 |
Dear Participants,
Welcome to BSI Conference 2014, as we discuss Liveability in Singapore: Social & Behavioural Issues.
We all agree that we want a Singapore that is highly liveable. Most of us can also agree that liveability is multi-dimensional and comprises different variables. On the other hand, there is no consensus on the definition of liveability and how to measure the concept. Depending on whom we ask and what metrics we use, the evaluation of liveability in Singapore can vary widely.
There are several conventional indicators that reflect different aspects of liveability that are important and useful for both residents in Singapore and expatriates with multinational firms. Examples include economic indices such as GDP per capita, human development indices such as life expectancy, education and income levels, and conventional metrics of a city’s standard of living such as political stability, crime rates, law enforcement, housing and healthcare. In evaluating liveability, we need to go beyond these conventional indicators to consider issues directly related to the individual’s sense of well-being and quality of life as actually experienced by people themselves.
Adopting a people-centric approach to liveability is clearly important for scientific, social and political reasons since people’s subjective experiences influence how they think, feel and act. These cognitions, emotions and behaviours have implications for the individual’s life but also for the relationships between individuals, between groups and between people and the Government.
I believe that a people-centric approach to liveability in Singapore needs to appreciate two facts.
The first fact is Singapore is both a city and a country. This duality highlights the dual-status of people as both city dwellers and citizens and the dual-status of the Government as both urban planners and national leaders. When we adopt a “city-in-a-country” perspective, we are likely to gain new insights into ways to examine and push the boundaries relating to challenges and opportunities to enhance liveability in Singapore.
The second fact is the usefulness of the discussions on liveability is dependent on whether they adequately capture the experiences of various segments of Singaporeans and the challenges they face. Current evaluations of liveability have rightly focused on important issues of economic implications and technical aspects of urban planning such as optimal use of space and infrastructure support. But we need to give more attention to the social and behavioural issues associated with citizens’ experience of well-being and quality of life that impact liveability.
Using the above two facts as a point of departure for discussion, this conference provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on Singapore’s liveability with a focus on the social and behavioural issues relating to health, urban planning, social class, social services, well-being and quality of life.
I am confident that this conference will provide valuable perspectives, an increased understanding of issues related to liveability in Singapore and many potential applications to reflect on.
David Chan
Director, Behavioural Sciences Institute
Lee Kuan Yew Fellow & Professor of Psychology
Singapore Management University
|
