Null

MqJICEL (2006) Vol 3 1
BEYOND REAL ESTATE: SOWING THE LEGAL SEEDS FOR AN

ETHICAL PUBLIC LAND STEWARDSHIP IN SINGAPORE
JOSEPH CHUN *
I INTRODUCTION
The prevailing concept of private land ownership and its associated management
rights has been criticised by a number of writers for falling short in accommodating
an ethical relationship with the land. In this article, I propose to look at the law and
practice relating to the management of public land in Singapore, by which I mean
land owned and managed by the State and its agencies. I observe that like private
land law, public land law in Singapore empowers but does not oblige the State and
its agencies to protect the health of ecological systems. In light of modern
developments in ecology and ethics, the ownership and management of land must
now take on a more expansive view of community interests. Public land law must
also take into account the interdependence between species and land as a biotic
community, and protect land from irreparable ecological degradation for short-term
economic gain. One way to do this is to introduce procedural requirements that
explicitly require land managers to systematically identify and consider the
ecological impacts of proposed land management decisions. Ultimately however,
public land managers are public servants and they will only internalise the land
ethic when the public they serve do the same and expect land managers to do the
same. In this regard, the law can empower the public to become more intimately
involved in land management. Only by becoming more involved can the public
develop a close personal relationship with the land and learn to care for it.
This article begins with a general review of the developments that have taken place
in ecological science and environmental ethics in the last century. It is argued that
these developments have prompted the realisation that it is self-defeating to view
land simply as an economic resource to be manipulated to maximise human welfare
without regard for the indirect and cumulative harm to the land’s ecological
integrity on which all life, including our own, ultimately depends. It then looks at
*
Assistant Professor, National University of Singapore. This article was first presented as a
paper at the Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference 2005 in Glasgow. I would like to
thank David Randle, a student editor of the MJICEL, for his helpful substantive comments on
my earlier draft of this article. All errors and shortcomings in this article are mine alone.
2 MqJICEL (2006) Vol 3
the law and practice of public land management in Singapore, and observes that the
land ethic plays virtually no role therein. The article concludes with suggestions for
updating the legal framework for public land management to accommodate and
contribute to the development of a more enlightened social ethic towards the land.
II LAND AS A BIOTIC COMMUNITY
Early western conceptions of dominion over land included a duty of stewardship

not to harm the land. For example, influential seventeenth century English
philosopher John Locke accepted in his Two Treatises of Government the belief that
God gave the world and all that was in it to man for his common use. 1 Importantly
for Locke however, although the Earth was a gift from God, ‘nothing was made by
God for man to spoil or destroy’. 2
The need for a harmonious relationship between humans and the land is also
foundational to many traditional cultures. Ancient cultures primarily conceived of
the physical world in an organic way, as each part and species was interconnected
with every other part and species. Many indigenous people and traditional societies
believe in the spiritual power of nature, and emphasise human participation in its
fulfilment. 3 Similarly, many Asian religions and philosophies such as Buddhism,
Confucianism, Daoism and Hinduism advocate respect for all life and emphasise
union with nature and its cosmic forces.
With advances in the field of modern ecology since the second half of the 20th
century, the importance of ecological harmony has begun to take on a more
scientific understanding. From an ecological perspective, a parcel of land simply
cannot be treated as an entity separable from its surroundings. For example, in the
1960s, English atmospheric scientist James Lovelock observed that the Earth’s
biosphere effectively acts as if it were a self-organising system which works in such
a way as to keep its systems in some kind of equilibrium that is conducive to life.
Individual species have evolved in tandem so that as they pursue their self-interest,
their combined interactions tend to have counterbalancing effects on the global
environment thereby maintaining optimal conditions favourable to life. 4
American forester Aldo Leopold, the single most influential figure in the
development of a Western ecocentric environmental philosophy, was one of the
first people to call for a radical rethinking of ethics in light of the newly developed
science of ecology. In his 1949 essay, ‘The Land Ethic’, Leopold described the land
ecologically as a biotic pyramid made of several layers. 5 For Leopold, the land was
1
J Locke, The Second Treatise of Government (first published 1690, ed 1946) 14-15.
2
Ibid 22-23.
3
See for example, B Rigsby, ‘Aboriginal People, Spirituality and the Traditional Ownership of
Land’ (1999) International Journal of Social Economics 963.
4
J Lovelock, Gaia: a New Look at Life on Earth (2000).
5
A Leopold, ‘The Land Ethic’ in A Sand County Almanac AND Sketches Here and There
(1968) 215-216.
Beyond Real Estate 3
more than mere soil; it was a community of native plants and animals linked
together by a flow of energy. While the land is not static and is constantly evolving,
evolutionary changes are of a different order from many man-made changes
including activities associated with habitat loss and fragmentation; invasion by
introduced species, the over-exploitation of living resources; pollution; global
climate change and industrial agriculture and forestry. Such man-made changes
tended to simplify rather than diversify the biotic community, producing
widespread unintended or unforeseen effects. 6
Leopold argued for an extension of ethics to deal with man’s relations with the
land. 7 It is not enough for ethics to deal with the relationships between individuals
and the relationship between individuals and society; an ethic to deal with man’s
relationship with the land is equally necessary. This involves enlarging the
boundary of our community to include the land, so that we see ourselves as only
ordinary members and citizens of the land-community rather than as its conquerors
or owners. This implies respect for our fellow members and for the community. It
also requires that we do not presume to know what makes the community tick, what
and who is valuable and what and who is worthless in community life. Leopold
eschewed a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest that leads
to the elimination of many ‘uneconomic’ elements in the land-community that are
in fact essential to its healthy functioning.
Importantly, Leopold did not see any conflict between our broader human interest
and the interest of the land-community. Indeed, it is ultimately very much in our
interest as members of the land-community to keep healthy the land of which we
are a part. There is nothing wrong with using parts of nature for our benefit so long
as the health of the community as a whole is respected. It is important that we stop
thinking of land management solely in terms of economic self-interest and only
conserve what is convenient, when we can do so without sacrifice. We must also
address the ethical and aesthetic questions. Leopold summed up the ethic thus:
quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each
question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is
economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. 8
As Leopold noted, a land ethic reflects the existence of an ecological conscience,

which in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the
land, ie, its capacity for self-renewal. 9 What prevents us from developing an
ecological conscience? Leopold suggests a number of obstacles that impede the
evolution of a land ethic. 10 Firstly, our education and economic system turns us
6
Ibid 218.
7
Ibid 203-205.
8
Ibid 224.
9
Ibid 221.
10
Ibid 223-225.
away from, rather than towards, an intense consciousness of land. Secondly, we

perceive land as an adversary. Thirdly, we lack an understanding of ecology.
Finally, we mistakenly accept that economics should determine all land-use.
III THE LAND ETHIC AND THE LAW
International law has begun to recognise and accept this ethical development
towards a greater awareness of the importance of conducting ourselves with proper
regard for the biotic community.
Thus, paragraph 3(a) of the Preamble of the World Charter for Nature 1982 11 states
Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and,
to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of
action.
In the preamble to the Agreement for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources 1985, 12 the Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) of which Singapore is one, also recognised ‘the interdependence of living
resources, between them and with other natural resources, within ecosystems of
which they are part’. The Parties undertook, inter alia, to base their land use plans
as far as possible on the ecological capacity of the land. 13
In a similar vein, the preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, 14

expressed a consciousness of the intrinsic value of biological diversity as well as its
importance for evolution and for maintaining the life sustaining systems of the
biosphere. 15
Reflecting the emerging international consensus, the Earth Charter 16 has recently
identified an ecocentric ethic as the way forward for humanity. Launched in 2000,
the Charter is described by its promoters, the Earth Charter Initiative, as
an authoritative synthesis of values, principles, and aspirations that are widely shared
by growing numbers of men and women in all regions of the world … [reflecting]
extensive international consultations conducted over a period of many years … [and]
based upon contemporary science, international law, and the insights of philosophy
and religion. 17
11
United Nations General Assembly A/RES/37/7.
12
(1985) 15 Environmental Policy and Law 64. The Agreement has yet to come into force
because it has not yet been ratified by the requisite minimum of at least six Parties.
13
Agreement for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1985 Article 12(1).
14
1760 United Nations Treaty Series 79.
15
Preamble, Convention on Biological Diversity 1992.
16
<http://www.earthcharter.org/files/charter/charter.pdf> (accessed 7 April 2006).
17
The Earth Charter Initiative <http://www.earthcharter.org/innerpg.cfm?id_menu=19>
(accessed 7 April 2006).
The preamble of the Charter provides, inter alia, that
[a]s the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once
holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the
midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family
and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring
forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human
rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative
that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater
community of life, and to future generations. 18
A core principle of the Earth Charter is that ‘… every form of life has value
regardless of its worth to human beings’. 19 Following from this core principle,
Principle 2 advocates care for the community of life with compassion,
understanding and love; 20 and Principle 15 calls for all living beings to be treated
with respect and consideration. 21
Importantly, an ecocentric ethic is not inconsistent with sustainable development,

the current dominant paradigm for environmental protection. Principle 1 of the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 22 declares that
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are
entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. 23
Even more explicitly, Paragraph 6 of the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable

Development 2002 24 adopts virtually identical language to that in the preamble of
the Earth Charter:
From this Continent, the Cradle of Humanity we declare, through the Plan of
Implementation and this Declaration, our responsibility to one another, to the greater
community of life and to our children. 25
An ecocentric ethic has also increasingly been expressed in domestic law. One of
the first countries to recognise and embody an environmental ethic in its
constitution, Brazil’s Constitution represents a trend towards the integration of an
18
Emphasis added.
19
Earth Charter Principle 1(b). Emphasis added.
20
Ibid Principle 2.
21
Ibid Principle 15.
22
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, A/CONF.151/26 (Vol 1) Annex 1.
23
Emphasis added. See also the World Commission on Environment and Development’ report in
its report Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)
13, that utility aside; there were moral, ethical, cultural, aesthetic, and purely scientific reasons
for conserving wild beings. The Commission’s report brought the concept of sustainable
development into the international agenda, and was a significant influence in the subsequent
adoption of the Rio Declaration five years later.
24
Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development 2002, 1UN Doc A CONF 199/20.
25
Emphasis added.
environmental ethic in constitutions. 26 Article 225(1) of the Brazil Constitution

requires the government to
preserve and restore essential ecological processes and provide ecological handling
of the species and ecosystems …
determine, in all units of the Federation, territorial spaces and components which are
to receive special protection, any alteration and suppression only being allowed by
means of a law, and any use which adversely affects the integrity of the attributes
which justify their protection being forbidden … [and]
protect the fauna and the flora, all practices which jeopardize their ecological
function, cause the extinction of species or subject animals to cruelty being forbidden
according to the law.
In a similar vein, Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution imposes a fundamental

duty on every citizen of India ‘to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures’.
New domestic legislation and case law are also emerging all around the world to
acknowledge and impose a duty to conserve or even enhance biodiversity. For
example, one of the declared statutory purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, 27 the cornerstone of United States environmental law, is to
‘encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his
environment’. 28
In New Zealand, the Environment Act 1986 seeks, inter alia, to ensure that in
managing the natural and physical resources, full and balanced consideration is
taken of the intrinsic values of ecosystems. 29 Under its Resource Management Act
1991, all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act are required to
have particular regard, inter alia to the Maori concept of kaitiakitanga, an
indigenous concept of guardianship in accordance with Maori customs and
traditions in relation to natural and physical resources; the ethic of stewardship; and
the intrinsic value of ecosystems. 30
More recently, in Scotland, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 imposes
on every public body and office-holder exercising their functions, a duty to further
the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of
those functions. 31 Consistently with Article 6 of the Convention on Biological
26
Law professor John Tucker has identified at least 50 constitutions with environmental
provisions. See ‘Constitutional Codification of an Environmental Ethic’ (2000) 52 Florida
Law Review 299, 312.
27
National Environmental Policy Act 1969 42 USC 4321-4347.
28
42 USC § 4321.
29
1986 No 27 long title.
30
1991 No 69 s 7.
31
2004 asp 6 s 1(1).
Diversity 1992, the Scottish Ministers are required to publish a biodiversity

conservation strategy. Public bodies and office holders must have regard to the
Convention and the strategy to the extent that this is consistent with the discharge of
their functions. Ministers must also periodically report to Parliament on the
implementation of the strategy. 32 At the final stage of the legislative process, the
Minister for Environment and Rural and Development, in moving that the Scottish
Parliament pass the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, described the bill thus:
[a] key theme of the bill has been an emphasis on people and nature and the
recognition that nature conservation and protection of the environment do not happen
in a vacuum. We need to reconnect people with the natural world to achieve a
sensible, sustainable balance for the future. The bill will make a difference on many
levels. It forms part of a coherent larger vision for not only a new system of nature
conservation, but a sustainable relationship with our natural environment and the
planet on which we live. 33
Importantly, the law has recognised, as Leopold did, that the ethical consideration
of non-humans is not adverse to human welfare. In the 1995 English Court of
Appeal case of R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings, the issue was
whether a local authority’s decision to ban deer hunting on its land was in
accordance with its statutory mandate to manage the land for the ‘benefit,
improvement or development of the area as a whole’. The decision was held not to
be so because the authority had banned deer hunting on the ground that it was
morally repulsive rather than because it was for the benefit of the area. Simon
Brown LJ noted, however, that
the concepts of benefit to the area, and public interest and good, invite consideration
first of the council’s human community, rather than its wildlife. But the two
considerations are not discrete: human well-being for many will depend upon their
satisfaction as to animal welfare. That explains much animal legislation and why
such activities as bear-baiting and cock-fighting have long since been abolished. It
explains too why a spacious zoo provides enjoyment when a cramped one may not,
and why bull-fighting is unlikely to catch on here. The examples could be multiplied.
Why then should it be thought illogical and thus impermissible for councillors to
have regard to their sentiments as representatives of the local community in deciding
whether that community’s land - the common - should be hunted?
IV LAND MANAGEMENT AS ECOLOGICAL STEWARDSHIP
Reflecting on this enlightened shift towards an ecocentric outlook, many legal

academic writers have correctly pointed out that the land is too important to be left
to the whims of land owners motivated by short term self-interest.
32
Convention on Biological Diversity ss 1(2) and 2.
33
Scottish Parliament Official Report (5 May 2004) col 8088.
Law professor Eric Freyfogle, for example, has detailed some of the shortcomings
of American land law: 34
Property law assumes that people are distinct from the land ... Humans possess moral
value; the land does not. Harm to humans deserves redress; harm to the land does not
…
Property law assumes that humans can draw lines on the land and thereby divide it
meaningfully into discrete pieces … Nature does not observe our lines, except in the
rare cases where we let nature set them for us … Lines drawn on the land usually
lead to separate land management regimes.
The most fundamental flaw of property law … is the law's inability to see how land
parcels differ...
[P]roperty law places too much weight on market value ... When harm does not cost
an owner money in the market, the law turns a blind eye. When money is paid, we
think all is made right, as if displaced animals could draw on the bank for food and
shelter ... 35
A number of law academics have also noted that the prevailing Anglo-American
concept of land ownership may no longer adequately capture the social and
ecological importance of land, and may need to be replaced with the concept of
stewardship.
Arguing for systemic change away from the current method of making land use
decisions that are dominated by an inappropriate economic paradigm entailing
broad privileges and few obligations, James Karp advocated for land ownership to
include a duty of land stewardship entailing a shared community ethic of
ecocentrism in which humans are integrated with their natural environment; and a
reordering of the rights of the individual and the rights of the community regarding
land. 36
Describing environmental ethics as ‘an understanding that in an ecosystem every

action taken has consequences’, Robert Goldstein proposed the inclusion of ‘green
wood’ in the ‘bundle of rights’ metaphor often associated with property rights. The
green wood is the ‘one stick that is dependent on the individual nature of the
specific real property, and is therefore planted firmly in the ground’. It represents
‘the obligation that must be applied with conscience based on our understanding of
34
E Freygogle, ‘Ethics, Community, and Private Land’ (1996) 23 Ecology Law Quarterly 631,
648-649.
35
See also E Freyfogle, ‘Ownership and Ecology’ (1993) 43 Case Western Law Reserve 1269,
1282-1283.
36
J Karp, ‘A Private Property Duty of Stewardship: Changing our Land Ethic’ (1993) 23
Environmental Law 735.
the importance of land beyond that of the inanimate sticks in the bundle’ which
have no ties to the ground. 37 In legal terms,
[l]andowners have a duty to maintain the environmental context of the land in

relation to the ecosystem to which it belongs. Environmental context is defined using
the science of ecology. Green wood creates a rebuttable presumption that action by a
landowner that will affect the environmental context is prohibited. 38
More radically, William Lucy and Catherine Mitchell have advocated the
replacement of the concept of private property with that of stewardship that
recognises the importance of the availability of land for the satisfaction of a number
of basic human needs, and subordinates the pursuit of individual economic interests
to alternative land uses that satisfy social and ecological criteria. 39
The ‘bundle of rights’ metaphor for property has also been criticised for its
incompatibility with the ecology of land. Craig Arnold has argued that the metaphor
should be replaced with a ‘web of interests’ metaphor, at the centre of which is the
object. Such a metaphor would promote a conscious examination of the
characteristics of the property and consequently the nature of the person-thing
relationships, in addition to the people-people relationships in respect of the object,
in applying and developing property law. 40 Myrl Duncan has also criticised the
metaphor for being fragmented and abstracted, individualistic and immutable, and
therefore anti-ecological. Land should be reconceived as a community-based
resource subject to the overriding public interest, and the bundle of sticks metaphor
expanded to include a public cord that binds the bundle and secures the sticks
making up the bundle. The cord is loosened or tightened accordingly to reflect
changes in societal values. 41
V THE LAND ETHIC IN SINGAPORE
Is the land ethic necessary or appropriate for Singapore? I submit it is. Local
philosopher and nature conservationist Hua-Chew Ho has argued for a similar ethic
to be emphasised in Singapore. 42 In considering the appropriate value orientation
towards nature preservation in Singapore that would strike a responsive chord with
the psyche of its people, Ho took into consideration a number of factors, including
37
R Goldstein, ‘Green Wood in the Bundle of Sticks: Fitting Environmental Ethics and Ecology
into Real Property Law’ (1998) 25 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 347,
391-392 and 411-412.
38
R Goldstein, Ecology and Environmental Ethics: Green Wood in the Bundle of Sticks (2004)
151.
39
W Lucy, and C Mitchell, ‘Replacing Private Property: The Case for Stewardship’ (1996) 55(3)
Cambridge Law Journal 566.
40
C Arnold, ‘The Reconstitution of Property: Property as a Web of Interests’ (2002) 26 Harvard
Environmental Law Review 281.
41
M Duncan, ‘Reconceiving the Bundle of Sticks: Land as a Community-Based Resource’
(2002) 32 Environmental Law 773.
42
H Ho, ‘A Value Orientation for Nature Preservation in Singapore’ (1997) 44 Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 91.
the national preoccupation with economic growth, the materialistic and practical
attitude of its people towards the world and life, the general perception amongst the
people that there is land scarcity in Singapore, the absence of areas of pristine
wilderness unadulterated by human intervention and the tendency in Singapore to
conflate nature with an orderly green landscape with its uniformity of mostly exotic
tree species. 43 At the same time, he also observed a ‘blooming of interest in nature’,
and a ‘growing groundswell of committed public support for nature preservation
never seen before in Singapore’. 44 Furthermore, pressure to develop land to meet
the major economic needs of the earlier decades of Singapore’s independence, such
as housing and employment, was subsiding, and the emphasis in land use had now
shifted from standard of living issues to quality of life issues. 45
Taking into account these local economic, ecological, social and cultural conditions,
Ho concluded that the values that ought to be emphasised in Singapore are those
that are compatible with the notion of treating nature as a friend that provides
companionship, solace, pleasure, and stimulation. These values entail respecting
nature’s integrity with respect and preserving its individuality 46 and include
appreciating nature’s beauty; joy and delight in seeing and learning about wild
plants and animals; appreciating nature as a place for therapeutic escape; and
appreciating nature as a source of a deep and binding sense of place. 47 On the other
hand, a happy and viable friendship cannot arise from values that permit the abuse
and pillaging of that friend. 48
In reaching his conclusion, Ho also explained why other value orientations may be
inadequate or inappropriate to sustain nature conservation in Singapore. In
particular, he argued that unlike some other countries, the natural areas in urbanised
Singapore occur on too small a scale to make any significant contribution towards
meeting the economic or life supporting needs of the people. As such, it is difficult
to justify nature preservation in Singapore as a pre-requisite essential to sustainable
development. 49
VI PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT IN SINGAPORE AND THE LAND ETHIC
With the State and its statutory boards owning approximately 90% of the land in
Singapore, 50 private property rights play a correspondingly smaller role in terms of
land management. As such, one might prima facie conclude that the arguments for a
land ethic amongst private land owners are practically irrelevant in Singapore.
Indeed, land in Singapore has always been viewed, first and foremost, as a
43
Ibid 92-93.
44
Ho, above n 42, 94.
45
Ho, above n 42, 93-95.
46
Ho, above n 42, 100.
47
Ho, above n 42, 97-99.
48
Ho, above n 42, 100.
49
Ho, above n 42, 95-96.
50
According to the Singapore Land Authority, <http://www.sla.gov.sg/what_we_do/what_we_
do_land_sales.html> (accessed 18 April 2006).
community resource and its judicious use has long been recognised as being vital to
its survival. Consequently, the State maintains a tight grip over private land use and
management. This tight control is achieved, aside from its outright exercise of land
ownership rights, inter alia, through a mix of economic incentives (and
disincentives), land use planning and development control and outright compulsory
acquisition.
As we shall see below however, State ownership and public management of land is
no guarantee that land will in fact be managed in an ecologically harmonious
manner in the face of intense political and socio-economic pressures to manage it
otherwise. Not only are public land managers in Singapore generally under no legal
obligation to have regard for ecological considerations in the discharge of their
functions, it seems that at least some of them do not even have a legal power to do
so.
Singapore is a city-state with a population of 4.3 million and one of the highest
standards of living in Asia. With only about 699 square kilometres of land and one
of the highest population densities in the world, 51 the pressure to develop land to
meet all manner of socio-economic needs is enormous. In the circumstances,
Singapore has done remarkably well in terms of keeping itself ‘clean and green’. At
the outset of Singapore’s industrialisation in 1967, the government introduced a
programme to transform Singapore into a garden city. 52 Its reason for doing so was
two-fold. Firstly, it was believed that the well-kept trees could help convince
potential foreign investors that Singapore was an efficient and effective city.
Secondly, it was thought that the greenery of nature helped to soften the harshness
of living in a densely populated city, and was uplifting for the human spirit. 53
The initial aim of the garden city programme was simply to plant as much lush
greenery as possible so as to improve the quality of the environment. 54 To achieve
this quickly, fast growing trees, whether indigenous or exotic, were selected for
planting to establish a green mantle for the island. Once this had been achieved,
flowering shrubs and trees and fruit trees were planted to avoid the monotony of
continuous island-wide green vegetation and add to brighten the colours of the
landscape. The greening did not just stop at the ground level, but also took place in
high-rise buildings to make Singapore a garden city on all levels. 55
51
According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, on its website at <http://www.singstat.
gov.sg/keystats/annual/indicators.html> (accessed 18 April 2006).
52
‘Singapore’s Green Look Result of 30-year Policy, says SM Lee’, The Straits Times
(Singapore), 21 October 1995.
53
K Koh, ‘Singapore: Fashioning Landscape for “The Garden City”’ (IUCN Environmental
Policy and Law Paper No 39, Landscape Conservation Law: Present Trends and Perspectives
in International and Comparative Law, IUCN Bonn, 2000) 39, 40.
54
S Lee, ‘Concept of the Garden City’ in G Ooi (ed), Environment and the City: Sharing
Singapore’s Experience and Future Challenges (1995) 129, 133.
55
‘Look Up, See the Green’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 24 February 2001; and ‘Green
Piece’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 5 October 2002.
Today, Singapore has taken its garden city concept a notch higher with its ‘city in a
garden’ plan. This entails turning green spaces into a seamless network of gardens
and transforming parks from passive green areas to places teeming with cultural
activities and performances, nature programmes and tours, and even vibrant night
life. 56 More recently, to strengthen Singapore’s garden city image, a second
botanical garden has been planned for the Marina Bay area. Unlike the first which
focuses on botanical collections and research, the second botanical garden will
focus on mass floral displays and ‘creative plant-based edutainment’. 57
The garden city programme has largely been successful in covering Singapore with
lush greenery; so successful in fact that Singapore is exporting its expertise to other
cities. 58 The role of law in achieving this success cannot be underestimated. Tracing
the legal development underlying Singapore’s greenery, law professor Kheng-Lian
Koh has noted that the legal framework has helped to guide planners in mapping
Singapore as a garden city and to establish the institutions necessary to carry out
and manage the programme of developing a garden city, such as the Parks and
Recreation Department, and the National Parks Board. Without a proper legal
framework, the implementation of the garden city concept might not have been so
successful. 59
It appears however, that the garden city concept as implemented in Singapore has
been more successful in ‘taming and manicuring’ 60 the urban environment with
greenery, but less so when it comes to holistically protecting or enhancing the
ecological integrity of the land. 61 In the course of the last century, much of the
physical landscape of the island has been irreversibly altered to meet the needs of
its human residents. Land has been reclaimed at the expense of coastal ecosystems,
swamps have been filled, hills have been levelled, reservoirs and lakes have been
created, and drainage patterns have been altered. 62 It has been estimated that
between 1819, when the British first established a presence in Singapore, and 1990,
more than 95% of the island state’s original vegetation cover has been entirely
56
‘City in a Garden Plan set out for Singapore’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 11 December
1998; and ‘Green Piece’, The Straits Times (Singapore) 11 December 1998.
57
‘Another Botanic Gardens Planned for Bay Area’, The Business Times (Singapore), 14 January
2005.
58
‘Singapore All Set to Clone its Garden City Success Overseas’, The Straits Times (Singapore),
31 December 2003.
59
K Koh, ‘The Garden City and Beyond: the Legal Framework’, in Ooi, above n 54, 148, 166.
60
H Ho, ‘Don’t Forget the Singapore Countryside’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 31 December
2004; and ‘Clean and Green is Not Green Enough’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 11
November 2005.
61
While of late, greater attention is being given to the threat of exotic species, the replacement of
exotic species with indigenous ones is confined to the fringes of nature reserves and natures
areas. See ‘The Garden City is Getting Greener’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 6 November
2003.
62
R Corlett, ‘The Ecological Transformation of Singapore, 1819–1990’ (1992) 19 Journal of
Biogeography 411, 415.
cleared. 63 This includes 99.8% of the original forest cover 64 and 99% of coastal
mangroves and mudflats. 65
Today, more than half the main island is urbanised, and most of the smaller
offshore islands have been developed for industry, recreation, and even a landfill.
The urbanised areas are ecologically impoverished. The density of high-rise
buildings in built-up areas has affected the microclimate by raising temperatures by
as much as seven degrees Celsius. 66 The soil condition has been impaired with most
of the original topsoil having been removed, buried or incorporated with
construction waste, and much of the soil has been severely compacted. Large areas
have been concreted over, and run-off is channelled directly into the drainage
system without passing through the soil. Today, soil in urban Singapore is
characterised by poor fertility and high acidity, soil compaction, poor aeration, and
soil erosion. 67 And while Singapore aptly describes itself as a ‘garden city’ with its
widespread systematic planting of flora in urban areas, such active landscaping may
potentially have adverse consequences on the indigenous biotic community
particularly in view of the large number of exotic species of flora introduced. 68 It is
estimated that some 20% to 60% of the known flora has become extinct, with many
of the remaining ecologically non-viable species expected to follow in the years to
come. 69 Overall loss of biodiversity (flora and fauna) may be as high as 73%, 70 and
with 77% of the island’s species considered ‘threatened’, the future prospects for
Singapore’s surviving biodiversity is seemingly bleak. 71
It has been noted that while Singapore is conceivably near the bottom of the league
table for conservation, it may be close to the top of the biodiversity league. 72
According to the National Parks Board, Singapore probably has the world’s highest
biodiversity density – about 2,000 species of flora and fauna can be found in some
63
B Brook et al, ‘Catastrophic Extinctions Follow Deforestation in Singapore’ (2003) 424
Nature 420, 421.
64
Corlett, above n 62, 415.
65
C Briffett and J Mackee, ‘Environmental Assessment in Singapore: an Enigma Wrapped in a
Mystery!’ (2002) 20(2) Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 113, 114.
66
‘Orchard Road’s Red Hot – and It’s Not About the Sales’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 14
October 2005.
67
X Lu et al, Singapore’s Biophysical Environment (2005) 69.
68
Fortunately, a number of the introduced species in the open areas have become ‘naturalised’
over the years and are actually contributing to local biodiversity. See Corlett, above n 62, 418
and 419.
69
Ibid.
70
Brook et al, above n 63, 421, citing I Turner, ‘A Study of Plant Species Extinction in
Singapore: Lessons for the Conservation of Tropical Biodiversity’ (1994) 8 Conservation
Biology 705; and R Corlett, ‘Environmental Heterogeneity and Species Survival in Degraded
Tropical Landscapes’ in M Hutchings et al (eds), The Ecological Consequences of
Environmental Heterogeneity (2000) 333.
71
Brook et al, above n 63, 422.
72
I Turner, ‘The Inventory of Singapore’s Biodiversity’ in Y Wee and P Ng (eds), A First Look
at Biodiversity in Singapore (1994) 47, 50.
2,800 ha of nature reserve. 73 In a ten-year study of a two-hectare plot within the

Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, at least 320 species of trees were found to have
existed on site for the last 5,000 years. 74 Indeed, British conservationist David
Bellamy once noted that there are more tree species in half the space of this plot
than there are in the whole of North America. 75 Singapore also has as many types of
native flowering plants as New Zealand, which is more than 400 times larger than
Singapore. 76 This high density of biodiversity makes the task of nature conservation
easier since conservation efforts can be concentrated in a small area. At the same
time, it confers a heavy responsibility since any encroachment onto nature reserves
is likely to have a significant ecological impact.
The management of public land is generally subject to the same environmental laws
that apply to privately owned land. While the ecological value of the land receives
some protection from the torts of private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher, 77 these torts have traditionally focused on the balancing of the conflicting
land use claims of landowners, so that improvements in environmental quality for
the general benefit of a wider community have only been incidental. Indeed, as the
case of Leaky v National Trust 78 shows, a landowner can be liable for failing to
abate a nuisance caused by a natural feature of his land. Although the courts could,
by expanding the scope of actionable land damage to include ecological damage per
se, provide primary protection to the biotic community as a whole, they have been
reluctant to sanction this expansion. 79 Instead, the judiciary has suggested it is the
role of Parliament to institute such changes through legislative amendments. This is
perhaps understandable, considering that the purpose of these torts has always been
to vindicate private rather than communal rights.
Various forms of air, water, land and noise pollution are regulated under the
Environmental Pollution Control Act. 80 Under the Environmental Public Health
Act, the owner or occupier may be required to abate nuisances of a public nature,
including the keeping of their premises in such a state as not to be injurious or
73
‘There’s Life Aplenty in the Nature Reserves’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 21 June 1999.
The statement was based on a six-year survey of the biodiversity in the nature reserves in
Singapore carried out from 1992, and reported in L Chan and R Corlett (eds), ‘Biodiversity in
the Nature Reserves of Singapore: Proceedings of the Nature Reserves Survey Seminar,
Singapore, December 1997’ (1999) 49(2) The Garden's Bulletin 147-425. More recently, a
scientific study found that forest reserves comprising only 0.25 percent of Singapore’s area
now harbour over 50 percent of the residual native biodiversity. See Brook et al, above n 63.
74
‘Same Tree Species in Bt Timah Forest for Last 5,000 Years’, The Straits Times (Singapore),
21 May 2005.
75
‘Green Peace’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 9 August 2005 (17 September 2005).
76
Turner, above n 72, 48.
77
Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Ex 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
78
Leaky v National Trust [1980] QB 45.
79
See Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53, 75 (Lord
Goff of Chieveley).
80
Environmental Pollution Control Act (Cap 94, 2002 rev ed, Parts IV, V, VI and VIII). Statutes
in this article refer to Singapore statutes unless otherwise stated.
dangerous to health. 81 Again, while the ecological integrity of land is partially or

incidentally protected by such legislation, the primary objects of such legislation are
environmental pollution 82 and public health respectively.
Direct protection of selected members of the biotic community is conferred under

the Wild Animals and Bird Act. 83 It is an offence for owners to kill, take, or keep
most species of wild animals and birds found on their land, but not if the wild
animal or bird is found to be damaging or destroying the crops or any other property
thereon. 84 Furthermore, although direct harm to wildlife is regulated, indirect harm
arising from the degradation of their habitats is not.
The management of flora is generally unregulated, but exceptionally, large trees on

vacant land or designated tree conservation areas which have a girth exceeding one
metre are protected. Tree conservation areas are designated for their amenity
value, 85 and even then only trees with a large girth are protected in such areas. Any
person felling or cutting such trees, or wilfully causing their death without the
approval of the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation may be punished under the
Parks and Trees Act 2005 with a fine. 86 A tree conservation notice may also be
issued to the occupier of land on which such trees are located to maintain or
conserve such trees. 87
A similar protection is conferred on trees and plants generally in designated

heritage road green buffers. 88 The Minister may gazette any area in Singapore
(other than a national park or nature reserve) as a heritage road green buffer if it
appears expedient to him or her to conserve the flora or vegetation in that area as
important elements of the surrounding streetscape or landscape. It is the function of
the National Parks Board to manage and maintain all heritage road green buffers.
The cutting or damaging of a tree or plant within a heritage road green buffer
without the approval of the Commissioner of Parks and Trees is prohibited.
Approval from the Commissioner is also required before any person may interfere
with any heritage road green buffer. Significantly, the criteria for protection under
these provisions is not so much the value of the trees or vegetation as such, but their
contribution to the surrounding streetscape or landscape. 89 According to the then
81
Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 2002 rev ed) s 43.
82
Defined as the release into any environmental medium from any process of substances which
are capable of causing harm to man or any other living organisms supported by the
environment.
83
Wild Animals and Bird Act (Cap 351, 2000 rev ed). For an overview of the Act, see L Lye,
‘Wildlife Protection Laws in Singapore’ [1991] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 287.
84
Wild Animals and Bird Act ss 5 and 6.
85
Act No 4 of 2005 s 13(1).
86
Parks and Trees Act 2005, s 14.
87
Parks and Trees Act 2005 s 15.
88
Parks and Trees Act 2005 s 18.
89
Parks and Trees Act 2005 ss 16 to 19.
Second Minister for National Development at the Second Reading of the Parks and
Trees Bill 90 in Parliament, roadside greenery,
especially tall ‘green walls’ of mature trees and multi-layered vegetation lining roads
merit protection because it ‘softens the hard effect of large physical structures and
buildings to create a garden-like ambience in our city’. 91
The Planning Act 92 is one piece of legislation which could conceivably (but not
necessarily) be used to protect the land from ecological harm. The Act provides for
the creation and periodic review of the Master Plan for land use for Singapore, 93 but
does not lay down any criteria or considerations that must be included in any review
of or amendment to the Plan. Neither is there any requirement for a strategic
environmental assessment to be carried out in conjunction with the creation or
review of the Master Plan. While ecological considerations could in theory be taken
into account at this review stage, the extent to which such considerations are in
practice actually taken on board is not entirely clear even though as a matter of
administrative practice the National Parks Board 94 participates in the review process
and selected environmental non-governmental groups are consulted. In this regard,
researchers suggest, on the basis of the planning decisions actually taken, that
considerations of biodiversity and ecology do not rank highly in the planning
process, and are regarded as a poor second to economic and social considerations. 95
The development of land is also regulated under the Planning Act to make sure it is
compatible with the perceived public interest, as determined under the land use
planning regime of the Planning Act. Section 12 prohibits any ‘development’ of
land 96 without the prior written permission of the Chief Executive Officer of the
Urban Redevelopment Authority. Applications for written planning permission are
90
Parks and Trees Bill, 55 of 2004.
91
Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Report (25 January 2005) vol 79, col 502.
92
Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 rev ed).
93
The five-yearly review of the Master Plan follows a 10-yearly review of the non-statutory
Concept Plan, a strategic land use plan that guides the physical development of Singapore for
the next 40 to 50 years. The public consultation exercise prior to the finalization of the
Concept Plan takes the form of a ‘soft sell’ using fancy multimedia, sleek posters and intricate
models at regional exhibitions to publicise the benefits of the draft plans. The public is
encouraged to give feedback through various channels including focus groups, public forums,
the internet and mail. Crucially, there is usually little or no information given about the
environmental and ecological consequences of these plans.
94
Reconstituted under s 3 of the National Parks Board Act (Cap 198A, 1997 rev ed).
95
C Briffett et al, ‘The Potential for Strategic Environmental Assessment in Asia: Singapore
Country Report for the EARTH Project: Final Report of University Funded Research Project
No RP 297-000-023-112’ (Centre of Real Estate Studies, Department of Real Estate, National
University of Singapore, 2001) 12, 38. See also K Koh, ‘Singapore’ in J Carew-Reid (ed),
Biodiversity Planning in Asia (2002) 239, 251, noting the National Parks Board’s relative lack
of power when confronting ‘major development organisations’ such as Urban Redevelopment
Authority, the then Ministry of Communications (now the Ministry of Transport), and the
Public Utilities Board.
96
Defined as the building, engineering, mining, earthworks or other operations in, on, over or
under land; or the making of a material change of use of land.
generally considered with reference to the Master Plan insofar as it is relevant, 97 but
once again, there is an absence of any specific requirements to take ecological
considerations into account, although the National Parks Board is, as a matter of
administrative practice, consulted if the proposed development takes place in or
near nature areas. 98 The Act also does not regulate potentially ecologically harmful
activities that do not fall within the definition of ‘development’.
While the ecological value of land does not receive any general environmental
legislation, some protection is conferred on specific sites identified as being
particularly rich in biodiversity. There are currently 18 sites comprising up to five
percent of Singapore’s total land area administratively designated as ‘nature
areas’. 99 Nature areas are owned by the State and managed by the National Parks
Board, and are set out in the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s Special and
Detailed Control Plan, a non-statutory plan with special guidelines annexed under
their statutory Republic of Singapore Master Plan 2003. 100 Designation as a nature
area carries no legal significance, but administratively, the Board must be consulted
on any development proposal in or near these areas, and an ecological study may
97
Planning Act, s 14.
98
S Foo (ed), The Singapore Green Plan 2012 (2006 ed) 14 <http:// www.mewr.gov.sg/
sgp2012/files/sgp2012_2006 edition.zip> (accessed 18 April 2006).
99
L Chua, Singapore Green Plan 2012: Beyond Clean and Green: Towards Environmental
Sustainability (2002) 9 <http://www.mewr.gov.sg/sgp2012/files/sgp2012.zip> (accessed 18
April 2006). The five percent includes statutorily protected nature reserves, referred to below,
which make up four percent of Singapore’s land area. See URA Skyline (March/April 2004)
<http://www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline04/skyline04-02/text/p10.html> (accessed 18 April
2006). As a comparison, 12.5% of Singapore’s total land area is set aside for roads. See
Concept Plan Review Final Report of Focus Group on Land Allocation (December 2000) 6
<http://www.ura.gov.sg/interim/report1.pdf> (accessed 18 April 2006). Also according to the
report, Singapore’s 22 golf courses and three temporary sites used for golf occupy 2.2% of
Singapore’s total land area. See Concept Plan Review Final Report of Focus Group on Land
Allocation (December 2000) 29. This makes it the country with the highest density of golf
courses. See J Barton, ‘Spanning the Globe: Where the Best Golf is Played’, Golf Digest
(United States), May 2005, on the Golf Digest website <http://www.golfdigest.com/ planetgolf
/> (accessed 18 April 2006). The Urban Redevelopment Authority permit the development of
these golf courses because they are sited in areas where no other developments, ie, in water
catchment areas or under flight paths’. This however does not explain why it is not possible to
leave the land in these areas undeveloped. Perhaps a more weighty reason for the
government’s commitment to golf course development could be that golf courses are
considered necessary in a business city such as Singapore, where golf is used extensively by
the business and diplomatic communities. In this regard, Singapore is not the only country in
the region setting aside large tracts of land for golf course development. See for example, P
Chatterjee, ‘Clubbing South East Asia: the Impacts of Golf Course Developments’ (1993)
15(11) Multinational Monitor 13 <http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/
11/mm1193_13.html> (accessed 18 April 2006); and K Kim and D Murabayashi, ‘Recent
Developments in the Use of Environmental Impact Statements in Korea’ (1992) 12
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 295, 310. The notable difference is that golf course
development is a relatively land intensive use for a small country such as Singapore.
100
URA website <http://www.ura.gov.sg/ppd/gazettedmp2003/index.htm> (accessed 21 March
2006).
also be required. The declared intention is to keep these nature areas ‘for as long as
possible’. 101
Designation as a nature area is discretionary, and it is clear that ecological merit is

not the sole criterion. For example, notwithstanding the acknowledgement by the
State and its agencies of the rich biological diversity that can be found in Tanjung
Chek Jawa, an intertidal flat on the north-eastern coast of Pulau Ubin, an off-shore
island, 102 there are no plans to designate it as a nature area. Even though the
government does not foresee any need for the area to be developed, it prefers to
keep its options open 103 by zoning it as a reserve site on the Master Plan, ie, a site
whose specific use has yet to be determined. 104 The site is therefore now left alone
to flourish but is vulnerable to future development.
Included in the nature areas are certain sites that are designated national parks or
nature reserves. These designations carry legal significance. Under the Parks and
Trees Act 2005, 105 national parks and nature reserves may be set aside for all or any
of the following purposes:
(a) the propagation, protection and conservation of the trees, plants, animals and
other organisms of Singapore, whether indigenous or otherwise;
(b) the study, research and preservation of objects and places of aesthetic,
historical or scientific interest;
(c) the study, research and dissemination of knowledge in botany, horticulture,
biotechnology, or natural and local history; and
(d) recreational and educational use by the public. 106
Currently, two national parks and four nature reserves are designated under the Act.
The Schedule marking out the national parks and nature reserves may only be
amended by the Minister, after consultation with the National Parks Board. Any
order to amend the Schedule must be presented to Parliament as soon as possible
after publication in the Gazette. 107 The Act is conspicuously silent on the criteria to
101
Foo above n 98, 14.
102
Chek Jawa has been described as ‘this jewel of an estuarine eco-system’. See Chua, above n
99, 10. The National Parks Board describes it as ‘one of Singapore’s richest ecosystems’ and
‘a unique natural area where six major habitats meet and mix’ on its website
<http://www.nparks.gov.sg/nparks_cms/display_level2.asp?parkid=6&catid=2> (18 April
2006). A Minister of State for National Development described it as an example of ‘sites of
high or unique biodiversity’. See speech by Vivian Balakrishnan at the official opening of
‘Biodiversity Symposium 2003: the State of Biodiversity Research, Education and
Management in Singapore’; on the website of the Ministry of National Development
<http://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/speeches/speeches_snd2003_110703.htm> (accessed 18
April 2006).
103
‘Reprieve for Rustic Ubin’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 2 January 2002.
104
The Master Plan 2003, on the URA website <http://www.ura.gov.sg/ppd/gazettedmp2003/
index-frontmp2003.htm> (12 July 2005).
105
Parks and Trees Act.
106
Parks and Trees Act s 7(3). Emphasis added.
107
Parks and Trees Act s 62.
be taken into account when deciding whether or not to amend the Schedule, and
environmental impact assessments are not legally required prior to any amendment.
Certain activities that harm the flora and fauna within national parks and nature
reserves are prohibited without the approval of the Commissioner of Parks and
Recreation. 108 Before the Commissioner gives his approval, he will, subject to any
general or special directions of the Minister, 109 presumably have to take into
account the many purposes for which National Parks and Nature Reserves are
designated, of which ‘the propagation, protection and conservation of the trees,
plants, animals and other organisms of Singapore’ is but one among many
potentially incompatible purposes.
The above review of the legal framework shows that while some regulations are in
place to protect public land from ecological harm, these are not comprehensive, and
public land owners and managers still possess considerable discretion to cause or
permit significant ecological harm to the land under their charge. Over the years,
there have been numerous instances of nature areas, including nature reserves,
being sacrificed for developments, including a golf course, a road, a prison
detention centre for illegal immigrants and drug addicts, an aqua-culture farm, 110
108
Parks and Trees Act ss 8 and 9. The activities are: cutting, collecting or displacing any tree or
plant or any part thereof; affixing, setting up or erecting any sign, shrine, altar, religious object,
shelter, structure or building; clearing, breaking up, digging or cultivating any land; using or
occupying any building, vehicle, boat or other property of the National Parks Board; wilfully
dropping or depositing any dirt, sand, earth, gravel, clay, loam, manure, refuse, sawdust,
shavings, stone, straw or any other matter or thing from outside the national park or nature
reserve; capturing, displacing or feeding any animal; disturbing or taking the nest of any
animal; collecting, removing or wilfully displacing any other organism; using any animal,
firearm, explosive, net, trap, hunting device or instrument or means whatever for the purpose
of capturing any animal; and carrying or having in possession any explosive, net, trap or
hunting device.
109
Parks and Trees Act s 4.
110
One third of St John’s Island was converted to a detention centre in 1999. On the other half of
the island, the rolling green hummocks were levelled to make way for a new commercial
marine aquaculture facility. See ‘Barbed Wires, Fences Go Up in St John’s’, The Straits Times
(Singapore), 25 February 1999.
and reclamation, 111 a land-fill, 112 and a water reservoir. 113 Some of these
encroachments have arguably been made in less than inevitable circumstances. 114
For example, the integrity of the nature reserves received a major setback in 1985,
when a 50-metre wide swathe was cut through Singapore’s sole remaining primary
rainforest to build an expressway, thereby isolating the Bukit Timah nature reserve
from the Central Catchment nature reserve. 115 Instead of one unbroken stretch of
forest, there are now six severely fragmented and thinning forest islands separated
by lakes, roads and golf courses. 116 A recent suggestion to encase the expressway
separating two nature reserves in a concrete tunnel box so that the two reserves
could be joined as one has been rejected by the Land Transport Authority, the
statutory board charged with the function of planning, designing, constructing,
managing and maintaining roads in Singapore, 117 on the grounds that it is not cost
effective. 118
Another controversial development is the proposed construction of a road through

the 36-hectare Khatib Bongsu nature area. The Urban Redevelopment Authority
announced in 1996 that it planned to develop one-third of the wetland area, home to
about 10,000 migratory birds, and proposed ‘high-capacity, high-speed road’
passing straight through rather than going around it. 119 As late as 1993, the
Authority was still publicly planning for the proposed road to skirt the nature area,
and to leave the entire site intact. Three years later, the Authority decided to re-
111
Coastal and sea reclamation on the northern coast of the Pulau Tekong nature area may destroy
one of the largest mangrove areas in Singapore with its many rare and threatened species of
plants and animals. See H Ho, ‘Towards a Greener Plan for Nature Preservation in Singapore’
in C Briffett and H Ho (eds), State of the Natural Environment in Singapore (1999) 108, 112-
113.
112
Pulau Semakau was formerly a designated nature area. In 1995, construction work began to
convert it into a landfill for waste disposal by joining the island with Pulau Sakeng, another
island. The landfill started operations in 1999. The island, including its mangrove-rich areas
which were once designated nature areas, is earmarked for development for ‘infrastructure and
industrial uses’ in the long term. See ‘Land-use Surprise: Coral Sites, Mangrove Areas to Go’,
The Straits Times (Singapore), 22 April 2003.
113
Ibid. Sungei Khatib Bongsu in the Khatib Bongsu nature areas was dammed to form a
reservoir.
114
See H Ho, ‘The Singapore Green Plan Endangered’ (1996) 4(3) Nature Watch 4, in which Ho
questioned the need for sacrificing nature areas for housing when 90 percent of Singaporeans
already owned a home, and there was already an oversupply of private and public housing,
when there was sufficient land for 22 golf courses; and when low-rise industrial buildings
instead of high-rise ones were increasingly being built. See also D Nathan, ‘Consider New
Ideas Before Encroaching into Nature Area’ The Straits Times (Singapore), 14 January 1999,
in which the journalist questioned whether Singapore’s planners had considered all options
before deciding to encroach on nature areas.
115
‘Can Land-scarce S'pore Afford Nature Conservation?’ The Straits Times (Singapore), 13
September 1998.
116
Ho, above n 111, 119.
117
Land Transport Authority Act (Cap 158A, 1996 rev ed) s 6(1)(a).
118
‘Future MRT Link for Towns in North’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 16 April, 2005.
119
‘URA to Develop a part of Khatib Bongsu’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 10 May 1996. See
also Ho, above n 114, 114-115; and Ho, above n 111, 120.
route, arguing that a straight road would ‘achieve a better alignment and improve
the efficiency of traffic flow’, and allow the land to be used more efficiently, as
there would be regular-shaped and larger parcels available on the site for the future
development of 2,000 new flats. Such is the ecological value of this site that when
previously arguing for the inclusion of the site as a nature area in 1993, the Nature
Society (Singapore), a non-governmental environmental group expressed the view
that
Singapore is not forthcoming and seriously committed to nature conservation and the
principle of biodiversity if important places such as…Khatib Bongsu are left out of
the category of ‘Nature Areas’. 120
The government is also not averse to building golf courses in nature reserves. The
then Minister for Trade and Industry reportedly expressed the view in 1992 that
even though there were alternative sites for a golf course, if there was an urgent
need for the site, and it made sense, a golf course could be built in a nature
reserve. 121 Indeed, such a proposal was mooted at the time by the Public Utilities
Board, the statutory board charged, inter alia, with maintaining water catchment
areas and reservoirs. 122 The Board ‘looked into the idea’ of developing an 18-hole
120-hectare golf course on the northern banks of the Lower Peirce Reservoir in the
Central Catchment nature reserve. 123 A consultant team was commissioned to
conduct an independent study of the environmental impact of the project.
Understanding that the study would not be open to public scrutiny, the Nature
Society decided to concurrently conduct and publish its own environmental impact
assessment. 124 The consultants of the internal PUB-commissioned study
recommended a redesign of the course but concluded that it was feasible to
construct the course without undue adverse environmental impact. The Nature
Society’s published study on the other hand, found, inter alia, that the project would
lead to a loss of advanced secondary forest, loss of some of the area’s 485 species
of animals and 163 species of plants, and threaten the quality of water in the
catchment area. It recommended that either an alternative site be found for the
proposed project; or the project be abandoned altogether. The project eventually did
not proceed. 125
The official assertion of an absence of ecologically less damaging alternatives to a

proposed development has also not always been accepted at face value in the
absence of an opportunity for the public to participate in the search for alternatives.
In 2001 for example, it was publicly announced for the first time that five gigantic
120
H Ho, Feedback on the Singapore Green Plan (unpublished, 1993) 23.
121
‘Nature Society Suggests Other Sites for Golf Course’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 1
October 1992.
122
Public Utilities Act (Cap 261, 2002 rev ed) s 6(1).
123
Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Report (31 July 1992) vol 60, col 105.
124
Y Wee (ed), Proposed Golf Course at Lower Pierce Reservoir: an Environmental Impact
Assessment (1992).
125
T Tan, Social Capital and State-Civil Society Relations in Singapore (2001) 11-17
<http://www.ips.org.sg/pub/wp9.pdf> (accessed 18 April 2006).
storage tanks with a combined capacity of 318,000 cubic metres would be built on
11 hectares of the Central Catchment nature reserve. 126 The National Parks Board
publicly endorsed the siting of the tanks in the nature reserve, noting that this was a
‘project of national importance’ in water-scarce Singapore. 127 Having previously
conducted an ‘exhaustive four-year search’, it declared that it was satisfied that
there was no suitable site outside the nature reserves for the tanks. 128 Furthermore,
in its view, the impact was minimal as aerial photographs and surveys showed that
the selected site had previously been cultivated and was covered with ferns. Steps
would also be taken to minimise the environmental impact by moving some of the
larger trees and the topsoil to other areas. 129 The announcement was presented as a
fait accompli; the public was not even informed of the plans during the four-year
search for alternative sites let alone given an opportunity to participate in the search
or to scrutinise the findings of the search. In the circumstances, it is understandable
that some members of the public remained sceptical about the inevitability of
locating the tanks in the nature reserve. 130
More recently, part of the Kranji Reservoir Marshes nature area has had to make
way for Singapore’s 20th full-range golf course, Kranji Sanctuary Course. 131 The
nature area provides sanctuary for freshwater wetland-cum-grassland birdlife. Even
prior to any environmental impact assessment, the site had been leased to the
National Service Resort and Country Club by a statutory board with a view that it
would be used as a golf course. Academics commissioned by the Club to conduct
an environmental study subsequent to the grant of the lease of the land concluded
however that the golf course was not being built at the expense of Singapore’s
wilderness because the vegetation was not pristine and was comprised of mainly
secondary re-growth, and the affected species of flora and fauna were commonly
found in Singapore. 132 Once again, while the conclusions from the study were
shared with the public, the study itself was not. According to the Nature Society, the
construction of the golf course filled in what was once a freshwater marshland, and
destroyed 80 percent of the habitat there, including a feeding ground for the birds in
the marshland and the nearby Sungei Buloh nature reserve. There had been
substantial decline in wetland and grassland species of birds, and only 34 percent of
126
‘Water Tanks Being Built in Forest’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 23 August 1998.
127
Ibid.
128
‘Water Tank Site a Good Compromise’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 13 September 1998.
129
‘Minimising Damage to Forest’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 23 August 1998; and ‘Water
Tank Site a Good Compromise’, The Strait Times (Singapore), 23 August 1998. According to
the Minister for National Development, this site consists of young forests with no key forest
species. See Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Report (4 September 1998) vol 69, col
965.
130
G Francis, ‘Why Must We Give Up Nature Reserves?’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 29
August 1998.
131
‘Kranji Sanctuary Golf Course to Open All 18 Holes on Nov 9th, channelnewsasia.com, 27
October 2004.
132
‘Grouses Should End with NUS Dons Saying New Course is No Threat’, The Straits Times
(Singapore), 5 May 2002.
the bird species that had been found prior to the construction of the golf course
remained. 133
The areas surrounding nature areas and nature reserves have not been spared either.
For example, land bordering the Central Catchment nature reserve is leased out to
the Singapore Island Country Club, and as part of the maintenance of the golf club’s
premises, vegetation on several plots of such land has been cleared over the years,
with the permission of the landlord, the Public Utilities Board. The Bukit Timah
nature reserve is bounded by a military rifle range in the east and choked with
fumes from traffic along busy roads. In addition, as many as 20,000 private flats are
slated to replace an industrial strip of factories along one of its borders. Medium-
rise private housing developments have been built as close as 100 metres away from
the perimeter of the nature reserve, while low-rise developments are as close as 50
metres away. Ecological impacts associated with these developments range from
the pounding noise from piling works during construction scaring away the birds, to
the concentration of completed concrete buildings raising the temperature in the
area. 134 As the housing projects are being built on sites used for factories, and
therefore considered to be an improvement of the physical environment in the
locality, an environmental impact assessment has been deemed unnecessary. 135
In 2003, a fence was erected around the northern coast of Pulau Ubin, an island
nature area to deter illegal immigrants entering Singapore by sea. Responding to
concern that the feeding patterns and the movement of wildlife including animals
such as otters and dugongs, which move between land and sea, could be affected,
the police assured the public that the potential impact of the fence on the marine
environment had been taken into consideration. Apparently, it had commissioned an
internal environmental impact assessment which showed ‘no negative impact at the
final sites chosen’. Once again this study was not made available to the public. 136
The land ethic does not require that all land everywhere be preserved all the time.
What it does require however, is that the land be respected as worthy of protection
in its own right and the ecological concerns be given due consideration in land
management decisions, and the ecological integrity of the land is harmed only in
circumstances of extreme necessity. In the absence of a legal duty of ecological
stewardship, and without a land ethic that respects the land as a biotic community,
land is little more than a resource to be expediently drawn down to meet our
insatiable needs and wants.
133
‘Green Nature Lovers – Don’t Reclaim Birds’ Feeding Ground - Leave Wider Strip of Green
Corridor’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 3 July 2003; and H Ho, ‘Greens Anything but “Real
Nature Sanctuary”’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 13 November 2004. See also H Ho,
‘Nature Society (Singapore)’ (Conservation Committee Report, September 2002) on the
Nature Society website <http://www.nss.org.sg/new/> (8 November 2004).
134
‘Nature’s New Neighbours – Forests on the One Side, Condos on the other’, The Straits Times
(Singapore), 27 September 1996.
135
Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Report (2 May 1996) vol 66, col 125.
136
‘New Ubin Fence to Stop Illegal Entry’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 9 May 2003.
Despite assurances by the government that it is committed to nature conservation, 137

numerous developments in and around nature areas and nature reserves, sometimes
unconvincingly justified by reference to land-scarcity and pressing socio-economic
needs, make it difficult for these assurances to be accepted at face value. While it is
true that there have been instances of development yielding to nature
conservation, 138 the track record of our public land management suggests that the
state and its agencies have yet to internalise the land ethic. It should thus be a cause
for concern that ecologically sensitive land can, when deemed necessary by the
State and its agencies, be cut up and made available for private housing,
expressways, and golf courses, with so little legal and administrative requirements
to account for the ‘integrity, stability, and beauty’ of the land. As noted by urban
studies researcher Giok-Ling Ooi,
[t]he destruction of natural habitats and life species other than humans has to be of
concern in the effort that is being seen at promoting developmental paths that are
more sustainable. With the advance in the development of the built environment and
the rapidity of the rate at which nature has had to give way to urban growth, the
concern would be with the long-term perspective on relations between nature and
society in Singapore. 139
VIII INSTITUTING THE LAND ETHIC IN PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT – SOME

DIRECTIONS FOR LEGAL REFORM
Developing a land ethic will not be easy. As Leopold observed,
[a]n ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for

existence…All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is
a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to
compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate
(perhaps in order that there may be a places to compete for). 140
And a land ethic certainly cannot be legislated overnight. As Leopold explained,
[o]bligations have no meaning without conscience, and the problem we face is the
extension of the social conscience from people to land. No important change in ethics
137
See, for example, ‘Govt Committed to Nature Conservation, says PM Goh’, The Straits Times,
(Singapore), 7 December 1993.
138
For example, two of the four current nature reserves, Sungei Buloh and Labrador Park, are
recent designations. According to the then Prime Minister, although Sungei Buloh was actually
zoned for an economically profitable agro-technology park, the government decided to ‘turn it
over to the birds’; part of the Seletar Expressway was rerouted to skirt round the Nee Soon
swamp forest nature reserve instead of cutting through it; a proposed reclamation of the
Tanjung Chek Jawa in Pulau Ubin was shelved at the last minute when the exceptionally
ecologically rich habitats of the site were accidentally discovered. See above n 137; ‘Sungei
Buloh and Labrador: Two New Nature Reserves’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 12
November 2001; see above n 128; and ‘Reprieve for Rustic Ubin’, The Straits Times
(Singapore), 15 January 2002.
139
G Ooi, Sustainability and Cities: Concept and Assessment (2005) 93.
140
Leopold, above n 5, 202-203.
was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis,

loyalties, affections, and convictions. 141
It is submitted however that the law has a contribution to make towards the
development of a land ethic in public land management. In the particular context of
Singapore, one must begin by noting law professor Alan Tan’s observation that,
the relative inadequacy of nature conservation laws in Singapore has less to do with
factors typical in other countries such as the voracious appetite of unscrupulous
developers or administrative deadlock but more with the belief that land scarcity
demands nature’s ultimate sacrifice. 142
Equally pertinent is Ooi’s conclusion that the State has had a ‘flexible interpretation
of the legislation for nature protection’ and has been less than committed to the
legislation in its single-minded focus on economic growth, resulting in the
maximum possible exploitation of land resources to develop the supporting
infrastructure for such growth. 143
It is submitted that in order for the land ethic to be internalised in public land
management, the law can and should, as a start, procedurally constrain the public
land manager’s discretion to determine land use on purely economic terms as it
deems fit. This however, does not guarantee any particular substantive outcome.
Ultimately, these managers are public servants charged with serving the public
interest, and they will only internalise the land ethic when the society they serve
adopts the ethic and expects its public servants to do the same. For this to happen,
the public needs to get closer to and not further away from the land and land
management. Only by becoming more intimately involved with the land and its use
will social learning and awareness have a chance to develop and the public have an
opportunity to learn to care for the land. The law can thus play an important role in
facilitating the development of a social ecological conscience for land stewardship
by empowering the citizenry to participate in land management, both passively, in
the form of access to environmental information; and actively, in the form of public
deliberation.
141
Leopold, above n 5, 209-210.
142
A Tan, ‘Reconciling Environmental and Developmental Imperatives in Singapore and Cross-
Border Environmental Protection in ASEAN’ (paper presented at the International Conference
on ASEAN Legal Systems and Regional Integration, Asia-Europe Institute, University of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3–4 September 2001) 3, available online at
<http://law.nus.edu.sg/apcel/publications/pub/tankheejin/klconf0901.pdf> (accessed 13 April
2006). As Tan goes on to point out, it is precisely so much of Singapore’s natural heritage has
been lost that more effort must be expended to protect what precious little is left.
143
G Ooi, ‘The Role of the State in Nature Conservation in Singapore’ (2002) 15 Society and
Natural Resources 455, 459 and 460.
IX THE STATE AS ECOLOGICAL STEWARD
With the arguable exception of the National Parks Boards, 144 public land managers
currently have no duty of ecological stewardship towards the land under their
charge. Duty aside, it is not even clear that managers charged with specific statutory
functions may take into consideration the ecological integrity or biodiversity of the
land placed unless these are consistent with their prescribed functions.
For example, the Singapore Land Authority 145 was established under the Singapore
Land Authority Act, 146 inter alia ‘to optimise land use’ 147 and ‘to act as an agent of
the Government in…the administration and management of all State lands and
buildings thereon in accordance with…law’. 148 It is explicitly required, in the
carrying out of its functions to:
(a) have regard to efficiency and economy and to the social, industrial,
commercial and economic needs of Singapore; and
(b) as far as practicable, promote, develop and provide facilities or services that
facilitate or are necessary for land planning, land infrastructure development
and maintenance and the economic growth in Singapore. 149
This clearly pro-development Act is conspicuously silent about whether the

Authority ought to or even may be permitted to take ecological considerations into
account in the discharge of its functions.
It is clearly inadequate to leave at best one State agency, the National Parks Board,
to be explicitly charged with a duty of ecological stewardship when public land is in
fact subject to the purview of different State agencies, some of which are charged to
carry out economic or developmental functions seemingly without any duty to have
any regard for the ecological context of the land. In order for the land ethic to be
properly integrated in public land management, every public land manager must be
subject to an overriding legal duty to take into consideration the ecological impacts
in the discharge of their functions. This can take the form of a constitutional duty
such as that found in the Brazilian Constitution; or a statutory duty such as that
provided for in the Scottish Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, described
above.
144
The closest function the Board has towards ecological stewardship is the propagating,
protecting and preserving of the plants and animals of Singapore.
145
According to the Annual Report 2004/5 of the Singapore Land Authority,
<http://www.sla.gov.sg/doc/new/SLA_AR0405.pdf> (accessed 18 April 2006), the Authority
managed 75% of the total area of State land as at March 2005.
146
Cap 301, 2002 rev ed.
147
Singapore Land Authority Act s 6(1)(a).
148
Singapore Land Authority Act s 6(1)(e)(ii).
149
Singapore Land Authority Act s 6(2).
X IDENTIFYING AND MANAGING ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND
As part of the ethical duty to maintain or enhance the biodiversity, land with
exceptionally rich biodiversity needs to be identified and conferred stricter
protection against ecological harm. Currently, the designation and dedication of
such land for statutory protection is a matter entirely at the discretion of the State.
Aside from mandatory requirements for strategic environmental assessments and
environmental impact assessments, discussed below, the ecological quality of
decision-making could also be improved with the inclusion of a mandatory
requirement for public participation. Likewise, plans to strip nature reserves of their
designation should also include public participation. As mentioned earlier,
including the public in land management decisions such as these will provide the
opportunity to know the land more intimately and develop a close and personal
relationship with the land.
Such provisions already exist in Australia, where the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides for the identification of threatened
native species and ecological communities; 150 the development of recovery plans for
listed species and ecological communities; and where appropriate, the recognition
of key threatening processes and the reduction of these processes through threat
abatement plans.
Public participation features significantly in the identification of threatened species

and ecological communities. In particular, s 191 allows any person to nominate
threatened species and ecological communities for listing. Nominations are assessed
by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee during which time public comment
on the nomination is also formally invited. At the end of the assessment, the
Committee’s advice on the nominated species or ecological community’s eligibility
for listing is submitted to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for his or
her final decision on whether or not to list the species or ecological community. The
Minister must then notify the nominator of the site of his or her decision, and if the
nomination is unsuccessful, the reasons for the decision. Any decision by the
Minister to amend the lists of threatened species or ecological communities can
only take place after the advice of the Committee has been obtained and
considered. 151 Only matters that relate to the survival of the species or ecological
community may be taken into consideration in the Committee’s advice; 152 and in the
Minister’s decision whether or not to amend the list. 153 Amendments to the lists
must be gazetted and presented to Parliament together with a statement of the
reasons for the amendment. 154
150
Act 91 of 1999 (Cth) ss 178 and 181.
151
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 189(1).
152
153
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 186(2) and 187(2).
Exceptionally, a threatened species may be excluded from the list if it poses a serious threat to
human health. See s 193.
154
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 184.
Once a threatened species or ecological community is listed, the Minister must

prepare a recovery plan, which may entail identifying and including in a register,
habitats critical to the survival of the listed specie or ecological community. 155 The
public must be formally invited to comment on the recovery plan and the Minister
must consider all comments received. The Minister is also required to prepare
inventories of listed threatened species and threatened ecological communities on
Commonwealth land, 156 and take reasonable steps to keep these inventories in an
updated form. 157 A proposal for any activity likely to have a significant impact on a
vulnerable or endangered species or endangered ecological community must
generally be subject to some form of environmental assessment (and public
comment) before it can be considered for approval by the Environment Minister. 158
A Commonwealth agency that wants to sell land that contains an identified critical
habitat must also ensure that the sale contract includes a covenant to protect the
critical habitat and take reasonable steps to ensure that the covenant binds
successors in title. 159
XI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental impact assessments are a major tool for ensuring that ecological
considerations are taken into account of in land use decisions. Although not
necessarily guaranteeing any ecologically favourable outcome, environmental
impact assessments are now a mandatory requirement in many jurisdictions. These
are public processes initiated by a permit request or by the legislative process.
Typically, an environmental impact assessment would necessarily involve the
screening of projects for assessment; scoping of potential impacts for assessment;
predicting and identifying the likely environmental impacts of the project;
identifying mitigation measures; deciding whether or not to proceed with the
project; and if so, monitoring the developmental activities so that unpredicted
measures and failed mitigation measures can be addressed promptly. 160
The value of an environmental impact assessment in promoting a land ethic has

been recognised by a number of writers. 161 Its value as a decision-making tool has
also been recognised in a number of international and domestic legal instruments.
For example, Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
1992 provides:
155
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 207A.
156
157
158
The Minister may consider social and economic factors in his deliberation.
159
160
Decision VI/7 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992,
Annex para 1a, <http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-06&id=7181&lg=0>
(accessed 18 April 2006).
161
For example, Goldstein, above n 37, 427-430; and L Butler, ‘The Pathology of Property
Norms: Living within Nature’s Boundaries’ (2000) 73 Southern California Law Review 927,
1005-1009.
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for

proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.
As a party to the Convention on Biological Biodiversity 1992, Singapore is also

required by Article (1)(a), as far as possible and as appropriate, to
introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of its

proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological
diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and, where appropriate,
allow for public participation in such procedures.
The value of environmental impact assessments has also long been recognised by
ASEAN. Article 14 of the ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources 1985, 162 which has yet to come into force, provides
The Contracting Parties undertake that proposals for any activity which may
significantly affect the natural environment shall as far as possible be subjected to an
assessment of their consequences before they are adopted, and they shall take into
consideration the results of this assessment in their decision-making process.
There are no mandatory requirements for environmental impact assessments in

Singapore; the closest equivalent can be found in s 36 of the Environmental
Pollution Control Act. 163 Under this provision, studies on ‘environmental pollution
control and related matters’ may be required from any person intending to carry out
any activity that, in the opinion of the Director-General of Environmental
Protection, is likely to cause substantial pollution of the environment or increase the
level of such pollution. 164 Clearly, the provision is not intended to cover non-
substantially polluting activities that may potentially be ecologically detrimental,
eg, golf course developments. Even when undertaken, environmental impact
assessments are usually internal and do not require public input and are not made
available for public comment. 165 Furthermore, the practice seems to be to
commission an environmental assessment only after a site has already been
identified for development. Thus, an environmental assessment only serves to
162
<http://www.aseansec.org/6080.htm> (accessed 18 April 2006).
163
Environmental Pollution Control Act (Cap 94A, 2002 rev ed).
164
According to s 2, pollution of the environment refers to the release from any process into any
environmental medium, substances that are capable of causing harm to man or any living
organisms supported by the environment.
165
As far as I’m aware, the only exception to date is the recent marine environmental impact
assessment on proposed reclamation works at Pulau Ular, a southern offshore island,
commissioned by the Jurong Town Corporation, a statutory board established under the
Jurong Town Corporation Act (Cap 150 1998 rev ed). The report was made available for
public viewing by prior appointment at the corporate office of the Corporation for a period of
four weeks from 11 January 2006.
consider how to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 166 No assessment is done

in relation to the alternatives to the proposed development, or alternatives to the
selected site; these are treated as givens.
The government has consistently rejected calls to introduce environmental impact

assessment legislation, and this has been criticised by a number of writers, 167 and
even in Parliament. 168 It appears that this is not so much a rejection of the merits of
the assessment per se as a rejection of the need to formalise the requirements and
provide for public participation as is usually required in such legislation. In the
government’s opinion, it has managed the process of balancing the twin goals of
meeting human needs and nature conservation well, and formalising environmental
impact assessment and institutionalising public consultation would lead to ‘more
dialogue and more disagreements’, rather than a harmonisation of both goals. 169
However, such a justification is no longer tenable. Aside from the invaluable

capacity building opportunities that follow from greater public involvement in land
management decisions, the positive contribution to the quality of environmental
impact assessments from public input has long been recognised in international law
and many domestic jurisdictions.
There are many examples of environmental impact assessment legislation around

the world. The European Union’s Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment, as amended by Directive 97/11 of 3 March 1997 and 2003/35 of 26
May 2003 is an example of a legal framework for environmental impact
assessments. Article 2 of the Directive requires Member States to adopt all
measures necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the
environment are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an
environmental assessment with regard to their effects. The environmental impact
assessment must identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner the direct
and indirect effects of the project, inter alia on population, fauna, flora, soil, water,
air, climatic factors, and the inter-relationship between these factors. 170 In
acknowledgement of the importance of public participation in environmental impact
166
Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Report (20 July 2005) vol 80, Oral Answer to
Question 4.
167
See L Lye, ‘Legal Protection of the Natural Environment’ in Briffett and Ho (eds), above n
111, 83, 89-90; Koh, above n 59, 166-167; and K Foo, L Lye, and K Koh, ‘Environmental
Protection: the Legal Framework’ in Ooi (ed), Environment and the City: Sharing Singapore’s
Experience and Future Challenges (1995) 47, 87. See also K Lim, ‘Conserving Singapore’s
Biodiversity’ (2000) 8(2) Nature Watch 2; and C George, ‘EIAs Not Just a Green Weapon to
Thwart Development Efforts’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 12 September 1992.
168
See speeches by Nominated Member of Parliament Simon Tay during the Second Reading of
the Environmental Pollution Control Bill – Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Report,
(11 February 1999) vol 69, col 2000; and Nominated Member of Parliament Geh Min during
the Second Reading of the Parks and Trees Bill – Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official
Report (25 January 2005) vol 79, col 502.
169
170
Official Journal of the European Union L 175/40 Articles 3 and 5, and Annex IV.
assessments, the Directive has been amended to give effect to the EU’s obligations
under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s Convention on
Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 (‘Aarhus Convention’). Thus, the Directive
now requires the public to be notified, inter alia, of the application for development
consent; the fact that it is subject to environmental assessment; an indication of the
nature of relevant information gathered; details of how and when the relevant
information may be sought or comments submitted; the nature of possible
decisions; and details of the arrangements for public participation. 171 The public
must be given early and effective opportunities and sufficient time to participate in
the decision-making while options are still open to the authorities. The views of the
public as well as those of concerned public agencies by virtue of their specific
environmental responsibilities must be taken into consideration in the consent
procedure. 172 When the decision is made, the public must be informed of the content
of the decision and the conditions attached if any; the main reasons and
considerations on which it is based; and the main mitigation measures. 173 Finally,
members of the public with a sufficient interest – by definition, this includes non-
governmental organisations promoting environmental protection – must have access
to a fair, equitable, timely, and not prohibitively expensive procedure to challenge
the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, or acts or omissions subject to
the public participation provisions of the Directive. 174
XII STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Jo Treweek et al have noted that when it comes to ecological and biodiversity

considerations, the environmental impact assessment process is arguably less
effective because administrative and project boundaries rarely match the
distribution and pattern of biodiversity. Furthermore, such assessments often lack
the geographical and time frames to properly predict long term trends; ecosystem
processes and interactions; cumulative threats and pressures and monitor data to
better understand baseline trends and predict impacts. 175 One way to overcome these
limitations and to better take into account ecological and biodiversity issues in land
management would be, inter alia, to require a strategic environmental assessment
when formulating land use policy. This is a valuable supplement to environmental
impact assessment as it allows ecological and biodiversity issues to be considered at
an even earlier stage – before actual cross strategic plans are adopted, projects are
proposed and sites are earmarked. At this stage, a wider range of alternatives are
available, so there is greater opportunity to avoid and mitigate ecological damage.
An added benefit is that the strategic environmental assessment may be used as a
171
2161 United Nations Treaty Series 447 Article 6.
172
Aarhus Convention Article 8.
173
Aarhus Convention Article 9.
174
Aarhus Convention Article 10a.
175
J Treweek et al, ‘Principles for the Use of Strategic Environmental Assessment as a Tool for
Promoting the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity’ (2005) 7(2) Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 173, 175.
tool for integrating a national biodiversity strategy and action plans into national
development strategies. 176
In Singapore, it is true that environmental considerations are as a matter of practice

taken into account at the strategic level in the preparation of the non-statutory
Concept Plan and review of the statutory Master Plan. However, there is currently
no institutionalised arrangement in place to identify the likely significant adverse
ecological impacts of a land use plan. Nor is there any assurance that such impacts
will be avoided as far as possible through the systematic consideration of alternative
plans, or at least mitigated as a last resort. Furthermore, formal opportunity for the
public to participate in the revision of land use plans is limited under the Planning
(Master Plan) Rules. 177 In practice, draft land use plans are more widely exhibited
and public feedback is more extensively sought and encouraged than required by
the legal requirements. 178 Nevertheless, in the absence of wide access to
environmental information in the possession of State agencies and an opportunity to
participate in a strategic environmental assessment of the land use plan, public
participation can only be superficial at best.
It is therefore submitted that the requirements for strategic environmental

assessments, and in particular, for greater public involvement in such assessments
should be institutionalised. Strategic environmental assessment legislation now
exists in some jurisdictions. Again, looking to Europe as an example, pursuant to
European Union Council Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of
certain plans and programmes on the environment (‘SEA Directive’), an
environmental assessment is required of statutory or administrative plans and
programmes that are prepared by an authority at national, regional or local level,
and are likely to have significant environmental effects, including those prepared
for town and country planning or land use. 179
176
See Decision VI/7, above n 160, Annex para 6.
177
Planning (Master Plan) Rules (Cap 232, R 1, 2000 rev ed). Where the Minister of National
Development considers a proposed amendment to be a material one, the proposal must be
advertised in the Gazette and one newspaper in each of the four official languages specifying a
period of at least two weeks for the submission of written objections and representations, and
the place where the proposed amendment may be inspected during office hours. Unless the
objection or representation is deemed frivolous, the Minister must allow the objector or
representor an opportunity to be heard at a hearing or public inquiry presided by the Minister’s
appointee(s). At the end of the hearing or inquiry, the appointee(s) submits his findings and
conclusions to the Minister. There is no requirement to make these findings or conclusions
available to the public. After considering the proposed amendment, the Master Plan, the
objections and representations, and the findings and conclusions of the hearing or inquiry, the
Minister may approve the proposal with or without further amendment, or reject the proposal
without having to give any reasons for doing so. Where a proposed amendment is approved,
with or without amendments, the approval must be advertised and notified to the objectors and
representors.
178
See for example, ‘S’pore to Stay Green as it Grows’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 29 April
2001; and ‘Response to URA Landscape Plans Good’, The Straits Times (Singapore), 26 July
2002.
179
Official Journal of the European Union L 197/30, Article 3.
The Directive sets out the mechanics of a strategic environmental assessment.

Assessments must be carried out early; in this case during the preparation of the
plan and before it is adopted or submitted to the legislative process. 180 An
environmental report must be prepared, setting out the contents of the plan and its
main objectives; the environmental characteristics of any area likely to be
significantly affected; any relevant existing environmental problems; any relevant
national, European, or international environmental protection objectives; the likely
environmental effects of implementing the plan; the measures envisaged to prevent,
reduce and offset any significant adverse environmental effects; the envisaged
monitoring measures; and a non-technical summary. 181
Just as public participation is a key component of the environmental impact

assessment, a key component in the strategic environmental assessment is the
provision of opportunities for public scrutiny and input. The EU Directive requires
that the public be consulted, 182 and that the actual decision take into account their
opinion. 183 Consultees must be informed of the plan as adopted, how environmental
considerations have been integrated, the environmental report, the opinions of other
consultees, including those of the relevant authorities and other Member States
where applicable, the reasons for the choice of plan or programme as adopted and
the planned monitoring measures. 184
XIII CONCLUSION
Modern land management law has been concerned with man’s relationship with one
another in respect of their use of land and the resources therein. We now accept that
even as land owners, whether private or public, our use of the land must be
subordinated to the well-being of the community as a whole. However, this regard
for the community has traditionally been myopically limited to the human
community, and often narrowly focussed on maximising the short term economic
value of the land. The law’s conception of the land as mere real estate reflects a
social relationship with land that was developed as early as the seventeenth century.
What began as a struggle for survival has today become, particularly in wealthier
societies, a relentless desire to manipulate land as a resource to drive economic
growth.
Advances in the fields of ecology and ethics inform us that humans are but a
member of the complex web of life, and our long term fate is inextricably bound
with that of other members of this web. As Geh Min, a Nominated Member of
Parliament, rightly pointed out on the occasion of the recent second reading in
Parliament of the Parks and Trees Bill, 185 ‘(o)ur larger vision of ourselves must
180
SEA Directive Article 4.
181
SEA Directive Article 5 and Annex 1.
182
183
184
185
Singapore Parliamentary Debates, above n 90.
encompass not only our economy and our people but our biodiversity and
ecosystems’. 186 Like it or not, the land does not belong to us; we belong to the land.
As the community’s most evolved species, we are not its masters, but merely its
stewards for the duration of our existence. Thus, while we compete with the other
members of the biotic community for space, we must also not forget our
interdependence and the need to cooperate for the well-being of the biotic
community.
The land and its ecological processes are intimately interconnected, and have no
regard for man-made boundaries or rights over land; it is our laws that must be
dictated by the ecological laws of the land and not the other way round. Our legal
framework for land management is out of sync with reality and has impoverished
our relationship with the land. Legal reform to reconnect us with the reality that the
land is a community of life is both timely (if not overdue) and necessary.
186

Null

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Null

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MqJICEL (2006) Vol 3 1

BEYOND REAL ESTATE: SOWING THE LEGAL SEEDS FOR AN

II LAND AS A BIOTIC COMMUNITY

Early western conceptions of dominion over land included a duty of stewardship

As Leopold noted, a land ethic reflects the existence of an ecological conscience,

away from, rather than towards, an intense consciousness of land. Secondly, we

III THE LAND ETHIC AND THE LAW

In a similar vein, the preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, 14

The preamble of the Charter provides, inter alia, that

Importantly, an ecocentric ethic is not inconsistent with sustainable development,

Even more explicitly, Paragraph 6 of the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable

environmental ethic in constitutions. 26 Article 225(1) of the Brazil Constitution

In a similar vein, Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution imposes a fundamental

Diversity 1992, the Scottish Ministers are required to publish a biodiversity

IV LAND MANAGEMENT AS ECOLOGICAL STEWARDSHIP

Reflecting on this enlightened shift towards an ecocentric outlook, many legal

Describing environmental ethics as ‘an understanding that in an ecosystem every

[l]andowners have a duty to maintain the environmental context of the land in

V THE LAND ETHIC IN SINGAPORE

VI PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT IN SINGAPORE AND THE LAND ETHIC

2,800 ha of nature reserve. 73 In a ten-year study of a two-hectare plot within the

dangerous to health. 81 Again, while the ecological integrity of land is partially or

Direct protection of selected members of the biotic community is conferred under

The management of flora is generally unregulated, but exceptionally, large trees on

A similar protection is conferred on trees and plants generally in designated

Designation as a nature area is discretionary, and it is clear that ecological merit is

Another controversial development is the proposed construction of a road through

The official assertion of an absence of ecologically less damaging alternatives to a

Despite assurances by the government that it is committed to nature conservation, 137

VIII INSTITUTING THE LAND ETHIC IN PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT – SOME

Developing a land ethic will not be easy. As Leopold observed,

[a]n ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for

And a land ethic certainly cannot be legislated overnight. As Leopold explained,

was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis,

IX THE STATE AS ECOLOGICAL STEWARD

This clearly pro-development Act is conspicuously silent about whether the

X IDENTIFYING AND MANAGING ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND

Public participation features significantly in the identification of threatened species

Once a threatened species or ecological community is listed, the Minister must

XI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The value of an environmental impact assessment in promoting a land ethic has

Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for

As a party to the Convention on Biological Biodiversity 1992, Singapore is also

introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of its

There are no mandatory requirements for environmental impact assessments in

consider how to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 166 No assessment is done

The government has consistently rejected calls to introduce environmental impact

However, such a justification is no longer tenable. Aside from the invaluable

There are many examples of environmental impact assessment legislation around

XII STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Jo Treweek et al have noted that when it comes to ecological and biodiversity

In Singapore, it is true that environmental considerations are as a matter of practice

It is therefore submitted that the requirements for strategic environmental

The Directive sets out the mechanics of a strategic environmental assessment.

Just as public participation is a key component of the environmental impact

S-ar putea să vă placă și