Straits Times, Singapore : Account for 8 nature areas left out of green plan

AFTER reading the article, '8 nature areas left out of green plan draft', and the views of Mr Lee Chiu San ('Allow proliferation of wildlife in parks; ST, Oct 19), I visited URA's Identity Plan and Parks & Water Bodies Plan Exhibition.

I must congratulate the Urban Redevelopment Authority for seeking public feedback. It is this chance to participate in determining the future landscape that will give Singaporeans that sense of belonging.

Having been a scout in the 1960s and 70s, I can recall, with fond memories, places beyond my neighbourhood and schools: Ayer Gumuruh (a natural spring), Mata Ikan, Ponggol (campsites at Tracks 22 and 23), Telok Paku, Pulau Tekong (where I spotted dolphins), Hongkah, Sarimbun, Bukit Panjang, Mandai Forest, Pulau Hantu, St John's Island, etc.

These are the places that glue me to Singapore but, sadly, many have been lost.

Fortunately, Singapore prospered and, today, we have the luxury of trying to recreate what had been lost.

Having lived overseas for several years, I am struck by how, as a society progresses and prospers, its people become concerned with the environment they live in.

There comes, inevitably, a desire to have nature close to home - not just the rustic countryside but also unspoilt nature teeming with wildlife.

It is this desire that gives impetus to the growing popularity of eco-tourism.

For Singapore to establish itself as a world-class place to live in, it, too, must have its share of rustic countryside and unspoilt nature.

Swanky office buildings, shopping centres overflowing with escalators, chic restaurants selling fusion food, bohemian artists' villages, manicured gardens, picturesque but under-utilised golf courses and touristy seaside resorts may be necessary but they alone are not sufficient to constitute world-class.

If the experiences of the advanced countries are anything to go by, tomorrow's Singaporeans will long for unspoilt nature reserves filled with wildlife, local and migratory birds (I am not a bird-watcher!) and not too many boardwalks or 'hiking' trails.

But by then it may be too late unless some tough decisions are made now.

Instead of accommodating whims and the 'flavour of the decade', we should expand our horizon and time-scale, and preserve as many options as possible so as not to prejudice the distant future - the future not only of our children but also our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Singapore's development in the 1960s and 70s led to urbanisation but, from now on, we must resist the temptation to decorate, concretise and modernise everything.

Consequently, I am alarmed by the omission of the eight nature areas identified in the 1993 Singapore Green Plan. An account should be given for each omission or credibility will be in doubt.

How can we be sure that the present Parks & Water Bodies Plan is not another PR exercise and that, in another 10 years' time, it will be dropped quietly for another plan?

All eight areas should be reinstated because there are very, very few pockets of unspoilt nature left in our homeland.

Finally, it may be time for URA to change its terms of reference and assume a wider role in the future development of Singapore. It should include staff from non-traditional sources: historians, naturalists and ecologists, so that it can balance society's needs as a whole and take into account the future aspirations of the people.

ONG ENG HIN