The list of Nominated Member of Parliament has just been announced by the press. Among those not reappointed was the Nature Society President, Dr. Geh Min, ending 'green' representation in parliament. None of the 3 NMP candidates who sought to represent 'green' interests were appointed NMPs.
I wonder if the lack of green representation in our new parliament would result in the development of a more contentious relationship (and arguably less desirable outcome) between green activists and the government in the future.
Green politics continues to be a significant force in many countries' politics and increasingly states have found ways to accommodate their voices. The Social Democrats in Germany have been in a permanent alliance with the Greens for many years, both in government and in opposition. Green party representation in local British politics is at its historic highest since the last local council election. 14 South Asia and Asia-Pacific countries have active Green parties. Depending on their political opportunity structures, green activists and their respective governments have either adopt more assimilative policies (America) or confrontation policies (France).
In Singapore, there is no green political party largely because most of the environmental groups have found that working through issues with the government is possible and desirable. I suspect that the appointment of Dr Geh Min as an NMP was a cumulation of this fruitful relationship between the government and environmental groups in Singapore.
Dr. Geh Min has raised numerous concerns on how existing and new policies would affect the environment in Singapore. It is likely that without her question(s) in parliament, we might not have known that Power Seraya's switch to Orimulsion from carbon fuels for three of its power generators will lead to power plants emitting 4% more carbon dioxide to the environment. She has argued for a green procurement policy to be adopted by the government. She has also indirectly affected the policy which increase ARF rebate for green cars from 20% to 40%. She has also advocated that green cars be used in the IMF/WB meeting instead of luxury cars which waste much fuels and pollute the environment. She has also asked marine biodiversity areas to be protected from reclamation in Singapore. She can also be credited to making Singapore move its timetable forward to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.
In Singapore, we tend to incur quite a bit in environmental costs in our relentless pursuit of commercial and industrial development. The Nature Society not only sought to save Chek Jawa under great challenges and duress on many fronts, but also organized a host of events to raise environmental awareness in Singapore regularly. Did you know that the creation of Sungei Buloh can be credited to the work of Nature Society in Singapore?
It is quite likely that a large number of Singaporeans still take the attitude that the realization of environmental conservation and preservation concerns are on a 'nice to have' basis rather than 'need to have' basis. Even if we extend this sort of attitude to political representation, we might ask ourselves, "Would a green representative better fill an NMP seat as compared to an NTUC's NMP seat, where the union is already well represented in parliament in the first place?" Will this result in green voices in Singapore be left out of policy processes at the highest level? Will green politics in Singapore become more contentious as a result of its lack of representation? What is the cost of changing the assimilative policy on co-opting green voices in Singapore for the years to come?
Comments (3)
There is still "green" representation in Mr Edwin Khew, one of the selected NMPs. He is the Board Member of the Singapore Environment Council, Chairman of the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore, and the CEO of IUT Global Pte Ltd, a food waste to enery plant. He will bring a businessman's perspective on the environment though he may lack the "green activisim" like Dr Geh Min (I may be wrong). It's interesting to note how the green representation has shifted from the people sector representation (NGO Heads like Dr Geh Min, Louis Ng and Wilson Ang) to a private sector representation. I guess it reflects the growing interest of the government in developing our water and environment industry as it becomes one of our strategic growth areas. All is not lost for the "greens".
Posted by Eugene | January 14, 2007 12:42 PM
It is indeed a great disappointment that the green perspective will not be represented in the Singapore Parliament.
To an extent this move goes against what we are seeing in other government sectors - 2006 was a great year for Singapore when it comes to the environment (if one can excuse the haze problems!) - Singapore signed Kyoto; the STB was instrumental in bringing UNEP's Champions of the Earth Awards here for the first time last year; the EDB played a big part in WWF International setting up office here (and Simon Tay, Chairman of the NEA is on the Board); and we also saw the Rolex Awards come to Singapore towards the end of the year. The STB is also a major supporter of the Wildlife Asia Film Festival (March this year). So even though the issues aren't represented, there are definite moves in the right direction. Green is most definitely the new black!
But perhaps the selection committee members do not have their fingers on the pulse as far as the international scene is concerned - from what I have read about the NMPs they are more focussed on local issues, such as employment, healthcare etc. Perhaps in their view the NMPs can best serve Singaporeans by focussing on these needs, and perhaps environmental or conservation issues do not figure highly on their list due to the misconception that these issues aren’t of importance to Singaporeans. Which, if it were true, would of course be a great shame – as we all know how important the environment is to our wellbeing and (as demonstrated by the haze problems) the economy. But green issues have never figured highly on the agenda here have they? I notice for example that your ‘categories’ list does not include ‘environment’ as a topic. This may be an oversight, perhaps you cover these issues under another heading? But in a small way this reflects how in Singapore such issues can get sidelined and are not given the exposure that they deserve.
I truly believe that times they are a changing, and that Singapore can lead the way in the ‘greening’ of S.E. Asia, but work still has to be done – and conservation and environmental issues need to take centre stage and be made relevant to the lives of Singaporeans from all sectors, before the rising tides of climate change reclaim all of Singapore’s ‘reclaimed’ land…
Chris Dickinson
Posted by Chris Dickinson | January 14, 2007 12:48 PM
Thank you both gentlemen for your very insightful posts.
Eugene:
Thank you for pointing out that. Even though surprisingly, I can't find the his name among the list of NMPs doing a google/todayonline news and general search.
I certainly hope that Mr. Liew would live up to your expectations. However, I wonder if someone from the establishment (Chairman of the Environment Council) would be as active as one from the civil society (Nature Society or Green Volunteer Network) to advocate greener policies in Singapore. Establishment individuals, whether PAP MPs or NTUC NMPS, tend to prefer working behind the scenes rather than voicing their concerns publicly in parliament. Since NMPs are well articulate, intelligent and do not have to answer to the party whip, all things being equal, they should be as vocal as possible in parliament.
A good article on environmental NGOs in Singapore is Kersty Hobson, "Considering 'Green' Practices: NGOs and Singapore's Emergent Environmental-Political Landscape", SOJURN 20, 2 (Oct 2005): 155-177.
Chris:
Thanks for your insights. I think the underlying notion of economic utilitarianism imbues discourses in Singapore; be it political, environmental or social. When it starts 'costing' Singapore and its governance something (like the haze and obvious drainage issues in the recent flood), than that particular issue becomes salient in terms of policy changes.
Although my own observation is that the government has also placed a premium in working with environment groups and NGOs. I think the government realizes that prevention is often better than cure; however, competing developmental interests may mean though that not all NGOs agenda (whether through parliament or inside door discussions) are adopted.
I invite you to submit an article to Singapore Angle Perspectives or the Main site if you want to expand more on your arguments and interests. =)
Cheers,
Wayne
Posted by Wayne Soon | January 14, 2007 2:28 PM