| Not Just 'A Few Plants' |
| How Sentosa Forest or any forest should be defined [Published 12 March 2007] |
|
Firstly,
let me identify myself as the 'concerned conservationist' mentioned
in the story 'Hey, the Trees are Marked' (The
Sunday Times, March 11) by Teo Cheng Wee. I am also the same Botanist
Joseph Lai who played a major role in the conservation of Chek
Jawa's coastal forest and marine habitat in 2001. I have been reported to have led "two educational walks around the affected coastal areas last month" and that I felt "Sentosa forest should be left alone." The above quotes are indeed correct. However, I strongly object to the sentence that followed - "But others like Prof Ng take a more practical view, seeing how there 'isn't much of the original vegetation left' after intense utilization of the site." |
 |
I find the above sentence appallingly biased towards me as an objective person. It has implied that my views (on the conservation of the forest) are not practical.
This implication is further compounded by quotes (from *Prof Peter Ng), which followed immediately after: "Conservation is important, but - to be blunt - I feel this isn't one of the most important nature spots in Singapore," he says. "We can't just say, 'Don't build the IR there', because of a few plants. We should work around it."
I would like to reassure Prof Ng that I - and other nature advocates - are working precisely 'around' the problem with the authorities at the moment. In fact, our motto has been: 'Build the 49-hectare IR, but Spare the 3-hectare Forest.' Given that we now have to clarify our position, we would have preferred to continue working with the authorities via feedback channels other than the newspapers.
As a member of the scientific community, and a botanist myself, I would be careful not to make comments that seem to demonize 'conservation' as anti-development. The opposite should be the exception: we can conserve nature without losing businesses and jobs, and not to mention - educational opportunities. Similarly, I would be careful not to compare one forest with another. It is as ludicrous as telling a child that he or she is more stupid than another. Each forest (like each child) has its own uniqueness.
The only grade a forest has is its measurement of evolution against time, and as a living forest, it has every potential for richer growth. Moreover, the forest does not sparkle on its own merits. Together with other forests at Mount Serapong, Mount Imbiah and Siloso, the 3-hectare forest forms an integral whole for both plants and animals to thrive - i.e. separated, but alive and healthy together. It is just a matter of scale. Seen in the light of island biogeography, every 'island' is virtuously small and vulnerable, but together rich and profound. Much of this profoundness lies in animal migration, plant dispersal, geographical constraints, seasonality, competition and inter-dependency, and other factors far beyond our understanding.
But most of all, we must see this living environment as a great solar-energy system combining both the biotic and abiotic elements. Climate Change is intrinsically tied to our treatment to this solar fabric of life.
So, the 3-hectare forest is not just 'a few plants'. Neither is a forest a collection of trees. Marine zoologist Prof Ng should see the natural order of the forest through the eyes of a resident cockroach or owl. I would.
Insofar as it is necessary to counter Prof Ng's claim, I would venture to say that the bulk of the forest within the adjacent Labrador Nature Reserve, for instance, does not have the kind of diversity of coastal plant species presently found at the 3-hectare forest, and nowhere on the mainland are there coastal trees of comparable size and majesty. In fact, the forest boosts the richest stand of the rare Dragon Blood Trees (Dracaena maingayi) ever to be found in Singapore. It is also a roosting place for the Buffy Fish Owl - Singapore's rariest resident owl.
Lastly, the forest is tucked neatly at the southern extreme of the designated IR plot. Therefore, if conservation of the forest were to go ahead, it would not impede the IR construction at all. In fact, the forest could act as an important noise buffer to Siloso Road and provide a wonderful green backdrop should Mr Henry Steed landscape his prized garden outside, and not inside, the forest.
Spare the forest. Do not reduce it into a garden. Three hectares is not much of a land-sacrifice to plea for. The IR can still make money. It is a piece of natural heritage we cannot afford to lose.
* Prof Peter Ng, Director of the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research
Read: Ron's crystal clear response to Prof Peter Ng's comment at his Tidechaser Blog
| Related Essays: Mother and Grandmother of All Forest Destruction Foxy Tale of Tree Tranplant The Silent Scream: An Elegy for Ecology Chirp and Listen: The Talking Cricket Pinning Down Doomsday Losing A Green Lung Woods Not for Wager (Advertisement for Forest Conservation Walk) Coastal Features of Blakang Mati 1884 EART-H Geographic: Sentosa's Destroyed Habitats Photo Gallery of Excavation Work for Sentosa IR Development EIA of Sentosa Integrated Resort [Source: The Leafmonkey Workshop Blog] Sentosa's Original Underwater World destroyed for marine park, aquarium & artificial coral reef! |