PARKS AND TREES BILL

Column: 502

PARKS AND TREES BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

2.22 pm

The Second Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Column: 503

Sir, Singapore is a densely built city state. Yet, it is also well known internationally as a garden city. The clean and green living environment has not come about by chance. It is the result of our deliberate efforts and commitment in planting trees and conserving nature over many years.

Looking ahead, with an expanding economy and growing population, we will have more people in our estates, more cars on our roads, and more buildings on our small island of Singapore. Our efforts in keeping Singapore green will only get more challenging.

The passing of this Bill will strengthen our efforts with these improved provisions:

First, besides protecting mature trees in Tree Conservation Areas, we will also be able to conserve mature greenery by designating selected roads as Heritage Roads;

Second, we will be able to impose heavier penalties for offences committed in our National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Trees Conservation Areas; and

Third, the effectiveness of NParks will be enhanced by formalising its regulatory functions and streamlining two existing Acts relating to greenery.

Sir, I will now elaborate on the key features of the Bill.

Conserving mature greenery along Heritage Roads

First, to conserve mature greenery along Heritage Roads. Sir, roadside greenery is an important feature of our Garden City. Greenery by the roadside, nurtured over many years, softens the hard effect of large physical structures and buildings to create a garden-like ambience in our city. This is especially so

Column: 504

for roads lined with tall "green walls" of mature trees and multi-layered vegetation. One example is South Buona Vista Road. Other examples would include Mount Pleasant Road, Mandai Road, Lim Chu Kang Road and Arcadia Road.

When the lands along these roads are developed, even though the trees and greenery at the green verges of these roads are protected under existing provisions of the Parks and Trees Act, the mature greenery behind these green verges is not. The Bill therefore seeks to enable the Minister to designate, by Gazette , such roads as Heritage Roads, to conserve green buffers of up to 10-metre depth along both sides of these roads. The Bill will empower NParks to access and maintain these green buffers, and regulate works and activities to protect them.

The green buffer requirement will only be applied to state lands, but not to existing private lands along the Heritage Roads. However, when existing state lands along these Heritage Roads are subsequently sold under the Government's Land Sales Programme, the green buffer requirement will continue to be applied despite the change to private land ownership.

Heavier penalties

Second, to increase the penalty for cutting any tree with a circumference exceeding one metre within a designated Tree Conservation Area or a vacant land without permission, from the current $10,000 to $50,000.

Sir, this offence is usually committed by developers and contractors in the course of construction works. The current $10,000 maximum fine has not been revised since 1994, and is no longer as effective as before. Would-be offenders might choose to pay the fines than incur additional costs to conserve the trees. The Bill therefore proposes to

Column: 505

increase the maximum fine to $50,000 to deter future offences.

The maximum fines for offences committed in the National Parks and Nature Reserves will also be revised upwards from $10,000 to $50,000 to reflect the comparative seriousness of these offences. The Bill will also introduce provisions to enable NParks to recover the value of any destroyed or damaged tree or plant from the offender. In assessing the value of a destroyed or damaged tree, factors, such as the species, size, age, location and condition of the tree and its replacement cost, are considered.

Formalisation of NParks' regulatory functions and streamlining of existing Acts

Last but not least, this Bill serves to formalise the regulatory functions currently performed by NParks. It will also serve to streamline two existing pieces of legislation that govern the protection, provision and maintenance of greenery in Singapore.

Sir, the National Parks Act of 1996 covers the National Parks Board's corporate functions and its regulatory powers for the Nature Reserves, public parks, and the two National Parks, ie, the Singapore Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park. Whereas the Parks and Trees Act of 1975 covers NParks' management functions and regulatory powers for public parks, roadside greenery and the gazetted Tree Conservation Areas. There are overlaps in the provisions of the two Acts. We therefore propose to streamline them.

Streamlining the two Acts

The National Parks Act, to be re-named the National Parks Board Act, will continue to provide for NParks' corporate and statutory functions in managing the

Column: 506

National Parks, the Nature Reserves, public parks and greenery.

The existing Parks and Trees Act will be repealed and replaced by a new Parks and Trees Act after the passage of this Bill. This new legislation will cover greenery conservation and regulatory powers related to the Nature Reserves, National Parks and public parks. Existing provisions for Tree Conservation Areas will be retained. Some provisions now in the National Parks Act, including those enabling the Minister to designate areas as National Parks and Nature Reserves, will be transferred to this new Parks and Trees Act.

The passage of this Bill will also give NParks the necessary statutory powers to carry out its greenery regulatory functions directly, instead of relying on the approval processes of other institutions and authorities, including URA's development control and BCA's building control processes. The Bill therefore seeks to require Qualified Persons, ie, architects and engineers who are responsible for development projects, to formally submit development and building plans to NParks as well for approval of the greenery provision. This should not result in additional work for the developers, as they will submit these plans electronically as usual to the various regulatory authorities through CORENET.

Implementation of the Bill

Sir, in preparing this Bill, NParks has consulted the various industry stakeholders, including the Singapore Institute of Architects, the Institute of Engineers Singapore, and Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore. This Bill, if passed by this House, is targeted to come into effect in May this year.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Column: 507

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, in the Addenda to the President's Address on 12th January 2005, the Ministry of National Development stated that it will continue to guide Singapore's development into a city of distinction, characterised by its architectural and urban design excellence and a high quality living environment.

Sir, at this juncture, just in case my parliamentary colleagues think that I may be speaking from the wrong script, let me say that I am referring to the Addenda to the President's Address, as it has relevance to my comments on the Parks and Trees Bill.

I am happy to note that, as part of MND's efforts to enhance our living environment, it will be building a second national botanical gardens with an iconic conservatory at Downtown Marina Bay. This will bring our parks right into the heart of the city. It will also be expanding the network of

parks and park connectors and promote various activities and what is known as "edutainment" - the blend of entertainment and education - in our parks. The idea of encouraging local communities to participate in the management of the gardens in order to foster a greater sense of belonging and care for the natural environment is also laudable.

When all these plans are realised, it will be an outstanding achievement for us, the scale of which has rarely been attempted elsewhere.

Indeed, when PM Lee said that Singapore could distinguish itself on the world arena and become a city with the "X" factor - something you cannot quite explain but you know it when you arrive at the city - I instinctively felt that our Garden City concept is one such element that could help define our uniqueness and add to the "X" factor.

Column: 508

Every time I come back from an overseas trip, I become more appreciative of all the landscaping, trees and shrubs lining the sides of our orderly roads, the green verges and public open spaces that intersperse our cityscape. Some people may feel that all this is too "planned", too "sterile" but compared to the urban chaos we find elsewhere, they help to soften urban landscape and provide a shield from the searing tropical heat.

Sir, the greening of Singapore started in earnest in 1971 with the launch of the "Clean and Green" week and since then, more than 300,000 trees and shrubs have been planted island-wide. It is now time to move on to the next phase of the greening of the environment and that is more conscientious effort in the nurturing and conservation of our natural environment. The new Parks and Trees Act should give the greening of Singapore an even higher level of prominence.

There are several features of the proposed new Act which I would like to highlight together with the key concerns.

Firstly, legislating greenery functions and the requirement for separate approval of greenery provisions. The new Act legislates the greenery functions currently performed by the National Parks Board. It now clearly defines and specifies nature parks, nature reserves, heritage road green buffers, tree conservation areas and others and what are prohibited in these areas.

Under the new Act, developers are now required to separately seek approval from the National Parks Board for their greenery provisions. Previously, this was dealt with through URA's development control and BCA's building plan processes. This is a signal of the elevated importance the Government is now placing on the natural environment and its value to our overall urban development. The Act also calls to attention the need to

Column: 509

preserve and protect the natural environment and its biodiversity for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations of Singaporeans.

While it is acknowledged that the requirement for separate approval is consistent with the practices of other technical agencies like BCA, URA and LTA and highlights the importance of NParks' functions, there is concern that this would further lengthen the time developers require to obtain planning approvals. I would like to urge NParks to commit to processing the applications within a reasonable period of time, as timing is often a crucial factor in determining the commercial viability and hence, the success of a development.

Secondly, avenues for appeals and consultation. The proposed Act allows the Minister to gazette any area for tree conservation or heritage road green buffers, nature parks and so on, based on the National Parks Board's advice. There is concern that in some instances, such a move may actually result in limiting the development potential of the affected or adjacent privately-owned land, and indirectly, negatively affect property values.

Hence, I propose that before the Minister gazettes an area for conservation, the views of the stakeholders and the public should be sought, as is commonly the case when URA draws up plans for an area. This will also help increase awareness of such conserved areas as well as cultivate a sense of community ownership and responsibility for the areas. At the same time, the Ministry should also be open to proposals from the public on areas to be conserved as nature reserves, nature parks and the like.

Thirdly, heavier penalties imposed for violation and the responsibilities of Government agencies. The Bill stipulates relatively harsh penalties with fines of up

Column: 510

to $50,000 and up to six months' imprisonment for those who violate the provisions of the Act, such as chopping down a tree in a conservation area or erecting signs on nature reserves without getting prior approval. The fine of up to $50,000 is five times the current $10,000 penalty. The current Act also has no provision for a jail term of up to six months. This clearly indicates the Government's view of the seriousness of such violations.

Whilst this is a strong signal to the public of the public's responsibility for and the importance of nature conservation and caring for our environment, I hope that the Ministry would also ensure that it applies an even hand towards Government agencies whose actions may also adversely affect the environment we live in.

A good example would be LTA when they plan for infrastructural developments such as roads and MRT tracks. There must be conscientious effort put in to minimise damage to the environment as far as possible, especially in areas which are considered of value to preserve.

They should also likewise be required to consult the National Parks Board and seek its approval on their plans for additions or upgrading of the transport infrastructure. More inter-agency communication and cooperation should take place to ensure that all aspects of the natural environment are taken care of in any proposal, whether this emerges from the private or the public sectors. Besides the community and private sector, Government agencies must also be sensitive to the need to protect our natural assets as far as possible in land use design and infrastructural development.

Finally, public education and community involvement. We need to promote respect for our environment

Column: 511

among Singaporeans for the benefit of ourselves and our future generations. At the same time, we also need to provide avenues for Singaporeans to enjoy the natural environment and the parks and nature reserves that we have conserved. Otherwise, the average Singaporean will not be able to thoroughly appreciate the rationale for conserving such areas.

Recent reports on the large number of visitors to places like Chek Jawa and the Treetop Walk at MacRitchie, and just over the weekend, to the farms at Lim Chu Kang, which unfortunately led to traffic congestion, indicate Singaporeans' increasing attraction and sympathy for nature.

Nature lovers and conservationists are understandably wary that allowing the public too much access to nature reserves could damage the biodiversity of the area and mar the tranquility. While this could be the case, I think a balance has to be struck. The masses will not appreciate and treat their environment with respect if they have no opportunity to experience what these areas can offer in terms of their richness, beauty and even the psychic benefits of being able to get away from the hustle and bustle of city living.

After all, there are already so few recreational places on our tiny island that Singaporeans can go to. Opening up these areas into places families and perhaps, equally important, couples can visit, will go a long way towards making Singapore a great place for families and also, in some small ways, indirectly help boost our marriage rates.

We must, nonetheless, step up efforts to educate Singaporeans to treat the natural environment, which is an increasingly scarce asset, especially in Singapore, with respect. In this regard, I think one of the most fundamental problems that ought to be tackled at the

Column: 512

community level is littering of our beaches and parks.

It was reported, for instance, that in a recent beach clean up by 2,000 volunteers under International Coastal Cleanup Singapore, nine tonnes of rubbish or 90,000 pieces were retrieved in one and a half hours. According to the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research (RMBR) and the Nature Society which organised this clean-up on an annual basis, the situation has been deteriorating as the amount of litter picked up has been rising over the years, from about 66,000 pieces in 2002 to 90,000 pieces this year.

Although the NEA attributes some of these litter to flotsam that originated from neighbouring seas that are washed ashore, the volunteers found more of the litter on the beaches and very little in the mangroves which are less accessible. East Coast Park, a popular haunt, for instance, was one of the dirtiest. Even though many litter bins are provided, a substantial amount of trash is not ending up in the litter bins.

I propose that NParks, together with NEA, jointly organise an intensive public education programme for the schools and community on the parks and nature reserves that the public can visit, what these can offer, why we need to conserve our environment and what they can and cannot do in the parks. The CDCs, I am sure, would be pleased to host such programmes.

There will then be more Singaporeans who will value these areas and support the move to protect and preserve them. It will also be an excellent opportunity for inter-Government agency cooperation. There is no necessity for NEA and NParks to hold two separate campaigns or education programmes since the objectives are closely aligned.

It is noted that there are already volunteer groups like the VIPS (Volunteers

Column: 513

In Park Service) who act as volunteer nature guides during the weekends conducting tours at trails in Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve or the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Besides these groups, we could also initiate the formation of volunteer park rangers to help patrol and look after the parks and encourage the community to take ownership of the protection of the environment. This could be done jointly with NGOs like the Nature Society.

In conclusion, the proposed new Act is a big leap forward from the present Act as it more sharply recognises the importance of caring for the environment. There is, however, more that can be done in terms of ensuring that the various Government agencies are also sensitive to the need to preserve our greenery in their actions as well as public education to increase the public's awareness and promote responsible use of these areas.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Geh Min (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I have to declare my interest as President of the Nature Society, but I would do so anyway.

I was particularly moved last week in the House by the number of MPs, both old and young, who spoke out for that sector of Singaporeans who do not or cannot speak for themselves - the elderly, the disabled and the less educated. Today, I should also like to speak for another sector of the population of Singapore who are unable to speak for themselves, although Dr Amy Khor has, to a large extent, already spoken for them.

But first, I would like to correct a grave misconception which I have heard repeatedly in the past, both in the House and out, and this is the statement that Singapore has no or few natural resources. I beg to differ. In fact, I

Column: 514

should like to state that I believe that Singapore is rich in natural resources.

Firstly, our geographical capital. Our strategic location, our clement natural environment, without extremes in climate, our freedom from natural disasters and our deep seawater port, to me, these are all bounties of nature and if geography is destiny, I believe that ours is a very fortunate one.

Our second natural resource is, of course, our human capital, which has been mentioned many times in the past and now given the recognition that it deserves. Wise Government has value-added to it and is continuing to do so. So I would not dwell on this aspect.

The third is our natural capital which, to me, is the most overlooked, unacknowledged and under-valued of all our natural resources. I am referring, of course, to our biodiversity, both our terrestrial and marine biodiversity, which is amongst the richest in the world. Not only do we fail to value-add, but we have been value-subtracting from it.

Let me give a few examples. We have more species of trees and plants in Bukit Timah Nature Reserve than on the whole of the North American continent. This example has been cited many times. I do not think there is any harm saying it again. This is, of course, due to the fact that tropical rainforests are the richest

terrestrial biodiversity in the world. But only less than 3% of our forests remain today.

Our coral reefs, the marine equivalent of tropical rainforests, have a far greater biodiversity of marine lives than, for example, the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is large, but is not as diverse as our seas. Even in Singapore waters alone - I am not passing out figures, but pictures - certainly this is the case. These are photographs of our

Column: 515

marine biodiversity that had been taken only in Singapore waters and only in the last few years.

In Singapore waters alone, we have more than 8,000 species of marine plants and fishes, and more are being discovered all the time, many of them are likely to be new species. This is despite the fact that more than 60% of our coral reefs have already been destroyed. Our mangroves have more than 2,000 species of recorded plants and animals, but we only have 1% of our mangroves left. I think, in the recent tsunami disaster you heard one of the functions of mangroves, but mangroves are also the breeding grounds for all the seafood that we eat - fish, prawns, shellfish - and they also serve to prevent land erosion.

You may be asking what is the value of these figures that I have been giving and the pictures that I have been passing around. In the past, I would have said that it would be difficult to give a figure to it, not because our biodiversity is not valuable, but because it is difficult to quantify. But I have since learned that if one is talking to hard-headed policy makers, one has to try and give some hard facts and figures. So let me try.

The first example I should like to cite is ecosystem services. This is a very widely quoted example which, I am sure, some of you have already heard. In 1997, an international team of economists and environmental scientists put a dollar amount on all the ecosystem services provided free of charge to humanity by the living natural environment. Drawing from multiple databases, they estimated that the contribution was $33 trillion or more a year. This amount is doubled the gross world product, which is the total sum of all the gross national products of all the different countries in that same year. Ecosystem services

Column: 516

could be defined as the flow of material, energy and information from the biosphere, the natural world, that supports human existence and it includes all the things we take for granted - regulation of the atmosphere and climate, purification and retention of water, formation and enrichment of soil, etc. To put it in an even more cogent manner, if humanity were to try to replace these free services of the natural economy by substituting services with its own manufacture, the annual gross world product would have to be tripled. But, of course, this is purely hypothetical and abstract because it would not be economically and technologically possible to do so.

The second example I should like to quote to demonstrate the economic and scientific value of our biodiversity is an example in bioprospecting. Bioprospecting is the exploration of biodiversity for useful resources, pharmaceuticals, new food sources, petroleum substitutes and so on. And it is now recognised as a rapidly growing industry. In fact, it is so rapidly growing that biopiracy is also on the rise.

One often quoted bioprospecting venture was conducted by the National Cancer Institute of the United States. They discovered, on one of their forays, that a sample taken from a small tree in Sarawak had, and I quote, "100% protection against the cytopathic effects of HIV1 infection, having essentially halted HIV1 replication." In other words, it could prevent the development of a full-blown AIDS infection once an individual has been tested HIV positive. Unfortunately, a larger sample was needed to isolate and identify the chemical. But, when the collectors went back to Sarawak, to where they got the original sample, which was, of course, a few years later, because it took time, they found that the trees had been cut down. So, a frantic worldwide search was

Column: 517

instituted because clearly this is a potentially very valuable chemical. It led to a lot of false leads, but finally, the magic chemical was found, not in the same specie, but in a very closely related specie in the small area of primary forest that we have left in the Singapore Botanic Gardens. And this enabled the molecule to be identified and replicated and it is now undergoing further testing for clinical use.

So our nature areas, having long been neglected, have now come to be valued for their recreational, heritage and even educational functions. But I believe that their potential scientific and economic values are still not probably recognised. And clearly in almost all these cases, this is not because they do not have that intrinsic value but because we have not found the way to make use of it.

Singapore sees itself as a city state, and through the vision of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, a clean and green city, a garden city and, now, a city in the garden, as Minister Lim Swee Say mentioned. But, we still see ourselves as a city. Our laws were designed to protect our greenery within the limits of this image of ourselves. And whilst this vision was sufficient and forward-looking 30 years ago, this is no longer the case today. I urge the Government to think of Singapore not as a city, but as a country with a hinterland. Our seas, offshore islands, coral reefs and nature areas are not just space for our city to expand into. They are repository of our valuable biodiversity and should be treated as such. And our laws should protect them as our natural reserves in the same way as we protect our fiscal reserves.

I applaud the improvements in the new Parks and Trees Bill that serve to protect our natural ecosystem. But, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are certain areas where I feel we could do much

Column: 518

better. The first is in the protection of our marine biodiversity. I quote from Chapter 17, Agenda 21 of the Rio Summit: "The marine environment is an essential component of the global life support system." Further down it also said: "Each coastal state should consider establishing or strengthening appropriate coordinating mechanisms for integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas and their resources." But despite the fact that Singapore is a signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity, we do not yet have any marine nature reserve. Many local experts, both professionals and amateurs, from the scientific and environmental communities have repeatedly called for better legal protection of our seas and marine biodiversity. One example is the Blue Plan proposed by the Environmental Feedback Group of the Feedback Unit, and also in the Singapore Green Plan 1992 and recommendations/feedback on the revised Green Plan 2012. Because of the lack of legal protection of our marine biodiversity, the National Parks Board has limited powers in this area. This problem is compounded by the multi-agency approach. There is no central coordinating body. Let me give an example. Water quality and monitoring are under Maritime Port Authority. The pollution and oil-spill are under the Ministry of the Environment. Coral collecting is under Singapore Land Authority, which is under the Ministry of Law. Aquaculture is under AVA. Coastal development and land reclamation are under URA, and nature conservation is under NParks. But, as I have said, NParks could do only a limited amount because there is no gazetted marine nature reserve.

Let me, at this point, cite a recent experience in Labrador Nature Reserve. This is in relation to the illegal collection of corals. As I mentioned, NParks rangers, because of their limited powers even in an area which is a nature reserve, in this case, in the marine part of the

Column: 519

Park, could only accost those culprits when they come to land with their sacks of booty, corals that they have broken off from the reefs shelf and other marine organisms. Of course, it was too late then, as the damage had been done. As I mentioned, coral collecting is under Singapore Land Authority, but Singapore Land Authority does not police these areas. The Navy and Marine Police are clearly not interested. The situation has got so bad that nature lovers have, in fact, formed a volunteer group, as was suggested by Dr Amy Khor in her speech. We have already formed a volunteer group, but clearly the powers of the volunteer group could only go as far as trying to educate these people and to enlighten them, but we have no legal powers. I only have the courage to bring up this example because I think the new Bill does empower National Parks Board to at least protect these marine areas a little better than they did before. The new Bill has extended its protection to marine areas insofar as the interpretation of "fish" now includes "shellfish", "premises" include "any place under water", and in clause 7, it replaces "land" with "areas", which I presume could, therefore, include marine or inter-tidal areas. I applaud this extension of the Bill because this would certainly give marine areas like Chek Jawa more protection than it previously did. But, of course, the question arises: why not go further and gazette some marine nature reserves?

The next area where I think the Bill could improve further has already been mentioned by Dr Amy Khor. It is better inter-agency coordination and consultation at the conceptual level. The intense pressure on competition of scarce land by multiple-Government agencies, the desire of each agency to focus on and achieve its narrow targets quickly and as economically as possible, the lack of mandatory environmental impact assess

Column: 520

ments and the impossibility of identifying and mapping out all our biodiversity on our island quickly enough, all these converged in a tendency to sacrifice our natural ecosystem to short-term intra-agency objectives. Very often, we are unaware of what has been destroyed and, it is literally, a race between the discovery and extinction for our natural heritage. While, of course, I do not contest the need for roads, housing, reservoirs, etc, I believe a legal framework for inter-agency consultation and coordination at the planning stage of the development, together with joint decision making and more detailed inter-agency alignments, after the collection of all necessary information, would allow for a far more comprehensive, less-competitive and less wasteful use of scarce land.

The new Bill is certainly an improvement on the existing Act and I applaud the protection of designated heritage roads and heritage road buffers. I think that is a great step forward. The new Bill also does allow for some consultation between LTA and the National Parks Board pertaining to these roads but it does not actually mention how early this consultation should take place.

There is also no mention of mandatory environmental impact assessments. Since an EIA requires a thorough assessment of all possible impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including the impacts on the biodiversity and the social and cultural impacts, it would, if properly conducted, be the fairest and most informed way to make difficult decisions on land use where different agencies are involved.

For example, an environmental impact assessment, if it had been done in the past, would have prevented the dissection of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve from the central catchment area by the Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE). It is now recognised that the commonest cause of biodiversity

Column: 521

loss after destruction is fragmentation. The smaller the nature area in the ecosystem, the more vulnerable it is. The Bukit Timah Nature Reserve is our only tract of primary rainforest on the island left, although more than 90% of our island was previously covered with rainforest.

It would have been within the technical and economic ability of LTA, during the construction of the BKE, to construct part of it underground, but this was not done. And to reconnect Bukit Timah Nature Reserve now to the central catchment area, to do a bypass operation, as it were, would be far more costly than if this had been built in the original plan. So this is an example of how an environmental impact assessment would not have impeded the construction of the BKE, but it would have given us a win-win situation.

I understand that, in the past, speed and cost cutting were given priority. But, today, increasing scarcity of land and the escalating value of fast-disappearing natural ecosystems and biodiversity require a paradigm shift in our approach, and therefore in our laws.

Insufficient consultation at the conceptual stage of planning will result in the pursuit of short-term narrow objectives to the detriment of long-term sustainability, and everyone will be the loser, not just our biodiversity.

The third issue I would like to suggest to the Minister - here again, it has already been brought up by Dr Amy Khor although we were not in consultation - is the provision for more public consultation and participation in the Bill. Inter-agency consultation is essential but, in my view, not enough. The public too should be consulted, preferably at an early stage, even in the conceptual stage of any development that impacts on our nature areas. The underlying principle, again,

Column: 522

being that we should gather as much information as possible beforehand in order to enable Government to make a fully informed choice.

Early public consultation can have many benefits. First, experts and interested amateurs can contribute valuable information not previously known to policy makers. Of course, Chek Jawa is one example. I believe that there have been some other areas amongst our Southern Islands which have recently been discovered, which have as rich a biodiversity as Chek Jawa.

Secondly, public feedback and consultation, not just from experts but from general members of the public, can also influence policy making constructively by giving a better insight into what the public wants. Our Government agencies and policy makers may not be as close to the pulse of public opinion as they imagine. For example, not everyone would want to travel from point A to point B on a road as quickly as possible all the time. LTA may find that shaving a few minutes off travelling time may not be as important as a pleasant drive along a heritage road.

Minister Lim Swee Say, I believe, in a previous speech in the House, spoke about introducing mirrors in lifts to make the journey more pleasant and a more economical alternative to replacing slow lifts with faster lifts. May I suggest that retaining trees on roads would have the same function. I should say that if LTA were to only focus on faster travelling time, we will have more and more roads and less and less worthwhile destinations to go to.

The third advantage that public consultation could have on our nature areas, as Dr Amy Khor has also said, is that it would educate and raise public awareness. It would educate and raise public awareness not just on the value of

Column: 523

nature areas but also some of the problems faced by Government in trying to juggle our scarce land.

On the issue of volunteerism, I have already mentioned the Blue Volunteers. In areas such as implementation, monitoring and patrolling of our biodiversity, I believe that public participation is not just useful, it will be invaluable.

In conclusion, I hope that the new Parks and Trees Bill will be protective and proactive rather than reactive. It should promote public consultation and participation rather than be perceived as merely restrictive and punitive. It should serve to protect whole ecosystems, see the whole picture, rather than just individual plants, animals and organisms. It should value our biodiversity and ecosystems not just as recreational or even heritage and education, important though they are, it should value them as economic and scientific assets.

Finally, the Bill should serve to protect our country as one with valuable natural resources, not just as a garden city but as an island nation with rich marine and terrestrial biodiversity. Our larger vision of ourselves must encompass not only our economy and our people but our biodiversity and ecosystems. Last week, I have already mentioned the triple bottom-line. I believe that if we are to be sustainable in the long term as a nation, we must guard our natural reserves as assiduously as we guard our fiscal reserves.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Dr Geh Min and Dr Amy Khor for their contributions as well as their support for the Bill.

First, let me respond to the points raised by Dr Geh Min. I agree with her that in terms of natural capital, Singapore

Column: 524

is one of the richest in the world. I was told by NParks that in terms of the number of tree species in our Botanic Gardens, it is more than what you can find in the whole of Europe. However, I do not necessarily share the view of Dr Geh Min that, over the years, we have been subtracting value from this natural capital that we have.

When I was the Minister for the Environment, about two years ago, I attended the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Environmentalists, naturalists, socialists and economists were there at that particular gathering. The conclusion was a very simple one - that if we were to keep the world moving forward, we would need to harmonise all three areas of economic development, social progress and environmental management. In other words, when we talk about value creation, value adding or value subtraction, we have to look at all the three types of values in a holistic way.

I want to remind the House that in order to conserve and preserve the natural capital of Singapore, it costs us a lot of money every year. It costs us millions of dollars every year to keep Singapore green. If we were to insist that every natural value - every tree, every grass, every plant - has to be left untouched, then we are not going to be able to pursue our economic value creation. If we are not able to create economic value, then where do we find the resources to preserve our natural value? In other words, I would not disagree with Dr Geh Min that, from time to time, we may have to subtract value from our natural capital in order to create economic value. But, at the same time, it is also important for us to recognise that we do invest some of our economic value to further create natural value.

Dr Amy Khor mentioned the construction of SBG 2 at Marina South. The SBG 2 will cost us hundreds of

Column: 525

millions of dollars, and I believe that it is a good example of how we are using our economic value to create value in natural capital.

Dr Geh Min asked why do we not gazette marine nature reserves, why do we not make EIA compulsory and so on? Basically, the fundamental issue here is whether we recognise that the core issue facing Singapore, a small island with limited land resources, is the needs of land use requirement and the need to conserve nature reserves. The balancing between the two is the core issue. If we recognise that balancing natural reserves and land use requirement is indeed the core issue, I think we can manage the process, and indeed we have done so over the past many years, and I think we are doing a very good job. But if we do not recognise that we need to balance between the two - in other words, every time when we have to choose between conserving nature versus satisfying a new land use requirement, if we keep on saying that we have to conserve nature at the expense of meeting our land use requirement - then I would think that instituting public consultation and formalising EIA will only lead to more dialogues and more disagreements, but it will not lead to any harmonisation of both goals, and I do not see how this will make Singapore more sustainable.

Sir, on the whole, I do share Dr Geh Min's point that we need to do whatever we can to preserve the natural capital of Singapore and, better still, to create natural value as we move along. But at the same time, I want to remind the House that it is an ongoing challenge to balance between preserving natural capital versus meeting the needs of land use requirement.

Sir, let me move on to respond to some of the points made by Dr Amy Khor. She pointed out that a lot more needs to be done as we move forward, to make

Column: 526

sure that Singapore will remain a garden city and, in fact, better still, become a city in a garden. I fully share her viewpoint on this.

Last month, in December, I went to Shanghai with my family on a vacation. My wife and children visited Pudong for the first time. The tour guide explained the development of Pudong to us. At Pudong, we saw many tall buildings. The tour guide was very proud, as they now have one of the most developed new cities in the Asia Pacific. As we walked the ground of Pudong, there was a big and beautiful garden. The tour guide said, "Mr Lim, do you notice that Pudong has got many tall buildings and, at the same time, we plant a lot of trees and flowers? We did this because we learnt from Singapore. Singapore is a garden city." When he said that, I was very proud, I felt very good. And then came the punch line. He said, "Mr Lim, I believe that Shanghai can do a better job than Singapore, because we are bigger than Singapore. We have more land, we have more space and, as a result, we can do a much better job in terms of making Shanghai not just a beautiful city but also a beautiful garden."

This is a very stark reminder that many countries and many cities are learning from our experience but yet, at the same time, in the spirit of healthy competition, they all aspire to do better. And if we stop progressing, if we stop to aspire to do better in Singapore, then the day will come when we have to go to other places and say, "How I wish I can do a job as good as you." Therefore, I fully agree with Dr Amy Khor that sustaining Singapore as a garden city, going a further step to make Singapore a city in a garden, is a challenge that we all should share and embrace.

Dr Amy Khor brought up a few points. I would like to respond to them quickly.

Column: 527

Firstly, Dr Amy Khor hoped that the planning approval process should not be delayed as a result of the formalisation of NParks' regulatory function. Here, I want to assure Dr Amy Khor

that as far as the Qualified Persons are concerned, the process of filing for applications is still the same. They still go through CORENET. All they need to do now is to add one more item into the distribution list, and this is NParks. As far as the NParks' process is concerned, it is no different from before because NParks will continue to do what it is doing currently in processing the applications. In other words, we do not expect any undue delay, resulting from the formalisation of NParks' functions.

Secondly, Dr Amy Khor said that the legislation of Heritage Roads may have a negative effect on the land value and asked that the public be consulted. Sir, I want to assure Dr Amy Khor that the identification of roads to be gazetted as Heritage Roads will be done highly selectively for the simple reason that there are not many roads in Singapore that have that nice green wall, backed with a nice green buffer. In other words, we do not expect too many roads to qualify as Heritage Roads. And since we are going to do it selectively, we do not think that the impact on the land value will be significant. In fact, we believe that the gazetting of certain roads into Heritage Roads will, in fact, enhance the value in the surroundings, because I think everybody who lives in the city would like to live near a Heritage Road.

Thirdly, Dr Amy Khor commented that the fines have gone up by five times and that the Bill introduces a six months' jail term. Sir, I just want to clarify that the six months' jail term, in fact, was already in the existing regulation. In other words, it is not a new addition. As for the

Column: 528

increase in the fine from $10,000 to $50,000, as I mentioned earlier, most of these damages were caused by developers and construction companies in the course of construction works. As far as the members of the public are concerned, we do not expect them to wilfully go and damage many of our mature trees. In any case, for trees outside the Tree Conservation Area, we regulate that through the Parks and Trees Rules. Right now, the maximum fine is $5,000, and with the passage of this Bill, this will go up to $10,000. So, for members of the public, I want to remind them that even $10,000 is a hefty fine, so please help us take care of our nature and not damage these public trees at public places.

Fourthly, Dr Amy Khor suggested that we step up inter-Ministry consultation. I believe that is the point made by Dr Geh Min as well. That I fully agree. In fact, Members of the House may be pleased to note that NParks has compiled a list of roads - what we call a watch list. Even though these roads will not be gazetted as Heritage Roads, we will still pay special attention to these roads. As and when there is any development that will affect these roads on the watch list, all the agents (LTA, URA, HDB, NParks and so on) will pay particular attention to make sure that all alternatives are being explored and that the impact on the environment will be fully assessed.

Sir, last but not least, Dr Amy Khor suggested we step up public education and we should do so with the community through partnership with the CDCs, the Town Councils, the Nature Society, and so on. I fully agree with that. Over the years, NParks has transformed Singapore into a Garden City. The next step that we intend to take is to transform Singapore into a Green Community, which means that we want to inculcate this appreciation for nature, and this love for

Column: 529

planting trees in the community. For that to happen, NParks would be working very closely with the CDCs, the Town Councils, the CCs, the various grassroots organisations. Hopefully, in time to come, the Green Community will take root in Singapore.

Sir, in conclusion, I thank both Members for their support and by working along the line that they have suggested, we hope that Singapore will not only be green on the outside but, more importantly, every Singaporean will be green in the inside as well.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, I just like to have a point of clarification. Regarding the possible negative impact on values of privately held land, I am more concerned with, for instance, areas that are identified for tree conservation which are actually privately held land. Would there be prior consultation before the Minister gazettes the area for conservation?

The other question relates to the watch list. Would this actually be available to the public? If not, can it be made available?

Mr Lim Swee Say: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I want to clarify the difference between the Tree Conservation Area (TCA) and Heritage Roads. When we talk about Heritage Roads, we are talking about roads which have a green wall of trees supported by a green buffer of up to 10 metres. In the case of the Tree Conservation Area, basically only the trees on the green verges will be protected. In other words, when an area is being designated as a TCA, it has no impact on the landowner because the protection of the TCA applies to the green verges by the roadside in a public area; it does not cut into the areas owned by the private owner. In the case of the Heritage Roads, it will cover up to 10 metres of the

Column: 530

green buffer. Should this green buffer cut into a private land currently owned by a private sector owner, again this buffer requirement will not be applied to the existing owner. However, what I have said earlier was that in time to come, should there be a transfer of ownership from the public sector to the private sector, then the green buffer requirement will apply to the new owner, because in the process of acquiring that piece of land, the new owner should know that the condition is already in place and in force.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to the watch list, at this moment, I would say that our first step is to identify a few roads to be gazetted publicly as Heritage Roads. As far as the watch list is concerned, we are still in the process of building up the list. Whether in time to come, we want to release the information, let us take it one step at a time, because for many of these roads, we have to consult various agencies to find out what are the development plans. But my point here is this. Once we have the watch list in place, what we can assure Members is that any development that will affect these roads will be given very careful consideration to make sure that all other alternatives are being explored.

Dr Geh Min: Sir, just a point of clarification. When the Minister talked about Heritage Roads - he named a few, such as South Buona Vista and Mount Pleasant Road - are these the confirmed Heritage Roads? Will there be other Heritage Roads that were not mentioned? If members of the public have suggestions of other Heritage Roads, will these be considered?

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, assuming that this House was to pass this Bill this afternoon, then NParks intends to announce the first list of the roads to be gazetted as Heritage Roads. So, at this

Column: 531

moment, I am not in a position to disclose any information. Hopefully, by the end of today, NParks will be in a position to provide the information.

Secondly, Dr Geh Min asked whether the public can come forward with suggestions. Of course, any suggestion from the public is most welcome. On the part of NParks, they have identified some of the roads as potential areas to be gazetted. But if the Nature Society or members of the public have any other suggestions, I welcome them. But please bear in mind that the Heritage Roads will be gazetted on a highly selective basis. It has to satisfy two criteria: firstly, tall green walls and; secondly, with nice green buffer to create the overall effect of a green and natural environment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: The citation year "2004" will be changed to "2005" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 66 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.