‘Conservation is a hindrance to development’. How far is this true of your society?

Singapore has embraced a relentless drive to develop and modernise and little has stood in the way of development. We have seen countless old streets and buildings get swallowed up by urban planning. For decades, the common consensus was that conservation of historical infrastructure and even of the natural environment hindered progress. In recent years, however, conservation has gained many supporters among the public and even among the urban planners themselves. While there is still a clear, common understanding that pursuing economic viability is key to our survival, there are increasing attempts to conserve more of our heritage through preserving historic and cultural sites and artefacts due to Singapore’s constant and stable economic development. In fact, conservation, when planned properly and done well, complements the development of Singapore, rather than hinder any progress.

Economic development is crucial for our survival and as a country with land scarcity; conservation can, render large tracts of land unusable for further development and can potentially hamper the progress of Singapore. This was especially the case in the early years after independence when conservation was not explicitly emphasized as development took precedence. Singapore demolished many historic buildings and cleared large tracts of forested areas to make way for modern skyscrapers. The notion then was that conservation definitely hindered the development of Singapore into a modern city-state and that there was a greater need to demolish degraded built infrastructure, reduce poverty, and unemployment by building public housing and factories. Calls to conserve the Bukit Brown Cemetery that was rich in historical and natural heritage was not completely ignored, since currently, only parts of it are being demolished to make way for a highway to ease the bad traffic congestion in the area. However, the plan in some 30 to 40 years is to develop a housing estate on the ground where the cemetery currently stands. Even today with greater recognition of the need to reinforce and integrate past heritage with present developments in Singapore, pragmatism still overrides. Hence, conservation is still seen as a hindrance to development and the needs of the people such as housing takes precedence over conservation especially when land space is limited.

However, with careful planning and consideration, conservation can be made viable for everyone and does not necessarily hamper the development of Singapore. If the old does not go, there is no space left for the new and so some people assume that conservation and progress cannot coexist. However, it is possible to strike a balance between the two, especially if old, heritage structures are repurposed for new uses. Staunch conservationists may decry that such conservation is often piecemeal, leaving us clinging onto facades while the rest of a building gets hacked off. However, for practical reasons, a compromise between historic preservation and demolition has to be struck. Adaptive use of historical buildings by modernising and preserving old establishments, which could have been in a dilapidated state after having suffered the ravages of time, marries the needs of conservation and urban development. For instance, traditional shophouses which used to serve as warehouses along the historic Boat Quay area now house restaurants and businesses. Boat Quay is still vibrant today, though now transformed into a shopping and eating paradise instead of being an industrial area. The current National Gallery of Singapore was also the former Supreme Court and City Hall. And it is currently one of the most famous tourist attractions. Hence, it is possible for conservation and development to coexist when slight modernisation can be done to preserve certain historical value.

Increasingly, there is a belief that heritage and identity can play an important role in Singapore’s efforts to construct a modern city, so as to leverage the economic benefits of conservation. Urban researchers worldwide are arguing that culture is the business of cities and the basis of their competitive advantage. Conservation strengthens a city’s symbolic images and also opens new opportunities for the economy. Culture and tourism are interdependent and cultural resources can be developed into new tourist products. To woo tourists to Singapore, historical sites such as Chinatown and Kampong Glam, which showcase our multicultural, multi-ethnic history, have been conserved. Tourism is one of the growing pillars of Singapore’s economic growth. Travel brochures have begun to describe Singapore as a city where ‘east meets west’ and ancient traditions blend with modernity. Hence, the economic pragmatism of some forms of conservation especially in terms of heritage areas with tourism value has seen a new emphasis on incorporating conservation in the development of Singapore.

Are the poor an inevitable feature of any society?

The rich-poor divide has existed in society for centuries and till today, philosophers and sociologists are still pondering about whether the poor are an unavoidable characteristic of society. Some say that it is a problem that can only be eradicated when the right measures and government policies are in place at both domestic and international levels. Others argue that it is a natural phenomenon in a society that would exist regardless of how societies are run. In my opinion, I feel that the number of people who are poor can be reduced but the poor would definitely remain as an indelible part of society as the world today presents several new problems, in addition to the existing ones, that exacerbate the situation brought forward from the past.

A prime reason why the poor are present and prevalent in some societies is due to existing debts in the form of international or individual debt. This problem can be solved through international debt relief or through micro-financing that may ease or eradicate the number of poor people. Third World countries such as Haiti and Cameroon are such examples; they are saddled with large amounts of debt, which saps resources meant for economic growth, causing these countries to be under-developed. As a result, poverty becoming a major issue as the majority of the people living there is unable to find jobs and cannot afford basic commodities. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank launched the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative to provide debt relief for the world’s poorest countries, and a large portion of the international debt has been bought over by such organizations, to free up resources for economic growth in such countries. Poorer countries have benefited as a result as more money is spent on improving the living conditions of the people and poverty is minimised in these countries. Together with micro-financing through banks, it allows a wider scope of people to be debt-free, hence reducing the number of people in debt.

Another reason would be due to unstable governance in society that comes in forms such as corruption and organised crime. An upright and respected government has to be installed in order to ensure that the basic needs of the people are met. However, in societies ran by kleptocratic governments, funds in the form of education, farming and other subsidies meant for the public are embezzled, depriving the locals of opportunities to break out from the poverty cycle. Other societies that are dominated by criminal syndicates are also in the same situation. Protection rackets, drug-trafficking and loan-sharking are some activities that are prevalent in such societies, and with governments unwilling to crack down on such illegal activities, it leaves a negative impression on foreign countries and investors. As such, jobs are not created to provide employment for the people, and the poor continue to exist in society. Thus, ensuring that a government which is honest and unafraid to crack down on crime is in place may allow the number of poor people in societies to fall.

One other contributing factor to the existence of the poor would be discrimination in gender, cultural and racial aspects. Discrimination disadvantages certain groups of people into being unable to have the same rights as others, and as a result, they constitute the majority of the poor in many societies. Racial bias, for example, was a major issue in the US, such that before the African-American civil rights movement took place in the 1960s, African-Americans did not enjoy the same rights as white Americans. As such, they made up the bulk of the poor in the US in the past. However, with the help of pro-black groups such as the Black Panther Party, African-Americans are better off than before and poverty in America is no longer concentrated amongst African-Americans. Such rights groups still exist today, and they are still campaigning to stop discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities for all. They play an important role in eradicating biasedness in any form, such that people can get jobs regardless of their colour or religion. This also breaks down most social barriers, and it would pave the way to reducing the number of poor people disadvantaged because of discrimination.

The existence of the poor may now seem to be a relatively simple problem that can be solved in these changing times as certain trends are changing, but some solutions are more theoretical rather than practical and do not help in removing the ‘poor’ tag in societies as believed.

Gender, racial and cultural bias is one perennial problem that appears solvable but is impossible to resolve. This is because such discrimination stems from people’s mentality that has been shaped by negative influences as they grow up. As such, it is present in many forms in society, for example, in job interviews, discriminative employers may only offer jobs to certain groups of people and this creates a disadvantage for such people, which may be the reason why people who are discriminated against form the bulk of the poor. Also, in today’s society, the problem of discrimination is partly due to the older generations carrying historical baggage, such that the negative impressions they have of other groups of people are brought forward from the past and their actions could be discriminative. The problem also creates a vicious cycle when parents from these generations, out of stereotypical fears, inadvertently inculcate a sense of discrimination in their children. As such the people who are discriminated against might continue to feel resigned to be part of the poor and the problem carries on for generations. The population of the poor who are being discriminated against thus either grows or remains the same.

Another issue that contributes to the existence of the poor would be the different innate abilities in everyone. Some people are brighter than the others, while others can be more charismatic than others and the list goes on. Such traits distinguish each and every individual and it depends on which traits are more in demand that determines who might be rich and who might be poor. Generally, people who are intellectually superior to others would be in higher demand, and this could translate to them being better paid as well. This naturally creates a rich-poor divide in every society. Furthermore, a portion of the poor is also made up of people who are less skilled or unwilling to work. Comparatively, a person who is skilled would be more likely to secure a job than one who is not; a person who is willing to find a job would stand a chance of finding one compared to one who is not searching. As such, the poor basically constitutes of people who do not have the right skills or the right work attitude which dampens their chances of securing a job and breaking out of the ‘poor’ category.

Furthermore, studies have shown that the literacy rate in countries is a key determinant to the country’s economic prosperity, which can, in turn, increase the average local’s income. As such, most countries focus on making education available to every child in the country. Yet, for some countries, education may not be freely accessible due to political, geographical, social and other reasons. This is evident in populous rural areas which are highly inaccessible to the rest of the world, where the standard of education is not on par with education systems elsewhere. The level of education in such rural regions is limited in terms of choice, due to less resource made available for teaching. As a result, the people are deprived of accessible education services and end up forming the bulk of the country’s poor. However, this does not solely apply to rural societies. In developed countries such as the US and Canada, places in top-notch education institutions are reserved largely for the wealthy. This is due to the vast amount of resources concentrated on the varsities that provide the best form of education. As such, when such schools are compared to schools that are widely available to the public, there is a disparity in terms of quality of service provided, and this puts the poor at a disadvantage. In the end, it does not solve the situation of the poor in such countries.

In addition, in many developed and developing societies today, social mobility has become increasingly disparate between the rich and the poor. This is largely due to the tendency of the rich to cluster together to share resources and capital, such that the rich are becoming richer while the poor are becoming worse off. Income gaps in countries are widening as a result and this segregates the rich and the poor. As seen from today’s trends, the rich naturally have the capability to use resources unavailable to the poor, for example, they can afford to send their children for tuition to give them every possible advantage in terms of academic tests. Statistics show that students from the top income quartile have increased their share of places in elite American universities from 39% in 1976 to 50% in 1995, which shows us how the rich could possibly be gaining an edge over others in certain areas. As such, the poor have become the underdogs in areas where the rich seem to be dominating, and in the long run, this trend may have adverse effects on the chances of poor in improving their social status.

Finally, relativity also suggests that there will always be both the rich and the poor. A person who is better off than others would naturally be considered to be part of the rich, while the poor applies to the rest of the people. It tells us how people are grouped into either the ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ group. Take, for example, a person who earns a salary slightly higher than another is considered to be richer, while the other person is considered to be poorer. A poor person may not be identified as one who is not capable of affording basic necessities, but one whose financial worth is less than that of others. This is because an individual who may be considered to be poor in a developed country may not be so in a developing country. This serves to tell us that regardless of whether a society has a portion of its people who are poor, there might be others who are even worse off than them, and the problem of the poor existing in societies would thus persist no matter what happens.