¹ For a list of these standards (indicators) see, United Nations, International Social Development Review No. 2, 1970, p. 5. For the relevant data see Seng, You Poh and Yah, Lim Chong, The Singapore Economy, Eastern University Press, 1971.Google Scholar Chapter 11, Peter Chen, S. J., Development Complexity: East and Southeast Asia, University Education Press, 1971.Google Scholar

² U.N. International Social Development Review No. 2, p. 1.

³ Sen, Hon Sui, Singapore: Economic Patterns in the Seventies, Ministry of Culture, Republic of Singapore, 1972Google Scholar; Peter S. J. Chen, op. cit., You Poh Seng and Lim Chong Yah, op. cit. ; Swee, Goh Keng, The Economics of Modernization, Asia Pacific Press, 1972Google Scholar. Chapter 11.

⁴ For a discussion of materialism see, Ho Wing Meng, ”The Growing Cult of Materialism —A Note of Caution”, NYLT1 Journal, (May, 1972).

⁵ Jackson, J. A. (Ed.), Migration, Cambridge University Press, 1969Google Scholar, Peterson, William, “A General Typology of Migration”, American Sociological Review, 23:3 (June 1958).Google Scholar

⁶ Innovative Migration refers to migration as a means of “achieving the new”. For detailed discussion see, William Peterson, op. cit.

⁷ Hassan, Riaz, “Dynamics of Urbanization in Singapore” International Review of Sociology, Vol. VI, No. 1-3, 1970Google Scholar; You Poh Seng, V. V. Bhanoji Rao and G. Shantakumar, “Population Growth And Population Characteristics”, in You and Lim, op. cit. P. 49, Table 4. This table gives population densities in Singapore from 1871-1970.

⁸ Simmel, George, “Metropolis and Mental Health”, in Hatt, Paul K. and Reiss, Albert J. Jr. (Eds.), Cities and Society, The Free Press, 1959Google Scholar. Wirth, Louis, “Urbanism As A Way of Life”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44 (July 1938)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hauser, Philip M., “Urbanization: An Overview”, in Hauser, Philip M. and Schnore, Leo F., The Study of Urbanization, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967Google Scholar.

⁹ Milgram, Stanley, “The Experience of Living in Cities”, Science, 167 (13 March 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ The term, overload, is drawn from systems analysis and refers to a system's inability to process inputs from the environment because there are too many inputs to cope with, or because successive inputs come so fast that input A cannot be processed when input B is presented. When overload is present adaptation occur. The system must set priorities and make choices. A may be presented first while B is held in abeyance, or one input may be sacrificed altogether. City life, as we experience it, constitutes a continuous set of encounters with overload, and of resultant adaptations.

The adaptations to overload in urban environment appear in different forms. Some of these are: (1) allocation of less time to each input, (2) disregard for low priority inputs by principle of selectivity (time and energy is invested only in carefully defined inputs), (3) boundaries are redrawn in certain social transactions so that the overload system can shift burden to the other party in exchange or interaction, (4) reception is blocked off prior to entrance into a system, (5) the intensity of inputs is diminished by filtering devices, so that only weak and superficial forms of involvement with others are allowed, (6) specialized institutions are created to absorb inputs that would otherwise swamp individuals.

In sum, the observed behaviour of the urbanite in a wide range of situations appear to be determined largely by a variety of adaptations to overload. Overload characteristically affects daily life on several levels, impinging on role performance, the evolution of social norms, cognitive functioning and the use of facilities (Milgram, op. cit.).

¹¹ Simmel, op. cit.

¹² By this I do not mean to imply that all urban social interactions are secondary type and impersonal. I am only suggesting that with increasing scale of urbanization the secondary type of interactions become prevalent. This type of interaction primarily refers to role interaction: this is what makes them expedient, efficient and rational. In spite of the prevalence of the secondary type interaction, the primary type of relationship continues to be an important constituent of the urban melieu. In fact, my own research suggests that primary contacts play a very significant role in Singapore and even experience of relocation which involves considerable dislocation of primary social interaction networks does not necessarily disrupt them. Preliminary analysis of data about the experience of relocation in two blocks of publicflatsshows that the relationship among old neighbours, who no longer live in close proximity, tends to become more intimate. However, my observations of daily life in a variety of settings in Singapore also suggest that not all primary contacts are free from selfish exploitation.

¹³ Here I am not suggesting a causal relationship between the rational, expedient, efficient and impersonal behaviour orientations and development of impersonal commodity markets, market mentality and bureaucratic organizations. I merely propose that thefirstset of conditions facilitates the development and proliferation of the second set of conditions.

¹⁴ For a discussion of the role of voluntary organization see, Noel P. Gist and Fava, Sylvia F., Urban Society, New York, Thomas Y. Crowell, 1964Google Scholar, Chapter 17 and Christen T. Jonassen, “Functions of Voluntary Association in Developing Nations”. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 1973.

¹⁵ Chan Heng Chee, “Political Change in Singapore” in Riaz Hassan, (ed) Singapore — Society in Transition, Oxford University Press (Forthcoming). This paper also discusses at some length the nature of political participation and mobilization in the Singapore context.

¹⁶ Chan Heng Chee, op. cit., Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation: How and Why do People Get Involved in Politics! Chicago, Rand McNally & Co, 1965Google Scholar; Huntington, Samuel, “Political Development and Political Decay”, World Politics, XVII, April 1965Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Meow, Seah Chee, Community Centres in Singapore — Their Political Involvement, Singapore University Press, 1973, p. 12Google Scholar.

¹⁸ People's Management Committees were formed to run and manage the community centres. According to the People's Management Committee Rules, 1964, the functions of the Committee are — (a) to promote organized leisure and cultural activities for adults, youths and children within the program of activities in the community centre, and to stimulate participation in such activities by residents in the neighbourhood of the community centre;

(b) to manage the Community Centre for and on behalf of the People's Association according to standing rules and regulations provided by the Board of Management, People's Association; (c) to transmit to the Government or the People's Association, information as to the needs of the residents in the neighbourhood of the Community Centre and to keep them informed of Government action and policy in these matters. For further details of these rules and People's Association Ordinance 1960, see Tiong, Yap Boh, Community Centres in Singapore — With Special Emphasis on Efficiency, Unpublished M.Soc.Sci. Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Singapore, 1972Google Scholar, Appendix A and B.

¹⁹ For details of the sampling frame of this survey see, Kheng, Ng Wai, “Characteristics and Attitudes of People's Association Community Centre Visitors” Berita Peranchang, 2:1, 1971, pp. 43–44Google Scholar; and Kheng, Ng Wai and Haung, Tan Tsu, “Characteristics of Community Centre Visitors and Non-Visitors”, Planews — Newsletter of the Singapore Institute of Planners, 1:3, August 1972, Pp 15–16Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ng Wai Kheng and Tan Tsu Haung, op. cit., p. 16.

²¹ Ng Wai Kheng, op. cit. p. 44.

²² Lian, Roney Tan Kee, Impact of Relocation on H.D.B. Tenants — A Case Study, Unpublished M.Soc.Sci. Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Singapore, 1972, p. 76Google Scholar.

²³ The findings of two major surveys clearly show this. The 1st. survey asked the opinion of central city residents about relocation. The findings of this suggest that “most of the Central Area residents are positively disposed towards urban renewal. . . .” Haung, Tan Tsu, Sociological Aspects of Planning in The Singapore Central Area, M.Soc.Sci. Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Singapore, 1972, p. 106Google Scholar. The second survey (based on a 10 per cent systematic sample of tenants living in rented public flats) asked the opinion of general changes in living patterns since relocation in the flats. The result of this survey show that nearly 70 percent expressed the view tha t life had become somewhat better if not very much better, 18 percent maintained that life was about the same as before and less than 12 percent considered that life had become worse after relocation. See Yeh, Stephen H. K. and Statistics and Research Department Housing and Development Board, Homes For the People, Government Printing Office, Singapore 1972. p. 107Google Scholar. For a discussion of Public Housing and Urban Renewal programmes in Singapore see, Alan F. C. Choe, “Urban Renewal” and Wan, Teh Cheang, “Public Housing” in Jin-Bee, Ooi and Hai Ding, Chiang (eds.), Modem Singapore, University of Singapore Press, 1969Google Scholar.

²⁴ Stephen H. K. Yeh and Pang Eng Fong, “Housing, Employment and National Development: The Singapore Experience”. Paper presented at the SEADAG Seminar on Short-Term Employment Creating Projects in Southeast Asian, Baguio, Philippines, August 21-24, 1973.

²⁵ Yeh et. al., op. cit., Chapters IV & VI. This is also suggested by the preliminary analysis of my own research which is based on a study of 440 public housing tenants.

²⁶ Hassan, Riaz, Social Status and Bureaucratic Contacts Among the Public Housing Tenants in Singapore, Occasional Paper No. 10. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ This is particularly likely in the cases of one room flats.