Nature Contained: Environmental Histories of Singapore

Source 8: “Wildlife and Singapore”: An Assessment from the 1980s

“Wildlife and Singapore” 241 241 There is a prevailing view in Singapore that since Singapore has not much wildlife of its own left to protect, issues such as wildlife conservation are none of its concern. Indeed, this view was recently expressed officially, in writing, to the Singapore Branch of the Malayan Nature Society, in a letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, attempting to explain why Singapore had not yet signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Needless to say, the Branch will be replying and pointing out that one of the objectives of this Convention is to assist others, including friendly Asean neighbours in Singapore’s case, to protect their own very abundant wildlife by limiting trade in it—it has little to do with protecting domestic wildlife, in Singapore’s case. This position is probably doubly false in that not only does Singapore need to be vigilant in monitoring its own possible role in regional wildlife trade (considering it is an important communications, transportation and trading crossroads), but it also probably has more wildlife left than Singaporeans themselves realise. Certainly, with pressures of continuing urbanisation and development, the few remaining nature reserves will need constant protection and monitoring. A very necessary element of conservation work in Singapore is the education of the public to realise the value of what we do have left, and to inform them of the laws which do exist to protect it. Too few Singaporeans realise the existence of a local Wild Animals and Birds Act, for instance, and for various reasons, some understandable (such as manpower shortages), some sections of the law are not rigidly enforced either. The Singapore Branch recently undertook to curb the number of quite blatant wildlife trade advertisements in the Classified Advertisements columns of the Englishlanguage daily, the Straits Times. That they were so blatant indicated that neither the general public nor the executives in the advertising division had ever considered 1 This article originally appeared in Malayan Naturalist (May 1982): 38–40. We would like to thank the author, Ilsa Sharp, as well as the editors and members of the Malaysian Nature Society for allowing it to be reprinted here. SOURCE 8 “Wildlife and Singapore”: An Assessment from the 1980s1 242 Nature Contained the moral issues which could underlie such ads and were ignorant of the law. We took it as much as an educational exercise as anything to inform both parties of the real situation. We had been much assisted by our keen and tireless member, Mr Lee Toh Ming, who fed us countless examples of such ads. We are now monitoring them ourselves. Such as these ads: • Sunday Times, May 31, 1981 (under‘For Sale— Others’): ‘STUFFED LEOPARD—Just imported from Indonesia at a cost of $3,500. Owner now selling at $2,500. Beautiful and realistic. A real bargain for stuffed animal enthusiast. Tel: 7778231’ • Straits Times, April 8, 1981 (‘For Sale— Others’): ‘RARE NATURAL SKIN rugs available. Contact Tel: 2227045. David.’ • Sunday Times, January 18, 1981 (‘Antiques’): ‘RARE RHINOCEROS HORNS. Very, very expensive. Written offers only. Offer per ounce. No callers. Address Robin, 72 Huddington Avenue, S’pore 1955.’ • Straits Times, May 12, 1981 (‘Display Ads’): ‘Wholesale dealer wanted for HORNPOWDER AND OTHER NATURAL PRODUCTS Write to Dr. Mats Pihl Gunnarskarsvargen 13 663 00 Skoghall, Sweden Telephone: Sweden— 054-27200’ • Sunday Times June 1 1980: ‘One Baby Eagle. Giant-sized breed. Brown colour. Price $500 o.n.o. Mrs. Tan 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 4423852.’ Singapore’s authorities are believed to be pretty efficient in controlling the importation of live animals from overseas. These ads however reflect the more fluid situation when it comes to parts of dead animals (covered by CITES) and with some strictly local trading among local collectors, especially aviary and caged bird enthusiasts. The Singapore Branch Conservation Sub-Committee (comprising a lawyer lecturing at the National University of Singapore’s Law Faculty, Mrs Lim Lin Heng, Mr Bernard Harrison, Director of the Singapore Zoological Gardens and myself, a freelance journalist) then wrote to the Classified Advertisements department at the Straits “Wildlife and Singapore” 243 Times, reminding them of the existing laws and expressing our general concern over the possible effect of such blatant trading on our immediate neighbours’ attempt to conserve wildlife: “While the mere insertion of an advertisement in the newspapers cannot legally constitute an‘offer’, but only‘an invitation...