Jeanette Wang

blogs about the logistics of bicycle commuting.

I’m not a fan of backpacks for bike commuting in Singapore’s weather. Racks are far more suitable. Last thing you need is something restricting air flow to your back.

Mass Cycling Event

A commenter brought to my attention a mass cycling event on 29 Nov in Singapore, held in conjunction with the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. It will start from the Xtreme SkatePark in East Coast Park, head to Fort Road, and return. Both skaters and cyclists welcome. For more details, see their website.

Survey on bike lanes in Singapore

A friend is doing a Masters thesis on the potential costs/benefits of having bike lanes in Singapore. Part of her project involves analysing responses to a survey on attitudes of people towards potential bike lanes in Singapore. If you live or have lived in Singapore, please spare a few minutes to do the survey. Non-cyclists welcome too!

Ride of Silence, Singapore, 2009

The organisers are still looking for people with First Aid certification and photographers. Contact them at to help.

If anyone would like to help with printing and distributing the pamphlets, do contact me or the organisers.

Hope to see you there.

Greenwashing

Found a paper by NUS professor Natasha Hamilton-Hart on Singapore’s approach towards climate change. You can read a version of the paper (with some typos) here. Notable excerpts:

…by clinging to its official developing country status, Singapore has continued to refuse to accept any obligation to reduce absolute emissions. In fact, its declared emissions target is for a substantial increase in emissions over 1990 levels. This is because its goal of reducing the carbon intensity of the economy–the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per dollar of GDP–by 25 per cent from 1990 to 2012 is consistent with a substantial increase in absolute emissions, given that the economy has grown at far higher rates than the targetted annual average decline in carbon intensity. By 2004 the carbon intensity target had already almost been met, which was consistent with the recorded doubling of absolute emissions between 1990 and 2000, and an increase of per capita emissions by over 50 per cent in the same period (Earthtrends 2005).

[...]

There appear to be two major reasons for Singapore’s accession to the Kyoto Protocol: a desire to protect the country’s international image and to benefit from the economic opportunities that the protocol opens up. Singaporean officials and others associated with Singapore’s environmental policy may also be inspired by a sincere wish to address the problem of global climate change, and may see accession as a useful first step in giving the issue a greater national profile. This has certainly occurred, but such concerns have yet to produce a policy shift that would contemplate absolute emissions cuts or non-voluntary measures.

[...]

Consistent with… explicit statements that Singapore wants to be seen to be acting responsibly is the effort expended in presenting Singapore’s environmental record as a shining example of environmental responsibility and sustainable development. This involves more than highlighting Singapore’s real accomplishments in areas such as pollution control, the management of vector borne diseases and tree planting. It also involves obscuring or omitting Singapore’s record on issues where its performance is poor by international standards. Climate change is one such area. The selection of improving the carbon intensity of the economy as a target, for example, is a way of presenting Singapore’s policy as an “improvement” when in fact it allows for very substantial increases in emissions, albeit at a slower rate than would have occurred had the intensity not increased. In discussions of climate change and energy policy in official documents and speeches, Singapore’s actual trend of rising emissions is almost always omitted. While Singapore’s emissions as a percentage of the world total (around 0.2 to 0.3 per cent) is often mentioned, speeches and documents such as the Singapore Green Plan 2012 never mention Singapore’s high per capita emissions. At 15.2 metric tonnes per capita in 2000, Singapore’s per capita emissions were well above the developed country average of 11.2 tonnes, making Singapore the sixth highest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide in the world (Earthtrends 2005).

[...]

While Singapore’s record in managing pollution and maintaining a green environment is very good for an industrialized city-state, the kind of environmentalism espoused by its policymakers is conditional. The government’s approach to environmental protection is dominated by concerns for human health and a desire to present Singapore as a pleasant destination for tourists and expatriate professionals, who are targetted to play a substantial role in the economy and whose preferences for a superficially green environment are therefore reflected in efforts to maintain the aesthetic appearance of Singapore as a “garden city”. Indeed, the progenitor of the garden city initiative, Lee Kuan Yew, has explained that “clean and green Singapore” was intended as a strategy to distinguish Singapore from its neighbours in the eyes of foreign businesspeople and tourists (Lee 2000, pp. 173-74). As noted in a study of Singapore’s environmental ideology, economic necessity and a desire to develop the tourist market, not ecological principles, were behind initiatives such the “garden city” campaign and the decision to sign the global treaty banning trade in endangered wildlife (Savage 1992, pp. 205-7).

There is strong resistance to allowing the notion of inherent environmental values to infringe on economic goals. Environmental impacts of developments may indeed be “carefully assessed” as claimed in official statements, but this presents a rather misleading picture of the planning process. As noted by a legal scholar, “There is at present no legislation in Singapore making EIAs [Environmental Impact Assessments] compulsory for major developmental projects”. Further, “there have been calls to enact EIA legislation to institutionalize the impact assessment procedure so as not to leave EIA decisions to administrative discretion. It appears that under the current system, EIAs are usually required, if at all, only of industries for pollution control purposes” rather than biodiversity or conservation purposes (Tan 1998, section 5.3). Indeed, as related in another account, Singapore’s main environmental NGO have been frustrated by “the government’s consistent deaf ear to calls for environmental impact assessments of all large-scale developments the institutionalization of which would inconvenience the government in promoting physical development” (Chua 2005, p. 63).

The NYT on Kampong Buangkok

Wow. I never would have thought they’d consider it to be of international interest. They even took the same shot of the HDB flats looming at the end of a footpath leading out of the kampong.

Sustainable Seafood in Singapore

So, apparently there isn’t a sustainable seafood guide for Singapore yet. But the WWF has sustainable seafood guides for Hong Kong and Indonesia. Between those two, I imagine a large variety of seafood consumed in Singapore is covered. As a signatory of CITES, Singapore requires CITES permits for the import of certain endangered species, but their list of marine species for which such permits are required does not include most of the species being consumed that are overfished.

Here We Go Again

This is fast becoming a series. In the latest ST article on cycling, we see the land-scarce excuse again:

Moreover, bicycle lanes in land-scarce Singapore is [sic] not cost-effective. It is physically not feasible to set aside dedicated road space for bicycles.

This goes against the standard wisdom of transport researchers. Bicycles are more space-efficient than cars; they take up less space per person transported. If you think that space efficiency is a reason to promote public motorized transport over private motorized transport, then you should also see it as a reason to promote bicycles over private motorized transport. This is what should be said:

Moreover, car lanes in land-scarce Singapore are not cost-effective. It is physically not feasible to set aside dedicated road space for cars.

Paul Barter makes the same point, and many others, in his draft paper on bicycles in Singapore.

Another canard from the ST article that I’m a little tired of putting down:

One argument offered by government officials is that Singapore’s hot and humid climate is not conducive to cycling.

Let me alter the quote again to show up its weakness:

One argument offered by government officials is that Amsterdam/Portland/Chicago/Copenhagen’s cold, wet and windy climate is not conducive to cycling.

Once again, I invite anyone who’s actually commuted by bike regularly in winter in places with climates similar to the abovementioned cities to make the claim made by our supposed government officials. You do not know what it’s like to cycle in a biting cold winter wind and freezing rain until you have actually done so. What makes it worse is that most people who make such statements haven’t even cycled regularly in Singapore themselves. It’s like someone who’s never climbed a mountain or done long-distance skiing proclaiming that climbing Everest is harder than going to the South Pole.