Foreign resident Critical Spectator's (CS) recent post on Facebook praised the Government's approach to the Dover Forest development as world class. He was upset at people who objected. To this people, his name calling lexicon includes "ignorant naysayers", "habitual naysayers", "complainers who think they have all the answers", "people who want to bash the authorities", "politically valuable group (suckers for those who seek influence - perpetuating misinformation in the process", etc. To CS, non-supporters are people who "...complain about allegedly shrinking greenery, people complain about rising apartment prices, people complain about immigrants who, also allegedly, not only steal jobs but also take up space from Singaporeans."
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" is often attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, few knows she was paraphrasing historian Henry Thomas Buckle. Now, CS has some good points, but his intolerance, and bashing of contrarian Singaporeans, puts a blight on his writings and sadly relegates it to Eleanor's third category. Another thorn is his tendency for PAP fawning, by framing contrarian comments as political narratives.
I have to say CS does his homework, although I suspect there is a team behind him. The giveaway is the data and info he comes up with in relatively short time. If this were true, then obviously he is a fraud. I will give him the benefit of doubt he is a prima facie innocent blogger just like me. His 'data' often makes it difficult for his detractors to take him on, however much they hate his fawning posts. His Facebook site is an echo chamber of 20,000 odd subscribers who lap up every sliver of opposition denigration CS dishes out.
Dover Forest site was rezoned for development back in 2003. The Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) was opened Dec 2020 for 4 weeks for public feedback. CS wondered why naysayers are popping out of the woodwork now. He accused people of being too lazy to check out the EBS. The facts are, in Singapore, rezoning of state land is fairly routine. People get interested only when plans are fairly detailed which may be decades or more later. Contrary to his perception, the public feedback generated lots of interest. It had to be extended by a further 4 weeks and attracted about 1,800 reponses. Pretty good public participation.
Many followers of CS pointed out that Singapore has the highest ratio of greenery compared to other cities in the world. While this is good and correct, we need to appreciate that unlike other cities, Singaporeans don't have a countryside or hinterland to retreat to.
I have always believed that events such as this are teaching moments. It would be good if one has something to share, please to do so. Tie up the lashing tongues.
Singapore is land scarce and with a high urban density, a recipe for conflicting demands for conservation against development. Industrialisation, high economic development, population growth, and affluence have converged to skew land use primarily as productive resource. Whilst the impact of climatic change has elevated the importance of environment protection worldwide, this has not been prime mover for Singapore. Our swamps are all gone, we chopped down hills, and we have large scale coastal reclamation up to 10-20 metre depths. Singapore lacks constitutional protection for land rights and there are no environmental laws.
Our conservation initiatives are driven by the recognition of the need to live with nature. Our 2 basic preservation laws are (1) Wild Animals and Birds Act (“WABA”) protects all wild animals and birds, and (2) Parks and Trees (Preservation of Trees) Order 1991 which makes it illegal to cut down trees with a girth of more than one metre, measured a half-metre from the ground.
We have 4 natural reserves (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Central Catchment Nature Reserve, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Labrador Nature Reserve) are protected under the Parks and Trees Act. Twenty other sites are subject to administrative safeguards under the Parks and Waterbodies Plan.
WABA protection extends to state land and private land, but not land used for development. This means if you and I trap wild life or pick wild fauna anywhere in Singapore, police can come after us. But in the name of development, the government can do anything, anywhere.
Absence of environmental laws has provided some lessons. Example the Pan Island Expressway was allowed to cut through the catchment area resulting in many wild animals being run over by vehicles. The government had wanted to reclaim the Chek Java coastal area. Their studies indicated there was nothing there worth preserving. The Nature Society did an independent study and concluded there was a natural habitat for marine wild life. Fortunately the government later shelved their development plans. The biggest tree that ever existed in Singapore which had a girth of at least 3 metres, once stood proudly at the junction of Old Changi Road and Tampines Expressway. I used to pass by everyday, and suddenly one day in the 1980s, the landmark grand old dame just disappeared.
So while there are laws to protect wild life and fauna from you and I, there are no laws to keep the long arms of the government off. A fairly recent legal development in environmental law to help preserve natural habitats and biodiversity, is the doctrine of public trust. This places stewardship responsibility on land owners. It implies the public has a beneficial interest in the land, in respect of common use of the land. This is important because public trust doctrine now gives the public locus standi to bring landowners to court. It also imposes on the government, being the proponent for the change of use of the land, the onus of providing proof that the development is in the better interest of the public. This doctrine has been succesfully applied in several jurisdictions including India, Philippines and Australia.
No public trust doctrine has ever been tested in Singapore. But don't keep your hopes high because when it comes to an issue of administrative laws vs public interest, Singapore courts have taken the conservative constructive approach, giving deference to the executive who is in a better position than the courts to know what is in the public interest.
Nevertheless, all is not lost because Singapore is a signatory of World Charter for Nature, and the Earth Charter. The government will adopt the good universal standard practices of habitat, ecosystems and biodiversity protection. We can see this idea of land stewardship has been internalised by the government. "Stewardship" is constantly mentioned in websites and annual reports of various relevant govenrment entities.
“I have always believed that a blighted urban jungle of concrete destroys the human spirit. We need the greenery of nature to lift up our spirits.”... Lee Kuan Yew
The Singapore government operates by Concept Plans, mostly transparent, with time scales, pathways and measurable goals. As regards conservation of natural biodiversity, Singaporeans ought to be proud. We probably can claim to be the first to pay attention to the natural environment long before climate change threats woke everyone else up. Right up to Independence 1965, I was a village kid living at the base of a hill. My world was the surrounding secondary forest and bushland. Sometimes I would read my books up in the trees. Back then I used to walk home from school, everyday passing by the Tanglin Halt apartment blocks. The sheer monotony of flats, in perfect line up formation like contingent of soldiers on parade square, on flattened landscape with hardly any trees around, depressed me a lot. Then in 1967 I heard PM Lee talked about his vision for a Garden City and Singapore has never looked so drab and dreary and depressing after that.
Singapore's concept plans for the environment has evolved.
1967 - Garden City Initiative
1992 - Spore green plan
2002 - SGP 2012
2006 - SGP 2012 revised
2009 - Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015-2030 (Read here)
So whilst we have no environmental laws, but great frameworks and plans, has the government played ball? In all fairness I have to say, in general, it has. There have been hiccups like Chek Java and the PIE cutting the catchment area, but I think lessons were learnt. The government has planned, transparent in their plans, and nearer to development they have worked with stakeholders like conservationists and other experts, and allowed public participation in accepting feedbacks and suggestions. The Dover Forest project is the latest illustration.
Critical Spectator bashed out at naysayers. But I think, in all endeavours, it is always good to have naysayers. If you have objections, do protest. It is your right under the public trust doctrine because there is a common ownership to stateland. But for heaven's sake, do so intelligently and respectfully. Contribute as a positive protestor. One great point of the Dover Forest pushback in my view, is the active work done by MP Christopher de Souza. Standing up for their constituents against government policies is never a forte of PAP members of parliament.
Finally, what is my personal take on the development plan for Dover Forest. Firstly, the public trust doctrine places the onus on the government to show that their plans is not in breach of the trust placed upon them to ensure common heritage of these natural resources is not impaired and any development undertaken is done under compelling reasons. The site is to be developed for a new public housing estate and the HDB has published a full explanation and the justification for the project. I have no quarrels with the process. Secondly, whilst an Environmental Baseline Survey was done, there was no detailed Environmental Impact Assessment of which the EBS forms a part. Thirdly, I do have issues at the big picture implications. Let me explain.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Edward Abbe, environmental activist
HDB gave a detailed drill down into the demographics and desirability of the Dover Forest area for a new township. I remain unconvinced that a stagnating Singapore core population has the unsatiable apetite for new housing estates. Unsold inventory in private housing remains extremely high and rising. Why is public housing so rosy given the population has plateaued? The part of the equation that the HDB has not been transparent is data relating to Permanent Residents and new citizenships. This hot potato will remain concealed so we will never know the extent to which it is the factor providing the continued pressure for public housing.
"Growth for the sake of growth" is the axiom of capitalism. And the Singapore Government is run very much on corporate practices. Once we step on the pedal of growth for growth sake, it becomes addictive and we can't lift the leg. It becomes the foundation for strategic thinking which leads on to short term tactics of economic growth on imported cheap labour. This leads on to wholesale PR and new citizenship policies. With an eye on growth, the government has totally lost track of equity. Stringent safeguards and practice of denialism have built up sovereign wealth. But the Pioneer and Mederka generations have been denied the fruits of their labour and sacrifices, the Millenials have to suffer depressed wages, whilst new citizens and PRs inherit the economic cake created by others.
Unlike Critical Spectator, as a foreigner, he sees only the small picture through the myopic scope of growth and thus he fawns on the best government in the world. Thus the Dover Forest project is the best in the world. Whilst I give credit to government for the process of the Dover Forest project, I feel it is driven by the growth for growth sake ideology which renders inutile the sacrifice and efforts of land reclamation and freeing up lands with all sorts of initiatives like the Jurong caverns. The Lee Kuan Yew era of land reclamation was to create more space so we can improve the quality of our lives. There is a diminishing marginal utility to a strategy of freeing up more land to accommodate new people because growth for growth sake is like the Quroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. Unlike Critical Spectator who sees a perfect Dover Forest project, I feel it in my bones a deep sense of government betrayal.
