|
|
Problems Faced
In the early years, in order to make way for urbanisation and industrialisation, the government had to carry out mandatory actions of clearing of slums and squatter area such as phasing out of some pollutive businesses (e.g pig farming, backyard trades) resettlement of families; these were not met with enthusiasm by the people affected. Regulations had to be enforced vigorously by the government.
A healthy environment has been kept up by thorough government planning and rigorous implementation of plans, regulations and control, enforcement of tough laws as well as years of government campaigns. Singapore is thus known as a "fine city", as efforts to protect the environment followed a top-down approach with the government forcing producers and consumers to behave responsibly or face fines. The government did not wait for voluntary attitudinal changes. There are limits to this regulatory policy. The first question is whether this approach is the most cost-effective one. Singapore’s clean environment is upheld not only by the numerous officers of the ENV but also a fleet of cleaners and gardeners. In general, cleaning up after people can hardly be called an efficient allocation of scarce resources as it binds capital and manpower in unproductive activities. Its is a serious question as to how long an island state, where human capital is the most valuable asset, can maintain such a service with its high opportunity costs in the form of productivity foregone. Increasingly, the Government has found it difficult to get workers for waste collection and other related areas.
 |
As mentioned earlier, if responsibility in conserving the environment lies only on officers and cleaners, it will not be efficient. The government recognizing this problem, carried out numerous campaigns to educate the citizens on the importance of environmental conservation in the mist of urban growth. Undeniably, the campaigns carried over the years has increased the awareness for care of the environment. However, there are limits as to the effectiveness of these government campaigns. Although the message of these campaigns , such as the anti-littering campaigns, have been received by the public – as a study by Victor Savage clearly shows - it does not seem to have sunk into the public consciousness (Savage and Lau 1993). So far, the knowledge of what one ought to do does not translate into daily behaviour. This is best seen in consumer’s response to the Green Labelling Scheme at a consumer survey, conducted by the National Council on the Environment, found out. In this survey, 51 per cent of the households recognized the label, but out of those who did, only 3 per cent looked for it all the time. (NCE 1994a). Moreover, people increasingly resent being overwhelmed by government campaigns. People get bored with repetitive activities and it does not seem to square well with a modern, democratic, responsible society. |
|
By "taking care of everything" the Government has to accept
the criticism that is has created a fairly passive citizenry. The level
of knowledge about diverse environmental problems among students up to
the tertiary level is appalling. One reason might be that Singaporeans
have been shielded from exposure to environmental hazards as environmental
issues did not feature prominently in the school curriculum and when problems
arose, the Government will have taken care of them without much fuss. In
recent years, the Government of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has shifted
its policy from its previous top-down approach to a more participatory
style. The establishment of the Feedback Unit in 1985, the introduction
of Town Councils, nominated MPs in 1990 and the enhancement of the role
of the grassroots movement gives evidence of this policy. Although these
policies are not specifically directed towards the environment, environmental
issues can equally be brought up under these new forums.
|
 |
