House them on self-contained island
Letter from Timmy Tng, Today Online 23 Oct 08;
IF JAPAN could build a floating airport in the middle of the sea, we can also build a self-contained floating island to house foreign workers. It can be linked with a bridge to the mainland. The benefits are: Free up land on the mainland; reduce social tension; better control of mainland security; and reduce the strain on our public transport system.
The authorities should give this idea of a floating city some serious thought.
A step forward into the past?
Idea of floating dormitories smacks of segregation
John Kwok, Today Online 23 Oct 08;
I REFER to the report, “Floating Dormitories?” (Oct 20).
The news report could well have been published in late 18th-century London. After the American war of independence in 1775, Britain could no longer transport convicts to penal colonies in America, and with the city’s prisons overcrowded, a plan was conceived to convert a number of large decommissioned naval vessels into places of confinement — floating prisons.
It took a lot less time and money to construct these floating prisons than to build new prisons on land.
Moored securely on the River Thames in what was meant to be a two-year temporary measure, these floating prisons, or Hulks, remained afloat and in operation for 80 years long.
Those familiar with the classic Great Expectations by Charles Dickens would have read about London’s Hulks in the opening chapter. Convicts sentenced to be transported (in other words exiled), would be put on these Hulks until asuitable time, means and location could be found to transport them.
And who were those convictsdestined for the Hulks?
These floating prison ships were a product of a society that wanted nothing to do with the city’s “undesirables”, the underclass and poor.
Hulks belonged to a time and society that was more conscious about its image and status. And in the years that these floating “temporary” measures were in place, the Hulks were crammed and overcrowded with petty convicts.
The English, back in the 18th century, had found that floating communities were a good place to house groups of people that were not socially accepted by mainstream society until an alternate solution could be found. And when the alternative solution was found, it was called Australia, that is, the convicts were transferred to other ships and sent to the new continent.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Fast forward to the 21st century, utilising floating structures could be a good solution in land-scarce Singapore.
But we are also revisiting an old and tested method of segregation — a floating community that is kept at a distance determined by the length of a mooring rope.
While this may start off as a good plan by optimising space and technology to house a transient population of foreign workers, there is this inherent danger that the floating dormitories of this age may be interpreted as a step back to the age-old policy of segregation.
As such, Singaporeans need to be prudent of proposals that, in spite of their good intentions, may be interpreted otherwise.
The writer is a Singaporean postgraduate researcher with the University ofWollongong, Australia.
Structures should not be penalised?
Letter from Brydon Timothy Wang, Perth, Australia
Today Online 25 Oct 08;
I REFER to the commentary, “A stepforward into the past” (Oct 23) by Mr John Kwok.
Floating dormitories have the additional benefit of being used as emergency housing. This is particularly important given the natural disasters that have affected the surrounding regions.
While floating structures retain, by their flexible location and “blue field” site (that is, no surrounding neighbourhoods), the ability to incorporate sensitive programmes, such as nuclear reactors, sewage treatment plants, et cetera, away from the mainland — the structures should not be penalised for this outstanding advantage, neither should the decision-makers who site these structures be perceived as attempting to demarcate social boundaries.
The reality is that discrimination and perceptions of superiority can only be tackled with proper community engagement and education. Raising such issues in a debate about the effectiveness and strength of a proposed technology only serves to muddy the issue.
Other questions and points the author could have easily raised include the possible reduction in travelling time exacted on workers by having these structures located closer to their work sites or how proper standards applied to these facilities can ensure a higher quality of life for these workers.
In fact, the author would certainly have realised the great potential these floating dormitories have in relieving pressures on residential land holdings in coastal Australia where they are facing accommodation strain. I appreciate the writer’s comments, but environmentally, socially and economically, the technology offers an urban design solution that is as akinto prison boats as an apple to an orange.
