Here’s some of the survey results and our thoughts:

Gap Between Awareness and Action

These survey results show that most Singaporeans are concerned about climate change and its effect on Singapore, and feel that they play a part in taking action. The results are not surprising, as it is similar to responses from previous NEA and Gallup surveys, which show similar positive responses from Singaporeans on environmental and climate change issues.

We think that Singaporeans know about climate change as we are being exposed to local and international environmental news through the printed and online media, but we tend to stop at awareness and not translate that into action. The survey results show a concern about climate change and a desire to take action, but does not describe actual actions. We feel that there is still a big gap to be bridged between awareness and action in Singapore.

Although survey participants indicated their current practices to address climate change, we feel that the numbers are too positive and higher than the real situation. For example:

• 90.3% of survey participants indicated that they turn off electrical appliances at the main. In a 2010 LOHAS Study of the Singapore market, only 71% out of 1,000 participants say they unplug or tun off electronics.
• 80.3% of participants said they practise the 3Rs. In 2010, Singapore’s recycling rate is only 58% and the household participation rate in the National Recycling Programme is 63% in 2008.
• 76.8% say they use public transport when possible. A transport survey of 10,500 households in Singapore show that 59% of respondents used public transport.
• 72.3% choose appliances which carry an Energy Label. Since 2008, it is mandatory for all air-conditioners, refrigerators and clothes dryers to have the Energy Label, so Singaporeans are already choosing Energy Label appliances by default.

Like all our New Year resolutions and plans to lose weight and exercise more, we are always concerned, feel we need to take action, and feel we will be affected if we don’t take action. But in reality, we are swept by the waves of our busy daily lives and go on business-as-usual. We know and we care, but we don’t act, until it hurts.

The government has to find ways of helping Singaporeans translate their awareness, knowledge, concerns and desires into real actions.

Both Individual and Systemic Actions

The survey results show that 56.3% of Singaporeans think that individuals are mainly responsible for taking action on climate change, followed by government (26.3%) and businesses (10.6%). While it is important for the individual to take action on climate change, it is even more important to focus on systemic actions. We must understand that the main contributors of carbon dioxide emissions in Singapore are from the industry and building sectors – 70% in 2005.

We need systemic actions such as building sustainable urban infrastructure and green buildings; increasing the resilience of our energy, water and food security; redesigning and developing new ways of making and reusing products and materials; and conserving our biodiversity. These large systemic actions can only be achieved through the efforts of the government and businesses, but it can happen faster with individuals pushing for these actions to be discussed and implemented.

Everyone can play a part to tackle climate change in Singapore, through our own individual actions and through encouraging the government and businesses to take action in creating systemic changes.

Images: NCCS

The Green Corridor is a former railway while Bukit Brown is a cemetery, so different yet so similar. The Green Corridor and Bukit Brown both connects the past and future, and both involves heritage and the environment. I hope that all of you can support the preservation of Bukit Brown, just as you have actively supported The Green Corridor so far.

I supported The Green Corridor proposal by NSS because I feel that it would improve Singapore’s long-term resilience. The biggest threat to Singapore is apathy, and when Singaporeans do not feel a sense of belonging and are not bothered with what goes on here, then Singapore is in trouble.

For Singapore to survive and prosper in the long term, it is necessary to have more opportunities in preserving our shared memories and creating our shared vision. And keeping the railway lands as a Green Corridor is one opportunity not to be wasted.

Similarly, I feel that Bukit Brown is another excellent opportunity that enables Singaporeans to feel they belong here by remembering our past and creating our future.

Remembering Our Past

Bukit Brown tells the stories of our forefathers who built Singapore, and creates opportunities for history education and discovery. The cemetery connects Singapore’s past and present, and allows us to understand that Singapore’s success is built up by our forefathers’ sweat and tears, and should not be taken for granted.

We should preserve Bukit Brown because it helps us remember our past and keeps us rooted to Singapore.

Creating Our Future

Bukit Brown presents the opportunity for transforming the cemetery into a world-class living outdoor museum or heritage park. If this transformation adopts a bottom-up approach and with stakeholder engagement, it would allow us to come together, plan and work towards a future Singapore where heritage, nature and our economic needs can co-exist.

We should preserve Bukit Brown because it enables us to work together and build bonds and resilience, and to create a space where our children and their children can enjoy and be proud of.

Support Bukit Brown

Singapore is a young nation and needs more common spaces like The Green Corridor and Bukit Brown to remind us how we got here and why this is home, and to create opportunities for building our future social resilience. Support Bukit Brown, just as you have supported The Green Corridor.

Here’s what you can do:

1. Sign the petition to save Bukit Brown 100% at the SOS Bukit Brown – Save Our Singapore website.

2. Join the Heritage Singapore – Bukit Brown Cemetery Facebook Group to understand more about Bukit Brown and keep yourself updated.

3. Spread the message by sharing with your friends about Bukit Brown and urging them to sign the petition.

In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy. – John C. Sawhill

By Eugene Tay

The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) is currently preparing the National Climate Change Strategy 2012 (NCCS-2012) publication, and is seeking public feedback and ideas.

The NCCS-2012 will provide a framework and overall strategy for Singapore to tackle climate change, and will outline policies and measures to reduce emissions, cope with the impact of climate change and build our capabilities.

The public consultation by NCCS involves conducting an online consultation exercise, focus group sessions and community forums. You can give your feedback and ideas via the NCCS website from now till 14 Oct.

Here are 12 ideas for the National Climate Change Strategy 2012, which was submitted by Green Future Solutions to NCCS:

1. Support a National Campaign on Climate Change Involving Different Stakeholders
2. Explore Soft Approaches to Create Behavior Change
3. Expand the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme to Other Common Products
4. Encourage Carpooling, Carsharing and Bikesharing
5. Provide Incentives for Commercial Transport Fleet Operators to Reduce Fuel Consumption
6. Set Clear Direction to Promote Cleaner Vehicles
7. Provide Practical Advice for SMEs to Measure and Reduce Energy and Carbon Emissions
8. Mandate Building Owners to Reduce Lightings at Night
9. Include SCEM Training Curriculum into Relevant Tertiary School Courses
10. Set Mandatory Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard
11. Work Towards a Four National Switches Energy Strategy
12. Rethink the Use of Coal

If you wish to read more about the 12 ideas, you can download the report at the Green Future Solutions website.

Image: Screenshot of NCCS website

What are the political parties’ stand on having mandatory EIAs for public and private development projects, and how would it protect the environment and impact our competitiveness?

“An environmental impact assessment is an assessment of the possible positive or negative impact that a proposed project may have on the environment, together consisting of the natural, social and economic aspects”, according to Wikipedia. The purpose of an EIA is to ensure that decision makers consider the environmental impacts and engage stakeholders before proceeding with the project.

In Singapore, there is no legislation on mandatory EIA systems, although the government may require EIAs to be conducted for big construction and development projects, usually on a case-by-case basis. Recent EIAs include the study by PUB for the second desalination plant at Tuas, and the study by Resorts World on the reclamation project for the Sentosa IR.

A few opposition parties mentioned EIAs in their manifestos, including the Workers’ Party:

Plans for projects likely to adversely affect the natural environment should be accompanied by Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) and mitigation plans before they are approved.

and the SDP:

The SDP would administer thorough environmental impact assessment in the planning of new developments and major projects.

One good example of a country with mandatory implementation of EIA systems is Hong Kong, with their EIA Ordinance that makes EIAs statutory for designated projects in both the private and public sectors, and allows for public input.

Questions

1. What are the reasons for the government not legislating mandatory EIAs?

2. What are the pros and cons of having mandatory EIAs, in terms of the environment, social, culture and economy?

3. For EIA studies that have been conducted, do they meet international reporting guidelines?

4. Are the public and stakeholders engaged and consulted in the current EIA process?

What are the political parties’ stand on the use of coal in Singapore and the implications on our carbon emissions target and our clean and green image?

Tuas Power’s coal plant

Read the chronology of the clean coal and biomass cogeneration plant by Tuas Power.

Tuas Power’s new coal and biomass plant at Jurong Island would start operations mid next year, and the company has signed a contract with Indonesia’s PT Bayan Resources to supply 13.36 million tonnes of sub-bituminous coal over the next 15 years from Kalimantan, and has also struck a deal with South Korea’s Samtam Co Ltd to supply coal. Tuas Power is also concluding a deal for the palm kernel, which makes up the 20% biomass component of the plant feedstock (the other 80% is coal).

If a calculation is done only for the coal supplied by PT Bayan Resources, and excluding the coal from Samtam Co Ltd and the palm biomass, the combustion of 13.36 million tonnes of sub-bituminous coal would emit about 24 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s calculation tool).

Assuming the use of coal is spread out evenly over 15 years, the potential carbon emissions from the use of coal would be 1.6 million tonnes per year. In 2008, the total carbon emissions generated from Singapore is 36 million tonnes. Therefore, the use of coal by Tuas Power could contribute to 4.4% of Singapore’s total carbon emissions. For a comparison, the contribution by the consumers/households sector is about 9% in 2005.

When Tuas Power was asked: “When is the timeline, if any, to apply carbon capture technology, and where would the carbon be stored?”. Their reply was: “We have no plans to apply this technology in Singapore at this point in time. Carbon capture storage technology is still being developed, and we may explore the viability of its application in the future.”

16% below business as usual by 2020

In Dec 2009, the government has announced its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 16% below business as usual levels in 2020 (only when a global agreement is reached), which means the government would have to reduce about 12 million tonnes of carbon emissions by 2020.

If the coal plant by Tuas Power operates for 8 years from 2012 to 2020, the potential carbon emissions is 12.8 million tonnes (not including the coal from Samtam Co Ltd and the palm biomass). Therefore, whatever measures to reduce emissions by 12 million tonnes by 2020 could be negated by the increase in emissions from the coal plant.

Economic Strategies Committee’s recommendation

The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) submitted the report of its key recommendations to the Prime Minister in Feb 2010. In its report, the ESC highlighted several key strategies, one of which is for Singapore to become a Smart Energy Economy. One recommendation is that Singapore should explore coal and electricity imports to diversify both the fuel types and fuel source countries in our energy portfolio.

EDB study on coal gasification plant

EDB called for a tender on 8 Apr 2011 to conduct a feasibility study to provide recommendations for the Jurong Island version 2.0 Steering Committee. The study would evaluate the benefits and costs of a coal gasification plant to provide alternative feedstock for the supply of hydrogen and carbon monoxide for the energy and chemical industries on Jurong Island, including different scenarios for providing power and steam, and for having lower carbon footprint and being carbon-capture ready.

Questions

1. Has the government assessed the environmental impacts of using coal or conducted a life cycle assessment study of coal? How does it compare with natural gas?

2. Would the government require new power plants using coal to conduct an environmental impact assessment before construction?

3. Would approved coal plants be carbon-capture ready and where would the carbon dioxide be stored?

4. Would the use of coal lead to more carbon emissions as compared to using natural gas, and undermine the government’s own efforts to reduce emissions by 16% from 2020 business as usual levels?

5. Is the government funding research on carbon capture and storage or other technologies to reduce emissions from coal?

6. Would the use of coal tarnish Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green city, or contradict Singapore’s vision to be a clean energy hub?

7. Would the use of coal reduce the demand for LNG and challenge the viability of the government’s new LNG terminal?

The Singapore Green Landscape 2010 published last year by Green Future Solutions was well-received and was downloaded 970 times over the past year.

This year, the Singapore Green Landscape 2011 provides a review of 80 key environmental news in Singapore last year, and gives an overview of 160 non-governmental organisations (NGOs), green groups, business associations and groups, green websites, government agencies, and institutes and centres in Singapore, which are related to the environment (50 more than last year).

Green Future Solutions hopes that this publication is useful for everyone who wishes to know more about the state of the environment in Singapore, find and connect with the environmental organisations in Singapore, or explore personal and business opportunities.

This publication is free for download. Feel free to share this. To download the publication, just fill in your contacts in this link.

Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. – Oscar Wilde

Nature Society (Singapore) (NSS) has submitted a proposal, The Green Corridor: A Proposal to Keep the Railway Lands as a Continous Green Corridor, to the Singapore government on 21 October 2010. NSS proposes to retain the current KTM Railway Land as a Green Corridor after the train operations cease.

Background on the Railway Lands

On 24 May 2010, Singapore and Malaysia leaders agreed on the issue of the Malayan Railway Land in Singapore. Malaysia will move the Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB station) to the Woodlands Train Checkpoint by 1 July 2011, and will co-locate its railway Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facility there. Both leaders also agreed that the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station Passenger Terminal building would be conserved given its historical significance, and that the old Bukit Timah Railway Station building at Blackmore Drive can also be conserved.

Both countries will also set up a company, M-S Pte Ltd, by 31 December 2010, with Malaysia having a 60% share under Khazanah Nasional Berhard and Singapore having a 40% share under Temasek Holdings. The company will handle the joint development of the three parcels of KTM land in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands, and another three pieces of land in Bukit Timah.

On 20 September 2010, Malaysia agreed to accept the land swap offer by Singapore for four land parcels in Marina South and two pieces in Orphir-Rochor in exchange for the land parcels of KTM land in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji, Woodlands and Bukit Timah. This means that all the railway land would be available to the Singapore government for development after 1 July 2011. There is no announcement yet on how the government would develop the land.

The Green Corridor Proposal

The least challenging and most unimaginative “solution” would be for policy makers, planners and developers to parcel the land out as real estate, dismantle the line, erase the railway and its memory from the public domain and relegate it to textbook history. That would be a costly mistake. – Dr Geh Min

In The Green Corridor proposal, NSS refers to the Railway Lands as “several plots of land, at Tanjong Pagar, Kranji, Woodlands and Bukit Timah, the two main lines of track, the Woodlands – Tanjong Pagar and Jurong lines and other small disconnected stretches. The combined area for the Railway Land is 173.7 hectares, almost three times the size of the Botanical Gardens (63.7 hectares), and 0.24% the land mass of Singapore.”

It Connects Many Green Spaces Together

The Railway Land connects many green spaces together and is “already like a nature park; much of it a mix of secondary forest growth, grasslands, and small scale fruit and vegetable farms. Open areas are interspersed with canals, streams and marshland on both sides of the tracks.” There are 6 main green areas that the Railway Lands connect:

1. Southern Sector
2. Clementi Woodlands
3. Jurong Line
4. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve
5. Bukit Panjang / Chua Chu Kang / Pang Sua
6. Kranji / Mandai Mangrove & Mudflats

NSS emphasised that preserving the Railway Land as a Green Corridor “will not only make it possible for Singaporeans to hike from the wetlands in Kranji to Rainforests in Bukit Timah and the hilltops of Henderson through a continuous nature trail; the Green Corridor is also important for preserving our Natural Heritage by acting as a connector for flora and fauna movement across the island, to some extent mitigating the effects of the fragmentation of our Nature Reserves.”

It Connects Many People Together

The Green Corridor has the potential to serve 1.2 million people living in estates along the entire stretch of the railway by transforming the areas into parks, recreational areas, or for community gardening and farming. NSS explains that there are “currently scenic vistas of forests and rivers, canals and wetlands right at our doorstep. The construction of simple walking trails, lighting, resting points and directional signage would make all of this accessible and inviting to hundreds of communities nearby. A pedestrian link between communities could also enhance neighbourliness and a sense of “kampong” atmosphere along the Green Corridor.”

A Clean and Green Transport Route

NSS proposes that the Railway Land can be converted, with creative planning and without a high level of investment, into a transport route through the heart of Singapore from North to South. The transport route could include the following:

• A cycling and pedestrian path can be built on either side of the railway tracks
• The existing railway tracks could accommodate low speed forms of trams powered by clean energy sources or even human power
• The continuous length of the Green Corridor can host all forms of Sports and Recreational Activities including long distance running or cycling activities

NSS explains that: “With increasing numbers of Singaporeans adopting a healthy and active lifestyle, there is an urgent need to provide spaces conducive to such activities. The Green Corridor allows not just a place to play sports and exercise, it also opens up spaces for gardening, fishing and camping. Increasing the amount of greens spaces for recreation is imperative if we seek to increase our population and improve our standards of living at the same time.”

Preserving History

The railway line serves as a reminder and a physical historical record of the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. NSS proposes that “the whole stretch of the railway line can be turned into an outdoor ‘museum’ with ‘walking commentary’. Because of its linearity, points of historical interests can be planned along the route to educate the public about life in the 50s, 60s and up to the 70s.” The Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, the Bukit Timah Railway Station, and the cast iron railway bridges across Bukit Timah Road, Upper Bukit Timah Road and Ulu Pandan Canal should be preserved. The Railway Land also has the potential to be an UNESCO World Heritage Site.

NSS concludes with:

There are so many compelling reasons to preserve the Railway Land as a Green Corridor. It is readymade Nature Corridor, Recreational Space, Eco-friendly transport route all rolled into one. It is a valuable piece of ecological and historical heritage that should be preserved for future generations of Singaporeans.

Why We Should Have The Green Corridor

The NSS proposal has eloquently stated the need to keep the Railway Lands as a green corridor based on environmental, social, recreational, and historical benefits. Others have also made good comments on the economic benefits of having a green corridor, that it is “a key competitive advantage that helps attract or retain top talent and brings more economic development to Singapore. It could well bring other financial benefits, too, including increased property value for nearby residents.”

We support the proposal by NSS and feel strongly that we should have the Green Corridor because it will improve Singapore’s long-term survival and resilience. The biggest threat to Singapore is not terrorism or slow economic growth. The biggest threat to Singapore is apathy, or you could call it indifference, bochap, can’t be bothered, or none of my business. When Singaporeans do not feel a sense of belonging and are not bothered with what goes on here, then Singapore is in trouble.

At a recent forum, the following discussion took place between a young Singaporean and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong:

“This is your country,” SM Goh replied. “What do you want me to do to make you feel you belong?”

“For my part, don’t worry about me,” Mr Lim said. “I will definitely do something, if I can, for Singapore. But I can tell you honestly that the sentiment on the ground is a bit different.”

“If this is happening, it is very serious,” said SM Goh.

“If the majority feel they don’t belong here, then we have a fundamental problem. Then I would ask myself: What am I doing here? Why should I be working for people who don’t feel they belong over here?” asked SM Goh.

We think that the government can make Singaporeans feel they belong here by preserving our shared memories and creating our shared vision.

Preserving Our Shared Memories

The Green Corridor will strengthen our shared memories by preserving our past with Malaysia, the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, the railway bridges, and also creating opportunities for history education and discovery. This is necessary and urgent as the pace of erosion of our memories quicken in our urban city.

When we talk about our shared memories, it brings a smile to us and brings us closer together, knowing we have experienced the same history. Without shared memories across different generations and between different immigrant groups, we would feel like strangers and find it harder to understand each other.

We remember watching Royston Tan’s Old Places and discussing it with friends, and how it brought back shared memories and how we feel a sense of belonging and connection even though we may not be familiar with all the old places.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We should have the Green Corridor because it helps us to preserve our shared memories.

Creating Our Shared Vision

The Green Corridor will strengthen our shared vision by creating opportunities for different groups, sectors and communities to come together, plan and work towards a common vision of a Singapore where nature and our economic activities can co-exist. The long stretch of the Railway Lands connect communities and spaces, and allows greater cooperation and collaborative partnerships from North to South. This is something new and not seen before, and if a bottom-up approach is adopted, it would allow Singaporeans to have a shared vision and to actually turn it to life, with creativity and innovation.

When we talk about our shared vision, it excites us and motivates everyone to work together for a common good. When we work with our own hands and sweat together,  we are building bonds and resilience. Without a shared vision, everyone does things on their own and are not bothered with what the others are doing.

We should have the Green Corridor because it helps us to create our shared vision.

Support the Green Corridor

For Singapore to survive and prosper in the long term, it is necessary to have more opportunities in preserving our shared memories and creating our shared vision. And keeping the Railway Lands as a Green Corridor is one opportunity not to be wasted.

Show your support:

1. Read the NSS proposal – The Green Corridor: A Proposal to Keep the Railway Lands as a Continous Green Corridor

2. Send your feedback and suggestions to Nature Society (Singapore)

3. Share the proposal with everyone

4. Like the Facebook page “We support The Green Corridor in Singapore” and share it with your friends. You can share your memories, stories and photos of the railway lands, and share your vision for The Green Corridor. What types of environmental, social, cultural and historical activities do you wish to see happening there?

5. Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greencorridorsg and share our tweets with your friends.

In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy. – John C. Sawhill

Source and images credit: Nature Society (Singapore)

綠色生活資訊網 (GreenLiving Information Platform)

The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) in Taiwan (行政院環境保護署) has been actively promoting green consumption through its 綠色生活資訊網 or GreenLiving Information Platform. The website focuses on green living and consumption by providing information and resources for consumers, businesses, government agencies and retailers to choose and buy green products, which are certified under the EPA’s Green Mark scheme (環保標章制度). More than 700 retailers and 3,000 products have been awarded the Green Mark label.

認標章, 安心購, 綠色消費愛地球 (Recognise the label, Buy with peace of mind, Consume green and love Earth)

The EPA recently launched a promotional video to increase awareness on the Green Mark label. The video (watch below) is titled ‘認標章, 安心購, 綠色消費愛地球’, which means ‘Recognise the label, Buy with peace of mind, Consume green and love Earth’.

Click here to view the embedded video.

環保產品線上採購網 (www.buygreentw.net)

To further increase public awareness on green products and to make it easier for consumers to buy green products, the EPA set up an e-commerce site called 環保產品線上採購網 or www.buygreentw.net. Retailers can sell their green products certified with the Green Mark label on the site, while consumers can choose from a wide range of different Green Mark products and buy them online. Government agencies and businesses can also use the site to purchase green products to meet their green purchasing policies.

環保正妹大使 (Green Babe Ambassador)

The site also uses social media to promote awareness on green products such as through their Facebook page and a section called 環保正妹大使 or Green Babe Ambassador, where female bloggers post their favourite green products and their environmental activities. This is a good way to attract more young people (especially males) to the site and generate interest.

Learning from Taiwan

Other countries in Asia can learn from Taiwan in promoting green products successfully, through the use of web resources, promotional videos, e-commerce sites, Facebook pages and engaging bloggers. Perhaps Singapore could consider learning from Taiwan’s experience and do more promotion for the Singapore Green Label.

Images credit: Screenshots of 綠色生活資訊網 or GreenLiving Information Platform and 環保產品線上採購網 or www.buygreentw.net

Before considering her suggestions for households, I would suggest that the National Environment Agency (NEA) explore simple and cost-effective ways to maximise the use of our existing recycling infrastructure, which often is underutilised or misused.

The National Recycling Programme (NRP) has been implemented at HDB estates and landed properties since 2001, where residents are given either recycling bags or bins for recyclables, which are collected once every 2 weeks from their doorsteps. With the NRP, households can recycle conveniently and do not even have to walk downstairs to the nearest recycling bin or walk out of their house to the chutes to recycle. Households can also make use of the recycling bins near their flats since there are one set of recycling bins for every five blocks of flats.

For households in condominiums and private apartments, they can recycle through the recycling programme at their residence as it is mandatory from 2008 for all condominiums and private apartments to put in place recycling programmes.

With the existing recycling infrastructure, the NEA should aim to maximise its usage and tweak it to increase recycling, before deciding to implement new laws, place more bins or add more separate chutes system, which is likely to increase business costs and be passed on to the residents.

To make full use of the existing recycling infrastructure, the NEA could study simple and cost-effective ways to “nudge” households and increase recycling participation. In the book, Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath, the authors pointed out two common misconceptions on change, which we can adapt to help increase recycling.

One, “what looks like resistance is often a lack of clarity”. We need to provide crystal-clear direction to the households on the recycling programme. Some questions to ask: Are the households aware or clear about the NRP in terms of why there is a need to have the programme; how the programme works; what items can be recycled; how the collection is done; how frequent is the collection, and where the recyclables end up? Can we appoint volunteer recycling ambassadors or guides to help the residents? Can we use more mass media and social media to explain the recycling programme and spread the message?

Two, “what looks like a people problem is often a situation problem”. We need to make it easier for the households to recycle by tweaking the existing recycling infrastructure. Some questions to ask: How to make it easier for households to remember the recycling dates; identify what items can be recycled; and find the nearest recycling bin? Can we place a reminder on each rubbish bin and chute to remind residents to recycle? Can we provide data for comparing recycling performance for each estate or block? Can we use social media and smartphone apps to remind residents on their recycling collection dates? Can we place better images of recyclables on the recycling bags or bins to show clearly what items are recyclable?

The NEA should study simple and cost-effective ways before implementing new laws, bins or systems whose increased costs could be borne by the residents.

Besides recycling, it is also important to focus more on reduce and reuse. There is a sequence to the widely known 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. “Reduce” should always be practised first to minimise or prevent the waste from being generated in the beginning. Next, “Reuse” the generated waste over again for the same or different purpose. Lastly, “Recycle” the waste so that it can be processed and used as a new material. Recycling still involves energy and resources to process the used material, and should be done last.

An edited version was published at ST Forum Online.

Singapore’s Ministry of National Development issued a statement, which was reported in the local media, and said that the report:

suggests that the Singapore Government seeks to import sand without due regard to the laws or environmental impact of the source country, in this case, Cambodia.

This is not true. We are committed to the protection of the global environment, and we do not condone the illegal export or smuggling of sand, or any extraction of sand that is in breach of the source countries’ laws and rules on environmental protection. We have not received any official notice on the ban of sand exports from Cambodia.

- Straits Times

This is among one of the many accusations about Singapore’s sand imports and its impacts on our neighbours. We think that the government needs to confront this problem properly and take proactive, concrete and transparent steps to ensure that our supply of sand from other countries is responsible.

Here’s a letter we sent to the Straits Times and Today:

The report by Global Witness has been widely covered in the foreign media and has put Singapore in a bad light. This is one of the many accusations on Singapore’s sand imports and its impacts, and it will not be the last accusation if we carry on burying our head in the sand and refusing to confront the problem properly.

A country that prides itself on its clean and green reputation has to constantly ensure that the supply of raw materials from other countries for nation-building purposes has minimal impacts on the environment and the people of the source country. Any misbehaviour by suppliers will affect the country’s reputation.

Let us solve this problem in a concrete and transparent manner. It is not enough for the government to confront the negative accusations by insisting that it did nothing wrong and that the accusations are not true. Instead, MND and JTC should be proactive and arrange a meeting with Global Witness to address the report’s accusations, concerns and recommendations. The agencies should treat this as an opportunity to refute inaccuracies in the report and seek advice in finding a suitable solution to this persistent thorn of sand import accusations.

MND and JTC have to rethink their policies on sand imports and address the following issues:

Are sand suppliers breaking the source country’s legal regulations? Are they engaging in illegal and corrupt activities? How is this checked and monitored? Who does the monitoring and how frequent is it done?

What are the guidelines for sustainable sourcing of sand from other countries? Is it based on international standards? How is it enforced?

The damage to our reputation is already done but we can prevent future accusations if we take proactive, concrete and transparent steps to ensure that our supply of sand from other countries is responsible. Let us stop burying our head in the sand.

The edited letter was published in Today.