As a land-scarce
country, space is a precious commodity in Singapore. The government is
extremely conscious of the importance in ensuring the efficient use of land to
maximize the country’s economic growth. Masterplans are drawn decades in
advance, often prioritizing the state’s economic goals and thus creating
tensions between the other socio-political goals of the country. One such
example is the tensions between wildlife conservation and economic development.
Turtle-y gone for the greater good?
Recently the Live
Turtle and Tortoise Museum made the news when the owner, Ms. Connie Tan,
appealed to PM Lee for help regarding the museum’s eviction from the Chinese
Garden, its home for the last 16 years. The only tortoise and turtle museum in the world, the museum currently holds over 500 tortoises and turtles, most of which are either
rescues or abandoned (Lim, 2017). Ms. Tan and her father started the museum in
an effort to educate children about tortoises and turtles. Workshops catered to
children and guided tours are conducted, creating an educational and
interactive experience. This is especially so since the animals are allowed to
roam freely, allowing visitors to interact with them (Lim, 2017).
However, the
museum is not included in the Jurong Lake District project which seeks to
transform the area into Singapore’s second central business district. National
Development Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about how the project will create a
"better, smarter and more sustainable centre for businesses", thus
providing more jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans (Phua, 2017). It is
estimated that the huge undertaking will create more than 100,000 new jobs in
sectors, such as technology, and 20,000 homes as well (Tee, 2018).
When news of the
museum’s plight spread, Singaporeans responded with a tremendous show of
support. Donations surged and many even offered their homes to Ms. Tan as
temporary housing for the animals. PM Lee responded to Ms. Tan’s appeal
swiftly, offering reassurances that relevant authorities would look into her
case.
Growing public support
The generous
public support garnered by the museum seems to be the latest product in a rather
curious trend in Singapore - public interest in wildlife conservation arguably
has exceeded the state’s expectations in recent years. While economic growth is
still very much the top priority of the state, it is undeniable that wildlife
conservation in Singapore has been receiving more attention from the
government. More efforts have been put into the protection of our natural
heritage and wildlife. Natural sites such as Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Bukit
Timah Nature Reserve generally include an educational element and are modified
to increase public awareness of environmental conservation through sustainable
interactions with such natural spaces. From conducting school trips to nature
reserves to student projects centered on wildlife, even our education system
attempts to highlight the importance of wildlife conservation. This has
invariably translated to a growing public interest in wildlife conservation as
Singaporeans grow increasingly aware of our unique flora and fauna. As such,
Singaporeans now are less willing to sacrifice natural spaces for the sake of
economic progress, resulting in increasing private involvement in the
protection of such spaces and wildlife.
Is it really wildlife conservation?
Can the Live
Turtle and Tortoise Museum truly be considered wildlife conservation? After
all, the animals are not truly living in their natural habitat but rather kept
as pets, tame and familiar with human interaction. If not, is there really any
value to the museum in the fight for wildlife conservation? To this, I say, yes
there is.
The significance
of the museum lies not only in the survival of the animals or the actual
conservation of any natural space but rather in its role as an indicator of the
state’s attitude towards such private initiatives. Unlike other wildlife
conservation projects, the museum is arguably the only one started entirely by a
citizen with the aim of education. It represents something entirely different;
it shows Singaporeans taking a much more proactive stance in wildlife
conservation. The considerable support and attention received by the museum
show how local socio-political opinions of wildlife conservation efforts have
changed. No longer do we see such efforts as redundant. We do not merely accept
the sacrifices made in the name of economic development nor do we consider the
plans made by the state to be set in stone.
The realization
that the public had a responsibility in wildlife conservation as well was
further driven across by the successful protection of Chek Jawa from reclamation
in 2001 when public outcry played a major role in staying the state’s hand (Wee
& Hale, 2008). An intertidal zone situated at the eastern shore of Pulau
Ubin, Chek Jawa possesses unique marine life not found anywhere off the main
island of Singapore (Tan & Yeo, 2003). When reclamation plans were
announced, volunteers like Joseph Lai, N. Sivasothi and Ria Tan came forward
spontaneously, to help collect, identify and catalogue the organisms found
there.
These volunteers
came from all walks of life and shared a similar passion for protecting the
wildlife in Singapore. Hundreds of visitors streamed in during periods of low
tide after news of Chek Jawa’s possible fate spread. Tours were organized by
volunteers to minimise damage caused and a long term sustainable guide system
was implemented too.
Compared to the 1989
Sungei Buloh Nature Park conservation proposal which only involved a small
group, the Malayan Nature Society-Singapore (MNS-S) later known as Nature
Society (Singapore) (NSS), the response to Chek Jawa was astounding (Wee &
Hale, 2008).
The nuanced
significance of the Live Turtle and Tortoise Museum in this context explains
how any action taken by the government now will likely set a precedent and
influence the future of civilian-driven wildlife conservation efforts. Should
the museum receive governmental help, it will indicate the state’s support for
such civilian-started initiatives and possibly encourage Singaporeans to take a
more aggressive approach in protecting our wildlife.
This may be
immediately reflected in the Cross-Island Line debate where the limelight is
once again on the conflict between development and wildlife conservation. It is
not a far stretch to assume that a positive government response to the museum’s
plight will likely encourage a much louder pushback in the debate of the Cross-Island
Line where many more Singaporeans are already protesting far more than they
would have 20 years ago.
From Sungei Buloh Wetland
Reserve to the ongoing debate about the Cross-Island Line, there is an
undeniably marked increase in the number of Singaporeans getting involved in
wildlife conservation efforts. Perhaps, ironically the absence of wildlife in
our urbanized environment has made wildlife conservation personal to us - after
all, does absence not make the heart fonder?
Reference List:
Lim, Y. (2017). Bye, turtles? Jurong turtle museum to close in March.
The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/bye-turtles
Phua, R. (2017). Jurong Lake District to create more than 100,000 jobs,
20,000 homes. Channel Newsasia. Retrieved from
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/jurong-lake-district-to-create-more-than-100-000-jobs-20-000-9155708
Tan, R., & Yeo, A. (2003). Chek Jawa guidebook. Singapore: Simply
Green.
Tee, C. (2018). Extension for Chinese Garden turtle museum lease being
considered. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/possible-extension-for-chinese-garden-turtle-museum-lease-being-considered
Wee, Y., & Hale, R. (2008). The Nature Society (Singapore) And The
Struggle To Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas. NATURE IN SINGAPORE, 1, 41-49.
Retrieved from https://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/dna/docs/632e6c269d327908ca4676f28b7651fd.pdf
