|
|
Structural change involving industrialisation generally leads to urbanisation. While Singapore’s experience fits into this broad paradigm, as a city state it must be expected to be more urbanised. Today, it is wholly urban. Here, urbanisation has not been allowed to be haphazard and chaotic but is a planned process.
In this section our concern is with the environmental impact of industrialization and urbanization and the lessons learnt from the Singapore development experience. This is examined in terms of environmental costs.
These costs can be measured directly by considering expenditures for environmental protection and indirectly through actual and potential losses consequent upon economic development.
First Lesson
One of the three most important lessons learnt is that of land use changes – the gains and losses. The rapid economic growth of the economy over the last three decades has produced changes in land use. In the aggregate while land reclamation allowed and 8.3% increase in total land area, to some extent this meant filling up mangrove swamps. Industry benefited from land reclamation, as has urban development. The loss in agricultural land is inevitable since Singapore has little comparative advantage in agriculture. That leaves two categories, "forest" and "marsh and tidal waste". These are examined briefly.
The 12% loss in terms of forests over 1970-1990 is relatively small as most of Singapore’s forests were cleared during the 19th century to make way for plantation agriculture. In those days the shifting cultivation practised destroyed much of the natural vegetation. Some of the land subsequently reverted to scrub.
The intensive and extensive tree planting programme since independence (roadside trees, shrubs, etc or what the botanists call urban vegetation) has helped to add some soul and shade to urban development. But to the naturalists this is a poor substitute. Their preference is for the preservation of tracts of the original vegetation. This is probably a less costly way of nature conservation in the long run but given acute land scarcity, it is amazing that the forest area is not much smaller. Partly this is due to the need to protect limited water catchment areas.
Given the explicit priority of income generation, we would not have expected otherwise. This is not to say that the non-economic benefits if forest cover are not recognised, Today, as basic needs have been met, government is more attuned towards conservation, not only of the natural habitat but also of buildings. In fact in April 1991, the Environment Minister endorsed the Singapore Nature Society’s (an NGO) Conservation Master Plan and most of the recommendations have been incorporated in the Concept Plan of 1991. (Straits Times, 29 June 1991.)
The sharpest decline is in terms of marsh and tidal waste. Hence encroachment is the consequence of not only land reclamation but also stems from the necessity to enhance domestic sources of water supply. This resulted in the creation of reservoirs in low lying areas formerly occupied by swamps, the damming if river mouths and so on.
There has obviously been a trade off here in terms of losses of birds and mammals as vividly detailed in a recent study (Ho 1991). The writer makes an impassioned plea for leaving things as they are since basic needs have been satisfied.
Recently with the growth of environmentalism globally and in Singapore, government has responded to the call of the Singapore Nature Society by declaring some important areas as bird sanctuaries
Conservationists often feel that the selected sites are too small to fulfill objectives. But in land short Singapore this is a particularly acute dilemma since significant land size is also important for industrial, urban and infrastructure development. Still the preservation of nature is important, even if in small tracts, for both its economic and non-economic benefits.
Second Lesson
The second important lesson learnt will be that of the cleaning of the Singapore River and Kallang Basin. On 27 Feb 77, at the opening of the Upper Pierce Reservoir, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stressed the urgent need to conserve water in Singapore where water sources are limited and many of the watercourses polluted. He said, " It should be a way of life to keep the water clean, to keep every stream, every culvert, every rivulet, free from unnecessary pollution. The Ministry of Environment should make a target: in ten years let us have fishing in the Singapore River and fishing in the Kallang River. It can be done."
In Oct 77, a report on "The Cleaning-up of the Singapore River and the Kallang Basin" was submitted to the Prime Minister. It outlined the problems and spelt out the measures which were required from the various government ministries and statutory boards. The recommendations were accepted and followed up.
In 1997, some of the rivers were grossly polluted with little or no marine life. Organic and inorganic wastes were being discharged into the watercourses and stench pervaded the areas surrounding the watercourses. The environment was not in keeping with the clean and green image of Singapore.
The primary aim was to remove the filth and stench permanently from the rivers and canals. Clean water will then flow in our watercourses and aquatic life will return. The sources of pollution were that pig farms, duck farms, squatter, backyard trades and cottage industries in unsewered premises; street hawkers, boat repair and other riverine activities were found to be the sources of pollution.
Squatter type houses in congested villages and kampongs without sewerage facilities proliferated in these areas, the majority had nightsoil bucket latrines and sullege water from these houses discharged into open drains will eventually drained into the rivers.Backward trades and cottage industries in these unsewered premises added to the problem because their trade effluent were discharged into drains. Pig farms and duck farms were a major source of pollution as the water in the Kallang River was laden with pig wastes. Street hawkers and vegetable wholesale activities led to the discharge of wastes into roadside drains which eventually polluted the rivers. Riverine activities such as trading, transport, boat building and repairing caused oil, sullage water and solid wastes to accumulate in the Singapore River.
To eradicate pollutive and unhygienic landscapes, the government set about clearing slums and squatter settlements. This meant also the building of new homes for homeless people, the creation of totally new manageable environments such as public housing satellite towns, the construction of hygienic hawker and food centres, the cleaning up of Singapore River. This action plan involved participation and commitment by various departments and agencies under the Ministry of National Development, Ministry of Trade & Industry, Ministry of Communications & Information, Ministry of Law and Ministry of the Environment in which ENV also co-ordinated.
The rivers are now cleaner and the potential for enhanced recreational, social and cultural activities can now be tapped for the benefit of present and future generations of Singaporeans. A clean city and its environment reflects a disciplined and organised society with an efficient infrastructure and it brings indirect economic and social benefits by enhancing the confidence of our investors and attracting tourists to the country.
Without the government’s firm belief in rational judgements, efficiency, pragmatism, and science and technology, and the commitment and co-operation of the various government departments, the cleaning up of the Singapore River would not have been a success and this is the second lesson learnt.
Third Lesson
The third lesson learnt would be that although it is often said that it has not been difficult for Singapore to attain the environmental status it has because of its small size, single level of government, booming economy, healthy budgetary position and adequately trained manpower, policy successes cannot be explained by fund and resource availability alone. What is important, perhaps more so in the environmental context, is that an emerging problem was recognised early and political will exercised to attain environmental goals.
One question to ask ourselves is how have these major environmental changes been possible in Singapore? Primarily, it is because social attitudes and behaviour have been the target of a significant degree of engineering and these have a political will behind it. On the one hand, there have been many attempts to inculcate in Singaporeans environmentally friendly attitudes. At the same time, regulation and direct controls using legal and fiscal measures have also been implemented.
Tyabaji (1991,18) suggests that moral suasion has been one of the policy instruments employed to prevent environmental degradation. This in fact involves government attempts to inculcate in Singaporean a sense of environmental consciousness, appealing to their sense of social responsibility and to their communitarian values. We are known all over the world as the "fine city" and all the cleanliness campaigns such as the clean and green week, tree planting day, no smoking campaign etc. in Singapore attracted international media attentions.
The Ministry of Environment has also conducted a series of talks about environmental conservation and hosted exhibitions to educate the public and to help Singaporeans become more sensitive to urban environmental problems. The effect has cultivated in Singaporeans a "culture" of environmental consciousness and responsibility.
Hence, it can be seen that without the Government’s foresight
and vision, and the political will to tackle emerging problems early and
effectively, Singapore would not have achieved its image as a "clean and
green city" today.
