Consuming more than just water a discourse analysis of urban water management in singapore from 1960 2009

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 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. .. 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... 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