New York wins LKYWorld City Prize

Mar 22, 2012

In 10 years, officials lifted city from post-9/11 gloom and gave it new life
 
By Robin Chan

IN 10 YEARS, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his team of city officials raised New York City from post-9/11 gloom to new life as a vibrant global city.

Their efforts have won them this year's Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize, awarded by Singapore's Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Centre for Liveable Cities.

In a lecture to mark the occasion, Mr Bloomberg recalled that on the day after the terrorist attacks on Sept 11, 2001, the conventional wisdom was that no one would want to live in New York City, most businesses would want to move people out and that the city's economic future was not bright at all.

'In fact, the exact reverse has happened,' he told an audience of government and industry leaders yesterday at the Raffles Hotel.

'In the last 10 years, we have redone all the infrastructure downtown... We used this opportunity to dig up every street downtown... when companies did move, to convert the old office buildings into apartments.

'So today, downtown, double the number of people live in lower Manhattan than they did before 9/11. Today, you see baby carriages on the streets, at night and on weekends.'

The Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize honours outstanding contributions to the creation of vibrant, liveable and sustainable urban communities. This is the second time it has been given out. In 2010, the prize went to the Spanish city of Bilbao.

This year, the New York team beat competition from 62 other cities after two rounds of reviews by 12 high-profile panel members. They included Temasek Holdings chairman S. Dhanabalan and Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy dean Kishore Mahbubani.

The citation for Mr Bloomberg and New York City's Departments of Transportation, City Planning and Parks and Recreation, noted the remarkable transformation they led over 10 years.

Their achievements include the planting of more than half a million trees, the creation of 450km of bicycle lanes, the building of 283ha of parks and open spaces and a 35 per cent reduction in the crime rate.

Professor Mahbubani described New York, a city of 8.4 million people, as an 'inspiring story of rejuvenation' that came about through 'bold vision, strong leadership, sheer determination and excellent partnership between government and citizens'.

In his lecture, Mr Bloomberg highlighted three projects that showed how he and his team injected fresh zest into the city by reclaiming derelict infrastructure for new uses.

They redesigned roadways to reclaim space for pedestrians and cyclists. They built the Brooklyn Bridge Park at the site of six abandoned piers along the East River. They redeveloped the West Chelsea High Line - an abandoned, elevated railway line slated for demolition - into an aerial park that has attracted US$2 billion (S$2.5 billion) of private investment into the city's former meat packing district.

In the process, they experimented with ideas, including one that Mr Bloomberg himself initially found 'crazy'. That idea came from the city's commissioner for transportation Janette Sadik-Khan. She wanted to close 10 blocks of Broadway, the major roadway through Times Square, to cars. The idea worked and has helped Times Square emerge as one of the world's top 10 retail locations.

Mr Bloomberg has also drafted a blueprint to take the city up to 2030, well beyond his own mayorship. It addresses challenges such as accommodating another one million residents and preparing for climate change.

In accepting the prize, Mr Bloomberg, 70, said Singapore and New York are alike in many ways.

'Both are crossroads of commerce and homes to many cultures. Both are energetic, restless and forward-looking, constantly in motion, and constantly rebuilding themselves,' he said.

He also praised the man for whom the prize is named.

'There are people in the world that you're going to look back and say they were those transformative people that really changed not just their country, but changed society, and Lee Kuan Yew is one of those,' he said.

Mr Bloomberg said he had dinner with Mr Lee three or four months ago in the home of former United States secretary of state Henry Kissinger.

The billionaire businessman, who was first elected mayor in 2001, said he would not try for a fourth term.

'I'll never have another job in government that will... be anywhere near as exciting as the one I have,' he said, but added that '12 years is enough in government'.

Before being mayor, he worked in Salomon Brothers and then founded Bloomberg LP, now a global media company.

'I've looked forward to going in to work every single day, in every job I've ever had. I'll find something else to do,' he added.

chanckr@sph.com.sg

Air pockets ahead for Changi

Mar 22, 2012
 
Commentary
Airport's future rests on how well regulator and operator fly together
 
By Karamjit Kaur

CHANGI'S quest to stay at the top of the world airports league is about to hit some air pockets. And just as a smooth touchdown depends on a match of skill and chemistry between the pilot and the control tower, the key to Changi's continued success will be how well Singapore's aviation regulator and the airport operator fly together.

The challenge for Changi is how to keep up with the rise in passenger numbers and expectations.

Earlier this month, the Transport Ministry set up an 11-member working group helmed by Minister of State Josephine Teo to assess Changi's infrastructure and other requirements in the coming decades. Recommendations will be made within a year.

Plans have meanwhile been unveiled to close down the Budget Terminal in September to make way for a newer, bigger facility slated for opening by 2017.

Until then, life is going to get busier at Terminal 2, which will absorb the budget traveller traffic. The terminal which handled 13 million passengers last year will see the traffic swell overnight to about 18 million.

Still, that is not as bad as it might seem. T2 can take up to 23 million passengers a year. In 2007 - the year before T3 opened - it handled 21.5 million passengers.

What this episode does highlight, though, are concerns about Changi's long-term capacity - the focus of the Transport Ministry's working group.

The Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation (Capa), an industry think-tank, said recently that if Changi continues to grow its traffic by 8 per cent a year - the average since 2004 - the airport will hit full capacity by the time the new terminal opens.

Singapore needs not one but two new terminals by the end of this decade, Capa said, and a third runway as well, to cope with increasing flights.

The team planning Changi's future has a tough job, for two reasons.

One is the sheer logistics. The next phase of Changi's expansion will go beyond the current airport boundary. There is no space for another terminal on existing airport land.

The next big terminal is likely to be erected next to Runway 3, more familiar as the venue for the biennial Singapore Airshow.

If cleared for take-off, the project will be massive and costly. Not only is there a main road - Changi Coast Road - separating the area from existing airport land, Runway 3 is not connected to the other two runways.

Planners will have to find a way to move aircraft, travellers, bags and cargo between the two locations. This is a formidable, but essentially a design, challenge. Options include flyovers as well as underground links.

The second issue, which might call for even more heavy lifting by the Transport Ministry's panel, is how to reconcile the divergence in the interests of the two stakeholders - the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and Changi Airport Group (CAG).

In 2009 when CAAS was split into two arms - one to regulate the industry and the other to run the airport - the rationale was to ensure Singapore remained a premier aviation hub.

As a corporate entity, the airport would be more independent and able to react nimbly to increasing competition, the Government said then.

But it would not be focused solely on the bottom line and the assurance to travellers was that the change would not affect the level of service they had come to associate with Changi.

Three years later, aviation insiders say the regulator and the operator do not always see eye to eye.

The ends remain the same - more airlines and flights, and happy travellers - but the means sometimes differ. And this is especially so when it comes to capacity issues.

For more than three decades, Changi's mantra - now that of the CAAS - has been to build ahead of capacity.

When T3 opened in 2008, some travellers described it as a 'ghost town' because it was so empty. Airport retailers were not happy either. Four years later, the terminal is utilising just 57 per cent of its annual passenger handling ability.

Overall, Changi's total traffic takes up 64 per cent of available capacity now.

Travellers don't like crowded terminals. They want room to move around and enough chairs to sit on while waiting for flights.

But even as it is important to please the customer, airport operators are also mindful of the need to ensure the efficient use of assets and resources so they can run viable - and more importantly, profitable - operations.

The question for Changi Airport Group then, is whether it is cost-effective to operate the airport at such low capacity levels, as is the present case, or whether it should pack more people into the terminals.

Other major airport hubs in Hong Kong, South Korea and London reportedly run at more than 80 per cent of total capacity, and are profitable.

The same goes for runways.

Even as calls are being made for Changi to operate a third runway - in line with the 'build ahead of capacity' mentality - an observer with CAG's hat on would point out that while Changi Airport handled 302,000 take-offs and landings last year, Heathrow, which also has two runways, did 476,197.

So instead of rushing to invest in a third runway, perhaps the focus could be on improving efficiency with the current two.

At the end of the day, even if there are some flight delays and terminals become more crowded, would it really hurt Changi's image that much?

The team planning Changi's future will have to tackle the differences between CAAS and CAG when deciding when to build the new terminal and who will pay for it and the related infrastructure works. All these issues will have to be considered carefully, with one eye on the need to ensure the airport's continued success and the other on Changi Airport Group's business interests.

Where the line is drawn will determine the Changi Airport that will greet travellers 10 to 15 years from now.

karam@sph.com.sg

'Yes, we need retirement villages'

Feb 22, 2012
 
THE ST INTERVIEW

Few housing options for the old in S'pore, says senior-living consultant
 
By Radha Basu

LAST Friday's Budget bestowed a hamper full of goodies on older Singaporeans.

Families caring for the frail elderly are in for a windfall, with more state subsidies for care in community hospitals, nursing homes and even at home. For the first time, even the richest can get state subsidies for stays in community hospitals.

In this 'season of plenty', it may seem politically incorrect to talk about some seniors who feel short-changed about retirement options.

But international senior-living consultant Tan Kee Hian, 57, believes this is as good a time as any to discuss the relative shortage of living choices for Singapore's growing group of more affluent, older folk.

He says many seniors in the top fifth to 20th percentile of the income scale would gladly part with their savings to live in retirement villages (RVs) which offer professional care and support services such as an on-site round-the-clock emergency response system.

While such communities are common in most developed countries, there are none in space-starved Singapore. Both the public and policymakers seem to prefer 'ageing in place' - where people live out their last years in the community rather than in institutions.

But Mr Tan says that while boosting community resources to enable the majority to age in place is a 'basic necessity' here, no one solution can fit the needs of all seniors.

'Ageing in place assumes that everyone has similar needs - and that's a very big assumption. Given the diversity of our First World society, we deserve more choices.'

The veteran management consultant is convinced there is a need and even a demand for Western-style retirement villages, and hopes to develop Singapore's first such project.

He says those who argue that there is absolutely no demand for retirement villages here are divorced from reality.

'If you repeat a myth often enough, it gets mistaken for a fact.'

Over the past two years, he has rigorously researched and written a proposal for a $70 million to $80 million retirement living project in Jalan Jurong Kechil, a site the Government has earmarked for the purpose.

All he needs is an investor who is willing to put in up to $25 million. The rest will be made up by bank loans and he is willing to put his cost calculations up for thorough scrutiny.

The Harvard Business School-trained expert says he has done his homework and pulls out a consultant's most handy tool: statistics.

A survey of 3,000 baby boomers, commissioned by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) and released in 2009, showed that one in four would not mind living in a retirement village.

Significantly, that is far higher than the 12 per cent of older folk who actually live in such communities in countries like the United States.

There are nearly a million baby boomers here, born between 1947 and 1964. The first cohort turns 65 this year, which Mr Tan sees as an 'inflection point' in this nation's history.

Singapore's population of those aged 65 and above is set to double to 600,000 over the next decade and triple to nearly one million by 2030 - that's a faster rate of ageing than in virtually every other nation in the world.

He says some demographic micro-trends have reinforced the need for RVs.

 -   The number of older folk here who live alone or with their elderly spouse doubled to nearly 100,000 between 2000 and 2010.

-    The number of those who have mobility problems and are 'semi-ambulant' has also doubled to around 36,000.

-    The exploding numbers of these two groups - which have traditionally formed the core client base of retirement communities overseas - have far outstripped the overall growth in the senior population, which increased by around 50 per cent to 344,000 over the past decade.

The exploding numbers of semi-ambulant seniors are a particular concern for Mr Tan, who is a baby boomer himself.

Although they are in relatively good health, they may end up living in expensive nursing homes simply because they are immobile.

'Most such patients overseas would be living in retirement communities, saving their health-care institutions taxpayer dollars.'

Mr Tan, who returned to Asia in 2006 to be near his ageing parents after 35 years in Europe and the US, points out that he is often asked why he wants to 'break up families and hurt inter-generational ties' by advocating RVs.

'Just look at the statistics,' he says. 'The number of older folks who want to live by themselves may well explode. And as things stand now, many may not be getting the services they need.'

Indeed, growing groups of seniors either do not have children or do not want to depend on them as they age. Many - like Mr Tan himself - have children who live and work overseas.

Small wonder then that, according to the baby boomers survey, nearly 75 per cent of all respondents - and 85 per cent of university graduates - said they wanted to live on their own during their golden years.

About a third of those aged 65 and above already do so now.

But even if the demand is there, will older people have enough savings to pay for such resources?

Mr Tan reckons they will. Singapore, after all, has the highest proportion of millionaires in the world, with one in six households on that rich list. The number of those who earn above $10,000 a month has increased by nearly three-fold to 140,000 in a decade.

According to the MCYS survey, 12 per cent of baby boomers - or potentially 120,000 people - have gross monthly incomes of $7,500 and above.

Interestingly, the father of two acknowledges that it is not the Government but the private investors who should test the market by setting up Singapore's first retirement village.

To be fair, the Government has already taken the initiative to inject some variety in elder-living options, particularly those that cater to middle- to lower-income Singaporeans.

On Sunday, it launched Singapore's first group home for low-income elderly, where small groups of older folk who have little or no family support can share rental flats.

The Housing Board (HDB) has ramped up the supply of studio apartments for the elderly - and latest take-up rates are above 90 per cent.

Meanwhile, MCYS recently piloted 'seniors service centres' for residents in these apartments, providing information and referral services, organising social services and responding to emergencies.

But what these facilities do not cater to yet is more 'sophisticated needs', says the professional, who would love to live in such a facility one day.

For instance, there are no provisions for on-site nursing care.

There are older folk, for example, who may want care facilities within their condominiums - rather than in the neighbourhood. Some might not want to - or be able to - walk even 400m to the nearest polyclinic.

'A retirement village combines elder-friendly housing with care and community engagement services, together with professional management,' says Mr Tan. 'And no facility in Singapore currently provides all three.'

While senior activity centres might provide referral services, they certainly don't have a 'village manager' whose primary duty is to ensure the well-being of seniors living in his village.

So given that there seems to be a market demand, why has no developer bitten the bullet so far?

Mr Tan believes there is a 'fundamental mismatch' between what property developers traditionally do and what seniors want.

Developers want to sell houses, but seniors want to buy care; developers want to build, sell and move on; seniors want a provider who will stay and ensure a specified quality of care and services for the rest of their years - for many, many years.

'Developers love more of the same, but a retirement community is really a new market space,' says Mr Tan. 'We need a new breed of champion investors - and I hope we find them fast.'

radhab@sph.com.sg

What opposition voters want: PAP II

Feb 5, 2012

In his new book, Breakthrough: Roadmap For Singapore's Political Future, academic Derek da Cunha analyses last year's General Election, during which a Group Representation Constituency fell to the opposition for the first time and the People's Action Party's vote share fell to a record low. This is an excerpt from the book:

One of the messages of GE2011 which has been in chime with previous elections since 1991 is that a large part of the electorate desires an opposition that does not differ too markedly from the People's Action Party (PAP).

The electorate wants an opposition that largely moderates PAP policies and does not attempt to initiate a marked change from the current form of governance. Too marked a difference from the PAP would result in some portion of middle-ground voters who voted for the Workers' Party (WP) in the 2011 election returning to the PAP.

Indeed, middle-ground voters appear to want incremental, and not radical, political change. Therefore, the WP's objective post- GE2011 has to be to continue to reach out to more middle-ground voters and attempt to achieve some dominance in that sphere of the political spectrum.

What if there had been no Toh Chin Chye?

Feb 4, 2012

At a crucial moment in PAP's history, he made all the difference

By Sonny Yap

In the beginning there was Toh Chin Chye.

He was there at No. 44 Bryanston Square in London where he joined a group of fellow university students in the Malayan Forum questioning British rule and seeking independence for a united Malaya and Singapore.

He was there in the basement dining room of No. 38 Oxley Road in Singapore where he huddled with the house owner named Lee Kuan Yew and other professionals, trade unionists and workers to hatch plans for a new left-wing political party.

He was at the Victoria Memorial Hall now known as the Victoria Concert Hall where he chaired the inauguration meeting which introduced the People's Action Party (PAP) and its white-garbed leaders to Singapore.

And he was right there at the Raffles Institution counting centre at Bras Basah Road when the final votes were tallied for the May 30, 1959 General Election which saw the PAP capturing 43 out of 51 seats to form the government of self-governing Singapore.

Insight: What price a minister? 42 years of controversy

Straits Times, Jan 6, 2012

Insight looks through records of parliamentary debates to find out when ministerial pay first became a contentious issue, and how the debate has shifted over the years

By Andrea Ong

The PAP's Aljunied dilemma

Dec 20, 2011

By Rachael Chang

THIS year, the word Aljunied entered into Singapore political lore, replacing the near-miss of Cheng San with reality, and joining other constituencies in the annals of history.

These include Anson, Hougang and - evidence that the political winds blow both ways - Potong Pasir, which is now back in the hands of the People's Action Party (PAP).

For the next five years at least, Aljunied GRC - the first to be won by an opposition party - will also be the pea under the princess' mattress for the PAP.

Now that the shock of losing a GRC earlier than expected is wearing off, the PAP must confront an unsettling question - what next?