|
Your Excellencies,
Premier John Brumby,
Gavin Jennings, Minister for Environment & Climate Change
Bronwyn Pike, Minister for Education
Ms Anita Roper, CEO, Sustainability Victoria
Distinguished guests,
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am delighted to be here in Melbourne and extremely honoured to speak at thePremier’s Sustainability Awards.
Although this is my first visit to Melbourne, I am no stranger to Australia, having spent an early part of my childhood in Sydney from 1975-1976. Since then, I have returned to Australia several times, mainly to Canberra and Perth. It always brings back fond memories. Indeed, many Singaporeans have studied, worked in or visited Australia.
Ties between Singapore and Australia are strong and robust, spanning multiple fronts, from trade, education to defence. Australia is our 12th largest trading partner, with trade totalling S$21 billion (A$16 billion) in 2009. In 2008, we were also the 5th largest investor in Australia with investments totalling S$52 billion (A$40.2 billion). These ties are underpinned by strong people-to-people exchanges at all levels.
Singapore and Melbourne Compared
Singapore and Melbourne are two of the most liveable cities in the region with one of the highest per capita incomes and best quality of life.
Singapore and Melbourne are often ranked highly in international surveys. In particular, Melbourne is among the top three most liveable cities in the world and Australian cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth) rank in the top ten of the Economist’s 2010 World’s Most Liveable Cities list.
Melbourne is well known as a centre for the arts, commerce, education, entertainment and sports. Singapore, in turn, is a major financial centre, business, logistics and R&D hub. Both cities offer a range of lifestyle attractions, including some of the best food found anywhere in the region.
In terms of population size, our two cities are comparable. Melbourne is about 4 million, whereas Singapore is about 4.9 million. However, Singapore is a small island of 710 square kilometers, less than a tenth of Melbourne; yet our population density stands at 7,022 per square kilometers compared with Melbourne’s 1,566 per square kilometer.
Neither city as yet falls in the category of a mega-city as defined by the UN, i.e. cities with population of 10 million or more, but I am quite sure neither of us looks forward to the day we have to manage an urban metropolitan population the size of Tokyo (34 million), Shanghai (19.2 million) or Jakarta (18.9 million).
Notwithstanding, both our cities have to plan for larger populations, manage growing income disparities, and strike a balance between opening our doors to talent while ensuring that we preserve social cohesion and harmony. These challenges are particularly pertinent to global cities like ours, where our cosmopolitan nature, our diversity, and our openness to the outside world are sources of competitive advantage.
This evening, I would therefore like to touch on some of the challenges and opportunities we face going forward as two cities at the forefront of urban revolution in the region, and what it means for cities like ours to rise to the challenge of change.
Cities Are Growing Bigger as the World Continues to Shrink
The first challenge is that of managing the growth of cities with a world that is growing smaller. These two trends are just as likely to work against, as well as reinforce one another. We have entered an era of instantaneous communication brought about by the Skype, Facebook and Twitter. Rapid advances in information and communications technology, combined with cheaper air travel, have brought communities, businesses and people closer together in ways never thought possible,
sometimes without having to physically connect.
But at the same time, this has not stopped cities from attracting people. The recent recession has slowed down migration patterns, but it will pick up once the economy recovers, reflecting fundamental “push” and “pull” factors in global employment. On the push side, this corresponds with the rise of a younger generation who are better educated, cosmopolitan and footloose. They are just as comfortable working at home as abroad. They are what Richard Florida calls the “creative class” –
professionals who are highly mobile and marketable. But cities are also stepping their bid for global talent - the pull factor.
In fact, a recent census study in the US reported in the New York Times showed that in 14 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York and San Francisco, more immigrants are employed in white-collar occupations than in lowerwage work like construction, manufacturing or cleaning1. The data belies a common perception that the increase in immigration in the last two decades has inundated the US with low-wage foreign labourers. Thus, it really depends on how cities manage the inflow of immigrants to augment the needs of their growing economies.
The growth of cities and their metropolitan areas will be especially pertinent in Asia. Asia itself will be home to many of the world’s mega-cities. But for every mega-city, dozens of smaller cities are joining the ranks of medium-sized cities and mediumsized cities are forming mega-regions such as Hong Kong-Pearl River Delta. This combines Hong Kong’s population of 7 million people with Guangdong Province’s more than 110 million people. Other mega-regions are also forming in other parts of
China, Japan, India and Southeast Asia.
The growth of urban centres this century will be unprecedented. There will be many challenges confronting cities in the region, from urban sprawl, congestion, affordable housing to access to basic amenities, but we should also look at this as an opportunity; especially how cities like Singapore and Melbourne can play a role in sharing our experiences and expertise with many of the emerging cities that are grappling with many basic challenges, even as we manage our own urbanisation.
Staying Relevant Amidst Structural Shifts in Global Economy
The second challenge is how to stay relevant amidst structural shifts in global production and the changing international division of labour, particularly with the rise of emerging economies such as China and India. Today, Multi-national Corporations (MNCs) are integrating their global operations with their local presence in many emerging economies, where we are not only talking about low cost production, but also significant R&D operations. In other words, MNCs are actively leveraging on the
abundant and cheap talent pool in countries as China and India.
Cities like ours where land and labour costs are higher can be at a disadvantage unless we move up the knowledge value chain to remain competitive. The great cities of the world have all undergone tremendous transformations in the course of their histories and had to move higher up on the value chain as other cities emerge. London, with more than 2,000 years of history, probably did not expect itself to develop into one of the world’s greatest financial capitals. It has undergone the Industrial Revolution, Black Death, a devastating fire, aerial bombardment, terrorist attacks and the sub-prime fallout. Yet, it has survived each major disruption by building on its key advantages.
Likewise, we can look to New York’s transformation into the centre of American politics, finance and industry, although its history is much shorter than London. H G Wells described New York as such: "To Europe, she was America. To America, she was the gateway of the earth." Even the events of 9/11 with its tragic toll on human lives and billions of dollars of damage have not fundamentally eroded New York’s attractiveness as a business and financial hub.
Closer home, Tokyo, which rose to prominence about the same time as New York in the 17th century, has undergone massive earthquakes, aerial bombing, US military administration, rapid industrial expansion, its own terrorist threat in the wake of the Aum Shinrikyo Cult Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system, as well as survived a decade of deflation in the 90s. Yet, in the words of Saskia Sassen, Tokyo remains one of the three “command centres” of the world economy, along with London and New York.
There are many reasons why these cities have retained their pre-eminent positions, among which are their resilience to sudden shocks, their continued attraction of the world’s best and brightest minds, their pro-business environment, their international linkages and clusters of innovation, and just as important, their own distinctive characteristics in terms of food, fashion, art and culture.
Melbourne and Singapore can learn from these cities by maintaining our cosmopolitan outlook, welcoming talent, building new clusters of innovation, and making sure that we build strong and resilient institutions. We do not have to do this alone. We can also leverage on each other’s strengths to better differentiate ourselves.
For example, in the area of arts and culture, you have a more vibrant arts scene. By combining Melbourne’s arts scene with Singapore’s new arts facilities, Singapore could become your springboard to the region and vice versa. It is indeed a great compliment to Australians that the current Director of the Edinburgh Arts Festival, Jonathan Mills, is an Australian, and no stranger to Melbourne and Singapore. So we can build on the extensive links between our two cities to strengthen our positions.
Likewise, there is much scope for our research institutions and universities to collaborate. One such area is in the field of urban design and architecture, areas where we are both strong in, especially when our 4th University is up and running in one-two years’ time. Known as the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), it will be a collaborative effort with the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) and Zhejiang University (ZJU) and seek to promote innovation and entrepreneurship through a multi-disciplinary approach.
Coming to Terms with Resource Scarcity
The third challenge is coming to terms with resource scarcity. Water, energy and food security will be defining themes for this century and concerns over water scarcity, growing energy needs and sustainability of food supplies have made these issues more pressing. As recent events have shown, the spike in food prices a few years ago was as much driven by adverse weather, high cost of fertilisers and production bottlenecks as higher energy prices. Likewise, higher energy costs translate into higher costs in the distribution of water. Whether for irrigation or drinking purposes. Hence, all three challenges are inter-related and need to be addressed in an integrated manner.
However, new developments in science and technology can help us overcome many of these challenges. A good example is developments in desalination and new membrane technologies that now allow water to be harnessed or recycled for use at much lower costs. Again, there are many opportunities for Melbourne and Singapore to collaborate in the areas of energy, water and food security to ensure safe, reliable and diversified supplies.
Sustainable and Liveable Cities as a New Growth Opportunity
The three challenges I have outlined – rapid urbanization amidst a more interconnected world, adapting to structural changes in the world economy, and overcoming resource scarcity – can be dealt with holistically by relooking at the way we manage the growth of our cities, ensuring they remain open and dynamic, while consuming less resources and ensuring sustainable growth.
On our part, Singapore is pushing ahead with its efforts to develop itself into a more liveable and distinctive Global City under our Sustainable Development Blueprint that was launched last year. This move will also help us reduce our energy intensity by 35 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. In addition, as part of our commitment to climate change, we have also pledged to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent below business-as-usual by 2020 if there is a global agreement.
As part of this thrust, we will be focusing on energy efficiency, greening of public spaces, promoting greater use of public transport, and building new R&D capabilities in the area of water and clean energy. In particular, we will be undertaking a major step towards greater resource conservation when our Energy Conservation Act comes into force in 2013. This will require large energy users of more than 15 GWh per year to appoint energy managers, develop energy efficiency plans and report
energy usage to the National Environment Agency. This will accompany the other measures we have implemented in recent years such as Mandatory Energy Labelling and Fuel Economy Labelling, and new plan to implement Minimum Energy Performance Standards in 2011.
As many Singaporeans live in high-rise buildings, improving energy efficiency for our buildings will be key. All new buildings in Singapore will have to be Green Mark certified. Our plan is for 80 percent of all buildings in Singapore to be certified Green Mark by 2030. A new Green Building Council has been set up, and we are also looking to promote energy efficiency not only at the building level but the precinct level.
For new developments, unlike here in Melbourne, Singapore does not have the luxury of deciding whether we should build sideways to cope with a bigger population. In land scarce Singapore, the only way is up. Through better use of space and allowing for higher density and mixed land use, we hope to allow different residential and commercial activities to take place.
We aim to challenge the conventional view that higher density cities will all look like Batman’s Gotham City. No doubt higher density living requires some adjustments in our everyday lives, but by providing more public spaces and common areas, including green spaces, we mitigate the effects of higher density living.
In fact, we plan to convert the entire island from a “garden city”, to a “city in a garden”. The latest Gardens by the Bay Project, to be completed in 2011, will put a 101-hectare garden right in the midst of our prime Central Business District in Marina Bay Area. Together with the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort that will be launched shortly, it will transform the entire Singapore skyline and business district.
In addition, for some of our new public housing projects, we intend to enhance the surrounding environment with rivers and waterfront developments. This will enhance the value of the surrounding property. One such example is Punggol Eco-Town, which will incorporate the Public Utilities Board (PUB)’s Active Beautiful and Clean Waters (ABC) Programme, featuring a 4.2 km waterway. Punggol Eco-Town will also be a testbed for innovative green technologies.
Besides making Singapore an endearing home, we will also step up our efforts to make Singapore a distinctive global city. Beyond the business dimension, this means developing our infrastructure in other areas, such as the arts and culture, education, entertainment, and culinary delights. Our two Integrated Resorts, one at Sentosa and the other at Marina Bay, combine some of these elements together to provide an exciting one-stop venue for visitors and their families.
However, I should add that our approach towards sustainable development will be governed by the following tried and tested considerations:
First, we will be guided by our long-term vision and integrated planning. Through efforts such as the Master Plan (10-15 years’ timeframe) and Concept Plan (40-50 years’ timeframe) review, we will ensure our long-term land use and transportation plans are well-integrated and takes into account the above economic trends, the need for an inclusive society, and a sustainable Singapore.
Second, we will adopt a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to secure our twin goals of promoting economic growth and a good environment in the most costeffective way. We will seek solutions that are practical, scalable and replicable.
Third, we will be flexible. We will rely on market mechanisms and remain technology agnostic, but provide incentives for test bedding of new technologies and build up relevant R&D capabilities. Good examples are our S$330 million (A$257 million) and S$270 million (A$210 million) investments into Water and Clean Energy respectively.
Leadership is Key
The last point I would like to make is also the focus of this evening’s event. Good leadership at all levels is absolutely vital to the success of this whole effort.
In our case, we would not have been able to achieve such high rates of economic growth without it being at the expense of the environment. Fortunately, our first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, took a keen interest in beautifying the whole of Singapore after our independence.
Long before sustainable development became vogue, he believed that a clean and green city was the best way we could differentiate ourselves from a difficult region that is oftentimes unpredictable, a fact that remains today.
Indeed, one of the famous challenges he issued in 1977 was the cleaning up of the Singapore River – once the lifeblood of the colony and the heart of our entrepot trade before it became a dirty polluted river - a project that took 10 years in all, but transformed the entire waterfront of Singapore. This has made possible the creation of a new freshwater reservoir through the construction of a new dam known as the Marina Barrage right at the heart of the city.
I therefore commend the organizers of the Premier’s Sustainability Award in recognizing the outstanding achievements of businesses, communities and individuals for their efforts to conserve the environment.
By setting the tone from the top, you send a very powerful signal to the rest of the community that a sustainable State of Victoria is a key priority. But to be effective, the efforts will have to be sustained, and more importantly, for the community at large to take ownership of the process.
Conclusion
Let me conclude by reiterating that cities like Melbourne and Singapore are at important crossroads in their development. History is replete with examples of civilisations and communities that have risen and fallen. While I see neither of that happening to our cities, we cannot guarantee that future generations will continue to live, work and play in our cities in the way they currently do.
Hence, we cannot rest on our laurels. The world is changing and so must we. For Singapore, we are too small to make a big difference to the world. Our strategic vulnerabilities remind us to be on the constant lookout, to be vigilant, and at the same time, to be adept at change.
Given our similar challenges and opportunities, cities like ours should collaborate in the areas where we have complementary strengths. We can build upon the already strong foundations of our bilateral relationship as well as the large reservoir of goodwill from the thousands of students that have either studied in Singapore or Australia.
This June, Singapore will be organising the World Cities Summit in conjunction with the Singapore International Water Week. We have positioned this as a strategic platform for world leaders, including mayors and governors, to exchange their ideas and experiences with high-level experts and urban solution providers. I encourage those interested to attend this event to showcase the achievements of Melbourne.
If the last century was synonymous with rapid globalisation, this century will be known for the rise of cities. As we emerge from the aftermath of one of the worst global economic crisis, it is timely that we rethink how best to organise our lives, our key institutions, our communities, and even our nation. We cannot reset our banks.
We cannot reset our economy. We cannot reset all that has happened. But we can reset our priorities.
Many of you would know the conservationist, Steve Irwin, who incidentally was born in Melbourne and dedicated his life to the cause of the environment before he met his fatal accident in 2006. As a tribute to the cause he stood for, let me end with a quote from him. He said, “I want the cleanest water, the freshest air and wildlife in abundance…. but most of all, I want a future for our children.”
This evening, let us all say that this change begins with me.
Thank you.
1 The figures on jobs and earnings of immigrants in American cities are based on an analysis by the
Fiscal Policy Institute of census data for the 25 largest metropolitan areas from 1990 to 2008. |
