File Name: 3 May 2013 – “Public Forum: Technology and ... · File Name: 3 rd May 2013 –...

File Name: 3rd May 2013 – “Public Forum: Technology and Governance in an Innovative City” Name of Personnel in Conversation: Mr Narayana Murthy, Mr Peter Ho Hak Ean, Professor Edward Glaeser, Professor Wang Shu Duration: 02:05:07

1

Timecode

Person

English

00:00:14 -00:01:32

Mr Poon King Wang Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Public Forum: Technology and Governance in an Innovative City. I am Poon King Wang, I am a Director at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, as well as the Singapore University of Technology and Design. It is my privilege to be your MC for today’s forum and for such a diverse and eclectic crowd. The Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities was formerly established in September 2012. It’s a major centre in the Singapore University of Technology and Design and I think as many of you would know, the University was set up in collaboration with MIT of USA and Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. We are very pleased today to be collaborating and partnering the Centre for Liveable Cities for this forum today. We are also very thankful and grateful to the Far East Organization for the generous support towards this forum. We have a very interesting programme today and we have a very full programme today. So let me start quickly by inviting Ambassador Chang Heng Chee, Chairman of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities to give us her welcome remarks. Professor Chan, please.

00:01:43 - 00:10:17

Professor Chan Heng

Chee

Good morning, distinguished guests and ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for

Innovative Cities and the Centre for Liveable Cities, I thank you for your strong support for this forum. I am

Chang Heng Chee, Chairman of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities. We are delighted to work with

the Centre for Liveable Cities. Yes, we are two different entities. We all use the same blue for our logo colour. At

the close of this forum, you will hear from Mr Khoo Teng Chye, the CEO for the Centre for Liveable Cities.

I would like to begin by thanking the Far East Organization and Mr Phillip Ng for their extraordinary generosity

for this; in supporting this event. Now, we are privileged today to have 4 distinguished and renowned thought

leaders to discuss a very relevant and current topic – “ Technology and Governance in an Innovative City”. The

LKY CIC, it’s shorter, just held its inaugural International Advisory Panel meeting yesterday. And all 4 speakers

are members of the International Advisory Panel. We have 6 panels on the IAP; 3 International and 3 from

Singapore. They will converse with us and provide ideas and advice on how to position the LKY CIC and to

keep us connected to reality, to global ideas and technological innovation with smart public policy.


2

Our speakers need no introduction but I should give them one. I will introduce them in their speaking order. First

Mr Narayanan Murthy is the Founder and now Chairman Emeritus of Infosys. An Indian multinational, provider

of business consulting, technology, engineering and outsourcing services. In fact, I should say, he articulated;

Mr Murthy articulated, designed and implemented the Global Delivery Model, which has become the foundation

of huge success in IT services outsourcing from India. He is one of the most successful entrepreneurs in India

and in the world today. He has a second life as a Venture Capitalist and he spends time promoting education. I

watched some of his YouTube interviews and I would add Mr Murthy is a great humanist. Now, behind every

successful man, there is a smart woman. And the smart woman is Mrs Sudha Murthy. She was the first investor

in his company with Rs10,000 which is about USD250;she’s smart.

The 2nd

speaker is Mr Peter Ho, Chairman of the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore and Advisor to

the Centre for Strategic Futures. Mr Ho is the model of the thoughtful bureaucrat, practical but works with ideas

and always exploring new ideas. He was Permanent Secretary of Defense, Permanent Secretary of Foreign

Affairs and Head of the Civil Service before he stepped down. Peter looks for black swans and is a much sought

after person by the foresight groups in the United States and in Europe.

Our 3rd

speaker for this morning is Professor Edward Glaeser. One of the leading economists; urban

economist and a recognised authority on the subject of cities today. He’s the Fred and Eleanor Glimp, Professor

of Economics at Harvard. In fact, he became Professor at 25, I’m told. And he’s also Director of the Taubman

Centre for State and Local Governance;Government. And the Rapaport Institute for Greater Boston. He

recently published a well-received book “Triumph of the City” which seeks to understand why cities are

important and the centres of creativity. Professor Glaeser writes lyrical prose and it’s not difficult to understand

at all as an economist. He’s in great demand internationally and in the United States, and we are very lucky to

be able to have him join our IAP and to come to Singapore.

Finally, we have Professor Wang Shu, the Dean of Architecture School in the China Academy of Art, Hangzhou.

And the 2012 Pritzker Prize winner, the Nobel of Architecture. Professor Wang Shu was also named the

Architecture on Innovator of 2012 by the Wall Street Journal magazine. He’s also described as the most revered

architect in China today, by the Financial Times. Before the Pritzker, Professor Wang was winning other prizes,

including the 2012; in 2012 the Gold Medal of Architecture from L’Académie d'Architecture of France. And in

2010 with Lu Wenyu, another smart woman behind a successful man, the Schelling Architecture Prize from


3

Germany, which goes to individuals who have responsibly advanced architectures’ development with significant

designs or realised designs with profound contribution to architecture history and theory.

The topic before us is Technology and Governance in the Innovative City. There are 3 key words: Technology,

Governance and Innovative. Each of our speakers will bring a different perspective to the topic. And that is the

purpose. To broaden our ways of thinking on this matter. The creativity and the growth in technology is

astounding. It is digital technology but goes beyond digital technology. Eric Schmidt and Gerard Cohen from

Google just published a book, “The New Digital Age” – reshaping the future of people, nations and business.

They raised some serious issues on technology for governance. I am sure this will be touched upon by some of

the speakers. Technology is enabling but technology can also threaten our identities and erode privacy. And

what of cyber threats? And how do architects use technology to design social capital? We look forward to a

discussion of some of these questions and others. And it is my great pleasure to call on the speakers for their

presentations. They will be given each 15 minutes for their presentation. I think I have a bell there and I will ring

it like;uh; 2 minutes before their time is up. So, let me call upon the first speaker Mr Narayana; Narayana

Murthy to take the floor. Thank you.

00:10:40 -

00:25:14

Mr Narayana Murthy First of all, I must confess that I have the; I have neither the expertise nor eloquence of the other panelists to

whom I have been listening with tremendous interest yesterday. I am very grateful to Professor Chan for this

kindness to share the platform with such 3 wonderful celebrities in their own field. It is indeed a great privilege.

Today, I will speak about 3 issues; Urbanisation as it exists and the challenges that we have. Second, where we

are in the digital revolution as far as its applicability to city planning and operation are concerned and finally, the

impact of this digital revolution on both the urban dwellers and their governments.

First, the current realities. From time immemorial, cities have been the hub for commerce, science, arts,

prosperity, productivity, innovation and development. These characters stakes are more pronounced in today’s

environment. Roughly, half of humanity that is close to 3.3 - 3.4 billion people live in cities today. Around 828

million people live in slums amongst these city dwellers. And this number is raising (sic). As the economist,

Michael Leaf writes, and I quote him; and he says; “Islands of (inaudible) wealth which are cities or set in a

sea of diversity and poverty”. Studies show that today (inaudible) cities occupy just 2% of the Earth’s land but

account for 60%-80% of energy consumption and 75% of carbon emissions.


4

In 2011, 359 million people lived in mega cities that’s equaling to 9.9% of the urban population of the world. By

2025, some 630 million people will live in these mega cities or 13.6% of the then urban world’s population.

According to the United Nations, developing world will have more urban than rural dwellers by 2030. By 2050,

world’s urban population will almost double to; from its 2007’s size of 3.3 billion people to about 6.5 billion

people. Cities become poles of attraction for capital and labour. Businesses and individuals locate in urban

areas to take advantage of the higher total factor productivity. Thus savings and wealth become concentrated in

cities. According to a McKenzie study, by 2015 the 600 biggest cities in the world will account for as much as

60% of the global GDP. Professor Ed Glaeser, who is here, writes in his book, “The Triumph of the City”,

uh;how; how does this greatest invention of ours have made us richer, smarter, healthier, happier, all that. I

don’t know if you said happier but I did that. And I quote him; he says, “Cities don’t make people poor. They

attract poor people. And they attract poor people by delivering a path out of poverty and to prosperity. A chance

to partner with people who have different skills, access to world markets, access to capital that enables poor

people, some of them but not all of them, to actually find a way forward.”

Now let me come to current challenges. But to be able to grow cities or face with multiple challenges. One, there

is too little land and there are too many inhabitants. Second, inadequacy of infrastructure which has not kept

pace with demand. Third, higher source intensity and therefore, unsustainable consumption. Fourth, high waste

and carbon emissions from increased density. Fifth, civic services and governments under tremendous

pressure, low on citizen well being, unequal economic prosperity, constraints to doing business and economic

growth. If these issues are not resolved and carefully planned for the future, it can lead to serious productivity

loss and their growth centres.

For example, in its first survey in Toronto in 2009, OECD estimated a loss of CAD$3.3 billion in productivity loss

due to traffic congestion on the streets. Australia has identified that insufficient number of houses in the cities is

causing loss of nation’s productivity in; as more and more workers spend time commuting from their suburbs.

Citing this, the Australia’s Infrastructure Minister has called for large-scale urban renewal in suburbs close to the

city centres and in transport hubs and has urged urban planners to narrow the distance between where people

live and where people work.

Now, let me come to where we are on the digital revolution in urban planning and governments. Thanks to


5

increasing wireless bandwidth and computing power, miniaturisation, reduced cost of computing and

communication technologies - we are moving towards ubiquitous or pervasive computing or computing on the

go. This will bring, obviously, higher level of interaction between the government and the citizens and much

greater demand on the city governments. Tools and participatory planning like social networking and crowd

sourcing will allow easier participation of various communities in the planning and operation of cities. They will

bring the working of democracy in real time to people through projects like ‘They Work for You’ by Matthew

Sommerville of UK. There will be a greater pressure on government to respond quickly and with the required

data. This will give better voice for; to the poorest sections of the society. Big data analytics will help

governments leverage the power of urban infrastructure and urban informatics to understand the requirements

of the citizens on issues like traffic, healthcare, lifestyle, entertainment and education and livelihood... and help

solve these problems. The success of Wai Kee and The Power of Future – Milburn, the first attempt at a city

plan that anybody can edit will enhance the participation of citizens in city planning. People like CoLab radio

from MIT will help extrude the communities’ contribute to civic engagement. Work on embedded systems,

sensors and mobile, the wisest leveraging the part of internet will usher in smart, connected real-time CDs with

real-time optimisation of smart traits, traffic, water management, clean air and sustainability management and

better response to citizens’ request for city services. Information technology will enhance move towards

paperless transactions and make world, and therefore, cities a more sustainable place. Projects like Perry which

reduce energy using e-link; e-ink like Kindle does, will become popular. At first, like code for America that pairs

programmers with city, administrators’ needs will accelerate use of technologies for better cities. Policies

simulation, scenario planning, special analysis systems, participatory planning technologies and decision

support systems which have now being used by advanced cities will become more common. Such tools will help

city governments avoid huge mistakes in decision-making and achieve better sustainability, fairness, speed and

efficiency in projects.

Now, as a software person, let me talk a little bit about the character state or the media software system that will

come into play in city management. First, I think there will be a greater, greater focus on accessibility to systems

because your people from multiple cultures; you have old people, you have people who are blind, people who

can’t hear, etc. Therefore, the new systems will satisfy the needs of all these people. Second, I think these

systems will either be SAAS, that is software as a Service or systems or apps that are available today on the

various technologies like Windows, etc. Then, they have to be highly performant (sic) because the demand on

these systems will be so huge, that performance will become extremely important criterion. Next, I think


6

because these systems are being used by such large number people, the quality of these systems will have to

be very good because if they fail, and if a couple of systems fail and the city administration will get a bad name

and, therefore, the quality of what we offer the citizens will be very, very good.

Next, I think security will become extremely important because there will be attempts at cyber terrorist to bring

down the city systems. At the same time, the; there’ll be much greater focus on data privacy. There will

also;these systems will have to necessarily become mobile-friendly because as we move forward there’ll be

greater and greater usage of mobile computing by users and mobile instruments will be the basic instruments

for them. And then 3D printing will become more and more popular because as it is I have seen lots architects

who come to my company to make presentations, use 3D printing for developing their models.

Now, let me then go to the next issue, in the sense, what do these new technologies, new paradigms pose for

governance in terms of both the urban dwellers and the cities. One, I think technology is a great leveller,

therefore the power will shift from the rich, the powerful and the elite – which it is today – to the poor and the

middle-class who are in majority. Therefore, the rulers of cities will have to change their mindset. Second,

technology will bring in better transparency and, therefore, better accountability. Change is not easy since

people like status quo. Many projects have been abandoned after hundreds of millions of dollars have been

spent since these projects were likely to diminish the power of the ruling elite. Because of all these wonderful

progress that we are making, citizens will become even more demanding in speed, in transparency, in quality of

response and governments will have to be prepared to satisfy such demands. However, while all these

technologies will do good, certainly they will improve the city governance, the poverty scenes in emerging

countries have a big problem and that is they have electoral strand is in rural areas and the economic strand is

in urban areas. Therefore, they are in a dilemma, whether to openly support all the wonderful projects that the

cities want and lose elections;which has happened in India in several cases. So this is a big dilemma and we

have to discuss how these politicians need to manage this type of thing. Well, I’m glad I’ve finished an hour and

25; sorry; a minute and 24 seconds before; Thank you. Bye.

00:25:54 -

00:38:14

Mr Peter Ho Well, thank you. I’m going to talk about; this morning, CSI Singapore. I’m not talking about the new television

programme. I’m talking about Singapore, the city, the state and the island. Now, Singapore; you know, many

have called it the accidental nation, improbable nation, but independence when it came, was unwanted, it was

unforeseen. That happened in August 1965. And with independence, with separation, we’ve lost our economic


7

hinterland, no natural resources, high unemployment and there were big issues of economic survival and

national security. A couple of years later, the British said they were going to pull out from East of the Suez, 15%

of jobs would be wiped off. That’s the challenge on independence. So, in ’65, Singapore became a city-state, so

need to provide space for growing its economy and support, the airport, industrial land. So, also as a city-state

you have to worry about defense. So, we have to provide training areas, military camps, air bases, naval bases.

These all demands of a city-state, not just a city but also a city state. And then we are an island; and we’re a

small island - 1.5 million people in 1965 crammed into a small space, I think it’s about 660 km2. Also

geographically, disadvantaged state. We’re like a landlocked country; like Laos, like Austria, like Switzerland.

Why? We are geographically disadvantaged? Because we have no direct access to international waters, we

have to go through the territorial waters of other countries. So there are real physical limits to growth for small

city state island like Singapore.

Now; urban development, what’s it all about? It’s about finding on a small island meeting big needs - needs of

a city, needs of a state. You have to provide for commerce, you have to provide for housing, you have to provide

for industry; but you have also to worry about things like nature and greenery, you have also to worry about

things like water. Where are you going to get; catch the water? Where are you going to store the water? So

the challenges of a city-state on a small island are many. How to carve out, from this very small land area;

housing, industry, defense, commerce, retail; also need to worry about the softer aspects; green and

congenial living environment, the social amenities and also room for growth. Population is not going to stop. You

know, we were worried about a population growing too fast so we said ‘Stop at Two’. We didn't stop until we

dropped till about, I think, 1.2; I think we’re now about 1.20 TFR, but you grow, in spite of that.

So, what’s the foundation for dealing with these problems? I put it to you that the foundation is good

governance. It’s a foundation for our survival, it’s a foundation for our security, it’s a foundation for our success.

It’s the basis for making this small city-state island liveable and sustainable. It’s also needed for adaptability,

things change; the world we live in changes. And there’s also; what we need for innovation; now, first let

me say that, I don’t think bad governance is going to stop innovation. But that innovation will be sporadic and

won’t be sustainable. Good governance and innovative urban development go in tandem.

Now, I want to talk a bit about technology and maybe I’ll be a bit provocative here. Technology is not the drive of

innovation, it is the servant of vision, and it’s a (inaudible) innovation. Which is in turn the product of good

governance. Now, think about Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law says the rate of technological change is accelerating.


8

And if we think about it, the pursuit of technological solutions without a proper framework for long-term planning

and without the capacity to grow and adapt, can lock cities into rigid pathways because technological changes

can change rapidly. When things change, you’re locked into it, how’re you going to adapt? It’s a big challenge.

And so, you have to bear in mind that when we develop cities around technology, we must have that capacity to

change and the capacity to adapt. What happened with; Let’s look at the case of the automobile. Cities

designed for the horse now have to cater for the automobile. What’s going to happen in future for cities, when

the cars go away; the way of the horse-drawn carriage. What’s the; Will cities be able to cope with the new

kind of technology? I don’t know but that’s a question which planners will have to address. So there’s a need to

build / a capacity to change which is a product of good governance.

Now, necessity of course, spawns innovation. And Singapore, at Independence was in great need of a lot of

things. One of the problem was; how do we grow the space? Small island. So, obviously you grow space

horizontally but you also grow it vertically. Then, land reclamation, and we adopted all kinds of technologies; In

fact, we pioneered the use of a lot of technologies; the vertical drain system for soil consolidation; I think, NUS

was the pioneer in this, dynamic compaction, vibral floatations, sand pile techniques. And the Ministry of

Defence; underground ammunition storage, we moved our ammunition underground; released a lot of land

for other uses and its pioneering work... the short codes which we developed were adopted by NATO. And then

that led; eventually, gave us confidence to go into this underground all storage caverns off Jurong. So, I think

we have to psychologically prepare ourselves for transformational change, every now and then. Not incremental

change but transformational change. It’s the willingness to make fundamental changes, setting aside tried and

tested approaches, accepting the risk of trying something new that may have no precedent. You need a bold

vision. Jurong Island was built from swamp land, when you looked at it before it became the industrial estate it is

today, it was just swamp land; mangrove swamps, you know, you step into it maybe a lot of nice nature, a lot

of birds and wildlife but how are we going to build an industry? We have to reclaim it. And what did they do?

They shave off hills, fill the land; Jurong Island from 7 small islands. That’s also a bold vision. And today

Marina Bay for the new financial district and the iconic Singapore skyline. That's also the result of a bold vision.

You never get to have these things if you do not have the bold vision and the courage to follow that vision.

Housing the nation. Rehousing people from crowded city centre, squatter colonies. It was about giving people

not just a place to stay but also encouraging home ownership. That was part of nation building. High rise public

housing and satellite towns. Today’s 23 high rise, self-sufficient towns house about 3.1 million people. But there


9

must be an emotional connection. Emotional connection to place is part of the human condition. It’s what gives

cities their souls. In our early rush to build the financial district, tier squatters, grow public housing, resulted in

irreplaceable loss of heritage. Well, we learn from our mistakes. Today, heritage is a core policy consideration

not just for the preservation of architectural heritage but the history, cultural and environmental heritage. But of

course, there will be trade offs, given the constraints of a small city. And we were green before green became

politically correct. Now, we have Gardens by the Bay, we have green buildings following Green Marks

standards, ABC – active, beautiful, clean waterways, park connectors, the Clean Air Act and we have moved

pollutive industries away from the population centres. But, remember; in such a complex, uncertain

environment, we’ll have to make big decisions under conditions of incomplete information and uncertain

outcomes. Experimentation is often more valuable in this kind of environment than predictions of analytical

models. And this requires an ability to experiment and we have had big experiments; the Newater desalination,

the deep tunnel sewerage system, common services tunnel, district cooling, CFD – computation of fluid

dynamics for creating micro-climatic conditions.

You’re dealing with wicked problems in cities today. This is a term coined by Horst Rittel. What are wicked

problems? They are highly complexed, there are multiple stakeholders with different perspectives, different

objectives and no immediate and obvious solutions. Urban development is a wicked problem. Everybody has a

different view of which direction the city should develop. And you know, you look today; 1967, Singapore looks

crowded; but today it looks much more crowded than it was in 1967. How to deal with wicked problems?

There must be hold of government approach dealing with wicked problems, dealing with the multiple

stakeholders, get a better understanding of larger organisation and national needs. So, the hold of government

approach, judicious land use planning and the long-term view has given us I think today, a relatively good

quality environment, in spite of high-density. But there are obstacles to hold of government... my turf. The rule of

government is changing, today people expect to be consulted; so, it’s no longer government to you /

government for you, but government with you; co-creation. Working together with the people and private

sectors. And from governed by agencies to hold of government, we are now talking a hold of city, hold of

nation; engaging the people and private sectors.

So, in summary, I think the factors of good governance in an innovative city must be strong leadership; whether

at the municipal level, the state level, federal level. There must be effective institutions, the civil service must be

there, you must have the legal infrastructure, your policies must be pragmatic, there must be good planning but


10

good planning with a long-term view rather than a focus on short-term returns. Put people before function and

put function before form. There must be experimentation and risk management. And then we should think of

hold of government, hold of city, hold of nation. Thank you.

00:38:24 -

00:54:22

Professor Edward

Glaeser

I am humbled to be on this stage with these remarkable people. And I’m honoured for the chance to talk to you

for the next 15 minutes. The problems of the 21st century are overwhelming, be it the problems of the great

cities of the developing world. No city is better run than Singapore. No city has a great role to potentially play in

turning the poor cities of the world from hells into places that are far more comfortable. And that’s why I’m so

delighted to be part of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre, to try and use the skills, knowledge, the innovation that has

come out of Singapore to try and make for better cities throughout the world.

Now, I want to start in a city far from this glittering capital of the information age. I want to start with the New

York, city of my own youth. And these are 2 iconic images of that age. The bottom line shows Gerald Ford’s

refusal to bail out the city. He was actually right not to bail out the city but it was a time in which New York had

been shedding hundreds of; thousands of manufacturing jobs. The largest industrial cluster in the US in the

1950s was not automobile production in Detroit, it was garment production in New York City. And the garment

sector was hammered; hammered by the globalisation, by the decline in transportation cost that made world

trade and garments easy. Along with the decline in industry with the rise in social unrest was an increasingly

expensive city that was unable to be funded. That was the background for the need for the bail out. Ford didn’t

give the city its bail out and indeed when Jimmy Carter walked through the South Bronx, and that’s the other

image you can see; it looked as if the city’s buildings, once proud symbols of an urban civilisation, were about

to be taken over by the weeds; were about to reclaimed by nature that we were headed back to that world

suggested in the last scene of Planet of The Apes where the Statue of Liberty would come poking out of the

sand; suggesting an urban age whose time had come and gone. For indeed, in those years, it looked as if

technology was going to doom the city. It looked as if the industrial city had come and gone and even through

the 1980s and early 1990s, it looked like new information technology was going to make face-to-face contact

and the cities that enable that contact, obsolete. The cyber years, the techno profits in the 1990s claimed that

once we could all communicate electronically, what use would we have to be in the same room? And with that,

we would all move to electronic cottages and just dialed it in, but that isn’t what happened.

The picture that I’m showing you here is an image of the United States. Mic working? No? It’s the image of the


11

United States. What I’ve done is; what I’ve done is I’ve ranked America’s 3,000 odd counties on the basis of

their density level. Because at their hearts, cities are the absence of physical space between people and firms.

Cities are density, proximity, closeness. And what you can see in the bottom graph.. in the bottom line is the

relationship between density as of the year 2000 and subsequent population growth. The places that started

with the least land per capita, that were the most like Singapore, experienced the fastest population growth

where as the spaces that were empty; nobody came to them. So, where as at the start of the 19th century

America left their densed enclaves on the eastern seaboard to populate the empty hinterland of the country. At

the start of the 21st century, instead of spreading out, people are clustering in. They’re clustering in for many

reasons, but perhaps, the most important of them is the hypercharged economic productivity in our densed

metropolitan areas and that’s what’s shown by the top graph, which shows the relationship between median

household income and density across America. The densest 10th of America’s counties had earnings that are,

on average, 15% higher than the least densed half. The 3 largest metropolitan areas in the United States; New

York, Los Angeles and Chicago produced almost one-fifth, 18% of America’s GDP, while including only 13% of

America’s population. As was already mentioned, in 2007, we recently passed the halfway point, where more

than 50% of humanity lives in cities. And it’s hard not to think that that’s on net a good thing because those

people, on average, the incomes per capita and the more densed countries are 5 times higher than the incomes

per capita in the least densed countries. And infant mortality levels are less than a third.

Why did cities come back? Why didn’t information technology make cities obsolete? Well, I think this picture;

and I should disclose at this point in time that I write a column for Bloomberg View, every other week. But this

picture I think, suggests it. This is a picture of the Bullpen at City Hall, a wall-less office where good government

happens. Its modeled on the bullpen, the wall-less offered (inaudible audio skip), which is modeled on Solomon

Brothers trading floor, which Michael Bloomberg ran before he went out on his own to become an entrepreneur.

And I think there are 3 points here, I think that are important. The first of which is it reminds us of the chain of

innovation and finance that helped New York come back at a tight 43% of the payroll on the island of Manhattan

is in finance. And there’s a good reason why cities like Singapore and Hong Kong and Tokyo and New York are

financial capitals. Because the edge of cities in the modern age is to speed the flow of information across

people and to speed knowledge. There’s no industry where little bit of information can be turned into a fortune

overnight more readily than finance.

The second reason I like of this image is that it reminds us is the chain of innovation that happened in finance.


12

An increasingly sophisticated approach to risk and return and Bloomberg’s technology is part of that. It came out

of the city. Cities are both changed by technology and create technology themselves. Another point that, I think,

is critical here is that Bloomberg is an IT billionaire. He is, in some sense, competing with the guys in Silicon

Valley but he’s able to succeed so successfully because of the knowledge that New York gives him. And that’s

fundamentally what cities due that’s most important. They make us smart by enabling us to learn from other

smart people. And the last thing I like about this is in fact this wall-less office, right; because it is in fact the city

read: small, there’s something funny about trading floors; here we have some of the wealthiest people on the

planet; who would in a normal industry would sit protected by large offices, encased beyond oaken desks,

protected by executive assistants. But, in a trading floor they are in the middle of the action getting spit, sweat,

guacamole on top of themselves. Why are they putting up with all these inconvenience? Because knowledge is

more important than space. And that is why, fundamentally, cities came back. Because globalisation and new

technology have made knowledge, information, innovation more important than ever. That has, fundamentally,

not hurt cities that have played to city’s advantages. Because cities are the places where we learn most. Where

we come up with new ideas. Face-to-face contact is not becoming obsolete, as we know, in universities, right?

Because the more complicated the idea, the easier it is to get lost in translation. And we have evolved over

millions of years to have these tools for communicating comprehension or confusion that are lost when we’re

not in the same room with one another. The hard part about teaching is not knowing your script, it’s knowing

whether or not anything you're saying is getting through. You lose the ability to learn that when you’re not in the

same room.

Now, technologies are continuing to make cities better. This is an image of zip car, right; which enables us to

share cars. This has become easily; easier with GPS system and other technological tools. This will continue

to make cities more liveable, just as, the great technology of the 19th century, the skyscraper made cities soar;

a hundred years ago.

Now, cities are, of course, not just about productivity, they’re also about quality of life. And one of the things

that’s interesting, is that if you look across the world, there’s a strong connection between urbanisation at the

country level and how satisfied people are with their lives. People in rich countries don’t typically say they are

happy if they live in cities, but people in poorer countries, like for example, India, certainly do. Right. Cities can

be hellish but there’s no future in rural poverty. The right answer is to figure out how to make cities like Mumbai,

like Kinshasa more liveable. It’s not to give up on cities and to think that there’s some future elsewhere. Cities


13

are also an environmental solution. Right. If the great growing economies of India and China see their per capita

carbon emission levels rise to those seen in the sprawling United States, global carbon emissions go up by

130%. If they stop at the level of wealthy but hyper densed Hong Kong, global carbon emissions go up by less

than 30%. Compact living because of shorter commuting distances, because smaller housing units means less

energy use and this comes from a paper I wrote with Matthew Kahn just showing within Boston, the places that

look green; are not. The places that look brown;are; sorry, look brown are green. Now not all cities have

successfully reinvent themselves, and indeed, in the US there has been no comeback for the industrial city. This

is a picture of Detroit, burning in the late 1960s when social unrest seized the city. Detroit lost another 25% of

its population in the last decade alone. Smoke stacks are not the long run future of cities. They’re best put on

islands, best put on rural hinterlands. This will be an issue for the developing world as well. China is currently

riding high on industrial surge but many of the industrial cities of China will be facing problems that are not

dissimilar to Detroit in the next 50 years. And indeed, the attempt to solve these problems as the US did with

adding infrastructure was; is fundamentally flawed. Detroit’s People Mover Monorail, an exercise in stupidity.

The People Mover Monorail glides as you may have noticed over essentially empty streets, it’s easy to get

around Detroit; it was a city built for 1.85 million people that it’s less than half of it. The hallmark of declining

cities is that they have in abundance of structures and infrastructures relative to the level of demand. They’re

not fixed with unnecessary building and, indeed, foolish infrastructure investments are right now going on, even

in the developing world where infrastructure is badly needed. Right. We need insidious investment in cost-

benefit analysis to make sure we make smart investments, not things like the People Mover Monorail.

Now, some cities, of course, have comeback and they’ve comeback with these ideas and innovations. It’s to

forget now but in 1971, Seattle looked no different than St Louis, Buffalo looked no different than Boston. Two

jokers put on a highway leaving Seattle in 1971, the sign asking the last person to leave the city to please turn

out the lights. Because mighty Boeing had been cutting down on the number of jobs and no one could imagine a

Seattle with a smaller Boeing, just as no one could imagine a General Motors with a smaller;uh; Detroit with

a smaller General Motors. And yet, Seattle did come back; came back because of Amazon, it came back

because of Cosco, because of Starbucks, because of Microsoft, because of entrepreneurs who didn’t have any

business present in the city. Now, what determines which cities were able to come back like Seattle rather than

cities like Detroit? Above all, it’s education. Skills are the fundamental bedrock in which urban and national

success rest and no country knows this better than Singapore does. This is the relationship between county

level population growth in the US and how well educated the share of the population with a college degree as of


14

19; as of 2000. Strong relationship there as you can tell, on average an individual’s wage in the US go up by

about 8% as the share of people in the metropolitan area with a college degree goes up by 10%, holding your

use of school in constant, it really pays to have smart neighbours because they’ll give you a job, because they’ll

give you an idea. Now, across countries, this is also the relationship between per capita GDP and scores. You’ll

notice Singapore showing up quite highly on that.

Roughly, as wealthy as its skills predict that it should be. Education is something where Singapore can help, I

personally am a beneficiary of this as my kids learn Math from Singapore Math books. But this is something that

can be given throughout the world. Now, I am often amazed at that the things that academics teach ever have

any value in the real world, what so ever. I am not sure whatever I have to say ever does. But cities are still

centres of skills and the most important skills are those that are learnt outside of the academy. They’re those

that are learnt on the street, they’re those that are picked up at water coolers and the cafes. And out of those

informal skills, nothing is more important than the talent and the inclination to be an entrepreneur. 50 years ago

the economist, Ben Chen was comparing New York and Pittsburgh and noting that New York appeared to be

more resilient even then. He argued that this was the result of the garment industry. Industry with few returns to

scale where anyone with a good idea and a couple of sewing machines could get started. That created a legacy

of entrepreneurship in New York that Pittsburgh which had US Steel did not have.

It is remarkable given the mediocre proxies we have for entrepreneurship, like having a lot of little

establishments versus a few big ones. It is remarkable given how mediocre these proxies are, how powerful

they are at predicting urban resurgence. This is the relationship between those places down there, have a lot of

little firms, these places have a few big firms. Tons of employment growth, little employment growth. Right. Very

strong connection at the; in terms of government policy you really want to worry about those barriers to

entrepreneurship to make it difficult to start new firms because the culture of entrepreneurship can get lost.

Now, the most entrepreneurial place I’ve ever been is the Dharavi Islam of Mumbai. A place of remarkable, just

remarkable human talent, human energy. But it also reminds us, right, because once you go outside these

entrepreneurial little shops you see a kid defecating in the streets, you see unpaved roads, you see all the

failures of government that exist in many developing world cities. Right, I mean I often think of India as a place

where they’ve incredible human talent, the human entrepreneurship, embodied above all by Narayana Murthy,

are coupled with a government that has failed to do justice to its people. Singapore can help here as well.


15

There’s no better-run city on this planet than Singapore is. And when it comes to battling the demons of density,

and there are demons; because if 2 people close enough to give ideas face-to-face, they are also close

enough to give each other a contagious disease. Battling those demons requires competent government, it

requires technology but technology alone; you can’t build your way out of traffic congestion. Right. There’s

something called the fundamental law of highway congestion which is the vehicle miles travelled increase

roughly 1:1 with highway miles built. If you build it, they will drive, which is why Electronic Road Pricing is the

right answer. And it’s the right answer for China today, right;right now. One problem, this is a problem that

many nations continue to face is that the benefit of urbanisation are not necessarily reaped evenly. This is rising

in equality in America cities. Mr Murthy already mentioned my claim – that poverty in cities are not all bad, but

it’s not all good, either. And in a place like Singapore, I think it’s particularly poised to deal with this because in

the West the middle-class have just left our cities, and we’re left with the rich and the poor. The middle-class are

still here so figuring out a better solution for the middle-class are critical. Both in the labour market, I think,

where we have less to say but also particularly in the housing market. The US, and I’ll just end with this, the US

have done a great job at providing low cost housing in sprawling sun belt cities. Mass developments but it has

not done equivalently in high cost, high-density areas. Right. This is the great challenge ahead, it’s actually

making comfortable, cheap, liveable housing units. Right. Doing it at a low cost not through government

subsidies but through technology. And if I think about a future that is densed, that is productive because that it’s

densed, that it’s environmentally sensitive because it’s densed; that requires the ability to deliver large

amounts of space; not at $300/sqft but at $80 or $90/sqft going forward. And I think that is something else that

Singapore, above all; and I can talk about this later; has the ability to contribute. Thank you.

00:55:03 -

01:19:51

Professor Wang Shu I’m so sorry, because I can’t use computer very well I have to actually seek help. I’m very honoured to be able to

share some of my work experience with you here. And through my involvement in Lee Kuan Yew Centre for

Innovative Centre, I’m really honoured that I’m able to work in this model city. And I am sorry that; we know

Singapore is a very professional country and we are reputed for our design and management. But today I’m

going to share with you about amateur architecture.

Perhaps, for Singapore what we’ve done could be a reference for you. And I think in any place, when we go

through development, it is important that; you need to have a vision, you need to have the image of the place

that you are living in. And the people in China are very proud of their own country, of their own city, of their own

village because in the past from history we always describe our city as a picturesque landscape and portrait


16

environment. And as a result, we draw a conclusion that we always start from the nature and we always play

(audio skip) importance on the village than the city. Of course, the concept of village here is very different from

the village in Europe.

And because, generally speaking, people are highly educated and we have good housing and the people are

not poor. And even if you go to village like this that’s deep in the mountain you don’t really see poor people there

and it’s been managed very well. And these are the villages that are deep in the mountains but it’s been

managed very well. And what I’m trying to say is that when we talk about the conflicting ideas about city and

village we often adopt the western value to deal with the problem but in actual fact we have to take into

consideration the history and the culture of the villages. We have to realise that places like these achieve very

high level of culture and even as of today, we are not able to reach that level.

Another view point I have is that; this picture is actually a picture of a village in Zhejiang and you could see the

quality of life there, you could see the beauty in living there and I like; this place is more than places like

Singapore where we see the port and in my view there’s no quality. And amazing thing about the Chinese

people is that they have very strong way of surviving in the current environment. They could live in a city that is

totally not related to their own culture and yet they do not feel that their dignity or confidence is affected. So, this

ability of living in a model city with adopting the current technology and yet respecting their own culture is very

amazing for the Chinese people.

And from the picture we could see that there are certain things that still exist and this is what Singapore has

been discussing, where in a high-density area we still have village that could actually survive and yet it’s

managed very well. And it’s this; in this aspect India is different, take for example in Bombay, the place where

the poor people live. You may not like it but you realise that the people, the sense of;the colour of the people;

that’s what he said; the colour of the people that exist in such place and back to China, looking at this picture

you see that there’s still some chaos existing in the living environment but on a whole it’s been governed very

well. Such pictures of villages in China, you can actually see that everywhere; it may look rather run down and

it may look like a poor living environment but it is very clean.

So, it’s been changing. So this is actually a picture in the 1960s and 1970s, where you have new village that has

a hall. The architecture method and the design it’s very different from the past. This is an experiment that started

in the 1970s where a particular type of earth is used to build apartments for the farmers. Nevertheless, the


17

(inaudible) of the culture has been preserved. So, it is very different in China where the relationship between the

village and the cities are closely knitted. So, this is a picture of Beijing, it is taken from the hotel that I stayed.

The first reaction is that, the culture of China is a total failure. And the second response is that the capitalism;

it’s a total success here. In fact, as we could see the impact of Singapore as a model city on Beijing. Because

we can achieve that; as a result of our good government. So, in the last 2 days of discussion with various

parties, I realised there are 3 things in Singapore – first is the government, second is the society and third is the

technology.

And we could see, that the current statistics of living in apartments like that is that people are broken down from

being a part of a community to isolated individual and they’re all closed up in their own apartment. So, we wasn’t

sure when the Asian people are building their city, were they influenced by the European way of architecture

where they; the building design was based on the concept of a jail. So, we all are like prisoner where we do

some work and we have some entertainment and be happy with it. And we realised that the cities lose their own

individual identity and they lose all the characteristics of a city. And that can be seen all around the world where

some; the buildings with odd design come up and they just do not have their own identity. And especially in

Asian countries, we realised that the focus has been on technology development, the increase in GDP, the

improvement in the materialistic life and to achieve that we pay a big price and as a result we do not give due

respect to our culture. This is a picture of Zhengzhou city planning, and in China there are more than 100 cities

that are going through this phase. It’s just like Singapore where we have to invite some of the reputable

architects from the world to build buildings. So, the result is that as a student you gain a lot of things but you do

not gain respect. Yeah, that’s an example; So, the current achievement that we get is the result of this ruins at

the background. Such a ruin place is actually everywhere in China, you could actually take a picture of that

anywhere. Because of time constraint I just show some of these pictures.

I would like to say something about Hangzhou. This model in China, in terms of tradition. And now we can see

the changes that they’ve gone through it’s very similar to Singapore. And for China, to actually destroy and give

up their culture I think they must’ve made a strong determination to do that. And this perhaps, is a new way, a

new structure for our traditional village; I’m not saying it’s not good, but you can see from the pictures the cities

are actually built around the farmland. You might say that these buildings are very ugly because they are

created by the farmers, but on the other hand, I think what they have preserved here is something that is not

controlled by the government; even though you might say that it’s quite childish;


18

And sometimes we say that architecture; architects are actually taking the responsibility to; they are actually

using the technology and the services; I do not agree with that, I feel that the state of our society now,

architects have to take up a bit of responsibility for that. I’m so sorry that I couldn’t speak another 5 minutes

more because I have an interpreter, she used up half of my time. So, I’ll just show this to you. These are some

of the problems that I keep thinking about and if I can’t get the answer I really cannot work.

OK, my work is very important. I have to actually get over the conflicts between the past experience and the

innovative way of doing things and to connect these two. So, a lot of people think that going back to the past is

easy but in reality it’s not so. Take example, the Singapore government may preserve some buildings and we

think that the traditions are preserved. But, in reality it may not be so. In reality, I think, to face the past is more

difficult than to face the future. And when we talking about planning for future, in actual fact we are basically

copying all those places where they have development that’s faster than us. Because in the past we do not

know what to do. Just some of the artwork are shown in all these pictures.

So, we actually had to do a lot of experiments. Because how do we make use of the past craftsmanship and to

integrate with the fast technology and machinery, we need to do a lot of trial and error for that. Yeah, although

we are a bit idealistic here. In our; the scheme of work is now very big; very large. This is my latest project,

it’s going to be completed soon. You can see some of the traditional aesthetics in here. So, I think the pictures

will explain everything.

So, what I want to say is that it’s important to have a vision for the future and to know what is important and

what is not and back hinge on the value judgement. And we heard about the; another; there’s talk about

changing a mangrove place into a new city so.. as to what; for Singapore that might be useful. I think; we

know that Singapore is managed;is being managed very well, but what is important is to set a very clear value

system in our; planning for future.

01:20:34 -

01:22:34

Professor Chan Heng

Chee

Sorry, yes. Well, thank you very much. We’ve been treated to 4 very different presentations. We’re not very

good with technology;(laughter) We’ve been treated to 4 very different approaches to the topic of technology

and the cities and I did want to put Professor Wang Shu last because I knew his views would be slightly contrary

to what would have been presented and it’s good because it enriches the discussion.


19

I will just begin with one question. Because you know; I know you are burning with questions and I don’t want

to take up more time. But I thought I’d just begin with one question for any member of the panel, you may

choose to answer or pass it on. And that is that in different ways we’ve talked of the use of technology in the city

and there is the sense that technology can help, and technology can help the governments to fulfill their

functions and can help people really access government much more and it’s going to be more; put more

pressure on government because it facilitates this engagement. Now, one of the issues would be this that as

you wire up a city the question is: What happens; and I think Peter talked about this; when you wire up a city

too much and you introduce too much technology, what happens when the technology becomes obsolete? What

happens to poorer countries, less resource rich countries that have to deal with the obsolescence of

technology? Because it requires constant change, constant upgrading. Anyone on the panel?

01:23:12 -01:25:58

Mr Narayana Murthy Well, as long as; Well what we do is when we install any new infrastructure, particularly, technological

infrastructure, we look at how modular it is, how interoperable it is, how easily replaceable it is, in parts without

ensuring that our operations don’t suffer. Second, by and large, we have found the cost of technology per se –

both hardware and software – have been going down rapidly. The cost of communication; (loss of audio)

OK; has been going down rapidly, therefore, replacing an existing infrastructure, technological infrastructure

with a more modern infrastructure has (loss of audio)

Well, it’s the first time this has happened to me in Singapore, I must say; (loss of audio)

; found that replacing existing infrastructure, technological infrastructure by new technological infrastructure is

easier, less expensive, more useful, more comfortable, more functional, etc. (loss of audio)

If the planners made; (loss of audio)

OK, if the planners made a good analysis of the business value, I don’t know now; the functional value such a

replacement brings to the table, as long as they have prepared those models and as long as they are

comfortable with the return on this new technology; I believe it shouldn’t be an issue.

01:26:00 - Professor Edward I just want to make 2 points on this. And I first agree on Mr Murthy’s comments on this. The first (inaudible) point


20

01:27:17 Glaeser is that obsolescence is not to be feared in most of the developing world it’s something to be planned for, right?

Because in fact, any housing, any infrastructure that you build for the India today, the Africa today will unless

things go hardly wrong be completely inappropriate for the India and Africa 2050. Because those countries in

30-70 years will be wildly wealthier than they are today. And it’s unimaginable that whatever houses would be

appropriate even at the current level of wealth, whatever infrastructure that’d be appropriate today then will be

appropriate then. So thinking about; thinking about obsolescence as being part of the plan as part of the

programme is critical.

The second point that I want to make; rarely have countries been locked in by physical capital; by

technology; what they’re locked in by is by human capital. The critical ingredient to allow the change is to have

the type of skill, as I’ve argued already ; entrepreneurship; that is flexible enough to do something different.

The problem wasn’t Detroit had old factories, the problem it didn’t have innovators, entrepreneurs, workers that

were able to adapt. And that’s the sort of critical ingredient for response.

01:27:17 - 01:27:54

Professor Chan Heng

Chee

No, I think my is that technology changes very rapidly, so you know, housing obsolescence;yes, you know but

it takes many more years – 50 years. But in technology 50 years is a very long time. You’re right about the

human capital, you know, are people upgrading themselves fast enough? But I mention this for; poorer

developing countries because it’s a question of resources; that must be invested in changing and upgrading.

Peter has his hand up. And then I will go to the floor.

01:27:55 - 01:29:41

Mr Peter Ho Hak Ean Well, I think I just want to add to this discussion on technology. Technology is really an enabler and I think the

key to me is making the right decision about which technology to adopt and that is part of good governance. I

remember, you know today we take our MRT for granted and in fact we complain a lot when the MRT breaks

down; but in fact, imagine the alternative which was explored, many years ago, which was an all bus system.

Those of you who are old enough will remember the Hanson Report which postulated an all bus system for

Singapore. Now, if we continue to; if we had adopted that and we continue to grow as we are growing today;

I think we’ll be having big problems with an all bus system. So, making the right decision is very critical. You can

make a decision on affordability but later on when you become wealthier, then you need to replace obsolete

technology, obsolete housing, obsolete infrastructure. That’s going to be a big drain on the Treasury. So, I think

an ability to think about what kind of scenarios you are going to face in the future; what kind of technology is

going to prove to be the more robust solution is extremely important.


21

01:29:42 - 01:30:48

Mr Narayana Murthy I would just like to add one point here. Unfortunately, most national governments, city governments, world

government - world over, use cash system of accounting. I’m almost sure that Singapore doesn’t do. New

Zealand was the first government in the world to go to accrual accounting. And I hope Singapore too is. The

problem with cash accounting is that they don’t even recognise depreciation. Therefore, as Professor Glaeser

pointed out, if there is an obsolescence that is planned, if you depreciate if in a certain period, maybe 5 years or

10 years, then you’d have accrued enough capital to provide a suitable replacement. So in;that is very

important; therefore, it’s not just planning for technology but even using the right kind of accounting is very

important.

01:30:48 -01:30:56

Professor Chan Heng

Chee

Thank you. Now, I will invite questions from the floor, because you’ve been waiting. Can we have the first

question? Yes; A hand shot up there.

01:31:21 - 01:31:48

Mr Vijaya Sirsay My name is Vijaya Sirsay, Chairman and CEO of (inaudible). A demand-side management company in

Singapore. This question is to Mr Murthy, sir. One of the index to measure sustainability is the degree of energy

optimisation that is the level of efficient use of the energy. I see significant opportunities to bring the demand

side to the sources, in the energy planning (inaudible) by (inaudible). . May I seek your thoughts on this,

please?

01:31:51 - 01:32:51

Mr Narayana Murthy Well, actually in India, almost every state government has mounted huge projects for smart grids. In fact, we

ourselves have done it for the state of Kanartaka and doing for others;some other states. So there is a lot of

emphasis on installing smart meters, installing software and hardware necessary to manage the smart grid

operation. I would say that, the 2 minutes (inaudible) government which had succeeded in doing it a this point of

time. Probably 3 or 4 out of 27, so we still have a long way to go. But that work has already started and they’re

spending billions and billions of dollars in this.

01:32:55 - 01:32:59

Professor Chan Heng Yes; Over there. There’s a gent;

01:33:02 - 01:33:31

Man from the Floor (1) Hi, my question is directed to Mr Peter. It’s concerning the point of managing information versus governance. As

we know that some information if we release it untimely it will cause paranoia, especially when it comes over to

the tipping point where technology has already permeated the lifestyle of everyday. So, how are we going to


22

look towards managing of information in this, so called, technologically advanced stage?

01:33:35 - 01:35:24

Mr Peter Ho Hak Ean I; My view is a bit different from your proposition that; information if out there too early can create problems. I

think we should treat information as something that is neutral, it is part of, if you will, public infrastructure. And

then you have to rely on market forces to decide on how best to exploit that information. And also, the good

sense of the people to use that information in a sensible; in a sensible way. I think you can see around the

world how data, information is being exploited largely for the good. But of course, there will be some people,

some organisations which will abuse that kind of data but on balance, I think, it is beneficial; Urban planners

want a lot of data. The more data they can get, the better their planning, the more accurate their planning, the

better state of their forecasting is going to be. If you hold information, then you know, they are just going to

make bets and if they get the bets wrong; well, lots of efforts and a lot of resource is wasted. So, I think on

balance we should treat data as public infrastructure and I think it’s important that in Singapore we move in that

direction.

01:35:24 -01:35:31

Professor Chan Heng Would Ed or Mr Murthy want to talk about safeguards especially in icloud data?

01:35:31 - 01:38:07

Mr Narayana Murthy Well, you know the; one of the challenges as we move forward is the expertise and competence to use big

data. I believe that by 2020, this world would have 40 trillion gigabytes of data. That means, each individual; it

may not be each individual but if you took an average, each individual will have as much as 4 trillion bytes of

data. Let me give you one simple example; couple of years ago, an American company did; produce the

genomic data for me. They were very kind to do that. And then they gave you a hard drive with 200 gigabytes of

data. I mean all this, you know, ASDT whatever; and all that. The point is this; our challenge is to take large

amounts of data and convert it to information and use that information to get inside. So, therefore, there is going

to be a huge opportunity for the city government to use these data and respond to the citizen’s very efficiently

and very effectively. But then, there are 2 issues here; one is privacy; I ; there is a lot of work that needs to

be done what kind of data is accessible by the various authorities without violating the privacy of the individual.

And the second there’s terrorism ; cyber terrorism. Therefore, once attack on these 2 I believe then there’s a

huge opportunity for us to use big data for making life of the citizens best.

01:38:07 - 01:38:07

Professor Chan Heng Thank you.

01:38:11 - Professor Edward Well, I think, you know, these concerns are real. But certainly, when I think about the way that data has


23

01:40:44 Glaeser improved in Boston. It seems very clear to me the upsides, I consider them; (inaudible). I just give you 3 quick

examples. First of all the City of Boston Transit Authority decided to stream the arrival data of buses and trains –

just streaming, nothing; no precautions, no nothing; just streaming stuff. OK. Some clever fellow invented an

app which now tells you when your bus is going to arrive. No cost to the city government, they just thought it’d

be useful to themselves and so Bostonians now use this app and I think there’s a competitor one as well. No

cost to city government and I find riding a bus a heck of a lot easier than I did before. If they put precautions,

they try to manage it, it never would have happened. Second point, going; the information going the other way

there’s another tool which is carried in your smartphone. Put the smartphone in a cup holder in your car, and it

beams to the city government where there’s a pothole. And then, you know, there’s also an application to email

stuff in, but this on works even without you doing anything. So, it enables the city to learn about the physical

characteristics of the pothole without any particular action, any particular checks. Again, sizeable improvement.

Last example, probably the one that received the most attention. We caught 2 terrorists who struck our city

last; 2 weeks ago. We caught them because of big data. We caught them because of the millions of pictures

taken around the Boston marathon and then put through various data set and then connected to the 2 brothers.

Right. This again is what data can do. We have much less to fear than we have to gain but it is critical, and I just

want to echo this that we both take seriously the threat of cyber terrorism and I also take these privacy concerns

very seriously. I think there are real concerns with privacy but it is also true that they will be demi god by special

interest that do not want data to be used. In the US, this goes with the enemies of Let’s Save School Testing.

Have been trying to convince parents not to let their kids get tested. Often teachers unions which have strong

opposed the ability to sort of measure outcomes, have been behind this, pushing anti-privacy, pushing the

privacy concerns. Unless government are upfront, in terms of taking care of privacy, particularly for children, this

can destroy the entire school reform movement in the US. And that’s something I worry about greatly.

01:40:46 - 01:40:46

Professor Chan Heng Yes;Yemin; Yes;

01:40:49 -01:43:42

Ms Yemin Thank you. Ahh;is this working? Well, I would like to continue the discussion on big data and in the process I

suppose direct a question to Professor Glaeser. Incidentally, I like your tagline and I totally understand it about

‘what looks green isn’t necessarily so and what doesn’t does;is green.’ I’ve read your book. So, I agree with

you about high-density living and that urban sprawl is bad. I just should say here that in Singapore we try to look

green and be green but in the same places. But, my concern is that the city especially, and that’s what we talked

about today – technology, innovation and cities. You said many times in the book that the advantage of cities is


24

that you have a very high density of people and therefore, great intensity of (inaudible). My concern is that this

information is mainly from other human and ultimately it becomes (inaudible). Let me just give a couple of

examples, I totally agree with Professor Wang. So, I think in the big picture, big data doesn’t just look at

information, innovation, technology; you have to learn from heritage. And that’s how I agree with Professor

Wang. Let me just give a quick example, that he didn’t have time to give. Lijiang, one of the UNESCO heritage

sites; not Lijiang;but Yunnan; they had traditional village houses and then they had high urban; high-

density urban buildings. They had a change of;(inaudible) I think about 20 years ago, and they found that the

traditionally built structures did not collapse, where as the modern buildings collapsed. And often the people

there had learnt from tradition that these mud buildings were the way to go. So they started building that way

again. My concern is that in a city, we do not learn that you’re not exposed to a world of tradition;

01:43:42 -01:43:45

Professor Chan Heng Can you put the;give us your question.

01:43:45 - 01:44:01

Ms Yemin Yeah, OK. Not sufficiently exposed to nature. And therefore, what we’re learning is a very, very narrow;what it

seems is a very narrow picture and what you’re learning could be even narrower. Thank you.

01:44:05 -01:46:42

Professor Edward

Glaeser

Cities’ parks are a nice thing, too. Nice thing. New York City has Central Park. And I think there certainly are

pleasant things in living around nature. I live surrounded by a thousand acres of forest, myself. Although I can’t

tell you how much I’m dying to get away from that forest as soon as my youngest child is out of high school and

get back surrounded by human being rather than deer and (inaudible). But, you know, the real essential; real

essential point here you know; the greatest thing that we can give to people is choice, is freedom. I’m not a

lifestyle consultant, in a sense, I’m not telling anyone where they should particularly, live; I personally think

there are wonderful things living surrounded by people in cities, but there are certainly people who want to live

in rural areas. Although it is important that we not mythologise them. No where are the gaps in health between

urban and rural living stronger than in China. Where they are enormous, in terms of the differences in health

that come from people living in cities relatively in urban areas. No where are the difference income are more

enormous and in many of these areas self-reported satisfaction is not at all higher in these (inaudible) areas

they’re called. In fact, these people typically report they’re miserable relative to people living in cities. So, let’s

not mythologise the rural parts, even the traditional parts of developing countries. Moreover, when you typically

look at natural disasters, most of the time modern engineering is far more effective than traditional, poor areas.

So, certainly there are counter examples, there are areas where the engineers have screwed up; terrible, but


25

the overall work and the person who’s done the most work on this is Matthew Kahn. The overall work tends to

show the proper engineering is much better than, you know; think about the millions who’ve died in

Bangladesh and elsewhere in very traditional house in response to various natural disasters. So, I think the key

point though, is... you know, choice is what we want. We want freedom. We want people to have different

options. Singapore is limited in the choices it can give people because it’s an island, because it’s compact and

so living in the middle of a truly wilderness area is not something that’s possible. But even, Singapore should

aspire to be an archipelago of neighbourhood to allow people different options. And certainly, in a large country

be it China or India or the United States, the glory is you have different possibility of living, the key is to pay for

the social cost of your choices. So, it’s great to live in low-density suburb as long as you pay for the commuting

and you pay for the congestion and pollution caused by your driving. And so, at least, that’s the way as an

economist I look at this.

01:46:49 - 01:47:06

Ms Yemin My point is not lifestyle. My point is knowledge. And if you live in a city, you don’t see the big picture. So, it’s not

a case of living in a healthful environment, which I know these people cannot afford. I’m just talking about

technology gap.

01:47:07 -01:47:19

Professor Chan Heng I think there was; yes. There was someone behind that put the hand up first;yes! The man with the pink shirt.

Yeah, the gentleman in the pink shirt.

01:47:20 -01:47:21

Mr Alfred Wu Thank you for the opportunity.

01:47:38 - 01:48:09

Mr Alfred Wu OK, I will keep it very brief. [Speaks in Mandarin]

So, hearing from Prof Wang I got a lot of inspiration and a lot of questions have been raised up in my mind. So,

my question to Prof Wang is that; What’s his view about the future of the city? Thank you

01:48:14 -01:48:14

Professor Chan Heng Professor Wang?

01:48:17 -01:48:17

Professor Wang Shu I don’t know if this work? (taps on mic)

01:48:19 -01:48:24

Professor Chan Heng Do you mind speaking in English please? Do you mind speaking in English please?

01:48:28 - 01:48:31

Professor Wang Shu My English is really very bad. But I can try.


26

01:48:31 - 01:48:34

Professor Chan Heng Oh, no. You’re pretty good.

01:48:38 - 01:50:22

Professor Wang Shu Even when we talk about the city now; we talk about the metropolitan.. the huge city;the city all over the

world, we have many kinds of city; some cities very small. We talk about cities like Singapore, like the Tokyo,

New York, Beijing, Tanjin, Shanghai; like these. For this speak to everyone (sic), I don’t have; I don’t see the

future; I don’t know, really. Because it could due to the way they can’t stop, I think secured future for them. Not

bad. But another side we talk about the tech days derivement, example, internet; I say internet have another

point;maybe many people don’t need still to use city again because you can use the internet. You live maybe

in this many different place. You can enjoy the relation to the centres, you can share information. That means

you have more choice. Another side, maybe is meme; it’s a big part to destroy the big city structure now. I

think. Let’s just see what happen in the future. That’s my; This means we don’t need just a seatbelt; city is

the only choice for the future. No, we are going to talk about the city; In fact people; we have the meaning

is;the city is only choice about better life, about married life and like this; I don’t think so.

01:50:23 -01:50:38

Professor Chan Heng Well, this is a contrary review. But he does accept technology because internet will enable the individual to live

outside of the city and places of nature, etc. Uh, I think there was a gentleman here, yes;

01:50:44 - 01:51:04

Mr Arjundar Good morning, my name is Arjundar. I’m a student from ACS Independent. My question is directed to Mr Ho, Mr

Murthy and Professor Glaeser. Mr Ho and Professor Glaeser mentioned that there’s immense pressure on

governments to invite long-term accessible, technology and systems to bring us to a better future. My question

is how can society complement the government in this endeavour?

01:51:09 -01:51:19

Professor Chan Heng Any takers first? How can society, that is, the people I guess; how can you use technology to complement the

government?

01:51:19 - 01:52:40

Mr Ho Hak Ean Yeah, I think, we kind of touched on it in a response to an earlier question. Because with all the data;

assuming the data’s out there, it’s not just the governments that own data, even private organisations like telcos

own a lot of data. Assuming it’s all out there, then how it’s exploited really up to the imagination of the individual,

up to the imagination of the company they and can do it for many purposes and Professor Glaeser suggested

some of the potential applications. For planners of course, those in the business of urban planning, the more

data you have actually, the more you can do with it and the more accurate, I guess, your plans can be and the


27

more likely you are to avoid missing out on important gaps in information. So, I think data;really, then; it’s

only imagination that limits you as to how you use the data.

01:52:40 -01:53:34

Professor Edward

Glaeser

It’s a great question and obviously, I think, governments’ governance is a collaborative effort. In many places

people get the government they deserve, in the sense that they, you know, it’s a constant effort to make sure

that governments behave as well as they can. Some of the collaborations are clearly meant to be collaborate,

right... so, involves the streaming of data hoping that someone’s going to do it. In other cases, searching around

and the data’s a wage, you jostle a complacent, corrupt government into action. And that’s certainly what we

also hope big data will do. Big data will challenge governments that are under performing to do better. And I

think that’s what I think we all hope for is a flowering; direct involvement by citizens working trying to prove

things with the help of technology. That’s the vision I got from Mr Murthy’s visions, it’s a vision I gave as well.

01:53:34 -01:53:38

Professor Chan Heng Thank you. There was a question from the gentleman in front. Yeah.

01:53:38 - 01:55:17

Man from the Floor (2) (inaudible) This is a comment. Belated happy birthday to Internet! (inaudible) Professor Chan; I think you

should (inaudible) Professor Wang Shu and Schmidt and Gerard from Google. I think the philosophical

approach (inaudible) So, my question is basically, I hear the Cosco utopia imposed by (inaudible) innovative

Singapore relying on high (inaudible) The project city (inaudible) Professor Wang Shu and Professor almost for

(inaudible) introduction (inaudible) Despite low company, despite low technology, almost low or no technology

it’s one of the most dynamic engineering company in the world. So, my question is on all probability and

possibility which is a better model for people to utilise, generally speaking, round the world not, say, simply one

region but as the global community? Thank you.

01:55:20 -01:55:40

Professor Chan Heng What is the better model for the world? You have technologically driven utopia or one which really is low on

technology going back to nature; There must be something in between? Anyone caring to answer that?

01:55:41 -01:56:33

Professor Edward

Glaeser

I don’t think there’s one answer. I mean I think it’s a question what’s appropriate for individual, individual areas. I

didn’t quite understand the Dharavi reference but Dharavi is certainly no utopia. It’s a symbol of strength, the

courage, the ingenuity of ordinary Indians but it’s an area that could use a whole lot of technology especially in

the form of clean water and better electricity, and so forth but that will also requires good governance. I think

part of the question is, what do we want technology to achieve? And it’s important that it is a limited tool in


28

achieving that, it’s a very powerful tool but it’s not everything. And I think that’s the question we think about, you

know, the question brought up earlier, this knowledge of nature; what is it that we want knowledge to actually

bring us? What is it that we want it to do? And I think until we answer that question we won’t know exactly what

utopia we’re looking for.

01:56:34 - 01:56:34

Professor Chan Heng Thank you, yes.

01:56:36 - 01:57:59

Mr Ho Hak Ean Yeah, I don’t think I said we are trying to create a utopia built on high technology. What I said was technology is

undoubtedly going to be a servant of the vision you have and whatever vision you have you have to decided

then whether technology if at all going to help you; sometimes the pathways to reaching that utopia may not

be all driven by technology. But you, I mean, you cannot ignore technology; technology is a very critical part of

what we can achieve. And if you can imagine that without technology, well, we may be able to achieve

something; but it will limit your options and your level of achievement will be much lower but it’s a societal

consensus that will decide what kind of utopia you want. If you are quite happy, you know, living a very simple,

straightforward life, then OK. Then you don’t need to use very much technology. But it’ll still be very crowded;

economic levels of achievement and economic growth will be much lower. Does that mean we’ll necessarily be

happier? I don’t know. These are questions which society has to debate and come to some kind of consensus.

01:57:59 - 01:58:15

Professor Chan Heng Now, we’ve reached 12; but I think; Oh, gosh; there are a couple of hands up. This is absolutely the last

question and since there’s very few women had the opportunity; I’ll take a question, I hope you don’t mind.

From the lady at the back. Yes.

01:58:20 - 01:58:20

Lady from the Floor Hello.

01:58:20 - 01:58:24

Professor Chan Heng Yes. Short. Direct. A question, not a statement.

01:58:25 - 01:59:25

Lady from the Floor Yes, I hear the obsolescence of technology but I think one important issue is perhaps the obsolescence of

governance; of government, that we tend to perhaps think that government are there forever. I think one of the

problems that a lot of cities are not well managed face is actually bad government that are there forever. And

also short-term because they are there for a very short time, they don't tend to plan for the long-term so perhaps

the question here; Is democracy a good political system or perhaps the government system in China, you

know, how does that stand? How does that compare? Is that a better option? And then if both are not, then what


29

is? Thank you.

01:59:26 -01:59:56

Professor Chan Heng Well, they have they have said you get the government you deserve. The panelist – this is a very large

questions. Merits of democracy, what kinds of government work and I think what you did say was good

governance, you know, good government really is what is needed. And it’s how to get to that good government?

Now, can; would any of the other speakers like to add to that or answer that question?

01:59:59 -02:01:33

Professor Edward

Glaeser

Honestly, quickly, you know, when you look at sort of the peaks of (inaudible) regimes, the peaks are very, very

good. They’re better with democracy, what democracy yields. But the troughs are off. I’d rather put up with the

mediocrity of democracy then the peaks and troughs of China in the last 5 years, right? It takes a lot of

mediocrity to make up for a great famine or a large-scale death. So, I mean, this is actually something that is

critical now. Even, within democracy there are a huge numbers of variations. Right. There ‘s a huge variation

from the direct democracy of Athens to the highly representative structured, you know, more Republican setting.

Cities, particularly where there’s mobility between different locations can afford more dictatorial leadership, can

afford very strong leaders. And often cities need that to actually get things done. One last point that’s of

essential is that the abundance of space hides many sins. The failures of government which aren’t always there,

and apparent, because the problems of the cities are so enormous. Right. And that’s one of the things we are

facing now that we see in cities. The upside is that urban residence, have shown the ability to organise and

improve the quality of government and to affect change. This was true in Boston in 1775, it was true in Paris in

1789. This carries risks for us, to Ontario Square 2 years ago. There is a promise there that we can only hope

will actually be worth it.

02:01:33 -02:02:26

Professor Chan Heng Thank you, thank you very much. Well, I think it is now past the hour that we were to gather and some of the

speakers on the panel have to run off to the airport to catch their flight. So, thank you very much. I thank the

speakers for being here with us and sharing their insights. (Applause) Thank you. And we thank the audience

for staying with us. There is coffee and tea outside. So, please help yourselves. Thank you. Oh, sorry! Sorry! Mr

Khoo Teng Chye; gee.. I forgot. Mr Khoo Teng Chye, the CEO. Yes, yes, sorry;

02:02:26 - 02:04:53

Mr Khoo Teng Chye No, it’s OK. I think Heng Chee has rounded it off very practically and I don’t want to waste your time anymore

other than to say on behalf of Centre for Liveable Cities, we are really very proud and honoured to have; to be

able to do this first collaborative project with the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, CIC, as opposed to


30

CLC! Well, I have many friends coming up to ask me when CIC started, what’s happened are you now kind of

under Chan Heng Chee? And.. I guess one has to clarify that the CIC has it’s strength because it’s part of the

university, has got tremendous resources from the MIT, Zhejiang University, and of course tremendous chair in

Professor Chan Heng Chee, where as CLC we are part of the government. We were actually started by the

Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Environment and Water Resources and our knowledge base

really doesn't come from academia although we work with academia. Our knowledge base comes from 21

stakeholder agencies, which are most of the government agencies and departments and stat boards that are

involved in the physical transformation of Singapore. We believe that both the CLC and CIC; In fact, when

Chan Heng Chee first came back from the US, she called me up for lunch and we agreed that there’s a lot of

things we could do together and complement each other and I’m glad that we have seen this as a first project. I

think we have another project coming up in September. I don’t know if I can say what it’s all about? I think the

project in September, the events in September most of you will be interested in also, it’s to commemorate the

person who’s been most responsible really for the physical transformation of Singapore in the last 50 years – Mr

Lee Kuan Yew, I think it is his 90th birthday. And on September 18

th we plan to have a one-day special session

on the physical transformation of Singapore by the people who have been most closely associated to Mr Lee

Kuan Yew. I think Professor Chan and CIC and CLC will keep you posted on the event. We hope you can join us

then. So, all I have to do now is to thank the illustrious panel, so ably chaired by Professor Chan Heng Chee

and all of you for spending the whole morning with us. So, thank you very much.

File Name: 3 May 2013 – “Public Forum: Technology and ... · File Name: 3 rd May 2013 –...

Documents

Transcript of File Name: 3 May 2013 – “Public Forum: Technology and ... · File Name: 3 rd May 2013 –...