“No Consultation to Extract Concessions”
0
The Straits Times published a letter from the Singapore Heritage Society and All Things Bukit Brown 15th May, 2014 in response to an ed-op piece ” Can Civic Society Influence Policies on 12th May. The edited letter is available here
We reproduce the original and highlight key parts which were edited :
We refer to the article by Assistant Political Editor Leonard Lim claiming that civil society groups “extracted concessions on Bukit Brown cemetery” in his opinion piece, “Can Civil Society Influence Politics?” (ST, May 12, 2014).
As key players of the civil movement trying to protect and preserve Bukit Brown, we are unclear as to what “concessions” Mr. Lim is referring. It is now a well-established narrative that officially in 2012 when the road was announced, the decision to build a highway through Bukit Brown had already been made. We state for the record we were present at a briefing by the Ministry of National Development but that there was no consultation or protracted engagement thereafter to extract any concessions. We issued a call for a moratorium and moved on.
Mr. Lim references a subsequent decrease in the number of graves planned for exhumation for the 8-lane road across Bukit Brown from an estimated 5,000 as part of a compromise reached with civil society. This is not the case.
There are two points to clarify to prevent this misstatement of facts from being (repeatedly) perpetuated. One, the number of graves finally affected was reduced not to 3,764 as stated in Lim’s article, but to 4,153. The error occurred because Mr. Lim quoted from a Land Transport Authority (LTA) announcement in a March 19, 2012 statement on the realignment of the road. It was in an August 5, 2013 statement by Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and LTA to announce the award of the contract for the road that the final tally of affected graves was issued. Two, both statements clearly attributed the realignment of road to an engineering decision, and the drop in the number of graves affected had nothing to do with consultations with civil society.
On the second point, we draw attention to the LTA statement that announced that the road design includes a bridge over several creeks in Bukit Brown rather than a design that will see a filling up of these natural drainage networks with soil. There was no consultation on the original design or its changes. It is not clear if the adjustment was a result of a yet-undisclosed, but limited-scope Biodiversity Impact Assessment that the LTA conducted in early 2012. Regardless of the reason, that this change in design has been reported several times in your newspaper to be a result of a “compromise” with civil society is erroneous and needs to be corrected so as not to be repeated.
To date, there is likewise no consultation about the zoning of the greater Bukit Brown area in its entirety for residential use in the 2013 Draft Land Use Master Plan released by the URA. This area includes the larger cemetery complex comprising Bukit Brown, Seh Ong, Lau Sua, and Kopi Sua.
Now that we have clarified the events of 2012 and the decisions announced thereafter on official record, we would like to focus on the present and note that we have been meeting with the National Heritage Board since mid-2013 and hope to make more progress in protecting Bukit Brown. We write to clear the air so discussions are based on facts, not misrepresentations, and the public is not misled.
Signed:
Chua Ai Lin (Dr) President, Singapore Heritage Society, Claire Leow (Ms) co founder, All Things Bukit Brown
****
The original article reproduced here for reference, highlighted paras on Bukit Brown :
ST Opinion, May 12, 2014
Can civic society influence policies?
By Leonard Lim, Assistant Political Editor
THE large, spreading banyan tree once had such a thick canopy that little sunlight could filter through, hindering the flourishing of any plants below.
But, to borrow this metaphor of the State made famous by former minister George Yeo in 1991, it has been pruned somewhat in the past couple of years.
Consultation and engagement have become the buzzwords of government policymaking in a changed political landscape, with a more well-educated, well-travelled populace becoming more assertive and vocal.
There may be no better time for civil society – the wide spectrum of organisations operating outside the government and business sectors – to test this pledge to listen more, and in the process carve out a more influential role for itself.
They can take heart from the naming of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin last year as the Government’s unofficial point person for engaging with non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Mr Tan is Manpower Minister and a member of the fourth-generation leadership.
In 2012, Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam met gay activists to discuss matters such as discrimination and the anti-gay sex law Section 377A.
The State’s engagement with other interest groups on animal rights, heritage and conservation as well as environmental awareness has also increased.
Civil society has scored significant victories recently as well, influencing legislation and government policy.
Since the start of last year, foreign maids – either with a new work permit or a renewed one – have been entitled to a day off every week, or must be paid a day’s wages in lieu.
As contracts last two years, all maids will, by next January, be on new contracts that have to abide by the rule. The change came about after a decade of lobbying from groups championing the rights of migrant workers.
Laws on sexual crimes have also been repealed.
It started in late 2011, after an article highlighting a little-known section of the Evidence Act was put up on website publichouse.sg. The Act allowed a man charged with rape to discredit the victim by digging into her sexual history, and showing she is of generally immoral character.
Mr Andrew Loh, who runs the site, circulated the post to several ministries to get a response.
He received a call from the Law Ministry suggesting a meeting, but turned it down as he felt the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) was the expert on the topic.
Mr Shanmugam eventually met representatives from the women’s rights advocacy group and later started the process of amending the Act.
Nature lovers, who in 2001 succeeded in getting the reclamation plans for the Chek Jawa wetlands area shelved, also extracted concessions on Bukit Brown cemetery recently.
Several nature and heritage groups opposed the construction of a road that would slice through the historic graveyard.
It is the largest Chinese cemetery outside China, and among the thousands of graves are those of philanthropist Gan Eng Seng and Lee Hoon Leong, grandfather of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
After months of engagement, a compromise was reached and the authorities changed the road’s design so that the number of graves exhumed fell from 5,000 to 3,746.
But there are also many examples where civil society’s push for change was not successful.
Earlier this year, several activists took issue with the Government’s tabling of proposed legislation to keep the peace in Little India following last December’s riot.
They argued that the parliamentary Bill placed too much focus on alcohol as the cause of the riot, and this might influence a Committee of Inquiry’s deliberations.
Several non-partisan Nominated MPs criticised aspects of it. But it was passed, with the Government explaining that the new laws would give the police powers in the neighbourhood for a year until longer-term measures could be enacted.
Other recent civil society proposals that were rebuffed include calls to introduce a poverty line to reduce income inequality, and the withdrawal of licensing regulations of news websites, which some saw as onerous and curbing free expression.
But groups can take heart that “the Government has and will continue to engage civil society as an essential partner in dealing with the important issues that face Singapore”, as Mr Shanmugam’s press secretary wrote in a letter to The Straits Times Forum page last November.
Still, even as the political leadership indicates a greater willingness to engage, there is always the lingering question mark over whether a civil society group’s actions or statements are deemed to have crossed into the political arena, thus risking censure from the Government.
This longstanding stance of politics and political comment belonging only in the realm of party politics can be traced back to the fledgling days of the People’s Action Party.
In the 1960s and 1970s, leftists used trade unions and cultural groups to garner support against the party.
A recent incident involved activist Nizam Ismail.
In April last year, the lawyer was accused by the Government of using the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) as a platform for pursuing partisan and racial politics, a claim which he denied.
He resigned from his AMP leadership positions, saying he was told the Government had taken issue with his online comments and participation in political events that he said he did in his “personal capacity”.
In the wake of the furore, Mr Lawrence Wong, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, said in May last year that the Government welcomes feedback on policies even if they may be critical, as this helps improve public policy for the benefit of all Singaporeans.
But NGOs “should not be used as a cloak for partisan political objectives”, he stressed.
“Similarly, while individuals in the NGOs are free to express their views, they should not use their organisations to pursue a partisan political agenda,” he added.
The goals of civil society in wanting social transformation, however, mean these limits will inadvertently be tested on occasion.
Still, if the saplings under the banyan tree are to take root and thrive, much will depend on how willing Singapore’s civil society is to push the boundaries and extend its reach in this new landscape.
limze@sph.com.sg
Save Bukit Banner (photo James Tann)
Comments