145

Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architectural Heritage
to Identity in Singapore
Heng Chye Kiang

Paper 7
We made our share of mistakes in Singapore. For example in our rush to rebuild
Singapore, we have knocked down many old and quaint Singapore buildings.
Then we realised we were destroying a valuable part of our cultural heritage that
we were demolishing what tourists found attractive and unique in Singapore.
We halted the demolition. Instead, we undertook extensive conservation and
restoration of ethnic districts such as Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam
and of the civic district, with its colonial era buildings: the Empress Place, old
British Secretariat, Parliament House, the Supreme Court, the City Hall, the
Anglican Cathedral, and the Singapore Cricket Club. The value of these areas in
architectural, cultural and tourism terms cannot be quantified only in dollars and
cents. We were a little late, but fortunately we have retained enough of our
history to remind ourselves and tourists of our past. We also set out to support
these attractions by offering services of the highest standard.

Lee Kuan Yew, SM, 13 March 1995

INTRODUCTION

On 23 July 2002, the Minister of State for National Development, Dr Vivian

Balakrishnan, launched Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Public Con-
sultation and Exhibition on Parks & Waterbodies and Identity Plans. The three-
month long exhibition presents ideas and possibilities on further enhancing the
quality of Singapore’s environment and seeks public feedback and recommen-
dations through various channels with the aim of achieving a plan that is a “joint
product of the public and the government”.1

Noteworthy is the formulation of an Identity Plan, the roots of which began at

least a couple of years earlier when in the middle of 2000, the Ministry of National
Development organised two focus groups to assist URA in its review of
Singapore’s Concept Plan. This was the first time that URA had convened focus
groups to assist in its development of a Concept Plan, an effort that represents

PROCEEDINGS
146
Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore

“a significant improvement in the process of public consultation and accountability
in Singapore”2 as well as a “significant milestone towards a more open and
consultative government”3 .

The first of the two focus groups concentrated on the topic of land allocation
and the balance of competing needs while the second group focused on the
issue of identity and “how Singapore should seek to preserve a sense of place,
history and belonging in the context of intensive use of land”4 .

The recommendations and proposals by the two groups were carefully studied
by the relevant government agencies. After a further stage of Draft Plan, exhibition
and public consultation, “Focus on identity” became one of the seven key
proposals in the Concept Plan 2001 with the statement “The Concept Plan
aims to create a distinctive city alive with rich heritage, character diversity and
identity. A city we can fondly call home.”

When the URA held its corporate plan seminar on 8 April this year, the Minister
for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, spoke of the need to help root
Singaporeans to Singapore by developing strong emotional attachment to
‘places’ in the country in order to retain the highly mobile local and foreign
talents in this new phase of fierce economic competition not only for
investments but also human capital. He announced that URA was preparing
an Identity Plan for the whole island as part of the Master Plan 2003 review
and feedback and suggestions would be sought from residents, stakeholders
and the general public.

Central to this plan is the conviction that planning can contribute to the sense
of identity in Singapore although identity, in this instance, goes beyond
conservation, beyond the hardware and encompasses the charm of various
places, the things which make them appealing to Singaporeans, giving one
the sense of belonging, rootedness and identity. This is a significant evolution
from the days when physical development of the nation was all that counted
and familiar landmarks and indeed entire districts were demolished to make
way for new developments.

Before we discuss further the Identity Plan and related issues, let us briefly recap
Singapore’s recent experience in development and heritage conservation.

PROCEEDINGS
 147

Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore

FOCUS ON DEVELOPMENT

With Singapore’s independence in 1965 and the establishment of a strong

government, a new era of development was ushered in. The urban renewal
programme took off during the mid-1960s in earnest. It stood in high priority on
the State’s agenda as “part of the state’s bid to secure political legitimacy, to
build ideological consensus and to transform the population into a disciplined
industrial workforce”.5 The Urban Renewal Department (URD) was formed as
part of the Housing & Development Board (HDB) in 1966 to expedite the renewal
process. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), an independent statutory
body, was subsequently formed on 1 st April 1974 to carry out more
comprehensive redevelopment. In 1989, it also became the national planning
and conservation body. Redevelopment was not only perceived as a means of
improving living conditions for the people, but also served as verification of the
larger forces of socio-economic development and progress at work by the state.6
It was believed that improving social conditions was critical to economic
development, and also served as a deterrent to unrest and political instability.7

In the 1960s, the redevelopment of the valuable central area was impeded mainly
by congested slums and squatters, and the largely rent-controlled and
fragmented private ownership of land, sub-divided into smaller plots not feasible
for comprehensive development.8 The Land Acquisition Act, enacted in 1966,
empowered the government to acquire land on a compulsory basis for public
development. The Act has been instrumental in transforming the physical
landscape of Singapore. It facilitated the government’s acquisition of the
fragmented land lots from separate owners and assembling them into a larger
plot for more comprehensive development. Such land is sold by tender to private
developers through the Sale of Sites Programme.

The physical impacts on Singapore’s urban landscape brought about by URA’s

Sale of Sites Programme were considerable. First of all, the dramatic change in
scale from the ubiquitous low-rise two or three-storey shophouses to the high-
rise mixed-use complexes was remarkable, both in terms of bulk and height.
The transformation of the skyline, especially in the earlier years, was noteworthy.
Every other building seemed to want to set a new record for being head and
shoulders above the rest. The development of these big-footprint buildings also
brought about significant changes of urban spaces in the area. Entire rows of
shophouses with their streets and back lanes were replaced by a single large-
scale development. What used to be a system of outdoor urban space consisting

PROCEEDINGS
148
Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore

of a network of streets, alleys and back lanes were obliterated by a single
monolithic development.9

Parallel development of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) efforts also
transformed the island’s landscape in a dramatic manner. Clearing of the city
centre for commercial development went in tandem with the decentralisation of
population from the city centre to the new towns. Census figures from 1980
confirmed the consequences of the decentralising policies adopted by Singa-
pore’s 1971 Ring Plan. The Central City Area saw a decline in population from
226,884 in 1970 to 149,895 in 1980 or a drop of almost 34% while as a whole
the population of the country grew by 16.4% from 2,074,507 to 2,413,507.10
The Central Area quickly became lifeless at night when offices and shops ceased
operations. Meanwhile the number of new towns increased rapidly; reconfiguring
the entire island’s landscape. Large tracts of outlying land were acquired and
new towns were built farther and farther away from the city centre. From an
average distance of between 3 and 10 km from the city in the 1950s and 1960s,
new towns begun between 1970 and 1975 were between 10 and 25 km (or an
average of 14.9 km) from the city. The next generation of new towns begun
between 1976 and 1979 were farther with an average distance of 16.9 km
away.11

Efforts to arrest the emptying-out of the core and the re-introduction of residen-
tial population in the Central Area in the 1970s and the beginning of 1980s saw
HDB building high-rise low-cost flats within the city centre further changing its
character. Within Chinatown, for instance, the building of the Kreta Ayer Com-
plex in 1983, later renamed Chinatown Complex, which comprises slab blocks
of flats above a five-storey podium comprising wet market, sundry goods, hawker
centre and car parking had significant impact on Chinatown. The boisterous
street activities, almost synonymous with Asian streets, henceforth disappeared
from Chinatown except during periods of festivity. Here again, government’s
policies both in terms of housing as well as environmental hygiene had changed
not only the physical landscape and spatial structure but the social and cultural
life of the island as well.

Although the ‘preservation of Singapore’s historical and architectural heritage’

was explicitly written into URA’s policy guidelines, “little of these intentions were
translated into actions prior to the 1980s”.12 Private (and mainly elite) groups
like the Singapore Heritage Society had advocated the need for conservation
from the 1970s, but had hitherto had limited success due to the lack of

PROCEEDINGS
 149

Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore
government support for their initiatives.13 It was only when a Tourism Task Force
was deployed in 1984 to investigate causes behind the sudden drop in tourist
arrivals for the year 1983 and reported that the drop was due, in part, to the
devastating effects of urban renewal on large parts of the old city of Singapore
with many old buildings and districts falling victim to the driving force of wholesale
redevelopment, that conservation of architectural heritage gain some support
from the State.

The report further stated that in the effort to modernise, Singapore had “removed
aspects of our Oriental mystique and charm which are best symbolised in old
buildings, traditional activities and bustling roadside activities such as the ‘pasar
malam’”, and recommended that urgent action be taken to address the prob-
lem.14 Conservation for conservation’s sake, our foreign consultants advised in
their report to promote tourism in Singapore, is not in itself a viable endeavour.15
Instead “conservation to enhance the image of a product can improve its eco-
nomic viability and therefore be beneficial. Likewise, conservation to restore or
maintain something that will result in national pride is also beneficial”. In his speech
on April 28, 1984, then Second Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr. S.
Rajaratnam provided another perspective when he purported that, “A sense of
history is what provides the links to hold together a people who came from the
four corners of the earth. Because our history is short and because what is worth
preserving from the past are not all that plentiful, we should try to save what is
worthwhile from the past from the vandalism of the speculator and the devel-
oper, from a government and a bureaucracy which believes that anything that
cannot be translated into cold cash is not worth investing in.”16 The speech was
a watershed for the conservation movement in Singapore and marked the be-
ginning of an active involvement on the part of the government.

In 1986, the URA, the de facto conservation authority, announced its conserva-
tion master plan and the continued existence of certain areas of traditional ur-
ban fabric was assured. Chinatown, one such area of dilapidated squalor be-
came the test bed of conservation efforts. One of the four conservation areas of
Chinatown —Tanjong Pagar which covers an area of 4.1 ha with 220 units of
shophouses— was selected as a pilot demonstration project to underline the
government’s commitment for conservation.17 After a first phase in which URA
undertook the restoration of 32 units of shophouses in order to establish a
benchmark for conservation according to a stringent set of guidelines pertain-
ing to façade design, internal structure, signage, and materials used, the rest
were offered to the public for open tender.

PROCEEDINGS
150
Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore

With the success of Tanjong Pagar and aided by the lifting of rent control in
1988 under the Controlled Premises Act, the relaxation of certain planning con-
trols, the waiver of development charges and the upgrading of the basic infra-
structure and general environment, the state has succeeded to harness the
private sector to lead the conservation work. It adopted the strategy of adaptive
re-use of old buildings and allowed the introduction of alternative uses including
restaurants, pubs, and lounges as well as offices in the restored shophouses.
Since 1988, 52 areas involving some 5600 buildings were selected for conser-
vation. As far as possible, the government avoided public investment in conser-
vation, preferring to see them as opportunities for local enterprise. S. Dhanan-
balan, the Minister for National Development then, stated: “Our approach [to
conservation] is simple: restore the buildings, and let a new tradition emerge”18 .
Urban conservation should be economically viable if not profitable. Thus, other
than excluding environmentally pollutive uses and proscribing incompatible
trades, the URA has left it to market forces to decide the activities and trades in
conservation areas.19 Instead of retaining existing activities and traditional uses,
the URA strongly advocated the “adaptive re-use” of historic buildings, forging
relevance to the needs and uses of modern times.

Although a change in official policies has enabled the safeguard of areas gazetted
for conservation that if left to market forces would probably have disappeared,
the social and cultural continuity of many of these areas were unfortunately
severely compromised. Conservation has provided a vehicle for the conversion
of areas into comparatively high-income consumer service centres, consistent
with the island’s changing social structure and economic functions but bearing
few links to the past.20

In certain areas, the combination of adaptive re-use of old buildings and new
developments were either encouraged or enforced. In China Square, for instance,
new development and conservation properties were mixed, as a compromise
upon weighing the historical importance of the existing buildings against the
need to free up more land for development. About half of the existing fabrics
were selected, based on architectural merits, historical significance and structural
condition. A high-rise edge consisting of new 15-storey buildings on the periphery
with a low-rise spine of conserved buildings flanking a central pedestrian mall
was created. This mall, with the design and detailing coordinated by the URA,
was given considerable attention to ensure the coherence of China Square. The
same strategy of the combination of old and new was also employed in, among
other areas, Riverside Village and at River Valley where a 10-storey apartment
block was added to the rear portion of a row of three terrace houses.

PROCEEDINGS
 151

Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore
To further promote and recognise quality in the conservation of architectural
heritage, the URA presented the “Good Effort” Award to the proud owners and
architects of nine well-restored buildings in 1994. Since 1995, it has set up the
annual Architectural Heritage Awards to “spur owners and professionals to
undertake quality restoration as to recognise “the commitment of owners,
professionals and contractors... for their creative efforts and achievements in
giving the restored buildings a sense of new life and usefulness, and retaining
their old charm, character and ambience”.21 To-date, forty-four projects have
been awarded the distinction.

Laudable though the conservation efforts have been, the conservation of

architectural heritage have mainly focused on the physical fabric and structures
and even the Award was given “to recognise well-restored buildings and to
encourage good restoration practices”. The question of identity was never an
issue of the Award and the concern was only first mentioned in the 2001
Architectural Heritage Award Ceremony when Dr John Chen, then Minister of
State for National Development purported that “retaining our Asian identity is an
important aspect of Singapore’s development” and that as the “society evolves
and modernises, Singaporeans are seeking ways to strengthen our links to the
past to build up our collective memory”.22

FOCUSING ON IDENTITY

While the initial impetus for the consciousness in conservation in the mid 1980s
was probably largely economic in nature brought about by the fall in tourist
arrivals (and secondarily for social reasons), the impetus for the current focus on
identity is no different. Since the 1980s, Singapore’s economy has evolved from
one dependant on direct foreign investments to one that increasingly emphasises
attracting international businesses and talents while retaining highly mobile local
and foreign talents. “Retaining our own talent,” Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong
said in his 2001 National Day Rally Speech, “is going to prove a big challenge.
Bright Singaporeans are being harvested by others even before they graduate”.
Not surprisingly, one of the factors identified as contributing to the success of
such an evolution is the quality of the physical environment. In the five-yearly
review of the 1998 Master Plan, to be gazetted as the new Master Plan 2003,
the focus is on the enhancement of the quality of its living environment and the
reinforcement of its physical landscape. Of particular interest is its focus on
identity.

PROCEEDINGS
152
Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore

Identity is no longer confined to the built environment and physical characteristics
alone, but now also historical significance, community life, distinctive lifestyle
and cultural traits, and even the so-called “soft” aspects such as social activities.23
Identity, to URA, is now more than just conservation. Its CEO BG (NS) Tan Yong
Soon reported: “We are addressing beyond conservation. Beyond the hardware,
we seek to identify the charm of various places, the things which make them
appealing to ‘us’ and how planning can give a helping hand so that these
‘characteristics’ remain and evolve to give us a sense of belonging, rootedness
and identity. 24

Following from one of the seven key proposals —Focus on Identity— specified
in the Concept Plan 2001, the Identity Plan was launched on 23 July 2002 for
15 areas in Singapore showing proposals of up to year 2015. It was conceived
to identify and perpetuate places with a sense of history and identity as part of
the effort in creating a world class city of distinction. The 15 areas identified
were grouped into four clusters and given catchy names:

1. Old World Charm (Balestier, Tanjong Katong, Jalan Besar, Joo Chiat /
East Coast Road). Much of the rich architectural heritage of these areas,
developed when urban expansion extended eastwards between the
1920s and 1950s, are still intact with thriving street life and unique
streetscapes.

2. Urban Villages (Anak Bukit, Jalan Leban, Thomson Village, Springleaf and
Coronation areas). Developed in the late 1950s, these local communities
with their quaint neighbourhood shops and eateries exude their own charm.

3. Southern Ridges & Hillside Villages (Morse Road and Gillman Village areas).
These are villages at the foot of a chain of hills located at the southeastern
part of the island from which vantage points panoramic views of the city
could be admired.

4. Rustic Coast (Punggol Point/ Coney island, Changi Village, Pasir Ris and
Pulau Ubin). This refers to the cluster of sanding beaches and islands along
the northeast coast that offers relief from the city.

The Identity Plan for these areas was a combination of conservation and
redevelopment of nodal points of mnemonic value particular to its community.
By identifying the social, commercial and recreational activity patterns, the identity

PROCEEDINGS
 153

Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore
plan aims to preserve and promote the characteristic uniqueness of each of
these microcosms. Whilst the actual implementation differs for each site, URA’s
intervention is generally in the form of safeguarding iconic buildings and key
vistas, improving connectivity, accommodating more flexible plot sizes, land sales
and land use, increasing pedestrianised space, enlarging outdoor retail and
refreshment areas, and introducing new compatible activities. Accompanying
URA’s efforts, NParks (National Parks) will designate more new parks, enlarge
some existing ones, and enhance street greening where appropriate.

Launched as a first draft, the identity plan currently exhibited at the URA Centre
was opened to public feedback over a period of three months across multiple
channels for a good feel of the general opinion. Concurrently three subject groups
are formed, each with some 20 members comprising professionals, interest
groups and grassroots leaders, etc., to examine the plans carefully for specific
clusters in order to provide feedback and recommendations after several rounds
of in-depth discussion. Other areas that Singaporeans feel strongly for could
also be suggested for consideration. Hopefully with the Identity Plan serving as
a reference, areas that are meaningful and unique to its citizens will not be lost
as Singapore develops.

CONCLUSION

To build a regional identity, we will incorporate an identity map for each planning
area. The identity map can show icons, activity nodes, focal points, essential
routes and gathering places, which are landmarks in our social landscape. Such
landmarks could be anchors amid change and renewal. Retaining and integrating
them into the new plans for the area can reinforce the distinctive identity of such
places.25

Development and conservation is not a zero-sum game in which the

advancement of one impoverishes the other. On the contrary with careful
planning, physical development and heritage development can go hand in hand
to the benefit of the city. Many cities in the haste to develop obliterate the valuable
asset which is their bequeathed historical cityscapes, replacing them with
ubiquitous replicas of generic cities. Many cities made the mistake of losing
their unique identity before they realised the mistake made. Singapore was at
the verge of becoming one such replica when a sudden consciousness for
heritage was awakened thanks partly to a sharp decline in tourist arrivals.

PROCEEDINGS
154
Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore

Having shifted the emphasis from conservation of architectural heritage for pro-
moting tourism to the focus on identity as part of development plans, Singapore
is now addressing the need for a sense of home for its increasingly mobile
citizens. To a certain extent the need for an Identity Plan intimidates the prob-
lems inherent in the planning and development process faced by rapidly devel-
oping cities the world over. While retaining and integrating local landmarks and
existing focal points into new development plans for an area may seem com-
mon-sensical to the layperson, the planning profession pressured to formulate
large-scale development plans in haste invariably resort to the tabula rasa mode
of operation. Without consultation, it obliterates all traces of local specificities—
historical, geographical, socio-cultural, etc.— in favour of a “flat tabletop” where
practical exigencies are directed by economic and technical imperatives and
occasionally guided by climatic considerations. The outcome, in its best mani-
festation, is an efficient and comfortable environment, devoid substantially, how-
ever, of memory and significance.

The consultative process integral in the formulation of the Concept Plan 2001
leading to the drafting of the current Identity Plan and the present public consul-
tation on the draft Identity plan is laudable. Comments ranging from “(t)he proc-
ess of public participation is unparalleled”, “I feel that my participation has been
truly worthwhile” to “satisfied that our voices are heard on issues of stronger
common interest” should convince governments and authorities of the neces-
sity and value of public consultation early in the planning process.26 And al-
though as SM Lee said in the opening quote that we were a little late, recent
efforts and awareness promise at least the retention and perhaps enhancement
of the remaining fragments of valuable heritage. Indeed it is only when the au-
thorities and professionals work hand in hand with the local community and
stakeholders that a veritable heritage could be retained, identity be allowed to
evolve and flourish, and perhaps mistakes be avoided.

NOTES

1 In “Making Singapore A Great City To Live, Work And Play” speech by Mr Mah Bow
Tan, Minister For National Development, at URA Corporate Plan Seminar 2002, Mon 8
Apr 02, Marina Mandarin Singapore.

2 Final Report on Land Allocation submitted by the Concept Plan Review Focus Group to
the Ministry of National Development in Dec 2000, p. x.

PROCEEDINGS
 155

Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore
3 Final Report on Identity versus Intensive Use of Land submitted by the Concept Plan
Review Focus Group to the Ministry of National Development in Dec 2000, p. ii.

4 Ibid., p.3.

5 Brenda Yeoh S. A. and Lily Kong, ‘Reading Landscape Meanings: State Constructions
and Lived Experiences in Singapore’s Chinatown’, in Habitat International, 18,4 (1994):
17-35, p. 20. Chua Beng Huat, ‘Not depoliticised but ideologically successful: the pub-
lic housing programme in Singapore’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Re-
search, 15, (1991), pp. 24-41.

6 Yeoh and Kong, ‘Reading Landscape Meanings’, p. 20.

7 Dale, Ole Johan, Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1999, p. viii.

8 Urban Redevelopment Authority, A Pictorial Chronology of the Sale of Sites Programme

for Private Development, Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority, 1983, p. 9.

9 Heng Chye Kiang and Quah Cheng Ee, “Reinventing Singapore’s Chinatown” in 7th
Conference of the International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments,
Trani, Italy, Oct 12-15, 2000.

10 Singapore, Census of Population, Release No.5 – Geographic Distribution, 1980, p. 3.

11 Phang Sock Yong, Housing Markets and Urban Transportation: Economic theory,
Econometrics and Policy Analysis for Singapore. Singapore:MaGraw-Hill, 1992. p. 61.

12 URA Annual Report, 1974/75, pp. 2-3; Yeoh, Brenda, “Urban Conservation and Herit-
age Management” in M. Perry, L. Kong and B. Yeoh, (eds), Singapore: A Developmen-
tal City State, John Wiley and Sons: West Sussex, England, 1997, p. 253-254.

13 Heng Chye Kiang and Vivienne Chan “The Night Zone Storyline: Boat Quay, Clarke
Quay and Robertson Quay” in Traditional Settlements Review, Vol XI, Number 11. 2000,
pp 41-49.

14 Tourism Task Force, Report of the Tourism Task Force, (Ministry of Trade and Industry:
Singapore, November 1984), p. 6.

15 Pannell, Kerr and Forster, Tourism Development in Singapore, (Singapore Tourist Pro-
motion Board: Singapore, 1986), p. I-3.

16 S. Rajaratnam, “The Uses and the Abuses of the Past”, Seminar on Adaptive Re-use:
Integrating Traditional Areas into the Modern Urban Fabric, (Singapore, April 1984).

17 URA, Skyline, (Jan/Feb 1987).

18 Burton, S., “History with a Bottom Line”, Time, July 12, 1993, 36-37.

19 URA, A Manual For Chinatown Conservation Area, 1988, 52.

20 Heng Chye Kiang and Quah Cheng Ee, “Reinventing Singapore’s Chinatown” in 7th
Conference of the International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments,
Trani, Italy, Oct 12-15, 2000.

21 URA, Recognising Quality Restoration 1994-1998, 1998. p. 5.

PROCEEDINGS
156
Paper 7 Heng Chye Kiang

From Architecture Heritage to Identity in Singapore

22 Speech by Dr John Chen, Minister of State for Communications and Information Tech-
nology and Minister of State for National Development at the 2001 URA Architectural
Heritage Awards Presentation on Wed, 18 July 01 at 10.00 am at the Straits Room, the
Fullerton Hotel.

23 Speech by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of State for National Development, at the

opening of the Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan Exhibition, 23 July 2002,
5.00 pm, The URA Centre Atrium.

24 URA, URA Launches Identity Plans for 15 Areas in Singapore, 23 July 2002. (http://
www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr02-42.html)

25 http://www.ura.gov.sg 2001 News Release: Minister Mah Launches Draft Concept Plan
2001 Exhibition. 28 April 2001.

26 Comments from Tan Shee Tiong, Chua Beng Huat and Philip Ng, members of the
Concept Plan 2001 Focus Groups. See URA, TheConcept Plan 2001, p. 53.

PROCEEDINGS