Build the IR, but Spare the Few Plants

I was appalled when I read this on the Straits Times on 11 Mar 2007 - a "practical" comment (not sure if he was misquoted though) given by a prominent local zoologist on the Sentosa forest:

...there 'isn't much of the original vegetation left' after intense utilisation of the site. 'Conservation is important, but - to be blunt - I feel this isn't one of the most important nature spots in Singapore,' he says. 'We can't just say, 'Don't build the IR there', because of a few plants. We should work around it.'

Isn't it precisely because there 'isn't much of the original vegetation left', whatever that's left becomes more valuable, and hence all the more we should try to preserve it???!!???

And since there's not much left, doesn't it also mean that it will be easier to preserve, since it will be small?

And how can we say that this is not one of the most important nature spot in Singapore??!!??? Every nature spot is important, since we have so few of them left. Some how this reminds me of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Imagine this scenario: Assume we have 10 nature spots, so someone may say the last five are not the most important ones, so they can be destroyed. And so when we are left with only 5 nature spots, someone else will say the last 2 are not the most important spots, so they can be destroyed. And when we are left with only 3 nature spots, someone else will say, nature spots 2 and 3 are not the most important nature spots, so they can be destroyed. And when we are left with only 1 nature spot, someone else will say, there isn't much of the original vegetation left anyway, so might as well use the land for something else.

Frankly speaking, it's not about what is more important or less important. Every nature spot is unique. It's about preserving whatever miserably few nature spots that we have left. Imagine if you are broke and you have 5 kids, will you immediately say that one particular child is not as important as the others and should be abandoned? Rather than thinking about who to abandon, you will probably first try to think of a way to feed all the kids. And I think that should really be the approach to all development plans. Right at the beginning, we should explore all possible solutions, instead of assuming that the nature spot has to go whenever we have a development plan.

And seriously, nobody is saying that we should not build the IR in order to keep the forest. Surely there is a way to include the forest in the IR landscape design. Thus, I do appreciate Sentosa's effort to hold a discussion with the various interest groups, so at least the latter can provide some feedback, and hopefully the designer will explore the feasibility of including the forest in the IR landscape design.

Really, conservation is not inversely related to development. It's possible for them to go hand in hand. It's all about proper planning right at the beginning.

Quoting the dodos from "Ice Age" - "If you weren't smart enough to plan ahead, then DOOM ON YOU!"

With global warming and other environmental problems looming ahead, it's really time for us Homo sapiens to stop taking Mother Nature for granted, and start acknowledging conservation as part of development.