Thailand versus Singapore: Why long-term planning does matter

[webfact]

STREETWISE
Thailand versus Singapore: Why long-term planning does matter
Dchara Deboonme

BANGKOK: -- In mid-2013 I got the chance to visit the office of Singapore’s Urban Development Authority, which is housed in the same building as the City Gallery.

In the gallery, futuristic technology partners concise and easy-to-read text in telling of the city-state's rise to glory. Particularly striking is an electronic display-wall of the old China Town. Move your hand in front of the wall and up pops a photo revealing what the corresponding part of the town looks like now.

But what makes the gallery worth a visit is its story of how the youngest nation in Asean grew so quickly to become its most prosperous.

Both foreign and local visitors learn how Singapore's physical development has changed since 1819 when it became a British colony and what's in store over the next few decades.

Successful efforts to reclaim land from the sea have seen the city-state steadily expand from 581.5 square kilometres in the 1960s to 719.1 sqkm today. Each land reclamation project must be supported by a solid development plan. For example, work to create 360 hectares of prime waterfront began at Marina Bay in 1969. The aim was to encourage a mix of uses, including commercial, residential, hotel and entertainment. The result today is exactly what was planned for decades ago. Singapore's land development masterplan is reviewed every 10 years, during which time smaller plans are introduced to make necessary changes. This is how Marina Bay Financial Centre was required to add q work-live-play concept during the process of its development. Contained in its 3.5-hectare area is all that office workers and condominium dwellers could want, from a department store and food shops to an underground train station.

Look down from one of the windows of its buildings and you will see vast plots of land lying vacant nearby. But take a look at the model on the ground floor of the gallery and you see tall buildings on the same land. Yes, the authorities are planning more skyscrapers, though their shapes might not be the same as those in the model, which is modified to reflect changes as they come.

A map in the gallery also reveals much about how Singapore plans to expand its land area in the coming decades. The masterplan has been published to give the public a chance to participate. Another room is devoted to the state's vision to make the island greener. Condominiums have been directed to give over more space to greenery. In another bid to make the island more liveable, authorities recently unveiled the "Street for People" initiative, which encourages communities to forge and engage in their own activities.

Is it too much to expect the same long-term planning and initiatives for better living in Bangkok or any other major city in Thailand?

Helping to block out such enlightened thinking is the mushrooming of shopping malls in the Thai capital over recent years. City-dwellers tend to learn about the projects from newspapers, before walls are erected around the plot of land with a sign that reads "Coming Soon". By that time, it's usually too late for local residents to complain to the authorities about disruptions such as noise or traffic.

Meanwhile the city is expanding, yet the infrastructure - particularly mass transit - is failing to keep pace. Developers' plans are shaped by land prices, not by long-term development policies. Residents settle down wherever they can afford to, but then often have to shoulder high costs for travel. This in turn becomes an economic cost to the country and is a major reason why carbon emissions remain high and Bangkok's pollution problem acute.

The situation is similar in other major cities. Recent trips to Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen revealed the magnitude of uncontrolled development and the problems it brings. Housing estates are springing up everywhere.

In a small village near Hang Dong district in Chiang Mai, housing estates boasting nearly 1,000 residences have mushroomed from the fields. The units are being sold for more than Bt3 million apiece, no doubt representing a handsome return on what the developers paid villagers for their land. The orchards have been replaced by houses that wouldn't appear out of place in a plush Bangkok suburb. They come in modern architectural styles that look alien compared to the simply-designed and decorated houses of the local villagers.

Meanwhile the once-serene surrounds of Khon Kaen University have also been marred by a chaotic jumble of shophouses and housing estates.

The evidence is plentiful and plain: there is little if any long-term planning in Thailand.

Some might blame the frequent change of governments. I would rather point to a general ignorance and submissiveness. The drafting of the Constitution provides one illustration: How many of us care what the autocrats are enshrining in our latest national blueprint? The answer helps explain why, in the 83 years since Thailand embraced democracy, we have had 20 Constitutions, each of which has lasted an average of only 4.15 years. Contrast that with Singapore, which has maintained the same constitution that was written at independence six decades ago.

I would, however, stop short of saying I'd like to be a Singaporean. I still prefer being Thai. But my being Thai would be more enjoyable if more people in power really thought hard about the future - and planned accordingly. That would be the very best of New Year gifts for all of us.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Thailand-versus-Singapore-Why-long-term-planning-d-30276107.html


-- The Nation 2016-01-05

[jaywalker]

Well written article.

I wish Prayut could express himself in half as an articulate and well reasoned manner instead being a bull in a china shop every time he speaks.

[chainarong]

Absent from Thailand's political aspirants is another Lee Kwan Yu , someone with vision , Democrats Chuang had the right goods but over heated and sank, not very many countries have outstanding leaders , OZ hasn't had any since the Hawke , Keating era 30 years ago , you also have to have a good team with you and that was Chuang's problem, Thai politics is littered with self serving what's in it for me attitude , one vision that Thailand lost sight of is the poor standard of water supplies , that needs forward planning at least 25 years , Thailand has stagnated since 1998 and really hasn't lived up to its late nineties reputation, substandard education along with some ancient traditions and an interfering Military , will make Thailand always an emerging economy , a back water , till someone with a vision and a team that will challenge the status quo, comes along..................................

[Pib]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

[crusader79]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

Even China has been smart enough to study the Singapore model.

[Pib]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

Even China has been smart enough to study the Singapore model.

Based on how a lot of their cities have turned into smog death traps they might want to see if they studied right.

[RickBradford]

Singaporeans love planning; Thais hate it.

Among the reasons Thais hate planning are:

1 ) It means that somebody is accountable and liable to be held responsible

2 ) It impinges with their 'freedom' to do what they want at all times.

3 ) They are hopeless at planning, because planning requires prioritising, and Thais don't understand the difference between 'urgent' and 'important', except when it's time to go to the toilet.

Thais love to do things in a completely improv and free-form way; it takes three times as long and costs twice as much, but everyone gets to share in the craic, is able to express their 'Thai-ness', and nobody loses face.

[Thian]

The main difference is that Singapore has real Police who do their job.

[somo]

A bit like Hong Kong with their British legacy of the english language and enforcable contract law combined with the chinese work ethic Singapore became a hub of regional business. Thailand claims to be a hub of all sorts of things but it's people spend too much time trying to cheat each other to have time to look at the world and become a hub of anything. It is very sad and until the young are allowed free speech and thought together with a decent education very little will change.

[DrTuner]

Planning? Maiauw, puadhua.

[skildpadden]

Planning, thinking, democracy? Stay away from us with those alien words.
Thai governments (present included) do not believe in those fancy things, as it tends to not line the pockets. Instead it implies you have to be considerate, accept changes, contribute to society and not only protect your own interests.

Bangkok could have been another Singapore and Thailand a regional economic powerhouse, but constant changing constitutions and military's meddling in civil affairs, lack of honest leaders, poor education, refusal of international input and no planning whatsoever made Thailand stand still while others took off. As for Bangkok, well take the current governor as an example, he has not really been planning ahead at all (suggesting people just move to the mountains, if they are bothered by flooding, doesn't really give confidence in leadership).

Do they still have a chance? Yes and no - big parts of Bangkok is already lost to developers, malls are still popping up everywhere - I am not so familiar on the left side of the river, so perhaps there is still hope for that side? I hope that the green area around Makkasan station remains green or at least developed into proper public use, but I am not overly optimistic - Mammon is the prime deity.

[trogers]

Planning requires discipline and putting plans into action require the fist of iron.

Does Thailand have both?

If not, let's start at the very beginning... Doe, a deer, a female deer...

[12DrinkMore]

if more people in power really thought hard about the future - and planned accordingly

They do.

Their own personal future.

[Ulic]

When more tan 70% of the public think corruption is acceptable as long as it befits them there

is little hope for real progress. Every level of government is corrupt city, state, national.

Add the police, military, and bureaucrats and you have the whole picture. The only vision

every politician has is how to fatten there bank accounts. Nobody trusts an honest politician.

[canman]

Absent from Thailand's political aspirants is another Lee Kwan Yu , someone with vision , Democrats Chuang had the right goods but over heated and sank, not very many countries have outstanding leaders , OZ hasn't had any since the Hawke , Keating era 30 years ago , you also have to have a good team with you and that was Chuang's problem, Thai politics is littered with self serving what's in it for me attitude , one vision that Thailand lost sight of is the poor standard of water supplies , that needs forward planning at least 25 years , Thailand has stagnated since 1998 and really hasn't lived up to its late nineties reputation, substandard education along with some ancient traditions and an interfering Military , will make Thailand always an emerging economy , a back water , till someone with a vision and a team that will challenge the status quo, comes along..................................

The Lee's and Singapore are indeed a unique case.

Yes Lee Kwan Yu had vision and the smarts to bring in experts where required. One thing people tend to overlook is that he was basicly a benevolent dictator and by the standards of today as corrupt as they come. The Lee family over the last half century have enriched themselves by a staggering amount and still do. They were able to succed because there was never a true democracy and so they were able to stay in power long enough to see the plan through. The locals saw their lives steadily improving and so let the dictator continue.

[MaiChai]

It might been more appropriate to compare Bangkok and Singapore, eg how to urban plan for a large population in a small area. But then that would be an embarrassment for the Thais?

Top priority for Bangkok must be rising sea levels and flooding? The dutch dealt with low level land and sea flooding in the 1700s thus it's not something impossible now?

Edited January 5, 2016 by MaiChai

[singa-traz]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

Even China has been smart enough to study the Singapore model.

Based on how a lot of their cities have turned into smog death traps they might want to see if they studied right.

Have you been in Singapore during one of the recurring haze?

[outre99]

Absent from Thailand's political aspirants is another Lee Kwan Yu , someone with vision , Democrats Chuang had the right goods but over heated and sank, not very many countries have outstanding leaders , OZ hasn't had any since the Hawke , Keating era 30 years ago , you also have to have a good team with you and that was Chuang's problem, Thai politics is littered with self serving what's in it for me attitude , one vision that Thailand lost sight of is the poor standard of water supplies , that needs forward planning at least 25 years , Thailand has stagnated since 1998 and really hasn't lived up to its late nineties reputation, substandard education along with some ancient traditions and an interfering Military , will make Thailand always an emerging economy , a back water , till someone with a vision and a team that will challenge the status quo, comes along..................................

The Lee's and Singapore are indeed a unique case.

Yes Lee Kwan Yu had vision and the smarts to bring in experts where required. One thing people tend to overlook is that he was basicly a benevolent dictator and by the standards of today as corrupt as they come. The Lee family over the last half century have enriched themselves by a staggering amount and still do. They were able to succed because there was never a true democracy and so they were able to stay in power long enough to see the plan through. The locals saw their lives steadily improving and so let the dictator continue.

This is exactly right and is a perfect model for Thailand. Unfortunately the dictators in LOS tend to lack either vision, regard for the national good, or both.

Edited January 5, 2016 by outre99

[davehowden]

Perhaps the true test is, for all of Singapore's 'achievements", how many of us would prefer Singapore to Thailand?

[skildpadden]

Perhaps the true test is, for all of Singapore's 'achievements", how many of us would prefer Singapore to Thailand?

Good question. I do not prefer Singapore over Thailand because I would feel claustrophobic in a city state. I prefer Thailand in terms of varied geography (mountains, beaches, jungle).

However, I do prefer Singapore's non-tolerance of lawbreakers and corrupt officials. I prefer Singapore's planning ahead in terms of infrastructure, transport and green zones.

[ramrod711]

Perhaps the true test is, for all of Singapore's 'achievements", how many of us would prefer Singapore to Thailand?

Not me, I love the transit system, non tolerance of corruption and cleanliness of the city. On the other hand, after our second day visiting, I asked my wife, who lived there for five years, if anyone ever smiled there. Dour expressions everywhere, in Thailand I see people smiling all the time.

[Berkshire]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

Agree. People don't realize that Singapore is not a true democracy....a dictatorship more like. Much easier to run a country when you can pretty much do as you please. In choosing between Law and Order vs. Freedom, Singapore chose the former long ago. I do wish that these expats bashing Thailand would just relocate to Singapore, but none of them could afford it.

[canman]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

Even China has been smart enough to study the Singapore model.

Based on how a lot of their cities have turned into smog death traps they might want to see if they studied right.

Have you been in Singapore during one of the recurring haze?

The haze does not come from Singapore, it comes from Indonesia.

[nauseus]

Thailand versus Singapore: Why long-term planning does matter Dchara Deboonme

Planning matters but these attempts at comparisons between Singapore and Thailand are nonsensical due to the relative size, geographical location and history of the two countries. Even comparisons between Singapore and Bangkok are meaningless, as Bangkok has been around a lot longer as a city.

The planning and development of Singapore has been much more recent, with its small size necessitating good planning and construction, which was achieved well (sensibly with assistance from foreign investment and know-how). Before 1980, much of the land was not utilized that well but then the creation of the brilliant Changi Airport started the main transformation.

Town planning and infrastructure in Thailand? Well that would be nice but uncontrolled construction for quick profit seems to be the norm. But then I suppose if there were too much order, it wouldn't be Thailand, would it??

[chainarong]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

Singapore is only a yardstick to go by , if you studied Thaksin he tried to model his government on Singapore, himself as a Thai Lee kwan Yu (whom he admired) , with a totalitarian type government for Thailand., at one stage he did intend ruling for some time, hence the 06 Coup.

[lvr181]

I'm always amazed in how some compare Singapore (a small island) with only a land size of 718 sq/km and population of 5.4M to Thailand with a land size of 513,120 sq/km and a population of 67M.....or just comparing Singapore, a small island city state where most any other country is much larger in land size and population. Singapore may be a country in name but it's really nothing more that a very small country composed of one city with a population approx half that of Bangkok. Like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore is pretty much forced into good community planning due to so little land availability that good urban planning is an issue of survival.

Singapore is only a yardstick to go by , if you studied Thaksin he tried to model his government on Singapore, himself as a Thai Lee kwan Yu (whom he admired) , with a totalitarian type government for Thailand., at one stage he did intend ruling for some time, hence the 06 Coup.

And he was all for Law and Order? And benefiting the total population, not just himself and family? Really?

[Howitzer]

Absent from Thailand's political aspirants is another Lee Kwan Yu , someone with vision , Democrats Chuang had the right goods but over heated and sank, not very many countries have outstanding leaders , OZ hasn't had any since the Hawke , Keating era 30 years ago , you also have to have a good team with you and that was Chuang's problem, Thai politics is littered with self serving what's in it for me attitude , one vision that Thailand lost sight of is the poor standard of water supplies , that needs forward planning at least 25 years , Thailand has stagnated since 1998 and really hasn't lived up to its late nineties reputation, substandard education along with some ancient traditions and an interfering Military , will make Thailand always an emerging economy , a back water , till someone with a vision and a team that will challenge the status quo, comes along..................................

The Lee's and Singapore are indeed a unique case.

Yes Lee Kwan Yu had vision and the smarts to bring in experts where required. One thing people tend to overlook is that he was basicly a benevolent dictator and by the standards of today as corrupt as they come. The Lee family over the last half century have enriched themselves by a staggering amount and still do. They were able to succed because there was never a true democracy and so they were able to stay in power long enough to see the plan through. The locals saw their lives steadily improving and so let the dictator continue.

Concur about this. Anyway even today despite the information freely available on the web on how the lee's allowed corruption to thrive legally through the Singapore law and their well entrenched cronyism and nepotistic govt agencies where their relatives are parachuted into heading cushy govt linked corporations many people still vote for them and they won an astounding victory during the most recent general elections that shocked even the PM himself.

[anotheruser]

Perhaps the true test is, for all of Singapore's 'achievements", how many of us would prefer Singapore to Thailand?

How many could afford it? That would be a better question.

[Howitzer]

Perhaps the true test is, for all of Singapore's 'achievements", how many of us would prefer Singapore to Thailand?

How many could afford it? That would be a better question.

This is also true. for example a can of large chang beer is 50bht which would be in the ball park of singapore 2 dollars cos the sing dollar to thb is typically 1sgd=25thb so 100thb =4sgd but take note this is just a causal estimate because the sing dollar has strengthen recently so that i can actually change 1sgd to 25.6 at some places getting an extra 300 bht if i change 500 sgd.

No large can of beer in singapore would cost 2 sgd obviously and not to mention the prices of housing and car ownership is super expensive even without the currency exchange rates of western countries and fyi the aussie dollar is now weaker than the sing dollar. If you have euro/usd or pound then you do have a slight advantage vis a vis currency exchange rates but still the costs of basic items and housing/petrol/vehicle ownership etc are much higher even if you calculate them using your own country's stronger currency

[BWPattaya]

I remember buying a Heineken draft beer in an outside beer bar. Happy hour, 2pm. It cost £9

Taxis can't stop to pick you up or drop you off just where you want.

Those who praise Singapore don't seem to leave Thailand to go and live there.

Want to buy a car? Apply for an expensive permit to buy one. Then pay to use it.

I don't know the cost of visa or permit to stay but I doubt they are as cheap as Thailand. For me it has no appeal.