 January 2006. Straits Times.
233
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2006/2007.
234
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2007/2008.
111
knowledge and technological solutions, as the technocratic state sought to reinforce its
existing system of consumption as a mean of justifying its legitimacy amidst the
accommodation of Singapore’s growing consumer society (Bauman 2005; Michael
2006).
5.5 Managing Urban Water, Managing People
Towards the later part of the 2000s, the discourses surrounding urban water
management converged towards a focus on consumption of a lifestyle associated with
water-related aspects, as the state further developed its water-scapes and water industries
within its integrated water management system. It was even presented in the news that:
“in the last 40 years, Singapore has evolved from a nation with limited water
resources to a model city with a sustainable water supply…. A new chapter is
being written in the Singapore Water Story: one where reservoirs, rivers, canals
and drains will be transformed into lifestyle havens”.235
Such development was noticeably building upon the discourse of ecological
modernization, where the claims of the successes of managing and closing the water-loop
brought up by PUB were being materialized as a lifestyle that the population could
consume and enjoy, one that was being noted as a “lifestyle haven”. The focus was about
constructing the water management system as an ecological advancement that should be
ingrained into the everyday context. According to Khoo Teng Chye, Chief-Executive of
PUB:
“The idea is to get people to see that water is something they can enjoy, and
which can improve the quality of their lives and maybe enhance the value of their
estate or property”.236
In attempts to soften its rhetoric of dominance, the technocratic state has been shifting
towards engaging the society within its capacity as a consumer society. The issue of
discipline became more about regularizing of the population to internalize and accept
what the state was doing, and to accept this as improving the quality of living amidst the
focus on lifestyle (Bauman 2005). The significance was more related to the discursive
capacity to incorporate the society within a meaningful relationship with a lifestyle
235
236
“Into the Blue” 8 September 2007. Straits Times.
Ibid.
112
associated with urban water, and subsequently portraying the state’s capacity to satisfy
and continue perpetuating such a relationship.
As highlighted by MEWR in 2004, there had already been much attention given
to revitalizing the waterways in Singapore, as a claim was made that “reservoirs here will
soon be buzzing with activities”.237 PUB officially launched a new tagline of “Water for
all: Conserve, Value, Enjoy” in February 2005, which was in fact a discursive
engagement by the technocratic state of its successes in ensuring a sustainable and
affordable water supply without compromising the standard of living in Singapore.238
Instead of simply keeping people away from water bodies, the technocratic state’s
strategy moved towards incorporating them as part of the management system through
attempts at getting Singaporeans “to take joint ownership of Singapore’s water
resource”.239 As Yaacob Ibrahim noted, the attempt to embed the population within a
water lifestyle was part of the larger management of urban water:
“We will ensure affordability, service quality and reliability through adopting new
technologies, improving operation and facilitating public private partnership…
[and] the challenge will be to not only sustain and enhance the clean environment
here, but also to create in the community a sense of ownership and enjoyment of
our environmental resources”.240
This was an implicit move by the state to engage the population and further internalize
the relevance of ecological modernization in the popular imagination, and get the people
to relate to the management system as vested stakeholders and consumers rather than
isolated individuals. This idea of getting people involved was subsequently
institutionalized as PUB created a 3P (People, Private and Public) department in 2004,
where the agenda was about getting Singaporeans involved and “to have a joint stake in
Singapore’s water management”.241
237
“Water sports in store at 8 reservoirs” 10 October 2004. Straits Times.
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2004; Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2005.
239
Singapore PUB Annual Report .2004:8.
240
“Steps to ensure affordable water supply” 14 January 2005. Straits Times.
241
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2004:8.
238
113
In tandem with such a focus of attempting to get the people involved, Yaacob
Ibrahim, Minister for Environment and Water Resources, subsequently highlighted that:
“To provide water for all, every Singaporean should do his or her part to conserve
water, keep Singapore’s catchments clean, and build a closer relationship with
water through enjoying its water resources. If all of us do this, we can take heart
that we have played our part to sustain these precious and scarce resources for our
loved ones and generations to come. Singaporeans can and will have sufficient
water for all uses- for living, for life, for industry”.242
Within such a context, the relevance of the call for conservation was then invariably
embedded within the focus on lifestyle consumption. The idea put forth was about
ensuring that Singapore would continue to have enough water resources for people to
enjoy, and as Prime-Minister Goh Chok Tong further noted in 2003:
“We must never forget that water is a precious resource. While we continue to
find cost-effective ways to increase our water supply, we must also keep demand
down by using water wisely”. 243
The significance of conservation during this period was reflected in the ‘State of the
Environment Report 2008’ published by MEWR, noting that:
“PUB adopts a multi-pronged approach in managing water demand through
pricing measures, mandatory water conservation requirements, encouraging
ownership and volunteerism in water conservation. This strategy has worked well
as our per capita domestic water consumption has decreased from 176 liters per
day in 1994 to 157 liters per day in 2007”. 244
It would be easy to attribute such declines in domestic water consumption per capita per
day to the success of the water management system at promoting and managing water
conservation, but it would be fallacious to see such statistics as simply a sign that
Singaporeans were becoming more aware of water conservation and were controlling
their consumption.
Water consumption in contemporary Singapore has inevitably come to be
premised upon more consumerist lifestyles rather than survival or basic human needs.
242
“Speech by Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Environment and Water Resources, at the “Light at the end of
the tunnel” ceremony to make the completion of tunneling works for the DTSS” 21 February 2005.
Governmental Press Report.
243
“Water wise” 22 February 2003. Straits Times.
244
Singapore State of Environment Report. 2008:46.
114
Even though water conservation efforts included messages of getting people to use water
more wisely, the bulk of the water conservation messages were still premised upon
ensuring that the lifestyle would not be compromised through promoting efficient usage
and adopting water-saving devices.245 As noted in the promoting of the ten-liter challenge
by PUB, the attempt was to get people to reduce water usage through more efficient
consumption with minimum disruption to everyday life.246 PUB noted that it:
“hopes to get everyone to cut back on the use of water through simple everyday
ways… [such as] spend[ing] a minute less in the shower and you will be well on
your way to saving 10 liters of water a day”.247
At the same time, much focus was also given to developing and consuming waterefficient products, and this was evident in the Water Efficient Homes (WEH) program,
where the idea was to facilitate conditions for efficient water usage “to help residents
save water at home and cut down on water bills”. 248 Water appliances were even
officially incorporated under a Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS), in which the
focus was not about consuming less, but about saving more through consuming more but
efficiently:
“Water efficient appliance? Look for 3 ticks …. Water savings add up to a lower
water bill, so the more ticks, the bigger the savings”.249
The state’s stance on water management was one where proper management was
deemed necessary for the quality of living, which has since became the perceived
fundamental basis of everyday living. Instead of merely focusing on water resources as a
crucial resource for survival, one of the key discursive focuses of the water management
system was on lifestyle, or more aptly, how the government could construct and cater to
an ever increasing quality of living through its governance. As noted by Minister of State
for Trade and Industry Lim Swee Say:
245
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2003; Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2006/2007.
Under the 10 liter challenge within the Water Efficient Homes program, the message includes that of
increasing water efficiency and using less water for cleaning purposes such as showering, laundry,
household chores and sanitation (http://www.pub.gov.sg/conserve/Home/Pages/default.aspx Accessed on
21 July 2010).
247
“Daily challenge: Shower faster to save water” 8 March 2006. Straits Times.
248
Water Efficient Homes Program
(http://www.pub.gov.sg/conserve/Home/Pages/WaterEfficientHomesProgram.aspx Accessed on 1
September 2010).
249
“Water efficient appliances? Look for 3 ticks” 31 October 2006. Straits Times.
246
115
“Singaporeans are fortunate to be among the half of the world which enjoys clean
water and proper sanitation… We should never take this for granted because
without sufficient supply of clean water, our quality will suffer”.250
The relevance does not lie with the notion of water conservation per se, but more
significantly with the portrayal of the aesthetics and consumption of a lifestyle associated
with enjoying water resources alongside the state’s claim for sustainable development. In
focusing on the claim of a need to take care of the water resources so that Singaporeans
can continue to enjoy sufficient water for ‘living, life and industry’ in both the present
and future, the concern then returns to depicting how Singaporeans need to play their part
within the larger water management system. 251 This was also further reflected by MentorMinister Lee Kuan Yew in 2005, who attempted to re-embed the interference of the state
as inevitable, and in need of appreciation, when he claimed that:
“But it will be the people who determine if the project succeeds … The
Government will provide the infrastructure. It is up to Singaporeans to maintain
the clean and green environment we live in”. 252
5.6 Consuming a ‘City of Gardens and Water’ Lifestyle
With the emergence of a context where managing water resources has become
part of a lifestyle concern in Singapore, the significance of consumption becomes more
about the meanings associated with these activities, rather than the acts of consumption
themselves (Paterson 2006). The focus on the consumption of a lifestyle was again
highlighted by Environment and Water Resources Minister, Yaacob Ibrahim:
“Through these meticulous, collective and continuous efforts [at managing the
environment for sustainable development], our environment became and has
remained a key factor in making Singapore an attractive place to live, work and
play”. 253
In seeking to balance concerns over the environment within an economic context, what
the state has been doing is in fact the maintenance of its hegemonic relevance through
continually perpetuating and catering to the material needs of a society that is enthralled
250
“Do you mind drinking treated sewage” 29 June 2000. Straits Times.
“Have fun with water: It’s official” 22 February 2005. Straits Times.; “Singapore ready to become a top
first world nation: Minister Mentor” 24 February 2007. Straits Times.
252
“MM’s vision of city damn takes shape” 23 March 2005. Straits Times.
253
“Statement by Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Environment and Water Resources, at the Committee of
Supply Debate” 8 March 2005. Governmental Press Release.
251
116
by the rhetoric of consumption (Pello et al. 2000; Bauman 2005). The discussions of the
notion of ‘building a closer relationship and taking ownership over water resources’ was
thus an approach to get the population further embedded within the discourse of
ecological modernization, so that they can actually experience the material rewards of the
technocratic state’s claim of overcoming the various constraints for developmental
purposes. This was also reflected by Prime-Minister Lee Hsien Loong when he noted
that:
“…having developed a comprehensive base of water infrastructure, we should
now take the next step forward. Our waterways and reservoirs should do more
than meet our water needs. They should also enhance our living environment and
lifestyle. In the past, we protected our water resources by keeping people away
from them; now we will bring people closer to water so that they will enjoy and
cherish it more. By linking up our water bodies and waterways, we will create
new community spaces that are clean, pleasant and bustling with life and
activities. We will integrate our water bodies with our park and green spaces and
turn Singapore into a “City of Gardens and Water”.254
However, the significance of such talk of ‘lifestyle’ was being related to
improving the local material life, as well as achieving global status, with aspirations that
Singapore would become a global player in the global water industry (Ho 2002). PrimeMinister Lee Hsien Loong talked about remaking Singapore as a vibrant global city at the
National Day Rally in 2005:
“We start with water. We will build a Marina Barrage to dam up the mouth of the
bay… Then we will extend the city around the lake- business, entertainment and
recreation …. …. We must never feel constrained by our smallness. We can do
things better which other people can’t… and together we will make this vibrant
global city called home”. 255
Claims of sustainable development thus became closely associated with the concepts of
‘vibrancy’ and ‘liveability’, which resulted in the cyclical perpetuation of a consumer
society. Consumption of the aesthetics of waterfront living has become ever more
significant, and the capacity to cater to such consumption has also become increasingly
crucial. In 2006, Prime-Minister Lee Hsien Loong furthered this notion of creating a
254
“Speech by Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime-Minister at the ABC Waters exhibition” 6 February 2007.
Governmental Press Release.
255
“Remaking Singapore as a vibrant global city: PM Lee’s National Day Rally speech” 23 August 2005.
Straits Times.
117
vibrant global city by explicitly identifying the plan of turning Singapore into a ‘City of
Gardens and Water’:
“To ensure that Singapore can continue to be unique, residents have to keep
improving their environment … to turn Singapore into a ‘city of gardens and
water’… This will make sure that Singapore stays something special and precious
which we can be proud of, and which we can enjoy”. 256
To facilitate such a transformation, PUB had already come up with the Active,
Beautiful and Clean (ABC) Waters Program in 2005, with the idea of turning canals and
rivers into venues for water-sports and family gathering, and creating a lifestyle through
which people could enjoy and reconnect with their environment, with water playing a
central role.257 The imagining of Singapore as a ‘City of Gardens and Water’ was a
blatant glorification of the state’s adoption of ecological modernization. In turn, it was
also implied that such a success should be acceptable to the population, who should now
be ‘proud’ of the success of the country, or more implicitly, the success of the
technocratic state. As Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim noted:
“With these projects, we hope to bring waterfront living to the heartland,
improving the quality of our living environment and enhance property values”. 258
Even at the local level, the notion of liveability embedded within the ABC Waters
program was further perpetuated to highlight its ability to cater to a certain material
standard of living. The consumption of urban water thus shifted towards a focus of
lifestyle, where it was presented that much of the development of Singapore would be
focusing on aesthetics of urban water consumption, such as that of developing a heartland
waterfront lifestyle at Punggol (refer to Figure 5.2).
256
“PM’s call: Make Singapore a city of gardens and water” 6 November 2006. Straits Times.
Singapore PUB Annual Report. 2005.
258
“Punggol River set for big change” 10 March 2008. Straits Times.
257
118
Figure 5.2: Artist Impression of Waterfront living at Punggol Town
Taken from A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Development. 2009
The significance of the claim of “vibrancy” was also underscored in the
sustainable blueprint published in 2009 titled A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies
for Sustainable Development, where the ideological significance of the technocratic
state’s stand on ecological modernization was even palpably identified as “The Singapore
Way”:
“For Singapore, sustainable development means achieving both a more dynamic
economy and a better quality living environment, for Singaporeans now and in the
future. We need the economy to grow. This creates jobs, raises our standard of
living, and yields the resources that we need to safeguard our environment. But
we must grow in a sustainable way, or else a high GDP per capita will be
achieved at the expense of our overall quality of life, and cannot be maintained
over the longer term. Protecting our environment safeguards a high standard of
public health for our people, and makes our city attractive to Singaporeans and
foreigners alike. We have to achieve these twin economic and environmental
objectives in a balanced way”.259
The solutions for sustainable development adopted by the state were thus justified as it
was supposed to further a position of balancing the economy and the environment, which
was highlighted as possible through “long term integrated planning [within a] pragmatic
and cost effective manner [alongside adequate] flexibility [through technological
innovation]”.260
259
260
A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Development. 2009:12.
Ibid.
119
The discursive relevance, however, does not simply lie within the actual
execution of the possibility to overcome constraints, as it lies more within how the state
has come to position its authoritarian management as the best means of doing so
(Foucault 1995). This was evident with the completion of the Marina Barrage in 2008,
which has symbolically been highlighted as a pinnacle of the state’s technological feat
marking a successful Singapore 'Water Story'.261 Noticeably, the Marina Barrage is
significant on various levels, as it is presented as a site of multiple usages, through what
PUB claimed as a “holistic water management”, where it is a facility to increase water
supply, manage flood control and function as a lifestyle attraction.262 Such focus then
goes back to the technocratic state’s reification of its ability to close and dominate the
water-loop, where membrane technology to filter sewage water and seawater was further
complemented by infrastructural advancement to integrate a totalizing control of stormwater catchment. The idea behind the Marina Barrage was to have a dam at the mouth of
the Marina channel where seawater would be kept out, while also allowing PUB to
expand its storm-water catchment by preventing storm-water from flowing out to the sea.
Accordingly, the rhetoric surrounding the storm-water catchment capacity of the Marina
Barrage was presented as one where:
“Together with two other new reservoirs, the Marina Reservoir will boost
Singapore’s water catchment from half to two-thirds of the country’s land
area”.263
At the same time, the Marina Barrage also acts as a flood control for the low
lying areas in the city, but more significantly, the symbolic relevance is how the Marina
Barrage itself has became a source of lifestyle attraction, where waterfront living is being
popularized and promoted. Alongside the focus on the aesthetics of waterfront living,
much attention has also been given to the capacity to turn the water-bodies at the Marina
Basin into an ideal location for various recreational activities, such as water sports,
picnics, kite-flying and so on (refer to Picture 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4). As PUB highlighted,
Marina Barrage was about:
261
“MM’s vision of city dam takes shape” 23 March 2005. Straits Times.
Marina Barrage (http://www.pub.gov.sg/marina/Pages/default.aspx Accessed on 20 September 2010).
263
Ibid.
262
120
“delivering a novel waterfront lifestyle, it adds to Singapore’s bustling
recreational scene as venue for colour water-based performances and thrilling
water sports competitions and pleasure craft-plying”.264
The Marina Barrage was publicized to the public as a space which furthers the
‘waterfront experience’ to a new level, and marketed that “from picnicking to dining,
there is plenty to do for everyone at the Marina Barrage” (refer to Picture 5.3 and 5.4).265
The focus of accommodating consumption was not even one of direct consumption of
water, but instead the consumption of the aesthetic dimensions of a lifestyle along a
waterfront. This interestingly has been included as part and parcel of the urban water
management system (refer to Picture 5.5).
Picture 5.1: Water Sports at Marina Basin
Taken from Public Utilities Board of Singapore
Picture 5.2: Water Sports at Marina Basin (2)
Taken from Public Utilities Board of Singapore
264
Marina Barrage - Sustainable Singapore Gallery
(http://www.pub.gov.sg/marina/gallery/Pages/default.aspx Accessed on 20 September 2010).
265
“Barrage of endless fun” 8 November 2008. Straits Times.
121
Picture 5.3: Family Outing at the Marina Barrage
Taken from Public Utilities Board of Singapore
Picture 5.4: Picnicking and Outdoor Activities for the Family at the Marina Barrage
Taken from Public Utilities Board of Singapore
Picture 5.5: Firework Celebrations around the Marina Barrage Area
Taken from Public Utilities Board of Singapore
122
The concern with accommodating consumption was thus within the focus on
“lifestyle”, where the Marina Barrage was construed as part of Singapore’s attempt to
transform itself into a ‘City of Gardens and Water’; again the people were being cajoled
to play their part by:
“Join[ing] in the commitment to making Singapore a better place to live in”. 266
As Bauman (2005) argues, much of the control that has taken place in the recent context
has shifted towards a softened means of engaging the population in their capacities as
consumers. In order to further regularize its dominance, the narrative of the state was
presented as tracing the line of development under its governance, and reifying its ability
to provide such progress through its governance of urban water. Within such a context,
PUB proclaimed that the Marina Barrage was in fact a ‘dream come true’, :
“[where] the idea of damming the mouth of the Marina channel to create a
freshwater lake came from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in 1987”. 267
In doing so, the claim was an attestation to the vision of the state, or more aptly, of Lee
Kuan Yew, and in constructing such a ‘water story’ as part of Singapore’s national
history, the attempt was one of underlining the legitimacy of the authoritarian one party
state.
Such narratives also came to be dominant in the Sustainable Singapore Gallery at
the Marina Barrage, where Singapore’s ‘sustainability story’ was presented to the public
with six galleries dedicated to “showcasing Singapore’s effort towards environmental
sustainability …each sharing a unique aspect of Singapore’s sustainable story”, while
depicting it within an overarching claim of “how a small country with limited resources
meets the needs of a fast developing community in an environmentally-friendly manner”
(refer to Figure 5.3).268 The storyline presented in the gallery overtly attempts to further
align the national narrative of Singapore with that of Lee Kuan Yew’s story, where the
success of overcoming the odds and turning Singapore into a ‘cosmopolitan city-state’
that could even support a consumerist lifestyle of ‘gardens and water’ was explicitly
266
Marina Barrage - Sustainable Singapore Gallery
(http://www.pub.gov.sg/marina/gallery/Pages/default.aspx Accessed on 20 September 2010).
267
“First city reservoir opens” 1 November 2008. Straits Times.
268
Marina Barrage – Sustainable Singapore Gallery
(http://www.pub.gov.sg/marina/gallery/Pages/default.aspx Accessed on 21 July 2010).
123
presented as the vision and effort of Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP. 269 As was presented in
gallery two of the Sustainable Singapore Gallery, which could even be mistaken as a
‘monument’ to Lee Kuan Yew, the emphasis was on relating how the government
managed to clean up the Singapore and Kallang Rivers which “were like open sewers,
choked with rubbish and emitting an unbearable stench”. As the gallery further presented:
“Learn how Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, as the Prime-Minister of Singapore
then, challenged a nation and brought about irrevocable change. Through the
cleaning-up spanning ten years, witness Singapore’s development from
independence towards a mature city practicing environmental awareness”.270
Figure 5.3: Marina Barrage: Sustainable Singapore Gallery
269
“MM’s vision of city dam takes shape” 23 March 2005. Straits Times.
Marina Barrage - Sustainable Singapore Gallery
(http://www.pub.gov.sg/marina/gallery/Pages/default.aspx Accessed on 24th July 2010).
270
124
Taken from Public Utilities Board of Singapore
The focus of the urban water management system in the 2000s was based upon reiterating
the technocratic capacity of the state to provide for consumers in Singapore society, and
would continue to further such developments by improving the quality of living and
creating a ‘vibrant and liveable’ Singapore. Eventually, the relevance of the discourse on
catering to the consumer lifestyle was also explicitly highlighted in the sustainable
blueprint of 2009, in which the softening of the rhetoric surrounding the dominance of
the state’s control of urban water was further highlighted and attested with the claim that:
“The growth of our city does not have to come at the expense of our quality of
life. With careful planning and innovative solutions, our small city-state can
continue to prosper as a global city and economic hub, yet remain a green and
blue playground for all its residents”.271
271
A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Development. 2009:75.
125
Chapter 6
Conclusion
Water is a key resource for human civilization. Throughout history, water
resources have always been crucial for the formative development of different societies
around the world. Much contestation has also been associated with issues of access,
engagement, control, and distribution of water resources, and these have had various
impacts and implications for societies throughout human history. Furthermore, with the
expansion of urbanization, the significance of water in society has become further
complicated. Notably, water is affected by and also influences the dynamics of power
relations within the urban context. Complexities are embedded within various attempts at
controlling, managing, engaging and dealing with the flow of urban water, and urban
water management further complicates the politics, social relations and the economy of
urban spaces.
6.1 Urban Water and Governance
The capacity to control the development and flow of water is an important
component of the modern urban condition, which, as shown in the case of Singapore, is
also closely inter-related with the development of governance in the city-state. Policies
dealing with urban water that have come to be legislated and enacted are not simply
absolute actions to deal with water issues themselves, but are also reactions to the
perceived problems surrounding water resources. As this thesis has shown in the case of
Singapore, controlling of urban water is about managing and manipulating the larger
political economy. No matter how naturalized urban water might appear to be, urban
water is inevitably politicized; thus urban water management is not just concerned with
water as a physical or technical issue, but also as a socio-political one.
Urban water management is an inter-subjectively constituted process; the policies
surrounding it are constructed amidst discursive engagements within the urban context.
The urban water management system is not one that simply deals with water as a mere
supply and demand issue, but it is also a highly politicized system. Therefore, solutions to
126
urban water issues are only as efficient and effective as that of the problem being defined
and engaged. This is not to make a claim that water related issues are not real or actual
concerns for society, but to illustrate the need for a deeper engagement to understand how
urban water has been engaged by the different actors involved in the urban network.
A significant part of urban water politics is the main underlying concern about
ensuring a continuous and stable flow of water supply for the functioning and
development of the city. The urban condition is not fixed, however,, but is constantly
evolving. Such a process of change is especially significant for the context of developed
nations, where the materiality of urban development has often been presented as markers
of necessary progress. In the case of Singapore, control of the flow of urban water has
been successfully engaged as a key part of the urban development by the water
management system. Through various policies and programmes, much has been done to
ensure that Singapore will continue to have a sufficient water supply as Singapore
develops and grows over the years. This has been especially significant as Singapore has
begun to focus on sustainable development and attempts to overcome the limits of natural
constraints through technological development. Such development has allowed for much
more technical capacity in reducing the country’s water footprint, and its dependence on
more traditional forms of water supply.
In terms of successfully providing adequate urban water for its urban population,
Singapore has performed well with its system of water management, and it would be
useful to study the model that Singapore has built. However, a discursive understanding
as engaged in this thesis has further shown that such development is not so simple, since
there are also various social, political and economic contexts and implications involved.
Sociological questionings of water development do not just look at how technology can
solve water related problems, but attempt a deeper understanding of the context and
conditions that have facilitated such development of urban water.
It is the argument of this thesis that urban water is discursively constructed within
the context of the water management system of the city. The capacity to control, circulate
127
and engage the flow of urban water as highlighted by Swyngedouw (2005) informs us of
the importance of the development of urban water, but this process is not a
straightforward relationship. Instead, the process of controlling urban water is, as
highlighted, a highly discursive one, where the engagement is not merely a top down
process but is a negotiation between the society, the polity and the complexities of the
economy and the environment. The development of a centralized urban water
management system over the years, has had significant impacts on the country’s political,
social and economic development and is traceable to strong control by the state. The
studying of resource or environmental politics, as in the case of urban water, is hence
inseparable from a study of the political economy and how societies have come to make
use of and make sense of it the environment.
As Foucault (1995) has noted, the power relations within society are not static but
are a dynamic process that is constantly being engaged and negotiated. Water politics not
only is about controlling the supply of water, but involves a more complex process of
legitimizing control within the society. Governance comes to be closely tied to
ideological engagements of various components of reality, be they social, technical or
environmental. As shown in the case of urban water management, governance is
legitimized through the discursive engagement of water; the ability to cater to a
consumerist society in the contemporary context has become more practical and efficient
than utilizing a punitive method of regulating conservation efforts. This illustrates how
the urban water management system is not a static component of society, but has been
evolving over the years. Urban water has taken on various discursive dimensions, and the
understandings of urban water have been subjected to different forms over different
periods. It is not enough to say that water scarcity has been constructed, but it is
necessary to get an understanding how this scarcity been defined, and how it has been
resolved. Only through such a critical understanding, can environmental policies be
further engaged and developed, both locally and internationally.
128
6.2 Making Sense of Discourses Surrounding Urban Water Management in
Singapore
Such an understanding of urban water politics is reflected in how the
developmental state in Singapore has managed to discursively position itself during
different periods. The significance of governance is tied with how society has come to
accept the state’s actions and control as normalized and inevitable. The capacity to ensure
the actual flow of urban water within the city is undeniably a real concern, but a more
significant issue would be to understand how the urban water management system has
further manipulated this flow of urban water within the national rhetoric over the years.
Eventually, the success of the Singapore urban water management model is not one that
can or should simply be replicated without a further understanding of how it has been
constructed.
Since independence, urban water in Singapore has been discursively constructed,
engaged and understood in arguably four main phases. These are developmentalism,
pragmatism, environmental possibilism and ecological modernization. These four phases
however are not mutually exclusive, and have varying overlapping influences. These
discourses have been engaged in varying degrees at different points of time, and it has
been argued that the significance of each discourse has been developed within a
chronological context aligned with Singapore’s development over the years.
6.2.1 Developmentalism
The developmentalist discourse is one that has been a persisting rhetoric in
Singapore ever since independence. Its main focus is premised upon the primary notion
that development and progress are crucial aspects for Singapore. The significance of such
a discourse lies in how it has been engaged over the years to justify the intervention of
the developmental state in much of everyday life. In the case of urban water, the focus is
on the need to expand the country’s water supply for the growth of the small nation. This
growth has been posited as benefiting the larger welfare of the population, where
economic growth is being equated to an increasing standard and quality of living. In
tandem with the development of the nation, water management has also followed a
129
similar track, which in turn has acted to justify much of the state’s early punitive policies
towards domestic water consumption.
Claims of developmentalism that the urban water management system has
adopted are a dynamic part of the governance of the developmental state. The discourse
of developmentalism has been one that has been consistent within the popular claim that
Singapore is a ‘small island state with very limited natural (water) resources’, where
economic growth has largely been privileged. In this context, water management
becomes a key component of governance, and ensuring a sufficient or even abundant
water supply is tied closely with successful economic growth and development. Such a
developmentalist rhetoric has been engaged since the 1960s, where urban water has been
constructed as a necessity within the context of industrialization and urbanization as part
of Singapore’s strategy for growth and development.
Subsequently, in the 1970s, the focus moved towards controlling urban water
within the rhetoric of cleanliness, where a focus on anti-pollution was actively engaged as
a moralizing rhetoric to punish and castigate the ‘anti-socials’ in the name of the larger
well-being of Singapore. Economic development became a ‘moral imperatives’, and
justified the beginning of the developmental state’s unquestioning control over water
resource management. This would prove to be especially significant as the
developmentalist rhetoric has largely come to cover much of modern Singapore’s
politics, whereby the capacity to address the developmental needs of Singapore has been
consistently (re)emphasized over the years.
6.2.2 Pragmatism
Following the rhetoric of developmentalism, the discourse of pragmatism began
to gain leverage towards the 1980s. As Singapore became increasingly affluent, the focus
shifted towards attempts to get the public to internalize the pragmatic dimensions of
efficiency and possibilism alongside the justification of an integrated water management
system. Instead of punishing people, through, for example, legal measures, the focus has
shifted towards building upon pragmatism to get people to internalize an understanding
130
of water conservation. In invoking claims of pragmatism as a rationale, there has been an
attempt to individualize the urban water issue; individuals are encouraged to adapt
efficiency and efficacy. Control in the water management system was posited as a
pragmatic means of ensuring that urban water would remain adequate and affordable, and
continue to propel the development of Singapore.
It is in this context where monitoring and the surveillance of the flow of urban
water in everyday life are being normalized. The disciplining of the populace then shifts
from overt punishment towards more subtle forms of internalized control, where through
rhetoric of pragmatism, people come to accept the state’s control and management of its
urban water system as a taken for granted component of everyday life. This is crucial in
understanding about the state’s control over urban water, where power relations do not
reside in simple control of physical resources but within the context of how governance
constantly negotiates its continual relevance in society.
6.2.3 Environmental Possiblism
With pragmatism, much of the concern was about reifying economic concerns as
the underlying structure for the well-being of Singapore. Along this line, the focus on the
need for the young nation to be pragmatic was also further complemented towards the
1990s by a discursive focus on possibilism, or in this case, environmental possibilism. As
the term suggests, the focus was on overcoming (environmental) limitations and push for
the nation’s further progress. Tying in with pragmatism, the significance of possibilism is
pushing the limits of Singapore’s environmental constraints to ensure that the country
would have abundant water in the future. The underlying premise is that an effective and
efficient urban water management system that has been developed over the years would
be able to provide for the possibilities of overcoming existing constraints. In this case, the
claim of possibilism is depicted as a largely reactive one, where the developmental state
lays claim to legitimacy through positing its capacity to deal with constraints and
challenges as Singapore sought to further grow and develop.
131
Within such claims of possibilism, certain concepts of sustainable development
were also embraced, where the focus was on an integrated urban water management
system that could ensure sufficient water for the development and well-being of current
and future generations. With sustainable development, a temporal dimension became
relevant; it was necessary for the population to think not just about existing water issues,
but to relate to the forward looking path identified by the developmental state. Such a
temporal dimension of possibilism is significant as the risks that Singapore faces are
being engaged as rhetorical tools of the state, where the subsequent development in water
related technologies would be legitimated at the same time as further legitimating the
developmental state’s governance.
6.2.4 Ecological Modernization
Subsequently, as Singapore moved into the twenty-first century, the focus was
again adjusted with the adoption of a discourse of ecological modernization. With the
attention being turned towards technological development, the state has further attempted
to legitimize its position as a technocratic state. In a post-industrialization turn in the late
1990s, the focus has shifted towards the capacity to engage technological development,
with water technologies being a key focus as well. The claims of ecological
modernization are premised on justifying the capacities of technocrats to overcome limits
through further adoption of technical measures. In doing so, the environment is
understood as not simply a constraining factor to development, but it is now
conceptualized as an active realm of its own; engaging with the environment becomes a
goal in itself, and not just the means to an end.
In this way, the risks associated with ecological concerns are no longer simply
posited as constraining, but have become enabling components; in identifying the
potential of ecology, the technocratic state opens up ‘endless’ endeavours for the nation.
With the focus on technological development of alternate sources of water such as
NEWater, as well as desalination, as part of the strategy to diversify the water supply, the
water management system began to redefine an understanding of the relationship
between society and its environment. The totalizing imagery associated with the symbolic
132
“closing of the water-loop” through control of the country’s natural water-cycle helped,
the technocratic state to renew its dominant position by engaging its technological
successes albeit through a softened rhetoric. In Foucault’s (1995) terms, control was
regularized as a taken for granted aspect of everyday life. The technocratic state not only
addressed the water problem, but to further defined the boundaries of the problem, and
earmarked its ensuing solutions through developing the necessary technological
advancements. The discursive significance therefore was not just about overcoming
constraints, but also about justifying the capacity of the system to dominate ecological
constraints and further engage them as part of the nation’s continuous development.
Bauman’s (2005) understanding of the ‘post-modern’ condition gives a further
way to understand the regularizing of control as part of everyday life. Beyond developing
water technologies and ‘closing the water-loop’, water in everyday is utilized to engage,
citizens as “consumers” and no longer “producers”. The state has regularized its control
by focusing on the aesthetic of consumption; the population is encouraged to cultivate
“life-styles”, and to fulfil themselves through a constant pursuit of consumer desires. The
environment is engaged as an important component of ‘life-style’, and urban water is
identified within the context of ecological modernization as not just water related
technologies, but also water front living and water related investments.
The state has thus furthered its legitimacy through its successful continual
manipulation of the flow of urban water, by construing a water-bound lifestyle as part
and parcel of the population’s ‘needs’ within everyday life. More importantly, this is the
ideological furtherance of the notion of possibilism, where a perception is created that the
state should be the one to provide for such a lifestyle engagement. Through the claim of
turning Singapore into a ‘City of Gardens and Water’, the state has thus come to cater to
and provide for the population a lifestyle that is believed to be possible only through an
active interaction with the surrounding environment. In a continual engagement of the
developmentalism rhetoric, the main concern is about satisfying an aesthetic of
consumption, and even more aptly, constructing such development into a narrative of the
nation. In this context, the claim of Singapore’s smallness in size and lack of water
133
resources is now portrayed as not a limitation, but a success of the technocratic state,
which has managed to overcome the various dimensions of the apparent water problem.
Accordingly, the narrative attesting to a successful ‘Singapore Water Story’ is now
embedded within the development of Singapore amidst the state’s dominance over the
flow of urban water, and has been projected as part of the nation’s history.
6.3 Urban Water Politics: Policies Implications and Further Development
I have queried in this thesis the significance of the environment and natural
resources, such as water, to society. I have suggested that the issue is not about intrinsic
meanings of the environment, but how they are subjected by normative forces and then
projected as social reality. Even the idea of water scarcity is a highly inter-subjective one;
this is not a simplistic argument about overt attempts at preventing others from getting
access to water resources, but is more significantly about constructing discursive
engagements and reiterating legitimacy through controlling the flow of urban water. The
significance of scarcity in a post-modern context is about the self-referential capacity to
consume the physical product, the environmentally-related lifestyle, or even the idea of
an ecological imagination.
There is a further need to rethink how water management has to be evaluated.
Even technological successes, such as water-related ones, are more abstract, where the
changes and advancements have been used to perpetuate the development of the human
condition. Despite the global focus on environmental concerns, the issues go deeper, and
are inseparable from the larger political economy. Consequently, environmentalism and
resource politics are anthropocentric ones, where the environment and resources are
engaged by society within the scope of facilitating human development. The significance
of water-related technological development are not just technical issues, but socialpolitical well. In looking at the success of Singapore’s water management system, it is
not just a mere matter of identifying a success model for emulation, but involves a more
complicated understanding of the socio-political context. Hence, the question of whether
the quest for sustainable development is actually sustainable in any sense is in fact largely
inter-subjective, and would remain a difficult and complex one to address.
134
Even for Singapore itself, it is not enough to simply see the development of the
urban water system as a linear progression. As Singapore has continued to develop, there
has been much success in its urban water management. Such success has been especially
significant in the engagement of technological development to diversify the country’s
sources of water supply as Singapore pushes to be more self sufficient and particularly
self-sustainable in terms of water. However, the task ahead is not just merely about
fostering further technical development, as such developments are inevitably
complemented by other concurrent social-political engagements. Much of the future
challenge for water management in Singapore will therefore also include the need for the
continuation of an active engagement with the population to understand their demands if
Singapore is to continue on its developmentalist rhetoric. In continuing to cater to a
consumerist society, there is also a need to further engage and even educate the
population accordingly to better promote an understanding of the value of water
resources. Consumption in the materialist dimension is after all limited, and much more
will have to be done to further a more integrated and benign relationship between society
and the environment.
135
Bibliography
Academic References:
Adams, Robert McC. 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and
Prehispanic Mexico. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Argyrou, Vassos. 2005. The Logic of Environmentalism: Anthropology, Ecology and
Postcoloniality. New York; Oxford; Berghahn Books.
Asthana, Vadana. Water Policy Processes in India: Discourses of Power and Resistance.
London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Baker, Jim. 2008. Crossroads: A Popular History of Malaysia and Singapore. Singapore:
Marshall Cavendish.
Barlow, Maude. 2007. Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle
for the Right to Water. New York; London: The New Press.
Bauman, Zygmunt (2ed). 2005. Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. New York: Open
University Press.
Bell, Daniel. 1974. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social
Forecasting. London: Heinemann.
Benda-Beckmann, Franz von. 2007. “Contestation over a Life-Giving Force: Water
Rights and Conflicts, with Special Reference to Indonesia” in A World of Water: Rain,
Rivers and Seas in Southeast Asian Societies edited by Peter Boomgaard. Leiden:
KITLV Press.
Bennet, Vivienne. 1995. The Politics of Water: Urban Protest, Gender, and Power in
Monterrey, Mexico. Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Boomgaard, Peter. 2007. “In a State of Flux: Water as a Deadly and a Life-Giving Force
in Southeast Asia” in A World of Water: Rain, Rivers and Seas in Southeast Asian
Societies edited by Peter Boomgaard. Leiden: KITLV Press
Buttel, Frederick H. 1997. “Social Institution and Environmental Change” in The
International Handbook of Environmental Sociology edited by Michael Redclift and
Graham Woodgate. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Castells, Manuel. 1988. “The Developmental City-State in an Open World Economy: The
Singapore Experience” BRIE Working Paper #31.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Post Colonial
History. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.
136
Christoff, Peter. 2000. “Ecological Modernization, Ecological Modernities” in The
Emergence of Ecological Modernization: Integrating the Environment and the
Economy? edited by Stephen C. Young. London and New York: Routledge.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1995. Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London
and NewYork: Routledge.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1997. Political Legitimacy and Housing: Stockholding in
Singapore. London and NewYork: Routledge.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1998. “World Cities, Globalization and the Spread of Consumerism: A
View from Singapore.” Urban Studies 35(5/6):981-1000.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1999. “The Attendant Consumer Society of a Developed Singapore” in
Singapore: Towards a Developed Status edited by low Linda. Singapore: Oxford
University Press.
Chua, Beng Huat. 2008. “Southeast Asia in Postcolonial Studies: An Introduction”
Postcolonial Studies 11(3):231-240.
Chua, Beng Huat and Tan Joo Ean. 1999. “Singapore: Where the New Middle Class Sets
the Standard” in Culture and Privilege in Capitalist Asia edited by Michael Pinches.
London: Routledge.
Deyo, Frederic C. “The Emergence of Burecratic-Authoritarian Corporatism in Labour
Relations” in Understanding Singapore Society edited by Ong Jin Hui, Tong Chee
Kiong and Tan Ern Ser. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Dobbs, Stephen. 2003. The Singapore River: A Social History 1819-2002. Singapore:
Singapore University Press.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Rabinow, Paul. 1982. Michele Foucault: Beyond Structuralism
and Hermeneutics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Dolatyar, Mostafa and Gray, Tim S. 2000. Water Politics in the Middle East: A Context
for Conflict or Co-operation? Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and London:
Macmillan Press.
Drysdale, John. 1984. Singapore: Struggle for Success. Singapore Times Books
International.
Dryzek, John S. 2005. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Eder, Klaus. 1996. The Social Construction of Nature: A Sociology of Ecological
Enlightenment. London, Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage Publications.
137
Ekers, Michael and Loftus, Alex. 2008. “The Power of Water: Developing Dialogues
Between Foucault and Gramsci” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
26(4):698-718.
Elias, Norbert. 2000. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic
Investigations. Oxford; Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Emmerson, Donald K. 2005. “What is Indonesia?” in Indonesia: The Great Transistion
edited by John Bresnan. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, Inc.
Featherstone, Mike. 2000. “Lifestyle and Consumer Culture” in The Consumer Society
Reader edited by Martyn J. Lee. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Fischer-Kowalski, Marina and Weisz, Helga. 1999. “Society as Hybrid between Material
and Symbolic Realms: Towards a Theoretical Framework of Society- Nature
Interaction” Advances in Human Ecology 8:215- 251.
Flyvberg, B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it
can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fong, Sip Chee. 1980. The PAP Story: The Pioneering Years. November 1954-April
1968: A Diary of Events of the People's Action Party: Reminiscences of an Old Cadre.
Singapore : Published on behalf of the PAP Chai Chee Branch by Times Periodicals.
Forsyth, Tim. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science.
London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundation for
Environmental Sociology” American Journal of Sociology 105(2):366-405.
Foucault, Michel (Translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith). 1976. The Archaeology
of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language. New York; Hagerstown; San Fransico;
London: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Foucault, Michel (Translated by Robert Hurley). 1990. The History of Sexuality Volume
One: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Book.
Foucault, Michel (Translated by Alan Sheridan). 1995. Discipline and Punishment: The
Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Book.
Foucault, Michel (Edited by Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana and translated by
David Macey). 1997. “Society Must be Defended”: Lectures at the College De
France, 1975-1976. New York: Picador.
Frug, Gerald E. 1999. City Making: Building Communities without Building Walls.
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
138
Gandy, Matthey. 2004. “Rethinking Urban Metabolism: Water, Space and the Modern
City” City 8(3):363-379.
George, Cherian. 2000. Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation: Essays on the Politics of
Comfort and Control 1990-2000. Singapore: Landmark Books.
Gilbert, G. Nigel and Mulkay, Michael. 1984 Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological
Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. London, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goh, Daniel P.S. 2001. “The Politics of the Environment in Singapore? Lessons from a
“Strange” Case” Asian Journal of Social Science 29(1):9-34.
Goh, Daniel P.S. 2008. “Postcolonial disorientations: Colonial Ethnography and the
Vectors of the Philippine Nation in the Imperial Frontier” Postcolonial Studies 11(3):
259-276.
Greaves, Tom. 1998.“Water Rights in the Pacific Northwest” in Water, Culture,
and Power: Local Struggles in a Global Context edited by John M. Donahue and
Barbara Rose Johnston. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological
Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hajer, Maarten and Fischer, Frank. 1999. “Beyond Global Discourse: The Rediscovery
Of Culture in Environmental Politics” in Living with Nature: Environmental Politics
as Cultural Discourse edited by Marteen Hajer and Frank Fischer. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hallifax, F.J. 1991. “Municipal Government” in One Hundred Years of Singapore:
Volume One edited by Water Makepeace, Gilbert E. Brooke and Roland St. J.
Braddell. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Hamiliton- Hart, Natasha. 2006.“Singapore’s Climate Change Policy: The Limit of
Learning” Contemporary Southeast Asia 28(3):363-384.
Hannigan, John. 2006. Environmental Sociology. London and New York: Routledge.
Harvey, David. 1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hill, Micheal and Lian Kwen Fee. 1995. The Politics of Nation Building and Citizenship
in Singapore. New York: Routledge.
Hirt, Paul W. 2008. “Developing a Plentiful Resource: Transboundary Rivers in the
Pacific Northwest” in Water, Place and Equity edited by John M. Whitely, Helen
139
Ingram and Richard Warren Perry. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The
MIT Press.
Ho, Kong Chong. 2002. “Urban Studies in Singapore” in The Making of Singapore
Sociology: Society and State edited by Tong Chee Kiong and Lian Kwen Fee.
Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Howarth, D. and Stavrakakis, Y. 2000. “Introducing Discourse Theory and Political
Analysis” in Discourse Theories and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemony and
Social Change edited by D. Howarth, A.J. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Huff, W.G. 1995. ‘The Developmental State, Government, and Singapore’s Economic
Development Since 1960’ World Development 23 (8):1421-1438.
Irwin, Alan. 1997. “Risk, The Environment and Environment Knowledge” in The
International handbook of Environmental Sociology edited by Michael Redclift and
Graham Woodgate. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Irwin, Alan. 2001. Sociology and the Environment: A Critical Introduction to Society,
Nature and Knowledge. Malden, Mass: Polity Press.
Jaworski, Adam and Coupland, Nikolas. 2006. “introduction: Perspectives on Discourse
Analysis” in The Discourse Reader (2nd Ed) edited by Adam Jaworski and Nikolas
Coupland. London and New York: Routledge.
Jayakumar, Balakrishnan. 1988. The Singapore Water Supply, 1819-1945 : The
Evolution of a Governmental Responsibility. Singapore: Unpublished Honours Thesis
in the Department of History, National University of Singapore.
Johnston, Barbara Rose and Donahue, John M. 1998. “Introduction” in Water, Culture,
and Power: Local Struggles in a Global Context edited by John M. Donahue and
Barbara Rose Johnston. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
Josey, Alex. 1980. Lee Kuan Yew: Volume Two. Singapore: Times Book International.
Kingsbury, Damien. 2005. The Politics of Indonesia (3rd Ed). South Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Kng, Chng Meng., Low, Linda and Heng, Toh Mun. 1988. “Industrial Restructuring in
Singapore” Asia Pacific Monograph No.3. Singapore: Chopmen Publishers.
Kog, Yue Choong. 2001. “Natural Resource Management and Environmental Security in
Southeast Asia: Case Study of Clean Water Supplies in Singapore” IDSS Working
Paper. Singapore: Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies.
Kong, Lily and Yeoh, Brenda S.A. 1996. “Social Construction of Nature in Urban
140
Singapore” Southeast Asian Studies 34(2):402- 423.
Leach, E. R. 1959. “Hydraulic Society in Ceylon” The Past and Present Society 15:2-26.
Lee, Cecil. 1994. Sunset of the Raj: Fall of Singapore 1942. Edinburg: Cambridge;
Durham: The Pentland Press Limited
Lee, Kuan Yew. 1998. The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore:
Singapore Press Holdings: Times Edition.
Lee, Poh Onn. 2003. “The Water Issue Between Singapore and Malaysia: No Solution In
Sight?” ISEAS Working Paper, Economics and Finance 1. Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies.
Lee, Poh Onn. 2005. “Water Management Issue in Singapore”. Paper presented at Water
in Mainland Southeast Asia, 29 November – 2 December, Siem Reap, Cambodia.
Organised by International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS), Netherlands, and the
Center for Khmer Studies (CKS), Cambodia.
Lemos, Maria Carmen. 2008. “Whose Water is it Anyway? Water Management,
Knowledge and Equity in Northeast Brazil” in Water, Place and Equity edited by John
M. Whitely, Helen Ingram and Richard Warren Perry. Cambridge, Massachusetts;
London, England: The MIT Press.
Long, Joey. 2001. “Desecuritizing the Water Issue in Singapore-Malaysia Relations”
Contemporary Southeast Asia 23 (3):504-532.
Low, Kelvin E.Y. 2009. Scent and Scent-sibilities: Smell and Everyday Life Experiences.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Low, Linda. 1997. “The Political Economy of the Built Economy Revisited” in City and
the State: Singapore’s Built Environment Revisited edited by Ooi Giok Ling and
Kenson Kwok. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Lowi, Miriam R. 1993. Water and Power: The Politics of a Scarce Resource in the
Jordan River Basin. Cambridge; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
Press
Luke, Timothy W. 1997. Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy and
Culture. London; Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press.
Luke, Timothy W. 1999. “Environmentality as Green Governmentality” in Discourse of
the Environment edited by Éric Darier. Malden, Massachusetts; Blackwell Publishers.
Lye, Lin Heng. 2008. “A Fine City in a Garden – Environmental Law and Governance in
Singapore” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies:68-117.
141
Macnaghten, Phil 2003. “Embodying the Environment in Everyday Life Practices” The
Sociological Review 51(1):63-84.
Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative Researching. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Mautner, Gerlinde. 2008. “Analyzing Newspaper, Magazines and Other Print Media” in
Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences edited by Ruth Wodak and
Micał Krzyżanowski. Houndmills, Bakingstoke, Hamsphire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Michael, Mike. 2006. Technoscience and Everyday Life: The Complex Simplicities of the
Mundane. New York: Open University Press.
Miller, Char. 2009. Water in the 21st Century West: A High Country News Reader.
Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1967. The Sociological Imagination. London; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Mills, Sara. 2004. Discourses (2nd Ed). London and New York: Routledge.
Milne, R.S. and Mauzy, Diane K. 1990. Singapore: The Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew.
Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press.
Milton, Kay. 1996. Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of
Anthropology in Environmental Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
Mol, Arthur P.J and Sonnenfeld, David A. 2000. “Ecological Modernization around the
World: An Introduction” Environmental Politics 9(1):3-14.
Moriarty, Michael. 1991. Roland Barthes. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mort, Frank. 2000. “The Politics of Consumption” in The Consumer Society Reader
edited by Martyn J. Lee. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Neo, Harvey. 2007. “Challenging the Developmental State: Nature Conservation in
Singapore” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 48(2):186-199.
Neo, Harvey. 2010. “The Potential of Large-Scale Urban Waste Recycling: A case of the
National Recycling Programme in Singapore” Society and Natural Resources 23:872887.
Ooi, Giok Ling. 1995.“Introduction: Balancing the Needs o f Urbanization,
Industrialization and the Environment” in Environment and the City: Sharing
Singapore’s Experience and Future Challenges edited by Giok Ling, Ooi. Singapore:
Times Academic Press for Institute of Policy Studies.
142
Ooi, Giok Ling. 2005. Sustainability and Cities: Concept and Assessment. New Jersey:
World Scientific Pub.
Otter, Christopher. 2004. “Cleansing and Clarifying: Technology and Perception in
Ninteenth-Century London” Journal of British Studies 43(1):40-64.
Pang, Eng Fong. 1993. “Singapore” in The State and Economic Development in the Asia
Pacific edited by C. Y. Ng and E.F. Pang. Singapore: Institute of South East Asia
Studies.
Paterson, Mark. 2006. Consumption and Everyday Life. London and New York:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Peachy, Karen; Perry, Martin and Grundy-Warr, Carl. 1998. The Riau Islands and
Economic Cooperation in the Singapore Indonesia Border Zone. Durham, England :
International Boundaries Research Unit.
Pello, David N., Schnaiberg, Allan and Weinberg, Adam S. 2000. “Putting the Ecological
Modernisation Thesis to the test: the Promise and Performance of Urban Recycling”
Environmental Politics 9(1):109-137.
Pereira, Alexius A. 2008. “Manufacturing Human Resources: The Role of the Social
Investment State” in Social Policy in Post-Industrial Singapore edited by Lian Kwen
Fee and Tong Chee Kiong. Leiden: Brill.
Perry, N., Kong, L. and Yeoh, S.A. 1997. Singapore: A Developmental State. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Price, David H. 1994. “Wittfogel’s Neglected Hydraulic/ Hydroagricultural Distinction”
Journal of Anthropological Research 50(2):187-204
Rempel, Michael and Clark, Terry Nicholas. 1997. “Post Industrial Politics: A
Framework for Interpreting Citizen Politics since the 1960s” in Citizen Politics in Post
Industrial Societies by Terry Nichols Clark and Michael Rempel. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Rodan, Garry. 1985. Singapore’s “Second Industrial Revolution”: State Intervention and
Foreign Investment. Kuala Lumpur: ASEAN-Australia Joint Research Project.
Rodan, Garry. 1989. The Political Economy of Singapore’s Industrialization: National
State and International Capital. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Rodan, Garry. 1996. “Class Transformations and Political Tensions in Singapore’s
Development” in The New Rich in Asia. Mobile Phones, McDonalds and MiddleClass Revolution edited by Richard Robinson and David S.G. Goodman. London:
143
Routledge.
Rodan, Garry. 1997. “Singapore: Economic Diversification and Social Divisions” in The
Political Economy of Southeast Asia: An Introduction edited by G Rodan, K. Hewison
and R. Robinson. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Rodan, Garry. 2001. “Singapore: Globalization and the Politics of Economic
Restructuring ” in The Political Economy of South-East Asia: Conflicts, Crises, and
Change (2nd Ed) edited by Garry Rodan, Kevin Hewison and Richard
Robinson. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Rutherford, Paul 1999. “Ecological Modernization and Environmental Risk” in
Discourse of the Environment edited by Éric Darier. Malden, Massachusetts;
Blackwell Publishers.
Sassen, Saskia. 2006. “When National Territory is home to the Global: Old Border to
Novel Bordering” in Key Debates in New Political Economy edited by Anthony
Payne. London: Routledge.
Saussure, Ferdinand De. 1985. “The Linguistic Sign” in Semiotics: An Introductory
Reader edited by Robert E. Innis. London: Hutchinson.
Savage, Victor R. 1991. “Singapore’s Garden City: Reality, Symbol, Ideal” Solidarity
131/132:67-75.
Savage, Victor. 1992. “Human-Environment Relations: Singapore’s Environmental
Ideology” in Imaging Singapore edited by Ban Kah Choon, Anne Pakir and Tong
Chee Kiong. Singapore: Time Academic Press.
Savage, Victor. 1997. “Singapore’s Garden City: Translating Environmental Possibilism”
in City and the State: Singapore’s Built Environment Revisited edited by Ooi Geok
Ling and Kenson Kwok. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Savage, Victor. 1999. “Singapore as a Global City: Change and Challenge for the 21st
Century” in Singapore: Towards a Developed Status edited by Low Linda. Singapore:
Oxford University Press.
Savage, Victor, Huang, Shirlena, Kong, Lily and Yeoh, Brenda. 2001. “Global
Environmental Change: The Singapore Response” in Urban Sustainability in the
Context of Global Change edited by R.B. Singh. Enfield, N.H.: Science Publishers.
Shapiro, I. 2004. “Problems, Methods and Theories in the Study of Politics, or What’s
Wrong with Political Science and What to do About it” in Problems and Methods in
the Study of Politics edited by I. Shapiro, R.M. Smith and T.E. Masoud. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Shove, Elizabeth. 2003a. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social
144
Organization of Normality. Oxford; New York: Berg.
Shove, Elizabeth. 2003b. “Converging Conventions of Comfort, Cleanliness and
Convenience” Journal of Consumer Policy 26:395-418.
Silverman, David. 1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text
and Interaction. London: Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Singh, Bilveer. 2000. Succession Politics in Indonesia: The 1998 Presidential Elections
and the Fall of Suharto. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and London:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Spaargaren, Gert and Vilet, Bas Van. 2000. “Lifestyles, Consumption and the
Environment: The Ecological Modernization of Domestic Consumption”
Environmental Politics 9(1):50 -75.
Speth, James Gustave. 2008. The Bridge at the End of the World: Capitalism, the
Environment and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Staddon, Chad. 2010. Managing Europe’s Water Resources: Twenty-First Century
Challenges. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Sutton, Philip W. 2004. Nature, Environment and Society. New York:Palgrave
Macmillan.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 2004. Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 2006. “Circulation and Metabolism: (Hybrid) Natures and (Cyborg)
Cities” Science as Culture 15(2):105-121.
Tan Ern Ser. 1997. “Theorizing the Dynamics of Industrial Relations and Trade
Unionism: Lessons from the Singapore Case” in Understanding Singapore Society
edited by Ong Jin Hui, Tong Chee Kiong and Tan Ern Ser. Singapore: Times
Academic Press.
Tan Yong Soon, with Lee, Tung Jean and Tan, Karen . 2008. Clean Green and Blue:
Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water Sustainability. Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Teo, Peggy, Yeoh, Brenda, Ooi, Giok Ling and Lai, Karen. 2004. Changing Landscape
of Singapore. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Tortajada, Cecilia. 2006. “Water Management in Singapore” Water Resources
Development 22(2): 227-240.
145
Tregonning, K.G. 1967. Home Port Singapore: A History of Straits Steamship Company
Limited, 1890- 1965. Singapore: Oxford University Press for Straits Steamship Co.
Ltd.
Tregonning, K.G. 1972. A History of Modern Malaysia and Singapore: Revised Edition.
Kuala Lumpur: Eastern Universities Press Sdn. Bhd.
Turnbull, Mary C. 1977. A History of Singapore: 1819-1975. Kuala Lumpur; New York:
Oxford University Press.
Turnbull, Mary C. 2009. A History of Singapore: 1819-2005. Singapore: National
University of Singapore Press.
Turner, Bryan S. 2007. “Culture, Technologies and Bodies: The Technological Utopia of
Living Forever” in Embodying Sociology: Retrospect, Progress and Prospects edited
by Chris Shilling. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Turner, Bryan S. 2008. The Body and Society: Exploration in Social Theory (3rd Ed). Los
Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore: Sage Publication.
Vaccaro, Ismael. 2008 “Modernizing Mountain Water: State, Industry and Territory” in
Water, Place and Equity edited by John M. Whitely, Helen Ingram and Richard
Warren Perry. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The MIT Press.
Varis, Olli. 2006. “Megacities, Development and Water” Water Resources Development
22(2):199-225.
Vogel, Steven. 1996. Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory. New
York: SUNY Press.
Vogel, Steven. 1997. “Habermas and the Ethics of Nature” in The Ecological
Community: Environmental Challenges for Philosophy, Politics and Morality edited
by Roger S. Gottlieb. New York; London: Routledge.
Walsh, E., Babakina, O., Pennock, A., Shi, H., Chi, Y., Wang, T. and Graedal, T.E. 2006.
“Quantitative Guidelines for Urban Sustainability” Technology in Society 28:45-61.
Warren, Alan. 2002. Singapore 1942: Britain’s Greatest Defeat. Singapore: Talisman;
London: Hambledon and London.
Weller, Robert P. 2006. Discovering Nature: Globalization and Environmental Culture
in China and Taiwan. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, Barry. 1986. “Human Resources in Singapore’s Second Industrial
Revolution” Industrial Relations Journal 17(2):99-114.
146
Wittfogel, Karl A. 1957. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Whiteley, John M., Ingram, Helen and Perry, Richard Warren (eds). 2008. Water, Place
and Equity. London: The MIT Press.
Wong, Aline K. and Yeh, Stephen H.K. (eds). 1985. Housing a Nation: 25 Years of
Public Housing in Singapore. Singapore: Published by Maruzen Asia for Housing and
Development Board.
Yearley, Steven. 1996. Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization: Reinventing the
Globe. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Yeoh, Brenda S.A. 2003. Contesting Space in Colonial Singapore: Power Relations and
the Urban Built Environment. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Yuen, Belinda. 1996. “Creating the Garden City: The Singapore Experience” Urban
Studies 33(6):955-970.
Yeung, Henry Wai-Chung (2000) “State Intervention and Neoliberialism in the
Globalizing World Economy: Lessons from Singapore’s Regionalization Programme”
The Pacific Review 13(1):133-162.
Governmental and Organizational Publications:
9 August 1965, Independence of Singapore Agreement. 1965. The Statues of the
Republic of Singapore: Printed by the Government Printer.
A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Growth. 2009. Published by
the Ministry of Water and Environmental Resource and Ministry of National
Development.
Administration Report of the Singapore Municipality for the Year 1927. 1927. Singapore:
C.A Ribeiro and Co. Ltd
Bruntland, G. 1987. Our Common Future: The World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Environment Annual Report. 1972. Singapore: Ministry of Environment.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report (for the period 1 May, 1963 to
31st December 1963). 1963. Singapore: Public Utilities Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1964. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1967. Singapore: Public Utilities
147
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1972. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1973. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1974. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1981. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1986. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1995. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1996. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1998. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 1998. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 2001. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 2003. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 2004. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report. 2005. Singapore: Public Utilities
Board.
Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) Annual Report (Online Edition). 2006/7.
Singapore: Public Utilities Board.
http://www.pub.gov.sg/annualreport2007/Splash_perfect_ten.html Accessed on 26th
June 2009.
148
Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) Annual Report. 1960. Singapore:
Housing and Development Board.
Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) Annual Report. 1962. Singapore:
Housing and Development Board.
Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) Annual Report. 1963. Singapore:
Housing and Development Board.
Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) Annual Report. 1965. Singapore:
Housing and Development Board.
Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) Annual Report. 1966. Singapore:
Housing and Development Board.
Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) Annual Report. 1970. Singapore:
Housing and Development Board.
Singapore’s Water Supply. 1985. Singapore: Public Utilities Board.
Singapore, Key Environmental Statistic. 2007. Ministry of Environment and Water
Resources. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Key Environmental Statistic. 2007. Ministry of Environment and Water
Resources. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Key Environmental Statistic. 2009. Ministry of Environment and Water
Resources. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Key Environmental Statistic. 2007. Ministry of Environment and Water
Resources. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, State of Environment Report. 2010. Ministry of Environment and Water
Resources. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 1965. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 1970. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 1975. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 1980. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
149
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 1982/1983. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade
and Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 1985. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade
and Industry.Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 1990. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore,Yearbook of Statistic, 1995. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 2000. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 2005. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
Singapore, Yearbook of Statistic. 2009. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and
Industry. Republic of Singapore.
State of Singapore Development Plan, 1961-1964. 1961. Singapore, Ministry of Finance.
State of Singapore Master Plan, First Revision, 1965, Report of Survey. Ministry of
National Development, Planning Department.
The Growth Triangle: Singapore-Johor-Riau (A Guide for U.S. Investors). 1994.
Prepared by Economic/Political Section, Embassy of the United States of America,
Singapore.
The Singapore Green Plan 2012: Beyond Clean and Green, Towards Environmental
Sustainability. 2002. Singapore: Ministry of the Environment.
The Singapore Green Plan 2012 (2006 edition): A Clean Environment. Water for All.
Together, a Sustainable Singapore. 2006. Singapore: Ministry of the Environment and
Water Resources.
United Nations (UN)-Water, Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking
Water (GLAAS): Targeting Resources for Better Results. 2010. Switzerland: World
Health Organization and UN-Water.
Water Department: An Introduction. 1982. Singapore: Public Utilities Board.
Water Department, Annual Report. 1965. Singapore: Public Utilities Board of Singapore.
Water Department, Annual Report. 1969. Singapore: Public Utilities Board of Singapore.
150
Water Department, Annual Report. 1970. Singapore: Public Utilities Board of Singapore.
Water Talks? If Only It Could. 2003. Singapore: Ministry of Information,
Communication and the Arts.
Yesterday and Today: The Story of Public Electricity, Water and Gas Supplies in
Singapore. 1985. Singapore: Public Utilities Board.
151
[...]... ‘City of Gardens and Water Urban water management now engages the population within the context of this new style of water control 23 Chapter Two Urbanizing Water and Sanitation in Colonial Singapore Singapore’s history as a British colony in the 1800s has had major impacts on much of the shaping of modern Singapore s urban landscape The integrated system of piped water supplies and sewerage that has... flow of urban water One way of gaining an insight into governance in Singapore is to examine the way the state has discursively engaged the population within the narration of a successful water management system Through attempts at controlling and manipulating the flow of urban water, the state has also been constantly renegotiating its hegemonic position through an active process of discursive engagement... water management system of Singapore, a substantive amount of data covering discourses surrounding Singapore s water management system over the past four to five decades was available for analysis A systematic and organized manner of going through, sorting out and codification of the data was then critical to make sense of the extensive amount of texts, pictures and diagrams This led to an identification... retaining and storing much of this rainwater; without intervention much of this potential water supply is easily lost (Lee 2003).1 With a land area of only 710.2 square kilometers, Singapore s geographical limitation has historically constrained the local water supply as 1 Historically, Singapore has had limited local water supply as local means of water catchment have been largely constrained by land... water management in Singapore, such as newspapers, newsletters, annual reports, special reports, government press releases, national reports, national blueprints, national master-plans, project brochures and website content These materials are a rich source of data of how the state has dominated urban water in Singapore, as they are key representations of the state’s approach in managing its water resources... searched the newspaper archives for articles covering water related issues and concerns in Singapore This involved exploring various key search terms such as water and Singapore and water conservation and Singapore However, in order to have a more comprehensive and encompassing coverage, there was also the need to understand the various indirect engagements of the water management system in Singapore. .. port of the British had also allowed the island-state to successfully obtain part of its water supply from Malaysia, and this has significantly shaped the consequent development of Singapore s water management system In 1912, in the hope of sourcing for potential water supply from Malaysia, R Pierce conducted a preliminary examination of the Pulai district in Johore In 1920, S.G Williams, a water engineer,... relation to the knowledge surrounding perceived scarcity instead of any absolute engagement of scarcity; thus it is important to understand how water scarcity has been constructed, engaged and manifested and how this matters to the power relations and controlling the flow of urban water Hence, a discourse analysis of urban water management is about studying why urban water has been managed as it is and... this was made worse by deteriorating sanitation and health care standards caused by overcrowding within the municipal town areas (Baker 2008:178).Yet, issues of urban planning and management of the municipal town under the British administration were not straightforward, as Singapore was then only an appendage of the East India Company and not a crown colony (Hallifax 1991) The implication of this was... objective reality, but is it also transformed by labor and socially appropriated, becoming an internal reality of human development” How water as a resource is being engaged and experienced is what matters to a society How water is integrated within everyday life in Singapore has changed over the years Water has shifted from being seen as a limited resource threatening Singapore s survival in early independence ... of urban water One way of gaining an insight into governance in Singapore is to examine the way the state has discursively engaged the population within the narration of a successful water management. .. Gardens and Water Urban water management now engages the population within the context of this new style of water control 23 Chapter Two Urbanizing Water and Sanitation in Colonial Singapore Singapore’s... flow of urban water Hence, a discourse analysis of urban water management is about studying why urban water has been managed as it is and the accorded implications of how it comes to be interpreted
Ngày đăng: 03/10/2015, 20:30
Xem thêm: A discourse analysis of urban water management in singapore from 1960 2009, A discourse analysis of urban water management in singapore from 1960 2009
