Saturday, 2 December 2006
Southern shores under fire: democratic pragmatism - a tool in our environmental struggles?
I often admit to friends that my sense of attachment to Singapore does not come from the possession of that coveted red passport, nor by virtue of having my family based there. My feelings of patriotism and pride, while all this time being rightfully threatened by the stronger sense of ties to Hong Kong, comes from the familiarity and appreciation I have for Singapore’s unique natural heritage. If not for the flora and fauna of the island, I don’t think I would have loved the country half as much. Other than my family and friends, the nature in Singapore is what lures me back home at every chance I get, every term break. Everything that’s natural - from the birds (even non-native species) to the reptiles, to the reefs and the mangroves. I derive so much joy and contentment from it that to lose any part of it, however small, or to have its intrinsic worth undermined, would be an occasion for grief.
As is what is happening now: plans to develop our precious southern islands into resorts. STB apparently intends to ride on the momentum created by the Sentosa integrated resort developments, and is now hungrily reeling in potential investors and developers. The horror never ends, the outcry will only grow louder, and we shall keep on fighting.
What seems to be happening (at least, to me as a lowly citizen) is that the government works behind doors in the initial stages of planning, and we only get to hear perhaps a word or two about what’s in the pipeline. Then they announce their plans, the media makes them known to the public, then ‘wham!’ protests start to pour in and conservation groups spring into action.
Since the Hantu case in 2004, and many others following that, I was wondering as to the existence of Environmental Impact Assessments in Singapore. None of the projects or schemes I have heard of (though in my limited experience) has ever mentioned a word about EIAs. Not a beep about environmental valuation, or social cost-benefit analyses of projects relating to the environment. EIAs force decision-makers to take a closer look at the environmental impacts of a project and the scientific basis on why it can or can’t work. And social CBAs, aside from gathering people’s opinions on the matter, would be able to identify the unequal distribution of its benefits (e.g. accessibility to a rather exclusive club of island-resort goers, impacts it would have on current regular island trippers etc.), among its other uses.
Why can’t Singapore join the rest of the developed, democratic world in employing more active and interactive means of public consultation? The government is aware that it is not able to avoid public commentary, and I do appreciate its efforts in getting the citizenry’s feedback. I know we have mechanisms like REACH (which I shall try writing to) in place, but these work too broadly and their effects too distilled. Each major project should on its own merit a consultation panel. A Hong Konger master civil engineer friend of mine once commented upon the dismal scene of the industry in Singapore, in that EIAs are, unlike in other countries in which they are more-or-less mandatory, non-existent.
I read that many parties have been consulted on the project - and all are developers, all concerned with the feasibility of reaping in profits from commercialising the islands. -_-” Where are the scientists and the conservationists, or the lay citizens, for that matter? They are destroying (or have destroyed) the natural landscapes and upsetting the ecosystems, only to have them reconstructed in a form they like, and incorporated into a setting reeking of artificialness. And as if it were possible to replicate natural systems in the first place… They say that the paradox of social and economic development is that ‘the product of technology destroys the resources upon which technology builds’ 1 - how true. The irony in this case is that the end ‘product’ will be an artificial manifestation of the original, natural ‘product’ or resource. As before, its utterly senseless.
We’ve been late in taking action. We are always late to cry out. Time and time again, the cycle repeats itself. Perhaps I may be wrong and the government isn’t really as ignorant as it sounds (if so, I would happily let myself be enlightened). Or perhaps, if there is anything else to learn from all this, it is that we environmentalists should reposition ourselves and start attacking the problem from where it stems; to take a proactive and not a reactive strategy from now on, and to work on persuading the government to rethink its approach to future environmental-related projects.
When new people I meet ask me about my line of study, and I answer, “First degree was Ecology, and now I’m doing Environmental Technology“, they naturally want to probe further. “Where are you planning to work after this?” To which I’d reply that I’ll try to look for work in the UK or Europe first, or Hong Kong, but ultimately I’d want to go back to Singapore. Their response would then come in the equivalent of an economist’s question: “Is there a market for that in Singapore?” I like to think there is. But I’m not actually all that sure, for my experiences on the ground in Singapore were limited to the areas of nature conservation, volunteerism and activism rather than strategic environmental management and policies or dealing with issues of sustainability and the likes. Although there are of course overlaps, they are still quite distinct when it comes to the nature of professional work. In this globalised world, the fact that one is based in Singapore doesn’t necessarily mean that the job scope is confined to issues in Singapore itself… but this point is immaterial to what I’m bringing forth in this post. Cases like this only dampen my hopes of finding related work in Singapore, and it is cases like this that act as advice to why I shouldn’t work in Singapore that soon. Experiences gained from elsewhere, where environmentalism is actually actively working from both directions - grassroots on up, and top-down from the administration, is what will prove most valuable if I want to be an effective environmental manager. Or environmental consultant. Or whatever… time will tell. I only hope that by the time I am ready to return to Singapore, it will not be too late.
1 Tappeser, B & Baier, A. (2000). Who Owns Biological Diversity? Öko-Institut Freiburg, Berlin.
