Cross-Cultural Blog

Hello Zixu,

It seems strange to comment on your post since we all worked on it together, but in retrospect, I have some thoughts here which might be helpful in the drafting of your paper...

One:
I think the link you make between "Shelter" and "Moving House" makes sense, but you must be careful to consider that "Moving House" and "Shelter" are different genres... and that Shelter is a 'fictional' depiction of people's relations with spaces.

Two:
I'm not sure what you mean about the 'intrinsic functionality' of a space. From my understanding, a space carries intrinsic cultural and historical 'baggage', but its 'function' is instead imposed upon it by users of the space. Unless you are perhaps arguing that the very concept of that space - the bus-stop, for example - is constructed, and hence, is inseparable from its original functionality.

Three:
Perhaps you would like to be careful of using the word "level" in two different ways in this post? For 'level' of emotional attachment, I am assuming you mean 'degree', and for the 'level' of governement regard, I am assuming you mean 'extent'.

Four:
Perhaps a link would be made clearer if you state, before your question, that the government or planning authorities, when planning for spaces, must always take into consideration the people's emotional attachment to the spaces. Perhaps indicate how neglecting such an emotional attachment would have adverse consequences for the government (resistance etc.) and thus how important it is in deciding the level to which a space - and hence the people's feelings towards it - can be changed, modified, or eradicated.

Five:
As always, you need to be very clear on the point of contention or tension between the two sources you are dealing with, as this forms your motive and will shape your thesis and subsequent argument. I think you just need to probe the ideas that you've raised more... I'm sure it will all fall into place!

Good luck! x)

The ideas behind your resoning are very intruiguing and can be developed through various perspectives. You may want to mention the methods employed by the Singapore government... in order for the readers to gain an insight to the factors that compose these methods. There are many questions that arise from the differences in your sources such as: what is the significance of comparing two disticntively different approaches to the views on your subject? This may cause your topic to become broader and less concise rather than focusing on the argument that you have constructed.

Good luck?

Hey Leonard!

I’ve read your post, and these are my thoughts.

I think your motive is one that is strong and interesting. By asking how the government not only managed to convince the people into accepting cremation as opposed to burial but by permanently making it a problem that faces not only them but everyone else is indeed something worth writing and reading about. Just a few small concerns:

You talk about wastefulness and how burial takes away the scarce land that we have in Singapore. Perhaps you might want to specify exactly how it is wasteful. Does wastefulness include economical waste of resources? That does seem to be the prime objective of the state. In moving house, the comment on the golf course could do you good.

In the last sentence, you mention that this establishment of a culture of spatial fluidity allows the government to continue to change the land to serve its objectives. There is a creation of a new culture. To aid your argument on how the government manages to create this culture, you might want to bring in Jacquiline Lo’s argument on page 26, where she talks about how there is cultural hybridization in Singapore and how this is different from the “source cultures” of that of China, in this case where the burial sites are particularly pertinent to the Chinese community, as what we have read in the texts of Kong and Yeoh. So, really, different spaces allow for new cultures, which therefore give the government greater ease in setting up this culture that you talk about.

That is all for now, I hope this helps and I will try to comment on other areas if something strikes me along the way.

Cheers!

Hello Manee,
I believe your essay topic has good potential. In every urban landscape, development is always underway and while the spaces are changing, one of the government’s ideas remains as a constant that is to establish a national identity. Your essay addresses this issue. However, perhaps you could further substantiate the need for why the government must keep the people rooted to the city state. You could also examine the consequences if the government ignores the eradication of humanity when they eliminate unplanned spaces. This would highlight the importance of the action taken by the government to establish a national identity. By the way, you did not mention what other sources you are going to draw upon to support your ideas. Could you elaborate how you are going to use them?

All the best for your paper. =))

Hi Manee!

Here a couple of points that I’ve got after reading your post:

1) “Providing Singaporeans a sense of belonging and rootedness in this ever changing environment.” I find what u mean by “a sense of belonging and rootedness” rather confusing. Are you referring to the attachment that we develop with spaces, the memories that we would have or you are talking about the acceptance to the idea of planning and changing spaces in Singapore. If it is the first case, then it would not actually have that much relevance to Bauman.

2) What is puzzling/striking is not very clear. What it appears to be, is that you are taking Bauman’s idea and then applying it to a Singaporean context. What could be a possible puzzle, would be that Singapore DOES do a lot of urban planning, But yet, it didn’t translate to Singapore being an unliveable space, contradicting Bauman. As a result there must be something particular regarding Singapore’s planning methodology. Is it the way that they plan different, or are there additional techniques they utilize that keeps the populace happy with all the planning?

3) The essay could then explore the above questions and this is how it becomes slightly similar to Leonard’s. From what I understood, is that you are approaching the answers to those questions from an economic stand point – how the population is convinced that if we do not plan/upgrade, we would not be able to compete with other countries outright. Leonard appears to answer those similar questions from the psychological standpoint – “through establishing a culture of spatial fluidity” and “in setting up a common “enemy” in the problem of land scarcity”. In fact I think it makes more sense to be encompassing all methods that the government employs to quell any opposition towards excessive urban planning. Paper 3 is quite a long essay and I believe that the length would allow you to explore more in depth rather than constrain it to just one particular aspect.

4) Comparisons between the Singapore’s planning and the form of planning that Bauman refers to could be explored and related back to how it explains the puzzle.

Wow, there's a lot of really interesting commenting going on here. I like the way the comments go to the heart of the matter, highlighting issues such as the different genres of the sources with which you are working; being precise in using terms (especially key terms); and you all have received/given feedback on how to develop further ideas.

Best of luck with your drafting!

Johan Geertsema

You know what? I think cremetion is the way of the future because of the huge world population. I mean there is not enough land to bury everybody. In Kenya especially in Nairobi we have a city council cemetry. They have buried people there for years and the cemetry is full to an extent they have started going back to place the used decades ago when they were burying at 12 feet today they use the same graves but bury people at 3 feet.