NATURE RESERVES ORDINANCE (Amendment to Schedule)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

'All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in lot 136-15, Mukim No. V Pandan, and in lot 193, Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 356a. Or. 00p, and 186a. Or. 00p, respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged pink on Certified Plan No. 10485 filed in the Office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.'.

Sir, before I proceed to speak on this motion, I have here with me sufficient copies of a rough sketch* of the area which, with your permission, I propose to circulate to Members, so that they may follow easily the references which I might make in the course of my speech on this motion. May I have your permission, Sir?

*Annex "A". ANNEX A - SKETCH OF PANDAN NATURE RESERVE

Mr Speaker: Let me have a look at it. [Copy handed to Mr Speaker; with Mr Speaker's permission, copies distributed to Members].

Hon. Members will recall that, in spite of strong opposition from the Nature Reserve Board and others interested in preserving the nature reserve, I successfully moved in this House on 4th December, 1957, a resolution to amend the Schedule to the Nature Reserves Ordinance, the effect of which was to reduce the acreage of the area of the Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve from 1,374 acres to 371 acres, thereby confirming the release of about 150 acres then covered by prawn ponds and releasing a further 853 acres for development as prawn ponds.

The attitude, Sir, of those interested in preserving the nature reserve at that time was such that they were not prepared to concede even a small portion of the nature reserve for purposes of prawn ponds. They were not prepared to talk terms with me in order to arrive at a reasonable solution which might be beneficial to both interests.

However, after this House approved my motion in December and gave me the authority to release a big portion of the thu Pandan Nature Reserve, the more reasonable elements of those objecting, realising that there was no other way, came to see me with a reasonable proposal which would preserve the interests of the nature lovers at the cost of reducing, by a small portion, the released area, and by extending and regrouping the remaining portions of the nature reserve.

The new proposals, Sir, in effect mean the extension of two pieces of swamp reserves which are marked on this sketch as A and B (the extensions would be in the direction of D and E) and thereby enlarging the nature reserve as at present defined by approximately 171 acres. Hon. Members will notice that there is an area of reserve marked C on the sketch plan which will be deleted now.

To give you the exact figures, Sir, it is now proposed to excise, instead of the previous 1,003 acres, only 832 acres from the Pandan Nature Reserve, leaving a total of 542 acres in the reserve, a net increase to the reserve of from 371 to 542 acres, namely, 171 acres. This extension of the nature reserve by 171 acres would provide for (a) better administration of the area under the control of the Nature Reserve Board; (b) a fairly full range of mangrove animals to maintain themselves; (c) self-perpetuation of mature mangrove vegetation; (d) a full range of important mangrove plants; (e) the retention of type localities of many species first described as new to science from specimens obtained there; and (f) easier access for those interested in nature study.

I therefore feel, Sir, that this is a very fair proposition and commend it to hon. Members. Sir, I beg to move.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): I second the motion.

Question proposed.

2.38 p.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker,. Sir, when the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry introduced a motion in this House last December to reduce the Pandan Nature Reserve to three areas, of 236, 90 and 45 acres respectively, I pointed out very serious objections to - what he was doing. Not only was he destroying a valuable nature reserve for no purpose, but he was in fact endangering the future of the prawn industry in that area by this destruction, the industry which we ourselves wish to see developed. His reply to the House on the scientific arguments which I propounded was as follows - and I quote from column 2880 of Volume 2, No. 40, of the Official Report dated 4th December, 1957:

"... I must assure this House specifically that all these arguments which the hon. Member for Tanglin has put up have already been put up to the Ministry by the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board, with supporting evidence as put forward by the Member from the various other professors and people of high academic qualifications, and they have been considered by the Ministry. The Ministry feels that, as far as fisheries is concerned, it is its Fisheries Officer who is best qualified to speak on the subject and who should know his job."

Now I had good reason to believe that neither the Minister nor the Fisheries Officer had in fact met the experts on the subject round the table, and at the conclusion of my speech on the same day I made this point - in column 2865:

"My own belief is this: that if all the experts on the subject in the country got round one table to go into this matter and pool their knowledge - as should have been done before - it would be found. firstly, that the area of land alienated for prawn ponds could be increased beyond the present area; secondly, that a sufficient but different area of mangrove could be retained at the Pandan Forest Reserve as a feeding area for prawns and as a self-propagating area for biological study; and thirdly and finally, the proper balance of nature could be achieved. That would be the best possible result, while at present the Government may get the worst of both worlds."

Now, Sir, I am not going to flatter myself that the Minister accepted what I had to say, but enough attention was drawn to the matter for him to decide to reconsider the position. I believe a meeting of experts was arranged - I was not present but the Minister has told us roughly what transpired - but the final outcome has been that the Minister has been broad-minded enough and flexible enough to come forward with a modified scheme which will leave intact two areas of 356 and 186 acres of - undisturbed mangrove in precisely the right position from everybody's point of view.

The happy result then is as I had hoped. There will now be a sufficient area of mangrove for it to be self-propagating and to yield its botanical and biological riches, and, at the same time, experiments can be made to increase the prawn catch without too much risk. Also, the Malay fishermen can continue to earn a living by fishing down the river with the undisturbed mangrove still there.

I congratulate the Government on thinking again and modifying its previously apparently intractable attitude, and we are glad now to be able to support this motion.

2.42 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, it is true that the hon. Member in the debate in this House in December pointed out, as he had said, that the Government was destroying valuable areas of nature reserve and endangering prawn production. I did assure that all the arguments put up by the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board were considered. However, the arguments that were put up to me at that time were: All or none'- We want the whole reserve to be preserved'. None of them was sane enough to come to me and say, `Look, we realise that prawn pond cultivation is of vital importance to the economy of Singapore - that it is going to expand the economy - and therefore we propose that this and this and this compromise should take place, whereby the interests of the nature reserve could be preserved and also that a certain area could be released for prawn ponds'.

Their attitude was very obstinate and I, as a Minister responsible to the people of Singapore, governing for the benefit of the majority interests of Singapore, would not be blackmailed by small groups into making decisions which benefit only small groups. And therefore when they were not willing to play ball with me, I said, Right, I go ahead.' If they had come - and I must thank Professor Oppenheim who, after this resolution had been adopted, a few months later met me and said, Look, there can be a compromise'; I said, "Is that so?" He said, "Of course there can be." I said, "Why didn't the Nature Reserve Board people tell me that there could be a compromise. If there was, as a reasonable man I would be willing to come to a compromise whereby both interests would be preserved."

So there is no need for obstinacy, Sir. When I saw the proposals were reasonable, I said, `I am governing in the interests of the country at large and if I can bring both interests together I will certainly do so, and I will not stand on obstinacy.' And that is why I brought this motion to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted therefor:-

'All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in lot 136-15, Mukim No. V Pandan, and in lot 193, Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 356a. Or. 00p. and l86a. Or. 00p, respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged pink on Certified Plan No. 10485 filed in the Office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.'.