Changing Landscapes of Singapore

Ho, Elaine Lynn-Ee, Wong Chih Yuan and Ramdas, Kamalini

Published by NUS Press Pte Ltd

Ho, Elaine Lynn-Ee, Wong Chih Yuan and Ramdas, Kamalini.

Changing Landscapes of Singapore: Old Tensions, New Discoveries.
New ed. NUS Press Pte Ltd, 2013.
Project MUSE. muse.jhu.edu/book/27560.

For additional information about this book

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/27560

[ Access provided at 17 Mar 2022 19:19 GMT from National University of Singapore ]
 4
Nature and the Environment
as an Evolving Concern in
Urban Singapore
Harvey Neo

Introduction
The concept of landscape is a useful tool for interrogating the meanings of
nature and environment, as well as society’s relationship with nature. Landscapes
reflect competing societal views on nature and environment (see Kong and
Yeoh 1996, for a discussion on the social constructions of nature in Singapore).
As Mitchell (2000: 100) points out, landscape “is a way of carefully selecting
and representing the world so as to give it a particular meaning” (also refer
to Chapter 1). In the Dutch landscape painting tradition that emerged in
the 17th century, for example, artists mostly relied on their imagination to
create scenes of nature and rural life in their drawing studios.
This chapter focuses on land use changes in Singapore and their
consequent conflicts (often rooted in the contestations between development
and conservation) as a starting point to interrogate how nature and the
environment are landscape representations that draw strength from normative
ideals, broader existing social norms and dominant political ideologies. In
so doing, it hopes to provoke discussions on the critical place of nature in
urban Singapore.

61

04 C-Landscapes.indd 61 7/30/13 10:24:17 AM

 62 Harvey Neo

Following this introduction, I will describe briefly the different ways in

which one understands and values nature. In the third section, I will use the
examples of Senoko and Chek Jawa to show how the Singaporean state has
historically been more partial to a “developmentalist” way of understanding
and engaging with nature and environment. The fourth section highlights
recent nature-society contestations, focusing on how the meanings of nature
have expanded in recent years to include animal rights in the light of growing
civic consciousness and political awareness amongst the Singaporean population.
The chapter concludes by speculating on the likely engagement between the
state and society in nature and environmental issues in the future.

Values of Nature and the Nature of Values

Nature is given different degrees of importance by different people. Indeed, in
the first place, how nature can and should be evaluated and “priced” is highly
contested too. For example, there are many environmentalists who believe
that nature cannot be priced satisfactorily in monetary terms. Our perception
and understanding of nature is a good example of “social construction” at
work. According to geographer Sarah Whatmore (2005: 10),

Social construction is a set of specific meanings that become attributed to

the characteristics and identities of people and places by common social
or cultural usage. Social constructs will often represent a “loaded” view of
the subject, according to the sources from which, and the channels through
which, ideas are circulated in society.

In our context, her views suggest that a person’s understanding of nature

cannot be divorced from broader social realities, as well as his or her
experiences. Beyond the individual level, one can also see how society, as a
collective, constructs meanings of nature that become dominant, for various
reasons. Clearly, such a broad understanding of nature is not absolute, and
has been challenged constantly by other groups or individuals. Whichever
the meanings of nature that are socially constructed, the process of making
sense of nature is dependent on how nature is “valued”.
One can distinguish between two broad types of values that can be applied
to nature and the environment. The first is utilitarian value (also known as
instrumental value). A person who believes in utilitarianism will consider a
course of action morally permissible if the outcome of the action results in
overall goodness or positive value (often taking into account the opportunity

04 C-Landscapes.indd 62 7/30/13 10:24:17 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 63

costs of one course of action over another). Such an ethical perspective is

hence also known as consequentialism because it is most concerned about
the final net cost/benefit, usually measured by monetary value, of any action.
This can be contrasted to the intrinsic-ethical perspective suggesting that
objects can be considered of value, in and of themselves, without the need
to consider the consequent cost/benefit. Such intrinsic values often challenge
pure economic rationale and are concerned with principles such as heritage,
aesthetics and culture (Neo 2009).
Hence, the changing perspectives of nature and society in Singapore have
much to do with the different ways of valuing nature and the environment
in accordance to the aforementioned principles as well as, concomitantly,
how their functions are understood differently. Understanding the functions
of nature and environment is especially pertinent. For example, is nature’s
purpose solely to benefit humans in direct, material ways? Put in another
way, is nature only valuable if it serves the desires of humans? Underlying the
rationalisation of the environment is the belief that the natural environment
exists for humans. As Raymond Murphy (1994: 4), in his influential book,
Rationality and Nature, notes, “humans can mold and reconstruct the
environment”. This view is aligned with what Sprout and Sprout (1965: 83)
called “environmental possibilism”, where the environment is thought of as
“clay, sometimes malleable, sometimes refractory, but clay nonetheless at the
disposal of man [sic] the builder”. The imagery evoked by these scholars
point to the superiority of human society in shaping nature and environment.
Nonetheless, the argument that nature has no value outside of human society
is predicated upon the assumption that value can only be represented in
monetary terms.
As opposed to pragmatic and materialist understandings of the function
of nature, and in recognition of the intrinsic value of nature, others have
argued that nature has extra-economic values that are equally important, if
not more so, to the well-being of humans. For example, in his classic text,
Traces on the Rhodian Shore, Clarence Glacken (1976) argued that nature has
always been an irreplaceable and irreducible source of wonder, aesthetic and
awe for humans. Glacken’s work is significant in arguing subtly against the
conceptual separation of nature and culture where the two are thought to
be largely separate concepts. As this chapter will show, nature cannot exist
apart from culture. The next section will explicate the theory of ecological
modernisation and argue that it is a theoretical position that is favoured by
the Singaporean state.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 63 7/30/13 10:24:17 AM

 64 Harvey Neo

Ecological Modernisation, Nature and the State

As a city-state, Singapore shares affinity with most major cities in the
world that have experienced an increasingly rationalised human-environment
relationship. Such a rationalised relationship holds that science, technology
and capitalist development, inter alia, can alleviate problematic environmental
issues. Such rationalised relationships also value nature and environment in
a highly utilitarian manner grounded in monetary terms, as opposed to a
more aesthetic and even spiritual valuation of nature suggested by Glacken
(1976). Drawing heavily from ideas of the rationalisation of environment,
ecological modernisation theory was conceptualised in the 1980s as a way
to understand “how contemporary industrialised countries (try to) deal with
the environmental crisis” (Mol 2000: 46). Although marked by a diverse
interpretation of the concept, four main ideas can be discerned. First, ecological
modernisation believes that market capitalism can alleviate environmental
problems. Second, the theory argues for a “scientific” posture in looking
at environmental issues and problems (see Yearley 1992). Amongst other
things, such a “scientific” stance believes that the ideal way to resolve social-
developmental and environmental problems is through (the restructuring of )
formal hierarchical organisations and legalistic systems. Finally, due largely to
its rationalist roots, ecological modernisation offers a “critical response” (Buttel
2000: 61) to radical environmentalism by eschewing radical and anarchistic
solutions to environmental problems. The latter could mean, for example,
a major policy shift to decentralise urban centres instead of growing them
continuously.
In short, a society-nature relationship that is grounded in ecological
modernisation constructs nature as a product that is implicitly utilitarian,
explicitly anthropocentric and one that can be studied largely in isolation
from culture. More importantly, ecological modernisation assumes rather
uncritical notions of “environmental issues” frequently concentrating on
particular “types” of environmental problems (for example, industrial pollution)
that can be resolved through technology. Coupled with a depoliticised society
that sees a limited role in civil society and activist groups, a reliance on
ecological modernisation can result in an understanding of nature-society
relationship that overlooks other “green” issues like nature conservation and
animal rights. The latter set of issues, more often than not, acknowledges
that the intrinsic value of nature cannot be reduced to economic objects.
Historically, major state-led social-environmental initiatives in Singapore

04 C-Landscapes.indd 64 7/30/13 10:24:17 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 65

have always focused on the pragmatic, undergirded by a faith in ecological

modernisation. One of the earliest green initiatives was the “Tree Planting
Day” which started in 1971 (but superseded by the “Clean and Green
Week” in 1990). Mooted by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the main aim
of the campaign was to transform Singapore into a tropical garden city that
will propel the country into a first world nation and make it a place that
is attractive for foreign investors (Lee 2000: 201). Planting the greenery
and trees so extensively, though in essence contrived, served the purpose of
raising “the morale of people and gave them pride in their surroundings”
(Lee 2000: 202).
Indeed, from the early days of independence, the concern of the state
when it comes to nature and environment is often geared towards managing
and extracting pragmatic value out of the former. Such management is often
planned meticulously and implemented resolutely. Savage (1991: 191) writes
that, for Singapore, “concern with the environment has been defined over the
years in many ways, and in terms of space, land, location, natural and energy
resources, water and food needs, strategic location, urban environment and
ecological problems”. Of these concerns, the Singaporean state’s environmental
efforts have particularly focused on environmental resource management and
pollution control.
This focus is evident in the public (educational) campaigns organised by
the then Ministry of the Environment in the past two decades. Six areas
consistently figured in the ministry’s public education efforts: anti-littering,
clean public toilets, dengue fever prevention, waste minimisation and recycling,
clean river, and food hygiene. These environmental issues encompass what has
come to be known as the “Brown Agenda” (Leitmann, Bartone, and Bernstein
1992: 132). Following Bartone et al. (1994), this “Brown Agenda” can be
broadly divided into four related components. The first concerns access to basic
environmental services and amenities. The second facet concerns pollution and
disposal problems originating from urban solid wastes, effluents, or emissions.
The third concern is the problem of resource loss (for example, depleting
fresh water supply), while urban environmental hazards represents the fourth
facet. These are critical issues and as Savage (1998: 226) elaborates, for the
Singaporean state, “a clean, green and healthy environment will produce
citizens who are healthy and economically productive”. For Hardroy et al.
(1995), the failure of many underdeveloped Third-World cities to address
the challenges posed by the “Brown Agenda” is a major contributing factor
for their stagnating economies.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 65 7/30/13 10:24:18 AM

 66 Harvey Neo

Thus, it is to its credit that Singapore has done extremely well in this
area. For example, Foo (1996: 5) notes that Singapore has achieved and
sustained a “high quality urban environment” as far as the control of pollution
is concerned. Similarly, Soh Suat Hoon, then director of the Environment
Ministry’s Strategic Planning and Research Department, states categorically that
as early as “the 1980s, basic infrastructure to meet Singapore’s environmental
needs, such as removal of solid waste, waste water and storm water, were
in place” (Soh 2000: 235). Perry et al. (1997) note that addressing “brown”
environmental issues and economic development is directly related. They
argue that the state is concerned that Singapore’s reputation as a global city
will be compromised if it fails to conform to international environmental
standards. They explain that for Singapore, “environmental improvement is
part of the increasingly strong economic imperative to meet the environmental
aspirations and recreational demands of skilled and mobile professionals in
order to stem the … emigration of these key participants in the island’s
economic success” (Perry et al. 1997: 207–8). Such views have culminated
in the establishment of an ambitious Centre for Liveable Cities in Singapore
that seeks to “distil, create and share knowledge on liveable and sustainable
cities, drawing from ‘Singapore’s experiences over the last half-century, while
creating knowledge to address emerging challenges’” (Centre for Liveable
Cities 2012). Hence, it can be seen from all these initiatives that, a pragmatic
developmental ethos couched in discourses of continuous growth drives
Singapore’s determination in solving these “brown” issues.
Overall, the focus on the beautification and greening of Singapore has
seen a proliferation of parks and gardens in Singapore. In the most recent
urban planning blueprint, released in tandem with the 2013 Population White
Paper, it is stated that there will be more greenery in Singapore, with, for
example, park connectors increasing from 200 km at present to 360 km
in the year 2030 (see Figure 1). Yet, as the next sections will show, the
meaning of nature is not an uncontested one. Many environmentalists, while
acknowledging the utility of parks, park connectors and gardens, still call
for the conservation of other forms of nature. In this regard, the amount
of natural forests in Singapore has decreased to 22.64 square kilometres in
2006 from 37.8 square kilometres in 1960 (De Koninck 2008: 20), with
the bulk of the remaining natural forests situated in the Central Catchment
area and the western restricted area. It is argued that these alternative
meanings of environment (as, for example, parks or forests) generally serve
different purposes.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 66 7/30/13 10:24:18 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 67

Figure 1  “2030: More land, more homes, more greenery”

Source: The Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Reproduced with
permission).

Contested “Natures” in Singapore

In recent years, however, in part due to the rising civic and political awareness
of the citizenry, greater attention has been focused on a comparatively less
utilitarian perspective with regards to nature and environment. Such a focus has

04 C-Landscapes.indd 67 7/30/13 10:24:35 AM

 68 Harvey Neo

often been led by non-governmental organisations (NGO) since, as elaborated

above, the state’s perspective is often driven by pragmatic, instrumental
concerns. While such NGOs recognise the importance of the “economic”,
they nonetheless attempt to highlight ethical and ideal relationships of nature-
society that are not predominantly or solely predicated by the economic.
Hence, they essentially wish to construct extra-economic relationships (i.e.
beyond mere economics) of nature and society. In what follows, a series of
case studies will be introduced to illustrate such extra-economic relationships
of nature and society heralded by non-state actors, in the face of changing
physical and social developments in Singapore. The main objective of this
discussion is to highlight the socio-political complexities of nature-society
relationships in a fast changing Singapore that is driven by the imperative
of economic development.

Senoko: Development amidst Rising Civic Consciousness

A 120-hectares nesting ground for close to 200 hundred species of birds
used to sit where present-day Admiralty housing estate is. Referring to it
as the Senoko Bird Sanctuary, the Nature Society of Singapore (NSS) gave
it a highest rating of 5-stars in its 1990 Master Plan. Although the Urban
Redevelopment Authority had given assurance that Senoko will be integrated
with any proposed urban development as a nature park (URA 1991: 31),
the site was eventually cleared to build flats, following an announcement in
September 1993. This was despite the fact that the Ministry of National
Development had indicated that the site would be conserved, as late as
October 1992 (Nature News 1993: 9). The ensuing discussion is drawn in
parts from Neo (2007).
Although the state was aware of the ecological merits of the site to some
extent, it believed that the need for development greatly outweighs the more
intrinsic value of the site held by environmentalists. Pitting the pragmatic
demand for public housing against that of the environmentalists, then Acting
National Development Minister, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, threw a challenge to
the NSS: “if the NSS can give me a petition to take 17,000 applications
of upgraders from my waiting list, then we will keep the Senoko land and
keep it for the birds” (The Straits Times 19 March 1994). Implicit in this
challenge is that most Singaporeans would value pragmatism over something
more intangible as nature.
However, the NSS was galvanised into action and began a then
unprecedented civil activism effort in order to save Senoko. The society

04 C-Landscapes.indd 68 7/30/13 10:24:36 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 69

drafted an appeal and circulated it amongst the general public. More than
25,000 people, claiming themselves to be “Friends of Senoko”, signed on the
letter. Amongst these people were prominent civil society and political elites
like Professor Tommy Koh (Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large), the late Kuo
Pao Kun (a renowned playright), Tay Kheng Soon (a renowned architect),
Kawaljit Soin and Hedwig Anuar (both past presidents of the Association of
Women’s Action and Research). While the NSS highlighted the natural merits
of Senoko, grounded in the intrinsic values of nature, it was countered by the
state’s discourse of development with Mr Lim pointing out categorically that
“with the pressing needs of Singaporeans, Singaporeans’ needs come before
birds” (The Straits Times 19 March 1994). This case study shows that the
legitimacy of the Singaporean state is derived largely from continued economic
progress and development. Hence, nature has to be aligned to the goals of
economic progress and development (for example, the “Garden City” and
“Clean and Green” initiatives). Suffice to say, to conserve a piece of land
for intrinsic values as opposed to developing it runs counter to this mode
of legitimacy and governance. Moreover, public housing remains one of the
most visible landscapes of Singapore’s success story. To put it another way,
pitting the intrinsic value of Senoko as a bird sanctuary and the instrumental
value of developing it into a new town, the latter perspective clearly held
sway even as one wonders why a compromise solution (of saving part of
the sanctuary) was not possible.

Chek Jawa, Pulau Ubin: A More Enlightened “Development”?

Less than ten years after the loss of Senoko to housing development, another
natural site became a point of contention. The following discussion on the
case study of Chek Jawa in Pulau Ubin is drawn from an earlier published
work by Neo and Pow (2005). Chek Jawa, a natural sandy beach, lies at
the eastern tip of Pulau Ubin—Singapore’s second largest off-shore island.
Different from Senoko, Chek Jawa was still an undiscovered gem in the
early 2000s. Very few people knew of its rich marine biodiversity which is
only fully visible during low tides. In early 2001, the state announced that
the eastern tip of Pulau Ubin would be used for military purposes which
would effectively destroy or at least significantly degrade the biodiversity of
Chek Jawa. One of the first persons who lobbied against this development,
whom the author later interviewed, was a nature buff and a regular visitor
to Pulau Ubin. While exploring the coastal forest on a cliff (to which Chek
Jawa actually refers to) overlooking the beach in January 2001, he realised

04 C-Landscapes.indd 69 7/30/13 10:24:36 AM

 70 Harvey Neo

for the first time that when the tide goes out the beach is exposed more
than one kilometre from the coastline. At low tide, Chek Jawa teems with
marine flora and fauna.
His first attempt and opportunity to plead for Chek Jawa’s case was on
11 May 2001 at the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Public Forum
on the Singapore Concept Plan. There, he pointed out that under the draft
Concept Plan 2001 drafted by URA, it was stated that Pulau Ubin would
stay undeveloped for as long as possible. As word got out, more people
joined in the lobbying effort. For example, Dr Geh Min, then President
of the Nature Society of Singapore (NSS), wrote a letter to the Forum
Page to argue for the preservation of Chek Jawa (The Straits Times 16 July
2001). In rejecting the request, URA argues that “as a city-state, we have
to provide for other critical land-use needs, like water-catchment areas and
military training grounds” (The Straits Times 27 July 2001), with little priority
bequeathed to the place of nature in Singapore. In an attempt to diminish
the ecological significance of Chek Jawa, URA replied that a commissioned
study concluded that “the sea grass in the area is patchy and not abundant,
and the area does not appear to have a resident population of dugongs [a
marine mammal indigenous to the region]” (The Straits Times 27 July 2001).
The commissioned study—the source of which was never revealed—did not
make any references to the diverse marine flora and fauna in the area.
URA’s reply was clearly unacceptable to the conservationists, one of whose
response was published in the Forum Page the very next day. Mr Chua Ee
Kiam speaks of the numerous “large carpet anemones, peacock anemones,
huge horned sea stars, sand stars, brittle stars, sponges, sea cucumbers, coral
fishes, an assortment of crabs, sand dollars and much more” found in Chek
Jawa (The Straits Times 28 July 2001). In this way, Mr Chua presents a
geographical area rich in marine life in stark contrast to URA’s sketch of
an almost bare Chek Jawa. Moreover, in direct contradiction to URA’s study
that cited the limited amount of sea grass, Dr Tan Koh Siang, a marine
biologist from the National University of Singapore’s Tropical Marine Science
Institute (TMSI), said later that “the main attraction of Chek Jawa was the
sea grass … I have not seen such abundance anywhere else in Singapore”
(The Straits Times 29 December 2001).
On 22 August 2001, members from the NSS, TMSI, Raffles Museum
of Biodiversity Research and members of the public initiated a detailed flora
and fauna survey of Chek Jawa. It took 45 people ten hours to complete the
survey of an area measuring about one square kilometre only. The completed
survey was collated into a “Proposal for the Conservation of Chek Jawa”

04 C-Landscapes.indd 70 7/30/13 10:24:36 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 71

(Teh and Raju 2010) and sent to four state agencies: HDB, URA, National
Parks Board (NParks) and Ministry of National Development (MND) on
29 October 2001. On 20 December 2001, barely a week before scheduled
reclamation works, MND issued a press statement stating that reclamation
works at Chek Jawa would be deferred to allow “MND to discuss with
relevant experts on how best the marine life there can be protected” (The
Straits Times 21 December 2001). Three weeks later, MND announced that
it will “put off the land reclamation works at Pulau Ubin for as long as
the island is not required for development” (The Straits Times 15 January
2002). The effort to save Chek Jawa was a success, in contrast to Senoko a
few years earlier, and the site has since been lightly developed into a nature
park called Chek Jawa Wetlands (see Figure 2).

Figure 2  Picture of Chek Jawa Wetlands showing a couple in the background

taking their wedding photograph

Source: Author’s personal collection.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 71 7/30/13 10:24:41 AM

 72 Harvey Neo

Comparing Chek Jawa and Senoko

However, did this mark a change in the state’s attitude towards nature
(conservation)? Was the state swayed by the conservationists’ continual
emphasis and publicising of Chek Jawa’s ecological merits? Chek Jawa had
a reprieve arguably because the developmental imperative in this case was
much weaker (compared to Senoko’s), and has less to do with the actual
ecological merits of the beach. In other words, in Senoko’s case, public
housing was to be built whereas in the case of Chek Jawa the reason for
development was vaguely phrased as “for military purposes”. Moreover, the
popular geographical imagination of Pulau Ubin as an idyllic getaway did not
square well with using parts of it for military purposes. In relation to this,
the environmentalists advocating for Chek Jawa had also managed to construct
alternative narratives of development to contest the state’s economically and
pragmatically driven one. Specifically, the supporters of Chek Jawa were able
to hinge on a persistent and persuasive discourse by making links between
Chek Jawa, sense of place and the natural heritage of future generations of
Singaporeans. In other words, the entire community will benefit if Chek Jawa
is conserved. For example, in arguing for the beach’s preservation, a nature
lover writes in the hope that “when all of our technical and other spectacular
achievements become footnotes in history books, long after we are forgotten,
children might still be able to feel the sand beneath their toes at Tanjung
Chek Jawa” (Chek Jawa NUS Website, n.d.). In juxtaposing the state’s focus
on economic development with the non-tangible aspects of development, the
unquestioned wisdom of the former is problematised subtly and destabilised.
In this sense, what the conservationists did was to essentially link nature with
the development of a non-quantifiable sense of place. The latter is clearly an
example of “development” which has been often sidelined by state planners.
Such a “social” form of development has been voiced before as early as
1996 when the then chairperson of NSS’s Conservation Committee wrote
to the press arguing that “a pleasant and abiding relationship with nature
helps to deepen our sense of being at home in this country through an
emotional bonding with the land … [Nature] has to be an integral part of
our homeland” (The Straits Times 29 April 1996).
Interestingly, for Senoko, due to its rich ecological merits, the NSS’s
strategy was to focus almost exclusively on the intrinsic natural value of the
site. It ended up not explicitly linking and expanding the value of Senoko
beyond the “natural”, to include the cultural heritage. Ultimately, it is hard
to conclude if Chek Jawa was saved because of the successful construction

04 C-Landscapes.indd 72 7/30/13 10:24:41 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 73

of nature as heritage by the activists or the fact that the developmental

justification was weaker compared to the Senoko example. What is clear is that
Chek Jawa represents an engagement between civil society and the state that
is based on mutual trust and sincere communication. It is also the case that
for both sites what is at stake is not the “conservation” or building of parks
or gardens, even if Chek Jawa eventually is made into a nature park.

Beyond the Purely Green: Animals, Nature and Society

From the mid-2000s onwards, the value and place of animals in society has
gained increasing public attention. The interest in animals is a departure from
earlier episodes of nature-society for two main reasons. First, in both policy
and public spheres, animals have been very much neglected in deference to
the “purely green” (for example, trees, parks, forests, green spaces) agenda.
Hence, there has been a slow but sure inclusion of animals into the popular
imagination of what counts as the natural environment. Such inclusion, if
nothing, suggests that Singapore will see nature-society issues being debated
more frequently. Second, while some contentious issues like the feeding
of stray cats in housing estates and the encroachment of macaques into
residential areas are local in nature, other issues are simultaneously tied to
global ethical-political concerns. Such global concerns are significant insofar
as they are often not directly related to the immediate benefit of citizens
but they are examples of the kinds of intrinsic-ethical values of nature
mentioned earlier. These concerns include captive dolphins in marine parks
and the anti-sharks’ fin campaign. Concomitant to the proliferation of such
varied animals-society contestations is the increase in the number of non-
governmental organisations (both formal and informal) that are dedicated to
animal welfare, such as ACRES (Animal Concerns Research and Education
Society) and the Cat Welfare Society.
One reason for the growing attention to animal-society issues is the
changing physical landscape of Singapore that has become increasingly built-up.
This has given rise to particular human-animal conflicts that are difficult to
resolve. Yeo and Neo (2010) argue that the encroachment of condominiums
and landed housing into the fringes of the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve
has resulted in macaques’ heightened presence in home spaces. However,
the behavioural change of the macaques is not solely due to the shrinking
space of the living environments. Ironically, the increased number of visitors
to the Nature Reserve to “enjoy nature” has also seen more people feeding
the macaques. Indiscriminate feeding emboldened the macaques, making

04 C-Landscapes.indd 73 7/30/13 10:24:41 AM

 74 Harvey Neo

them more aggressive. In that sense, animal lovers have insisted that it is
human actions that altered the natural behaviour of the macaques.
Teo (2011), in her study of community/stray cats roaming in housing
estates, details the tensions between cat lovers and residents who see the
cats as a nuisance. The latter are wont to construct urban spaces as spaces
of exclusion for such animals. Teo argues against such a stance and calls for
a (re)integration of animals into our urban landscapes. The ultimate goal
then is geared towards “ameliorating the anthropocentric city and moving
towards a place where humans can live morally in concert with a diversity
of non-human animals—a “zoopolis” (Teo 2011: 71). Put another way, it
is to assert the fundamental right of stray cats to share our urban space
and to recognise the intrinsic value of their very presence.
While the case studies of the macaques and the cats portray both
types of animals as invading into human spaces and inconveniencing urban
lives, other animal-society contestations are decidedly more ethical and
aimed at improving the welfare of the animal in question. Ethical in this
sense refers to the compulsion of humans to act in ways which value
these animals in a more intrinsic manner. In this regard, ACRES launched
a sustained campaign recently to persuade Resorts World Sentosa to
drop its plans to have captive dolphins perform in their marine park
(slated to open in 2013). The photograph and discussion below indicate
the complex moral terrains implicated in the advancement of animal rights
(see Figure 3).
On the one hand, the use of captive dolphins by Resorts World Sentosa
is aligned with an instrumental understanding of nature where dolphin
performances are done for the genuine enjoyment of people. The argument
for the release of the captive dolphins, on the other hand, stresses the cruelty
of placing such sentient and intelligent beings in captivity and how such
animals have intrinsic value and fundamental rights to roam free in the
oceans. As Ngiam reflects (2012: 58), “thinking through this debate might
be a conceptual, ethical, and practical struggle but if we do not take up
such a task, we abandon them to those who use Nature to justify … the
domination of nature by humans”. The controversy over the captive dolphins
is in essence an ideological struggle over the intrinsic value of animals. Put
another way, it is a debate over the place of animals (captive or otherwise)
in our natural or manmade landscapes. It is furthermore an illustration of
how broader, global discourses of animal rights can impact the landscapes
of Singapore.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 74 7/30/13 10:24:42 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 75

Figure 3  Campaign badges used by non-governmental groups to

educate the public about animal welfare

Source: Author’s personal collection.

Conclusion: Nature-culture in Singapore

As the preceding discussion has shown, the modernisation of Singapore has
seen a perennial concern in anthropocentric green concerns (collectively
known as the “Brown Agenda”). Pressing urban-environmental issues like
sanitation, fresh water provision and waste disposal have long figured in the
national environmental agenda. Having resolved them, other environmental
issues come to fore, particularly in the wake of the increasing urbanisation
and physical development of Singapore. These include the provision of
green spaces. However, as indicated, the meaning of green spaces is not
homogenous. Environmentalists often make a distinction between parks/
gardens and other largely non-human made green spaces. Hence, the need
for nature conservation and the value of keeping nature “as it is” have been
the consistent message promulgated by environmentalists. In recent years, such
concerns have broadened to include animals living in our midst. Indeed, while
prestigious “nature” projects like the Gardens by the Bay in Marina South
that was opened in 2012 have hogged the media limelight, an increasing

04 C-Landscapes.indd 75 7/30/13 10:24:51 AM

 76 Harvey Neo

number of people have become more interested in the intersections between

nature, a localised sense of place and cultural heritage (as seen from the
Chek Jawa example detailed earlier).
Exploring such intersections can also result in new forms of state-
society relations. Seah (2012) documents how the future development
of the old Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) railway land engenders new
forms of urban-environmental governance. After decades of negotiations,
the Malaysian-owned land on which the KTM runs through was finally
returned to the Singaporean state in a land swopping deal. The redevel­
opment of the 26 kilometres stretch of “rail corridor” received considerable
interest from the civil society and the public as it encompasses spaces
that are deemed to have significant ecological and historical merit. As
Seah (2012: 56) observes, “nature conservation and culture preservation
practices encourage human interaction and engagement with the natural-
cultural environment of the rail corridor”. Hence, framing their concerns
strategically in this broad discourse has seen the planning authorities work­
ing unprecedentedly with the public and civil society groups to consider
novel ways to develop the land so that it will benefit nature, strengthen
citizens’ sense of place and preserve cultural heritage (see Figure 4). As
with the Chek Jawa example, the case study of the KTM railway land
points to the future place of nature and environment in Singaporean
landscapes that is marked by a consideration of not just the “natural”
value of the environment, but also its cultural, historical and aesthetical
importance.
In this chapter, we have seen how the changing physical development
and socio-political maturity of the society have resulted in new ways of
understanding nature in urban Singapore. These include a willingness to
consider and lobby for hitherto neglected aspects of nature (for example,
animal rights) as well as drawing other ideological tropes like heritage,
nationalism and ethical justice more sophisticatedly into the broad discourse
of nature. To that end, the value and place of nature in Singapore will
consider the intrinsic notions of nature increasingly and not predicate
nature solely upon monetary, instrumental rationale. Such a consideration
has arguably less to do with any fundamental shift in the Singaporean state’s
perception of nature (which remains largely utilitarian and anthropocentric),
than to do with the ever-rising civic consciousness of the citizenry as
well as their increasing desire to have a say in the future development of
Singapore.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 76 7/30/13 10:24:51 AM

 Figure 4  A “Forget-Me-Not” booth set up by a few youths to allow the general public to share their memories and wishes
for the future development of the railway corridor

04 C-Landscapes.indd 77
Source: Courtesy of Paul Seah.

7/30/13 10:24:58 AM
 78 Harvey Neo

Discussion Questions
1. Compare two examples of “green” landscapes in Singapore (e.g. Gardens
by the Bay and Bukit Timah Nature Reserve). How different or similar
are the values represented by nature and the way nature is used in these
two landscapes?
2. To what extent will residents become less interested in issues concerning
the protection or conservation of nature as Singapore becomes more
urbanised?
3. Why do you think animal-related issues have become more prominent
in Singapore? Besides the ones mentioned in this chapter, what other
animal-society issues come to mind?

Further Readings
1. On nature conservation in Singapore: see Neo, H. (2007). “Challenging
the developmental state: Nature conservation in Singapore”. Asia Pacific
Viewpoint 48 (2): 186‒99.
2. On the social constructions of nature and its ideological roots in Singapore:
see Kong, L. and B.S.A. Yeoh (1996). “Social constructions of nature in
urban Singapore”. Southeast Asian Studies 34: 402‒23.
3. On the geographies of nature: see Hinchliffe, S. (2007). Geographies of
nature: Societies, environments and ecologies, Chapter 1. London: Sage.

References
Bartone, C., Berstein, J., Leitmann, J., and Eigen, J. (1994). Toward environmental
strategies for cities: Policy considerations for urban environmental management in
developing countries. The World Bank for the Urban Management Programme.
Buttel, F.H. (2000). “Ecological modernization as social theory”. Geoforum 31:
57‒65.
Centre for Liveable Cities (2009). http://www.clc.org.sg/ [accessed 10 October 2009].
Chek Jawa NUS Website. http://chekjawa.nus.edu.sg/postcards/index.html [accessed 27
December 2012].
Cosgrove, D. (1984). Social formation and symbolic landscape. London: Croom
Helm.
Foo, T.S. (1996). “Urban environmental policy—the use of regulatory and economic
instruments in Singapore”. Habitat International 20 (1): 5‒22.
Glacken, C.J. (1976). Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western
Thought from Ancient Times to the end of the Eighteenth Century. USA: University
of California Press.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 78 7/30/13 10:24:58 AM

 Nature and the Environment as an Evolving Concern 79

Hardroy, J.E., Mitlin, D., and Satterthwaite, D. (1995). Environmental problems in

third world cities. London: Earthscan Publications.
Hinchliffe, S. (2007). Geographies of nature: Societies, environments and ecologies.
London: Sage.
Kong, L. and B.S.A. Yeoh (1996). “Social constructions of nature in urban Singapore”.
Southeast Asian Studies 34: 402‒23.
Koninck, R.D. (2008). Singapore: an atlas of perpetual territorial transformation.
Singapore: NUS Press.
Lee, K.Y. (2000). From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965‒2000.
Singapore: Straits Times Press.
Leitmann, J., Bartone, C., and Bernstein, J. (1992). “Environmental management
and urban development: Issues and options for third world cities”. Environment
and Urbanization 2: 131‒40.
Mitchell, D. (2000). Cultural geography: A critical introduction. Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishers.
Mol, A.P.J. (2000). “The environmental movement in an era of ecological
modernisation”. Geoforum 31: 45‒56.
Murphy, R. (1994). Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing
Relationship. USA: Westview Press.
Nature News (1993). Nature Society Singapore Newsletter. Singapore: NSS.
Neo, H. (2007). “Challenging the developmental state: Nature conservation in
Singapore”. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 48 (2): 186‒99.
——— (2009). “Resource and Environmental Economics”, in International
Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Volume 1, ed. R. Kitchin and N. Thrift.
Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 376‒80.
Neo, H. and Pow, C.P. (2005). “Whither development? Questioning post-crisis
Southeast Asia”, in The Naga Challenged: Southeast Asia in the winds of change,
ed. V.R. Savage and M. Tan-Mullins. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
Ngiam, J.Z. (2012). The World’s Saddest Dolphins and the Public Debate on Dolphin
Captivity in Singapore. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Department of Geography,
National University of Singapore.
Perry, M., Yeoh, B.S.A., and Kong, L. (1997). Singapore: A developmental state.
England: John Wiley and Sons.
Savage, V.R. (1991). “Human-Environment Relations: Singapore’s environmental
ideology”, in Imagining Singapore, ed. K.C. Ban, A. Pakir, and C.K. Tong.
Singapore: Times Academic Press.
——— (1998). “Singapore, the planned city state: Government intervention in
nation building”, in Regional development and planning for the 21st century: New
priorities, new philosophies, ed. A.G. Noble et al. USA: Ashgate, pp. 307‒31.
Seah, P.C.S. (2012). The Rail Corridor: Critical Urban Governance and Managing
New Urban Imaginaries. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Department of Geography,
National University of Singapore.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 79 7/30/13 10:24:58 AM

 80 Harvey Neo

Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. (1965). The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Soh, S.H. (2000). “Singapore” in Asian Approach to Resource Conservation and
Environment Protection. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.
Teh, T.S. and Raju, K. (2010). Conserving marine biodiversity and the role of
individuals: A case study of Chek Jawa, Pulau Ubin, Singapore. Paper presented
at Seminar on “Growth, equity and environment: missing link between academic
research and policy matters in marine park areas”, 15 April 2010, University
of Malaya, Malaysia.
Teo, P.L.G. (2011). Pet-rifying spaces: Advo(cat)ing a place for pets in urban
Singapore. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Department of Geography, National
University of Singapore.
The Straits Times (1994). “No to Senoko as bird sanctuary — peoples’ needs more
pressing”. 19 March, p. 28.
——— (1996). “Nature areas are vital for well being of all creatures”. 29 April,
p. 25.
——— (2001). “Chek Jawa’s natural beach should be preserved”. 16 July, p.14.
——— (2001). “Chek Jawa reclamation decided after careful study”. 27 July,
p. 25.
——— (2001). “Destruction of Chek Jawa will be a loss for all”. 28 July, p. 25.
——— (2001). “Ubin’s nature beach gets a reprieve”. 21 December, p. 5.
——— (2001). “Loving Chek Jawa to death”. 29 December, p. 1.
——— (2002). “Reprieve for rustic Ubin”. 15 January, p. 1.
Urban Redevelopment Authority (1991). Living the Next Lap. Singapore: URA.
Whatmore, S. (2005). “Culture-Nature”, in Introducing Human Geographies, ed.
P. Cloke, P. Crang, and M. Goodwin. London: Hodder Arnold, pp. 8‒17.
Yearley, S. (1992). “Green Ambivalence about Science: Legal-Rational Authority and
the Scientific Legitimation of a Social Movement”. British Journal of Sociology
43 (4): 511‒32.
Yeo, J.H. and Neo, H. (2010). “Monkey business: Human-animal conflicts in urban
Singapore”. Social and Cultural Geography 11 (7): 681‒700.

04 C-Landscapes.indd 80 7/30/13 10:24:58 AM