I got an immense, and maybe perverse, sense of pleasure from the responses to this article. Not all were positive, but it was definitely going in the direction I wanted. The parrying back and forth was most satisfying, and gave me much hope that our media can finally be a "true" public sphere...
First, Chia Hern Keng's "Country's survival comes first" (6 Dec) takes at swipe at environmentalism. I was made to sound like a elitist tree-hugging hippies. I had a good chuckle at it, because that is what I am furthest from, but then it got me as to how serious his opinions can mean for our green movement.
As it was, Marryanne Maes can to the rescue with "Development that ignores impact on the environment can hurt a nation" (7 Dec), espousing sustainable development - I point that I seemed to have failed in bringing across. Saved me the need to respond, really.
And then we had a letter from Mohammad Fahmi Ahmad Abu Bakar, "How about an undersea tower instead?" (8 Dec) with an additional section on the same page by Edric Sng about the feasibility of his suggestion - "Wouldn't it be nice? Just one problem ..." (8 Dec). I believe Edric is also the editor for FiNS Magazine.
All in all, a good workout for writers. But my concern is still whether all this fine writing has brought greater awareness to sustainable development and if it will have any effect on the development of the Sentosa IR, now publicly awarded to the Genting consortium. N
11 December 2006
05 December 2006
"Voice of common sense" - Today
My latest article for Today's Voices section is "Voice of common sense", 4 Dec 2006. By far, the article that has been the least altered. Except for the title - my original was "Can we be unique just by being true to our words?",as follows.
The environment will always be one of my biggest concerns, although it is not one of the issues I usually write about. I don't regard myself as an expert in the area. However, given that this blog is really about pushing the limits of the public sphere, and env issues tend to get a backhand in Singapore, perhaps it's time to push a little harder...
* * * * *
"What do you mean, you nearly fell asleep?" I asked my colleague in horror.
We were talking about An Inconvenient Truth, which for me was probably the most thought-provoking movie of the year. "I didn't know it would be Al Gore giving a lecture – so boring!" she protested.
I should have risen to the occasion and given my most heart-rending and vivid account of the Earth's plight, but I stopped myself unwittingly. Can my concern for our little blue globe be a good enough reason to lend credit to a film that is, admittedly, a few points short in the excitement quotient?
Such is the argument found in many dilemmas we face today. As the odds seem insurmountable, we lose faith and start to doubt our own attitudes, beliefs and values. It is not uncommon to find ourselves succumbing to commonly accepted standards, when we feel that our own voice in the matter seems small and insignificant.
In environment conservation terms, the line of reasoning is usually drawn between economic imperatives and the often minority green view about doing the right thing regardless. We tend to believe that there is no way the smaller voices of green activists can be heard. Much as we would like to prove this biased opinion wrong, social reality often confirms it.
Such, too, is the case for the usual rhetoric in our island state Singapore, the most recent and prominent example being the development of the integrated resort on Sentosa. Of the three bids that vie for the coveted prize, two have already made it clear that their proposals are in direct opposition to the voices of a few local conservationists.
That is, of course, if you ever have reason to doubt their irrefutable logic that taking whale sharks out of their natural environment and keeping them in a tank to be harassed repeatedly by snorkellers is the best way to save them.
Yet, we are also led to believe that a successful IR must be one of its kind, even it that means having the world's largest fish tank that some are deluded enough to believe can stand in as an ocean for "the world's largest mammal (sic)".
Or course, all this should matter little on an island that is used to trading a green jungle for a grey concrete one. But our dilemma now is our status as a developed nation with a global duty to act responsibly for the benefit of our natural environment.
Singapore has signed the Kyoto Protocol. Even more recently, our Prime Minister has made a plea at the Asean Summit in Hanoi for greater efforts in sustainable development.
And back at home, we are still ready to award million-dollar contracts to corporations that have arguable environmental focuses. While we cannot deny them their commercial interests, the decision our authorities make this month in choosing the operator for our second IR, as much as the restrictions we impose on them to ensure they follow the best of environmental practices, will send a clear signal to the world about our sincerity in environmental conservation.
Sadly, this will not be the last opportunity that forces us to make such decisions. Already, there are plans to develop our southern islands, one of our last vestiges of natural recluse, and by all counts our heritage for marine life. If we were to sanction a Sentosa IR that has less environment-friendly inclinations, would it set the standard for future developments? At stake here is more than a piece of land or water, but our piece of international integrity. We cannot afford to live with this burden of hypocrisy on our shoulders, even if the rest of the world is forgiving.
Is coming up with our star attractions, will the prerequisite of being one of a kind in the world, at the expense of inconvenient truths, be the only way to keep Singapore’s economy going? Will the world think less of us if we choose instead to be unique in our character, appreciating us for keeping our word on conservation rather than snide us for being less flamboyant with our tourism centerpiece?
Can our concern for our planet be a good enough reason to lend credit to responsible and sustainable development, even if it is a few points short in the novelty quotient?
We might never be comfortable with the answer. Some Singaporeans have made their small voices heard in support of common sense, not commercial cents. But it will take more than a few voices to cut through our economic rhetoric. What we need is for every Singaporean to realise that the world is watching us. N
The environment will always be one of my biggest concerns, although it is not one of the issues I usually write about. I don't regard myself as an expert in the area. However, given that this blog is really about pushing the limits of the public sphere, and env issues tend to get a backhand in Singapore, perhaps it's time to push a little harder...
* * * * *
"What do you mean, you nearly fell asleep?" I asked my colleague in horror.
We were talking about An Inconvenient Truth, which for me was probably the most thought-provoking movie of the year. "I didn't know it would be Al Gore giving a lecture – so boring!" she protested.
I should have risen to the occasion and given my most heart-rending and vivid account of the Earth's plight, but I stopped myself unwittingly. Can my concern for our little blue globe be a good enough reason to lend credit to a film that is, admittedly, a few points short in the excitement quotient?
Such is the argument found in many dilemmas we face today. As the odds seem insurmountable, we lose faith and start to doubt our own attitudes, beliefs and values. It is not uncommon to find ourselves succumbing to commonly accepted standards, when we feel that our own voice in the matter seems small and insignificant.
In environment conservation terms, the line of reasoning is usually drawn between economic imperatives and the often minority green view about doing the right thing regardless. We tend to believe that there is no way the smaller voices of green activists can be heard. Much as we would like to prove this biased opinion wrong, social reality often confirms it.
Such, too, is the case for the usual rhetoric in our island state Singapore, the most recent and prominent example being the development of the integrated resort on Sentosa. Of the three bids that vie for the coveted prize, two have already made it clear that their proposals are in direct opposition to the voices of a few local conservationists.
That is, of course, if you ever have reason to doubt their irrefutable logic that taking whale sharks out of their natural environment and keeping them in a tank to be harassed repeatedly by snorkellers is the best way to save them.
Yet, we are also led to believe that a successful IR must be one of its kind, even it that means having the world's largest fish tank that some are deluded enough to believe can stand in as an ocean for "the world's largest mammal (sic)".
Or course, all this should matter little on an island that is used to trading a green jungle for a grey concrete one. But our dilemma now is our status as a developed nation with a global duty to act responsibly for the benefit of our natural environment.
Singapore has signed the Kyoto Protocol. Even more recently, our Prime Minister has made a plea at the Asean Summit in Hanoi for greater efforts in sustainable development.
And back at home, we are still ready to award million-dollar contracts to corporations that have arguable environmental focuses. While we cannot deny them their commercial interests, the decision our authorities make this month in choosing the operator for our second IR, as much as the restrictions we impose on them to ensure they follow the best of environmental practices, will send a clear signal to the world about our sincerity in environmental conservation.
Sadly, this will not be the last opportunity that forces us to make such decisions. Already, there are plans to develop our southern islands, one of our last vestiges of natural recluse, and by all counts our heritage for marine life. If we were to sanction a Sentosa IR that has less environment-friendly inclinations, would it set the standard for future developments? At stake here is more than a piece of land or water, but our piece of international integrity. We cannot afford to live with this burden of hypocrisy on our shoulders, even if the rest of the world is forgiving.
Is coming up with our star attractions, will the prerequisite of being one of a kind in the world, at the expense of inconvenient truths, be the only way to keep Singapore’s economy going? Will the world think less of us if we choose instead to be unique in our character, appreciating us for keeping our word on conservation rather than snide us for being less flamboyant with our tourism centerpiece?
Can our concern for our planet be a good enough reason to lend credit to responsible and sustainable development, even if it is a few points short in the novelty quotient?
We might never be comfortable with the answer. Some Singaporeans have made their small voices heard in support of common sense, not commercial cents. But it will take more than a few voices to cut through our economic rhetoric. What we need is for every Singaporean to realise that the world is watching us. N
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)