bb
The following is from the Singapore Heritage Society’s Facebook page:
On 12 May 2014, Straits Times Assistant Political Editor Leonard Lim wrote that civil society groups “extracted concessions on Bukit Brown cemetery” in his opinion piece “Can Civil Society Influence Politics?”. Read SHS and atBB’s full and unedited response to Lim below.
(An edited version was published in ST’s Forum Page on 15 May 2014:http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/bukit-brown-no-consultation-extract-concessions-20140515).
Dear Editor,
We refer to the article by Assistant Political Editor Leonard Lim claiming that civil society groups “extracted concessions on Bukit Brown cemetery” in his opinion piece, “Can Civil Society Influence Politics?” (ST, May 12, 2014).
As key players of the civil movement trying to protect and preserve Bukit Brown, we are unclear as to what “concessions” Mr. Lim is referring. It is now a well-established narrative that officially in 2012 when the road was announced, the decision to build a highway through Bukit Brown had already been made. We state for the record we were present at a briefing by the Ministry of National Development but that there was no consultation or protracted engagement thereafter to extract any concessions. We issued a call for a moratorium and moved on.
Mr. Lim references a subsequent decrease in the number of graves planned for exhumation for the 8-lane road across Bukit Brown from an estimated 5,000 as part of a compromise reached with civil society. This is not the case.
There are two points to clarify to prevent this misstatement of facts from being (repeatedly) perpetuated. One, the number of graves finally affected was reduced not to 3,764 as stated in Lim’s article, but to 4,153. The error occurred because Mr. Lim quoted from a Land Transport Authority (LTA) announcement in a March 19, 2012 statement on the realignment of the road. It was in an August 5, 2013 statement by Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and LTA to announce the award of the contract for the road that the final tally of affected graves was issued. Two, both statements clearly attributed the realignment of road to an engineering decision, and the drop in the number of graves affected had nothing to do with consultations with civil society.
On the second point, we draw attention to the LTA statement that announced that the road design includes a bridge over several creeks in Bukit Brown rather than a design that will see a filling up of these natural drainage networks with soil. There was no consultation on the original design or its changes. It is not clear if the adjustment was a result of a yet-undisclosed, but limited-scope Biodiversity Impact Assessment that the LTA conducted in early 2012. Regardless of the reason, that this change in design has been reported several times in your newspaper to be a result of a “compromise” with civil society is erroneous and needs to be corrected so as not to be repeated.
To date, there is likewise no consultation about the zoning of the greater Bukit Brown area in its entirety for residential use in the 2013 Draft Land Use Master Plan released by the URA. This area includes the larger cemetery complex comprising Bukit Brown, Seh Ong, Lau Sua, and Kopi Sua.
Now that we have clarified the events of 2012 and the decisions announced thereafter on official record, we would like to focus on the present and note that we have been meeting with the National Heritage Board since mid-2013 and hope to make more progress in protecting Bukit Brown. We write to clear the air so discussions are based on facts, not misrepresentations, and the public is not misled.
Yours faithfully
Dr Chua Ai Lin – President, Singapore Heritage Society
Ms Claire Leow – Co-founder, All Things Bukit Brown

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

WP’s Yee Jenn Jong says Elections Department should issue the EBRC report when ready regardless when GE happens

On Wednesday (11 March), former Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) and Workers’…

陈清木公布新加坡前进党标志

新加坡前行动党议员、新加坡前进党创党人陈清木,在脸书公布其新党标志已获得批准。 前进党整体上看型似一棵棕榈树,有五片向外展开的棕榈叶,而细看下则会发现树的主干乃是人形。 陈清木解释,人形的树干,代表的该党信念,即人民才是核心利益和力量的泉源。 棕榈树则象征成长、使命、力量和生命。 五片展开的叶片,代表该党的五大理想:民主、平等、正义、和平和进步,也象征我国多元族群和包容的社会,由四大民族和新公民组成。 至于标志的红色与白色,红色象征声明、热诚、精力和力量;白色代表纯洁、正直和善良。 陈清木表示,新加坡前进党放眼为国人服务,努力实践该党的理念。 根据社团注册局网站,陈清木申请注册的新政党,是在3月28日正式注册。 陈清木在今年1月16日,和12名志同道合新加坡人(包括几位前人民行动党干部),向社团注册局申请注册新加坡前进党。

Fatal accident along Gul Road on Monday

A regular from the Tuas naval base passed away after being hit and…

TOC Editorial: Will Tin Pei Lin backfire?

The following excerpt is from TOC GE 2011. TOC Editorial/ Let’s get…