Hi everyone, this week we shall explore the Hansard where transcripts of parliamentary debates and speeches are made available online. Our aim this week is see how our government’s view of climate change has changed over the years.
Using the in-site search engine, the first-time climate change was mentioned in parliament was the Budget for the Ministry of the Environment in 1998. However, this mention of climate change was with reference to the impact of the annual haze situation in terms of greenhouse gases and thus is not addressing domestic contributions to carbon emissions. In the same sitting Senior Minister of State for the Environment Encek Sidek bin Saniff statement referred to global warming as a phenomenon that is slow and still in the far future of 2100. This gives me the impression that then even the Ministry for the environment did not consider climate change to be a imminent event that required immediate action.
During the same sitting, Mr Heng Chiang Meng stated in which environmental awareness as an individual can lead to changes in companies as corporate decisions are also made by individuals. He thinks that this is enough to ensure environmentally responsible behaviour from companies yet after 22 years this does not seem to have manifested. I agree with Mr Heng Chiang Meng yet I think this can be bolstered with some form of legislation so as to have an environment that would be less hostile to top down implementations of green company policy. Which in the short term may incur costs yet on a whole is beneficial.
Moving to ministerial statements that are more recent, overall, something that I noticed was that climate change and carbon emissions were more frequently mentioned. In a ministerial statement Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling mentioned the proposed College of Humanities and Science as a step in the right direction as climate change is not a narrow disciplinary problem but one that is interdisciplinary. I completely agree with her and I think the method of education must evolve with the times. Climate change is a multifaceted issue that need stakeholders with differing viewpoints to come together to find a path forward to a carbon-free future.
In the same ministerial statement DPM Heng, stated that sustainability is important not just from the climate aspect but also from an economic standpoint. He states that the green sector of the economy can become a vital part of the economy and thus contribute to economic growth. Via growth in green R&D, efforts to boost a circular economy, increasing renewables and MAS’ sustainable finance.
The difference in attitude towards the environment is certainly palpable, rather than just looking at the environment and its issues from a mitigative view point, I feel as though the government is taking an increasingly proactive stance towards climate action. Yet, Singapore as always prioritizes economic growth and thus it remains to be seen if everlasting economic growth is possible while remaining sustainable.
· Permalink
Hi Li Zhe
Really refreshing take on how Singapore needs to juggle between environmentalism and economy. Personally, I feel that as a modern metropolitan state, Singapore definitely has to invest in projects that propel our economy forward. However given our land constraints, we might inadvertently compromise the environment in certain ways. Therefore, will it be good if another political party that advocates for the environment existed in the Parliament, alongside the ruling power? Hope to hear your view.
· Permalink
Hi Wen Han,
Great to see you here, personally I am of the opinion that efficiency is key, I think bureaucracy and red tape impairs a government. For me the United States of America have spoiled the image of a bi-partisan parliament to me. I think that as long as an incumbent government is receptive to voices of opposing view whether it comes from external parties or even internal ones, this is sufficient. Yet I think the portrayal of a united front is extremely important. But I personally would not say I am very well versed with politics. I am also very curious about your own views. 😊
-Li Zhe
· Permalink
Hi Li Zhe,
Everything is fine with your response to Wen Han, except one thing. The US doesn’t have a parliamentary system. The only other country with a similar political system (that I’m aware of) is the Philippines.
You are, no doubt, more knowledgeable about SG politics than I am, but I would venture to say we don’t have a bi-partisan system either. I mean, yes, there are two dominant parties, but theoretically, there could be more.
Like Canada (and we have pretty much the exact same system as SG), with 3 major parties: Liberal (currently forming a minority govt), Conservative and New Democratic. But we also have other big ones, like the Bloc Québecois, which despite only having MPs in one province, elects members to our national parliament. And we have a Green Party. In a minority government, all these parties have a much louder voice (though the Conservatives have the loudest one since they hold the 2nd highest share of seats).
That’s not to say there’s nothing wrong with the system. In fact, I think there are many things wrong with it, but please don’t let the US situation guide your impression of how parliamentary systems or democracies function. It’s perverse over there, IMO.
jc
· Permalink
Hi Wen Han and Li Zhe,
Having another party just for environmental issues seems to be an interesting idea that would be quite similar to the various Green parties going on in Europe. However, I don’t think this would be a good idea in Singapore. Campaigning on such a narrow issue might not make them very electable – in fact if they were to focus just on environmental issues they might have to call for unpopular policies like a carbon tax etc. If they can’t be voted into parliament how would they have the platform to air their views?
Of course, many people would point out that just having these ideas out there influences the ruling party to adopt some of the proposals in the long run, as seen by the PAP’s shift closer to the centre/left after 2011. However, if the goal of a party is mutually exclusive with being elected, perhaps civil society/advocacy groups would be more effective? Under the NMP scheme they might even be nominated into parliament. I just hope that NMPs and Opposition MPs can join the Government Parliamentary Committes which are currently only available for PAP MPs. This could give a greater diversity of views.
Then again someone would say how the NMP scheme isn’t democratic and all that…
· Permalink
What an innovative approach to a blog entry, Li Zhe ! Love this !
Just one thing… the hyperlink to Cheryl CHAN’s statement isn’t the right one – the one you included sends the reader to the 1998 speech.
Also, here’s something that may interest you. I started my BSc in 1996, and completed it in 1999. My major was environmental biology. We did not really learn about climate change at all. We learned a lot about pollution, fire ecology, agriculture (I was in the Faculty of Agriculture), conservation, wildlife management, bioremediation. But not climate change. I also don’t remember the media talking much about it back then. Looking back on that now, I wonder why – was this the effect of suppression of information by the main industries ?
jc
· Permalink
Thank you, Dr Coleman. I have corrected the hyperlink.
According to the McGill University, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (https://www.mcgill.ca/meteo/about/history) the Climate Research Group was formed in 1986 and renamed to the Centre for Climate and Global Change Research in 1990. Thus, looking at the timeline, I would hazard to guess that the lack of mention of climate change could possibly be attributed to a very domain specific education system. I mean even for NUS a more interdisciplinary education has only just begun to emerge. I would think that before universities may have been aiming for depth rather than breath of studies. But these are just my thoughts.
-Li Zhe
· Permalink
That’s interesting ! And I appreciate you for actually looking it up !
It is true my degree wasn’t very interdisciplinary – very, very biology / ecology / chemistry focused. I don’t recall any incorporation of any social sciences, for example.
That said, I took a meteorology course (though I dropped it halfway through because it was too hard), and climate change wasn’t even on the list of topics.
I can safely say I graduated with a BSc (Ag) and zero understanding of how agriculture is related to global climate. I’m really glad you people will have much greater awareness of broader issues than I gained.
jc