Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment · The Singapore Urban Systems...

For product information, visit www.cengageasia.com

Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment - In spite of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, Singapore has enjoyed a high quality ‘Clean and Green’ environment. This was achieved by maintaining an intricate balance between development and sustainability. Over time, the balancing act has turned into an economic advantage and a virtuous cycle. This study presents a historical account of the environmental and economic policy objectives, including the trade-offs required and the implementation of adaptive environmental policy to meet changing economic demands. Two main ideas emerge as crucial. First, Singapore did not adopt the conventional ‘develop first, clean up later’ approach. It viewed a clean and green Singapore as a differentiating strategy to its international competitiveness, creating jobs, and providing security for its people. Second, environment values were observed early, as severe natural resource constraints confronted policy-makers at every turn. To ensure resource efficiency and frugality in the use of its environmental capital, policy-makers made use of the market, by putting in place pricing policies, along with strict regulatory controls. Use of technology and policy innovation were also vital. This study is framed along two key dilemmas – the need for economic growth versus environmental preservation, and the realisation of short-term versus long term-benefits.

The Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series draws on original Urban Systems Studies

research by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore (CLC) into Singapore’s development over the

last half-century. The series is organised around domains such as water, transport, housing, planning,

industry and the environment. Developed in close collaboration with relevant government agencies

and drawing on exclusive interviews with pioneer leaders, these practitioner-centric booklets present

a succinct overview and key principles of Singapore’s development model. Important events, policies,

institutions, and laws are also summarised in concise annexes. The booklets are used as course material

in CLC’s Leaders in Urban Governance Programme.

The Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore (CLC) was set up in 2008 based on a strategic

blueprint developed by Singapore’s Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development. The

Centre’s mission is to distil, create and share knowledge on liveable and sustainable cities. CLC distils

key learning points from Singapore’s experiences over the last half-century, while creating knowledge

to address emerging challenges. It also shares knowledge with, and learns from, other cities and

experts. The Centre works across three main areas - Research, Training, and Promotions. CLC’s research

activities include its Integrated Urban Solutions Research, and Research Workshops, as well as Urban

Systems Studies.

Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

Balancing Growth with the Environment

00 USS(Environment).indd 1 4/29/13 11:17:15 AM


Water: From Scarce Resource to National AssetTransport: Overcoming Constraints, Sustaining MobilityIndustrial Infrastructure: Growing in Tandem with the EconomySustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the EnvironmentHousing: Turning Squatters into Stakeholders



SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

Balancing Growth with the Environment

Centre for Liveable CitiesMinistry of National Development, Singapore

National Environment AgencyMinistry of the Environment and Water Resources, Singapore

R


Printed in Singapore1 2 3 4 5 17 16 15 14 13


Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Editorial Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

National Environment Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Singapore Environment Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

1 Foundations of Economic and Social Development: Role of the Environment . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Institutional Endowments 2

1.2 Foundations of a Liveable City 5

2 Early Environmental Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 �e Beginning of Air and Water Pollution Control in the 1970s 9

Box Story 1: Not a Dumping Ground for Exported Pollution 10

2.2 Integrated Land-Use Planning Control 12

2.3 Anti-pollution Measures: Biting the Short-Term Bullet 16

2.4 Enforcement Checks 17

3 Balancing Growth with Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1 Singapore River Clean-Up (1977–1987) 19

3.2 Phasing Out Pollution at Source 20

• Textile Manufacturing Industries 20

• Removing Hawkers from the Streets 21


vi Contents

• �e Phasing Out of Pig Farms and Relocation of Factories 21

• Shipyard Industries 22

3.3 Managing the Environmental Externalities of Growth 23

Box Story 2: Managing Water Intensive Industries: Wafer Fabrication Plants 23

4 Economics of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

• Water Pollution 28

• Air pollution 28

Box Story 3: Tuas “green” coal plant 29

• Phasing out Ozone Depleting Substances-Cap and Trade System 30

• Cost Recovery 31

4.1 Pricing Waste Management Services Correctly 32

5 Long-Term Plans for a Sustainable Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1 Resource E ciency 36

5.2 Waste to Resource 37

5.3 Innovation and Future Urban Solutions 38

6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


List of Figures

Figure 1 Jurong in 1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 2 Zoning pattern of Jurong Industrial Estate as of the 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 3 Distribution of Industrial and HDB Housing Estates as of the 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 4 Future Urban Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Appendices

Appendix A Key Policy Timelines of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Appendix B Governance Tools for the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Appendix C Anti-Pollution Unit’s Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Appendix D Institutional Changes and Trade-o�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Appendix E Managing Resource Intensive Industries on Jurong Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65



Editorial Committee

Chief Editor : Mr. Khoo Teng Chye, Executive Director, Centre for Liveable CitiesResearch Advisors : Prof. Neo Boon Siong, Fellow, Centre for Liveable Cities Mr. Donald Low, Associate Director, Centre for Liveable CitiesProject Leader : Dr. Limin Hee, Deputy Director, Centre for Liveable CitiesAssistant Project Leader : Mr. Dinesh Naidu, Senior Assistant Director, Centre for Liveable CitiesEditor : Ms. Leong Ching, Research Associate, Centre for Liveable CitiesResearcher : Ms. Joanna Lim Hui Yi, Manager, Centre for Liveable Cities

Centre for Liveable Cities45 Maxwell Road #07-01�e URA CentreSingapore 069118www.clc.gov.sg/



National Environment Agency

Formed on 1 July 2002, the National Environment Agency (NEA) is the leading public organisation responsible for improving and sustaining a clean and green environment in Singapore. �e NEA develops and spearheads environmental initiatives and programmes through its partnership with the People, Public and Private sectors. It is committed to motivating every individual to take up environmental ownership and to care for the environment as a way of life.

By protecting Singapore’s environment from pollution, maintaining a high level of public health and providing timely meteorological information, the NEA endeavours to ensure sustainable development and a quality living environment for present and future generations.



Singapore Environment Institute

Singapore Environment Institute (SEI) is the training and knowledge division in the National Environment Agency (NEA). �e Institute helps to promote Singapore as an environment hub by providing thought leadership in environmental sustainability and management for high-density, compact cities. Its work also includes developing and managing a variety of learning programmes to enhance the competency of environmental professionals and share Singapore’s environment experiences. SEI distils and documents the Agency’s capabilities and expertise as well as knowledge from other sources relevant to NEA’s area of operations. Sharing this knowledge is critical to the development of thought leadership and planning for the sustainability challenges in the years ahead.



Foreword

Five decades ago, Singapore faced the problems of a growing population, high unemployment, low living standards and a severe lack of infrastructure. I saw this �rsthand in my �rst job as an engineer with the City Council in 1958, where I dealt with night soil bucket collection and disposal before ush toilets became a norm in a home. �ankfully, even amidst economic uncertainty, the environment had been given a high priority, as Singapore was against the short-sighted policy of “develop �rst and clean up later”. Our �rst Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, aimed to distinguish Singapore by being the “cleanest and greenest city” in South East Asia to attract global investment, and to improve quality of life for its people.

Today, Singapore has transformed into a modern industrialized country and a thriving business hub, with a high standard of living for its people in a clean and green environment. �ese have not come easily. In my various roles, from leading the new Anti-Pollution Unit to cleaning up our rivers — my colleagues at the Ministry of the Environment planned and implemented various environmental infrastructure projects with the support of the private and public sectors. �e Government had strong political will to push through basic infrastructure needs of the newly developing country. �ese include public housing, health care, roads, schools, clean water, drainage, sanitation and other utilities, daily refuse removal and road cleansing, not to mention planting of thousands of trees and the creation of new parks. Our 50-year journey shows that development need not be at the expense of the environment, in fact it can be compatible with economic goals, and that the private sector too has a part to play in craing solutions for the environment.

Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment traces the evolution of environmental policies and challenges under the changing conditions and priorities, from cleaning up the city-state to meeting developed country environmental standards, and from �ghting pollution to pollution prevention. It also highlights the principles which guided policymakers, the tools we used and the tradeo�s we made, as well as the conicts and constraints we faced while balancing economic and environmental policy objectives, at each phase of growth.

I hope a younger generation of Singaporeans, as well as those from other cities who are interested in our story, will �nd useful information, insights and even some inspiration from Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment. Happy reading!

Mr Lee Ek Tieng Former Permanent Secretary, Ministry of the Environment

Former Chairman, PUBFormer Head, Civil Service

Former MD of MAS and GIC



Preface

�e Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) research in urban systems tries to unpack the systemic components that make up the city of Singapore, capturing knowledge not only within each of these systems, but also the threads that link these systems and how they make sense as a whole. �e studies are scoped to venture deep into the key domain areas the CLC has identi�ed under its Liveability and Sustainability Framework, attempting to answer two key questions: how has Singapore transformed itself to a highly liveable city within the last four to �ve decades, and how Singapore can be resilient to new and more complex forms of urban challenges and remain at the forefront of urban development and management. Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment is the latest in the Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series.

�e research process involves close and rigorous engagement of the CLC with our stakeholder agencies, and interviews with Singapore’s urban pioneers and leaders to gain insights into development processes and distil tacit knowledge that have been gleaned from planning and implementation, as well as governance of Singapore. As a body of knowledge, the urban systems studies, which cover aspects such as Water, Transport, Industrial Infrastructure and Sustainable Environment, expound not only the visible outcomes of Singapore’s development, but reveals the complex support structures of our urban achievements.

�e CLC would like to thank the National Environment Agency, Singapore Environment Institute, and all those who have contributed their knowledge, expertise and time to make this publication possible. I wish you an enjoyable read.

Khoo Teng ChyeExecutive Director

Centre for Liveable Cities



Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Singapore Environment Institute for information gather-ing and data vetting as well as facilitating the interview sessions; Ms. Rosa Daniel, Mr Poon Hong Yuen, Mr Andrew Tan, Mr. Khoo Seow Poh, Mr. Koh Kim Hock, Mr. Tan Quee Hong, Mr. Ananda Ram Bhaskar, Mr. Ong Seng Eng and Mr. Lim Kew Leong for taking time o� to participate in the interview sessions; Mr. Joseph Hui and Mr. Loh Ah Tuan for participating in interview sessions and together with Mr. Daniel Wang for being panelists in the CLC Lecture Series — In Conversation with Environment Pioneers.



1Foundations of Economic and

Social Development: Role of the Environment

With rocketing unemployment and a growing population crowding into slums rife with disease, Singapore in the 1960s was a development challenge for any government. �e �edg-

ling nation needed jobs. It also needed to clean up its streets, rivers, slums and polluting industries. �e Government decided to address both these challenges — economic and environmental — simultaneously.

�ere were many linkages and interdependencies between the two. Even as the Government juggled with demands of the economy, it viewed a clean and green Singapore as a di�erentiating strategy to boost the country’s international image and provide a stake for everyone. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s Prime Minister from 1959–1990 recalled, “A�er independence, I searched for some dramatic way to distinguish ourselves from other �ird World countries. I settled for a clean and green Singapore. One arm of my strategy was to make Singapore into an oasis in South-east Asia, for if we had First World standards, then businessmen and tourists would make us a base for their business and tours of the region.”

A thriving economy and a good living environment were needed to grow a country, and to give people a safe, comfortable and

“Growing the economy and preserving the environment are not mutually exclusive goals. On the contrary, they are complementary. A strong economy provides Singapore with resources to protect and improve the environment; while a clean environment improves the quality of life, and helps Singapore to attract and retain more talent. �is in turn contributes to the Singapore economy, thus forming a virtuous cycle.”

Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister, 2009.1


2 Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment

meaningful life — key political imperatives for the new Government at the time. Singapore chose not to adopt a “develop �rst, clean up later” approach. Instead, it adopted a two-pronged approach — transforming Singapore into a clean garden city while creating jobs, using the concept of “Clean and Green” city as a competitive advantage.

�is case narrative examines some of the trade-o�s and bene�ts to the environment in Singapore’s pursuit of rapid economic growth. Two key dilemmas are identi�ed: economic growth versus environmental preservation; and short-term versus long-term bene�ts. Both are framed within a larger political dilemma about whether to risk popular support in the implementation of di�cult policies.

�ese dilemmas, which were to recur over 50 years, underline the role of the environment in Singapore’s economic landscape — from providing a basic and reliable space for people to live in and for businesses to set up shop, to a factor of production that needed considerable investment to create and maintain value (for example, cleaning up water and relocating squatters), and lastly, a competitive advantage with a strong regulatory framework to protect the environmental assets of air, water and land.

For much of its early development history, the optimal use of land, water and energy resources has featured prominently in policy decisions in Singapore. As a resource-constrained country, Singapore has had to ensure that its scarce resources such as land, water and energy are priced correctly.

1.1 INSTITUTIONAL ENDOWMENTS

When Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965, it lost its economic hinterland, but continued to function as a hub for the region, re�ecting its role as an entrepot economy. �e political situation, however, was unstable, and strikes and industrial unrest were common.

For the Government, its key priorities were di�cult but clear: making Singapore a home for its largely immigrant population, which meant not just creating jobs and attracting foreign investment, but building �ats and creating a good living environment.

Almost immediately a�er Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, Mr I.F. Tang, the economic adviser to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told Dr Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s �rst Finance Minister, “From now on, we must be export-oriented. Forget about domestic markets. �ere are no more common markets. You’d better look at the rest of the world as your market.”2

At that time, Singapore also faced Confrontation from Indonesia, which threatened its traditional role as a major trading post for the region; unemployment rose as a result. An additional pressure point came when the British announced that they planned to withdraw their military bases by 1971, that is, within �ve years. �e loss of British military spending between 1968 and 1971 would have amounted to 20 per cent of Singapore’s GDP.3

In response, Singapore decided to bring in Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) adopting export-oriented manufacturing as its economic solution. Singapore’s then industrial policy shi�ed from inward-looking import substitution to export-oriented industrialisation.


Foundations of Economic and Social Development: Role of the Environment 3

Alongside critical unemployment and housing issues, the Government was confronted with a wide range of public health issues, ranging from cleanliness of the streets to vector-borne diseases and food hygiene.4 Public health conditions were poor. People lived closely together, which increased the threat of an epidemic outbreak.

Combined with the warm and humid climate in Singapore, which meant that litter and refuse decomposed rapidly, the propagation of vector- and insect-borne diseases such as cholera, typhoid and malaria posed serious public health risks.5 Singapore’s status as an entrepot port also increased the risks of immigrants bringing in infectious diseases, such as cholera, smallpox and typhoid.6 As a senior Ministry o�cial said:

Because of high unemployment, thousands of people became hawkers, selling cooked food on pavements and streets, disregarding tra�c and health regulations in order to earn a living.

�e proliferation of street hawkers and food vendors obstructed the municipal cleansing work and created public health problems. Spitting, indiscriminate littering and large-scale illegal dumping were common. Stray cattle and goats were a common sight. Rats, �ies and mosquitoes bred freely in the back lanes; drains and canals were �lled with rubbish.

At the time, more than two-third of Singapore’s popula-tion were living in inner-city slums and in squatter settlements on the city’s fringe. �e roads were heavy with the stench of le�over food due to street hawking, while the clutter of wooden shophouses and pre-war buildings turned the inner city into a slum and �re hazard. �ousands of people resorted to being “pirate taxi” drivers to make a living, clogging the streets and competing with the bus services.8

In 1961, the United Nation’s industrial survey team led by Dr Albert Winsemius, a Dutch economist, presented a 10-year development blueprint to transform Singapore from an entrepot port into a centre of manufacturing and industry.9

To create jobs quickly, labour-intensive industries, such as textiles, ship-breaking, building materials and small industries, were promoted. Plans were laid out for shipbuilding and repairing, and the manufacture of metals and engineering, chemicals, and electrical equipment and appliances.

To facilitate industrialisation, infrastructure such as public utilities, port services and communica-tions were built.10 Dr Winsemius also recommended a large-scale public housing programme with the objectives of housing the burgeoning population, as well as bolstering the country’s modern image and attracting foreign investors.11 �e Housing Development Board (HDB) was thus formed in February 1960 to build public housing �ats for the masses.

�e Winsemius report also led to the establishment of various institutions that were to power Singapore’s economic development over the next few decades. �e Economic Development Board (EDB) was set up in 1960, as a one-stop agency to promote industrial investment and address

“By today’s standards, Singapore in the ’60s was de�nitely a �ird World country. �e things that stand out in my memory of Singapore then were the poverty, the �lth, the choked drains with black bubbly water, then the smelly Singapore River, the perpetually refuse-�lled back lanes and the polluted air. �ere was little greenery and few parks then.” 7



investors’ needs relating to land, power, water, and environmental and work safety. �e Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) was set up in 1964 to take over the functions, assets and liabilities of the Singapore Harbour Board. In the same year, the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (STPB) was formed to promote tourism.

During this period of fast growth, even as the economic agenda and the housing programme took centre stage, the environment too, played a critical role at times, as observed by Mr Tan Gee Paw, former Permanent Secretary of the then Ministry of the Environment.12 �is was seen in the development of two major projects — the Jurong Industrial Estate (JIE) and Toa Payoh New Town.

Both were launched as part of the Government’s e�ort to solve the unemployment and housing issues. To spearhead the economic agenda, the JIE had been established in 1961 to attract foreign investors and provide employment for the people. On 1 September 1962, the JIE began its work with the laying of the foundation stone for the National Iron and Steel Mills (known as NatSteel today). Early industries included timber, sawmilling, oil-rig fabrication, and shipbuilding and repair. In 1965, Jurong Port was opened. �e following year, the Jurong Industrial Water Works (JIWW) was constructed by the EDB to provide a cheap source of low-quality industrial water and to conserve potable water by processing the �nal e�uent from Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant (UPWRP).13

�e approach of centralising heavy industries at one location in Jurong allowed for environmental protection services, such as the infrastructure for pollution control, to be provided economically.

�e second key development was the building of Toa Payoh New Town from 1965. It provided the blueprint for the management of waste generation, public sanitation and sewerage treatment in public housing estates.14 With each �at equipped with modern sanitation facilities, potable water and electricity, as well as a modern solid waste-management system, widespread epidemics were kept under control.

Apart from supporting the growing population and curbing public health problems, the HDB housing programme also bolstered Singapore’s international image and helped attract investors.

A large part of this was due to the improvements in public sanitation, sewerage and water — the unglamorous infrastructure foundations that were crucial for economic and environmental sustainability.

To strike a balance between environmental protection and economic growth, the Jurong Bird Park was built in the heart of Jurong New Town in 1971. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew emphasised: “Without strict anti-pollution standards, the birds from all over the world would not thrive.” Greening was also introduced in JIE where all factories had to landscape their grounds and plant trees before they could commence operation.15

In 1968, the �rst foreign MNC, National Semiconductor, set up operation in Singapore, followed by Hewlett Packard (HP) and Texas Instruments. By the 1970s, Singapore’s industrial base had grown rapidly to include chemical and electronic industries. In 1970, General Electric (GE) set up six di�erent facilities for electrical and electronic products, circuit breakers and electric motors. �ey were the largest single employer in Singapore.



By 1971, when the British forces had largely withdrawn, the number of unemployed persons did not increase. Singapore was on track for vigorous growth,16 and opportunities for good jobs abound. In his memoirs, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “For years we could not clean up the city by removing these illegal hawkers and pirate taxi drivers. Only a�er 1971, when we have created many jobs, were we able to enforce the law and reclaim land.”17

However, strong economic growth soon begun to put strains on the environment, and the Government had to adopt a more rigorous approach to domestic issues such as pollution control, education and transport.

1.2 FOUNDATIONS OF A LIVEABLE CIT Y

�e �rst national environmental e�orts began in 1959 when the Government organised mass campaigns to spruce up Singapore in every electoral constituency. In 1963, Mr Lee Kuan Yew personally launched a Tree Plant-ing Campaign. Trees were planted on all roads, as well as on vacant plots of land and new develop-ment sites. �is initial e�ort eventually evolved into a Garden City Campaign in 1967. It was then that Mr Lee Kuan Yew declared his vision for a Garden City.19

It was a large-scale e�ort to transform Singapore into a tropical garden city, and to ameliorate the undesirable impact of economic development on the environment. More fundamentally, it was to change the people’s “�ird World” habits. �e Government focused on street cleanliness, public hygiene, public education and embarked on the greening of Singapore.

In changing attitudes and behaviour to pollution, the Government targeted both business and individuals. As Mr Lee Ek Tieng, former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Environment said: “Firstly, infrastructure was provided. With factories, we told them the wastewater must be sent into the sewer. With domestic premises, we provided sanitation and garbage removal. We had campaigns to educate people on keeping Singapore clean and green, and on health education. Secondly, we provided alternatives to bad behaviour: �nes and court for those who choose not to comply. In the last 30 to 40 years, our littering problem improved

“We are a small island, densely populated. So, when I faced the prospect of becoming an independent nation in 1965, making a viable economy and a society out of this little piece of land with then two million people, I had to envision the kind of ways we could move forward. �e immediate example was Hong Kong — densely-populated, buildings close to each other. It was just tarmac, concrete, tall buildings and chock-full of people. Not the kind of city that I think I would want to live in…So, to distinguish ourselves from other cities in the neighbourhood, my intention was to create a First World oasis in a �ird World region and I coined the slogan ‘Clean and Green Singapore’.18

— Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor, 2008



vastly. �ere will always be a small minority that doesn’t abide by the laws but it is a continuous education process.”

Singapore also distinguished itself from its neighbours through sound environmental public health policies, cover-ing clean air, land and water, and a range of issues such as food hygiene and cleanliness to attract foreign investors.20

Emphasis was placed on the need to maintain cleanliness to prevent vector-borne diseases through public-health cam-paigns. �e focus of the campaigns was on local issues in the 1980s, such as mosquito-breeding, raising standards of personal hygiene, and controlling air and water pollution.

For instance, the �rst “Keep Singapore Clean” campaign was launched by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister, in 1968. �is was expanded to a “Keep Singapore Clean and Mosquito-Free” campaign the following year to prevent mosquito-breeding. In 1971, the “Keep Singapore Clean” campaign was launched together with the “Tree Planting Day” by Dr Goh Keng Swee, then Deputy Prime Minister on 7 November at the summit of Mount Faber. �e “Tree Planting Day” was a hallmark event to support the tropical Garden City initiative.

�e Cabinet decided in 1970 to resettle street hawkers in hawker centres with proper sewerage facilities. A sum of S$5 million was set aside initially for the HDB, Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) to build hawker centres. �e resettlement also contributed to the transformation of Singapore into a Garden City.22 While in the early years, the focus was on public cleanliness and hygiene, by the 1990s, policy focus gradually shi�ed to more global environmental concerns.

Rise of Industrial Pollution

In the 1960s, Singapore adopted quite a free-wheeling approach to industrialisation. As former permanent secretary Ngiam Tong Dow recalled: “We didn’t talk about high-tech, low-tech or what-ever. Anybody who was prepared to put some money in and create jobs for Singaporeans was welcomed.”23 Mr Lee Kuan Yew also recounted Singapore’s early experiences in industrialisation as such: “We had more than our share of failures. Singapore was short of water and too small to tolerate heavy pollution of coastal waters, yet the EDB went into a joint venture to recycle paper products.” 24 �e by-products from this process led to severe water pollution and the venture failed.

Singapore’s industrialisation programme began with labour-intensive industries producing gar-ments, textiles, toys, wood products and wigs, as well as capital and technology intensive industries such as Shell Eastern Petroleum and National Iron and Steel Mills. At the point of independence in 1965, smoke-producing chimneys and vehicles were widespread. �e early industries, driven by the need to attract new capital investment, did not have high environmental standards.

“...no Westerners will come over to South-east Asia when he knows that in South-east Asia, epidemics are rampant, cholera and so on and therefore they are at risk with their families here. So we want Singapore to be totally di�erent…economic progress and a clean environment have to go hand in hand.” 21

— Tan Gee Paw, Chairman, PUB, 2011



Not surprisingly, by the 1970s, air and water pollution had become a problem in Singapore. �e air pollution problem was aggravated by the exhaust gases from cars and taxis and by diesel fumes from buses and lorries. In tandem with the economic growth, energy demand increased. In 1971, Singapore’s �rst power station was set up in Jurong by Power Seraya to cater to the rising demand. �e burning of fossil fuels by power stations, oil re�neries and industries further contributed to the air pollution. By 1972, water pollution was also rated a top priority by public health o�cials.25

As Mr Lim Kim San, �rst Minister for the Environment, said in 1973: “It had been possible to catch �sh and eels in the Bukit Timah, Kallang, Geylang and Rochor canals 20 years earlier. But now, even the worms which the �sh fed on are gone.”

By 1979, the �rst modern Waste-to-Energy plant was built to deal with the high volume of waste.

Endnotes 1. Responses by then-Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on August 20, 2009 to questions posed by Mr Gu

Shihong, Director of the China News Service Branch in �ailand, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. China News Service published its report on the interview with then-Senior Minister Goh on September 3, 2009 at http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/speechesn interviews/seniorminister/2009/September/responses_by_seniorministergohchoktongtointerviewquestions posedb.html

2. Tay, S.S.C. (Ed.), A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy: Re�ections by Ngiam Tong Dow (Singapore: NUS Press, 2006), 40.

3. Lee, K.Y., From �ird World to First: �e Singapore Story, 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times Media and �e Straits Times Press, 2000), 69.

4. Andrew Tan, Joseph Hui & Khoo Seow Poh, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, July 29, 2011.

5. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K. , Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 50–51.

6. Ministry of Environment, Singapore: My Clean and Green Home (25th Anniversary Book)(Singapore: Ministry of Environment, 1997), 57.

7. Ibid., 49. 8. Lee, K.Y., From �ird World to First: �e Singapore Story, 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times Media and �e

Straits Times Press, 2000), 200. 9. �e UN industrialisation survey mission presented its full report, “A Proposed Industrialisation Programme

for Singapore” to the Government in June 1961.10. Chua, M.H., Pioneers Once More: �e Singapore Public Service 1959–2009 (Singapore: Straits Times Press

and Public Service Division, 2010), 48.11. �e UN industrialisation survey mission presented its full report, “A Proposed Industrialisation Programme

for Singapore” to the Government in June 1961.12. Tan Gee Paw, (CLC lecture series — Pioneers of Singapore: In conversation with Tan Gee Paw, February

28, 2011).



13. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J., & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 140.

14. Teo, P., Yeoh, B.S.A., Ooi, G.L. & Lai, K.P.Y., Changing Landscapes of Singapore (Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia), 2004), 29.

15. Lee, K.Y., From �ird World to First: �e Singapore Story, 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times Media and �e Straits Times Press, 2000), 208.

16. Ibid., 81.17. Ibid., 200.18. Lee Kuan Yew, (Transcript of dialogue presented at the Singapore Energy Conference, Singapore, November

4, 2008).19. Lee, S.K. and Chua, S.E., More than a Garden City (Singapore: Parks and Recreation Department, Ministry

of National Development, 1992), 8.20. Tan Gee Paw, (CLC lecture series — Pioneers of Singapore: In conversation with Tan Gee Paw, February

28, 2011).21. Ibid.22. Ministry of Environment, Singapore: My Clean and Green Home (25th Anniversary Book) (Singapore:

Ministry of Environment, 1997), 24.23. Chua, M.H., Pioneers Once More: �e Singapore Public Service 1959–2009 (Singapore: Straits Times Press

and Public Service Division, 2010), 51.24. Lee K.Y., From �ird World to First: �e Singapore Story, 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times Media and �e

Straits Times Press, 2000), 68.25. “Environment: A lot has been done — a great deal more needs to be done”, �e Straits Times, September

19, 1972, p. 12.


2Early Environmental Stresses

As industrialisation and urbanisation picked up in the 1970s, Singapore’s industrial base grew. �e focus on the manufacturing sector shi�ed from labour intensive industries in the 1960s

to high-skill, high-tech industries, driven mainly by the electronic sector in the 1970s and to higher value-added and capital-intensive industry driven mainly by the chemical sector in the 1980s.

�e focus shi�ed again in the 1990s to a globalised, knowledge-intensive and technology-based economy and in the 2000s, to an innovative economy.

Priorities in environmental policies also changed with economic development as new types of pollution emerged. (See Appendix A Key Policy Timelines of the Environment.) In the 1960s, environmental management was targeted at basic public health and vector control to raise the standards of public hygiene and to attract foreign investments. In the 1970s, the focus shi�ed to pollution control, in particular, air and water pollution as well as waste disposal management.

In the 1980s, the new focus was on chemical pollution as a result of the rapid growth of the petrochemical and chemical industries, which increased the quantity and quality of chemicals stored, transported and used in Singapore. Since the 1990s, the Government has been focusing on pollution prevention, the promotion of energy e�ciency and the move towards a carbon-constrained future, due to increasing global concerns over climate change and energy security, to sustain Singapore’s development. (See Appendix B Key Governance Tools for the Environment.)

2.1 THE BEGINNING OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IN THE 1970S

Environmental concerns were near the top of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s priorities in the 1970s, with a slew of pollution control measures (see Box Story 1). In his National Day message in 1970, Mr Lee Kuan Yew stressed the need to clean up the country’s physical environment, particularly the beaches and waterways. At the time, tens of thousands of small farms and industries



used the nation’s rivers and drains as their personal sewer and dumping ground. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set a mission for the environmental agencies to change the state of the environ-ment. He envisioned that, “Open drains now running into the sea will go into underground sewers and end up in treatment plants . . . �e air we breathe will be kept clean.” 2

In 1970, an action committee was formed to combat the indiscriminate dumping of ,domestic and trade refuse into the Singapore River and to clean up its banks.

B O X S T O R Y 1NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR EXPORTED POLLUTION

To tackle the air pollution problem, the Anti-Pollution Unit (APU) was set up as part of the Prime Minister’s O�ce in April 1970 on an ad-hoc basis. The APU was formally approved by Parliament on 1 April 1971. The functions of the APU (See Appendix C Anti-Pollution Unit’s Function) were to plan the locations of industries and control air pollution from industrial and commercial premises as well as to prosecute o�ending factories. Mr Lee Kuan Yew mooted the idea of the APU after his visit to Boston which had managed to balance environmental sustainability and rapid industrialisation. He recounted his experience of a compulsory emissions inspection on cars in Boston in 1968, which was subsequently implemented in Singapore,

“The driver of my car explained that every six months, you have to get your car exhaust and other polluting parts checked. They give you a label to put on your car after it has been checked. So they do not have exhausts that polluted these trees and shrubs.” 3

Mr Lee Kuan Yew was concerned about the impact of industrialisation on Singapore’s environment. As Mr Tan Guong Ching, former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Environment, said: “He [Mr Lee Kuan Yew] knew that we were embarking on an industrialisation programme, which would bring a lot of pollution to Singapore. And he had the foresight to say, “Let us put in the pollution control measures right from the start, don’t wait for the problem to be so big before you take any action to correct it. And I think he knew that a lot of industrialists would be exporting their polluting activities to Singapore. And if we had not placed our control measures right from the very beginning, Singapore would have been a totally di�erent place — a very polluted place.”4

Inexperienced, the APU engaged the services of Mr Graham Cleary, an Australian consultant, who worked with the World Health Organisation (WHO) to put together preventive measures.

“In this little island, we’ve got to keep pollution down because there’s no way to say these are high-quality areas, that’s low-quality areas. If you pollute one part of Singapore, you’ve polluted the whole of it. ” 1




As Mr Tan recounted:

“I think way back in the early ’70’s it was building up our expertise and our knowledge. Actually, environmental pollution was quite a new topic even in the United States. So by coming in early, we were among the pioneers of pollution control. So we had a lot of, shall I say, experimentation. Actually, a lot of the things that we did we thought through the problems and solutions ourselves.” 5

Mr Tan cited the example of the pollutive plywood factories and their smoky boilers where the APU came up with the solution themselves. The APU proposed the chipping of waste wood into small pieces so that it would burn better. They also brought to the solution other combustion engineering processes. And, as a fail-safe device, the APU required plywood factory owners to put in tall chimneys so that any pollution that comes out from the boilers would be dispersed before it reaches the residential areas. This improves combustion of waste wood in the boilers and created less smoke.6

When faced with engineering constraints within projects, Mr Lee Ek Tieng, �rst head of the APU and former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Environment, recalled: “We made do with what we had. For example, when laying sewers, we always used local labour and locally-available timber sections for shoring deep sewer trenches. In advanced countries, steel sheet piles were used. But they were and still are very expensive. We also used bakau piles for foundations instead of concrete piles. These are timbers that originate from mangrove swamps in Indonesia which last a long time in moist conditions in the ground.”7

Environmental policies were e�ectively supported by a legal framework which enforced the standards imposed. �e Clean Air Act was passed in 1971 to control air pollution. To control indus-trial water pollution, regulations on trade e�uent discharge were enacted. As early as the 1970s, trade e�uent discharge legislation was in place. �e Local Government (Disposal of Trade E�uents) Regulations, passed in 1970, addressed the problem of trade e�uent discharge into public sewers. �e Trade and Industrial Waste Section of the Public Works Department’s (PWD’s) Sewerage Branch was tasked with the work of implementing the law by identifying sources of industrial pollution and ensuring that industrial waste was discharged properly into sewers.8 Between 1970 and early 1972, several laws to improve public health were passed, such as the prohibition of smoking in various enclosed public places, the speci�cation of how much various pollutants could be released into the air, and the simpli�cation of the process in the investigation of food poisoning cases.9

Towards the mid 1980s, with growing use of chemicals, legislation to manage hazardous chemicals was enacted. Since 1985, hazardous substances were managed through licensing controls, coupled with planning and development controls, enforcement and public education. �e handling and dis-posal of bio-hazardous waste was also regulated according to guidelines formulated since 1987 to protect the health of the general public.10 �ese guidelines were based on World Health Organisation (WHO) standards as well as practices adopted in the UK, US and Australia.

To control industrial air and water pollution, critical environmental infrastructure as well as institutions (see Appendix D Institutional Changes and Trade-o�) and regulations, were put in place.

Early Environmental Stresses 11



Environmental services were placed under the charge of two ministries — the Ministry of Health (MOH) took care of public health while the Ministry of National Development (MND) took over the management of sewer-age and drainage when the PWD came under the ministry.

In 1967, the Parks and Trees unit was set up within the PWD to look into greening issues. As the pace of industrialisation picked up, the APU was set up to look into air pollu-tion. �e two units were placed under the Prime Minister’s O�ce, underlining the im-portance of a Clean and Green Singapore.

Shortly a�er the setting up of the APU in 1971, the Ministry of the Environment (ENV) was established in September 1972.

“�e ultimate aim of my ministry is to make life more pleasant for everyone through anti-pollution and other measures,” Mr Lim Kim San, its �rst Minister, declared.12 �e objectives of the ENV were to tackle air and water pollution, environmental health and waste disposal issues which could be a pressing issue in the future.13

Departments under the MOH and MND which had dealt with pollution control, sewerage drainage, and environmental health issues were absorbed in the new ministry. On 1 April 1983, the APU was transferred to the ENV. In 1986, the Pollution Control Department (PCD) was formed within the ENV by merging the APU and Water Pollution Control section of the Sewerage Department.

Even as these changes were ongoing, there were systems in place to ensure proper land-use planning, judicious siting of industries, development and building control, provision of environ-mental infrastructure, and pollution-control measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of industrialisation.

2.2 INTEGR ATED L AND-USE PL ANNING CONTROL

Singapore’s limited land area, rapid industrialisation and expanding population necessitated careful planning to ensure a quality living environment for all residents in and visitors to Singapore.

Before the 1960s, the industrial sector was characterised by the spontaneous and sporadic growth of many small manufacturing �rms. �e service industries were mainly established in the

“By placing them [APU and Parks and Trees Division] under the PMO’s o�ce, he [Mr Lee Kuan Yew] indicated to the other ministries the importance he placed on keeping Singapore Clean and Green. �e whole of Government understood that it was important to ensure that the environment should be clean and green; that economic progress should be achieved in tandem with and not at the expense of the environment. �is helped tremendously when we worked with MTI, EDB and JTC as it was very clear that we had the mandate and they were ready to listen to us... Of course, if there were still certain issues of contention which were then brought up all the way to the Prime Minister for him to decide.” 11

— Joseph Hui, Deputy CEO,

National Environment Agency (NEA)



Central Area or along the urban fringes, while manufacturing industries were located in the outlying areas.

�is relatively unregulated development led to environ-mental imbalances as industrial activities o�en intruded into other non-complementary forms of land use. Industrial waste from these industries resulted in air and water pollution while some industrial activities generated noise pollution. Because of the relatively sporadic nature of development, there was a lack of an e�cient and adequate environmental infrastructure required by the industries, such as a planned waste disposal system.15

�e 1958 Master Plan had been drawn up to plan for the development of the entire country. However, the Government soon realised that this plan would be inadequate to cope with the rapid social and economic changes taking place. It, therefore, sought the help of the UN to formulate a long-term framework for urban development in Singapore.

�e framework, named the Singapore Concept Plan (SCP) was completed in 1971. �e Concept Plan guides Singapore’s development at the broad level, for 40–50 years. Today, it is updated every 10 years to take into account the country’s changing needs. �e Concept Plan process is spearheaded by the MND and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), with representatives from all agencies.

�e SCP cascades down into a more detailed Master Plan which speci�ed permissible land use and density for each parcel of land. �e Master Plan guides development in the medium term, over a period of 10 to 15 years, and is reviewed every �ve years. Similar to the Concept plan, the Master Plan is a collaborative whole of government e�ort where keys areas, from national development, to the environment, to trade and industry, and to defence are taken into consideration at planning stage.16

Under the 1971 Concept Plan, land was zoned according to the purpose of utilisation into nature reserve, green zone, residential area, industrial area and others. Zoning is a long-term planning tool adopted by the Government at both micro (within individual sites) and macro levels (islandwide).

Zoning seeks to regulate land use to ensure that similar and compatible uses are located close together while con�icting ones are spaced apart. �is has helped Singapore allocate its competing land uses e�ciently and managed trade-o�s due to land constraints.


“. . . because of the fact that we are so small, we realised that we have very little margin for mistakes, and that’s the reason why, from the very beginning, everything has to be planned properly because one mistake could actually spell disaster for Singapore.” 14

— Joseph Hui, Deputy CEO of the NEA

“We were the �rst to come up with the zoning concept . . . Well, I think, zoning was something that we did ourselves because zoning takes a lot of burden o� pollution control . . . if you put light industry next to housing areas, for example, all the electronic factories were all placed in our public housing estates. �ese provided a lot of jobs for the residents of the estates and also they are non-pollutive . . . So that zoning, I think, was copied by a lot of other people. So then this whole idea of zoning residential areas actually helped prevent a lot of complaints.”

— Tan Guong Ching, Former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Environment, 2007



In the 1970s, one of the key preoccupations of the APU was to do zoning where the heavy engineering factories, the pollutive factories were sited away from the residential areas. At the same time, light industries which were non-pollutive, such as electronic factories, could be sited next to �ats within public housing estates. �ese provided jobs for the residents in these estates at a convenient distance.17

Other than land zoning, the 1971 Concept Plan and its subsequent reviews had also set aside land for critical environmental infrastructure, such as the sewerage system, and waste disposal and incineration facilities. Projections for future land requirements for such infrastructure have also been factored into the Concept Plan, as has land required for environmental conservation.

Following the SCP in 1971, land use zoning was used as a tool to guide planning at both micro and macro level. At the micro level, industries within industrial estates such as Jurong Industrial Estate (JIE) were zoned. �e changes in land use zoning within JIE are illustrated in Figure 1 (1958) and Figure 2 (1980).

“I think in those early days, when bread and butter issues were most important, the fact that we had balanced environmental sustainability with economic growth was quite far-sighted, and required, obviously, top level leadership from then Prime Minister in the Cabinet. Because of resource constraints and the need to allocate priorities away from just pursuing economic growth to taking care of the environment, we also had to do careful planning. For instance, by land zoning, to make sure industrial production was sited in certain parts of Singapore, away from the residential population centres in Singapore.” 18

— Rosa Daniel, Deputy Secretary (Policy) of the MEWR, 2011

FIGURE 1 Jurong in 1958

Source: Survey Department, 1958. (Reproduced from the map, Jurong in 1958, with permission from Singapore Land Authority.)



At the macro level, land was zoned for various purposes such as residential, industrial estates etc. By the 1980s, most development was in place. �e distribution of industrial and housing estates as a result of land use zoning as of 1980s is illustrated in Figure 3 below.

FIGURE 3 Distribution of Industrial and HDB Housing Estates as of the 1980s

Source: Environmental Protection in Singapore, Science Council of Singapore, 1980. (Reprinted with permission from A*STAR.)


FIGURE 2 Zoning pattern of Jurong Industrial Estate as of the 1980s

Source: Environmental Protection in Singapore, Science Council of Singapore, 1980. (Reprinted with permission from A*STAR.)



Another policy tool in regulating the environment was to put in place environmental legislation. When the Clean Air Act was passed in 1971, Haji Yaacob Mohamed, Minister of State (Prime Minister’s O�ce), emphasised its pragmatic rationale:

�e Clean Air Act required the installation of anti-pollution control equipment to comply with stipulated standards and prohibit air pollution from chimneys. By 1972, legislation for control of various kinds of pollution had been enacted and the Government could focus on enforcement.

Planning of course is only half the story — the other half lay in execution.

2.3 ANTI-POLLUTION MEASURES: BITING THE SHOR T TERM BULLE T

Even as it put in place stringent regulations, the Government had to manage the trade-o�s between achieving good air quality and ensuring that standards could be met at reasonable cost to the industries.

To assist industries to cope with the high costs of anti-pollution legislation, tax-relief measures were implemented in 1972 to incentivise companies to adopt anti-pollution measures. �e Government assisted industrialists by allowing accelerated depreciation over three years on capital investment in approved anti-pollution devices. With the introduction of this incentive, industrialists would be able to accelerate their plans to install pollution-control equipment.

�e 1972 Annual Budget Statement noted that, “�is measure was expected to cost the Government a total loss of revenue of approximately $3.5 million, but would bring compensatory bene�ts to Singapore.”20

Today, accelerated depreciation allowance is granted to any person undertaking a trade, profession or business for capital expenditure on air and water-pollution control equipment. �e pollution-control equipment installed has to meet the qualifying criteria. Under this scheme, the accelerated depreciation allowance will be for a period of one year, which means capital expenditure on highly e�cient pollution-control equipment can be recovered in one year.21 However, will MNCs pay for expensive abatement measures to invest in Singapore? An example would be the con�ict between

“We are still at an early stage of industrialisation compared to industrialised cities in the developed countries. If we are to learn from the experiences of these cities, we must make a start now to control and prevent air pollution. Industrialists, factory owners, and the public must accept the collective social responsibility to keep our air clean. Negligence now may lead to such deterioration later that remedy becomes extremely expensive to introduce. Legislation is required to prevent this negligence . . . Failure to control air pollution now would allow the problem to grow out of proportion and we certainly would not want this to happen here, as is happening in many cities in developed countries.” 19

— Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed, Minister of State (Prime Minister’s O�ce),

1971



the APU and a big MNC which planned to build a petrochemical facility and yet, refused to install anti-pollution devices.

In the early days, the petrochemical industry was one of the industries of particular concern to the APU, as they were major contributors to air pollution. Petrochemical processing involved many complex processes, each of which had the potential to emit smoke and various gases that lead to severe air pollution if mitigation measures were not put in place to contain them.

With advice from overseas consultants, proposed measures to control air pollution were put in place. An example was the �are system: the APU required petrochemical factories to install a ground �are system to allow for more complete combustion. �is reduced the need for excess gases to be �ared at the stack and hence, lowered the amount of air pollution.

Nevertheless, abatement measures remained costly.

2.4 ENFORCEMENT CHECKS

With the increasing use of chemicals and chemical treatment processes, Singapore faces pollution from illegal discharge of toxic industrial waste. While legislation to manage hazardous chemicals had been enacted since 1980s, enforcement was not always easy.

Mr Tan Quee Hong, former Director of Pollution Control Department (PCD) of the NEA related one incident to illustrate the clandestine nature of such pollution.

In 2001, acting on an alert of solvent smell emanating from a sewage pumping station, NEA o�cers went to the site and identi�ed the solvent. Based on the knowledge of companies that handled and used the solvent, it then traced the smell to a chemical waste treatment company located more than 10 km upstream of the pumping station.

By the time the o�cers inspected the company’s premises, the discharge had stopped. However, samples of waste-water collected at the last manhole of the premises contained traces of the identi�ed solvents. With this proof, the company was prosecuted for illegally discharging waste solvents into the public sewers system. �e discharge of solvents or other chemical wastes into the sewers not only upset the process treatment units at the sewage treatment plants, it also posed a safety hazard to sewage workers working at the sewage pumping stations and the plants.

However, with sustained and stringent enforcement, the problem was addressed.

Endnotes 1. Lee Kuan Yew, (Transcript of dialogue presented at the Singapore Energy Conference, Singapore, November

4, 2008). 2. Chua, M.H., Pioneers Once More: �e Singapore Public Service 1959–2009 (Singapore: Straits Times Press

and Public Service Division, 2010), 93. 3. Han, F.K., Ibrahim, Z., Chua, M.H., Lim, L., Low, I., Lin, R. & Chan, R. (Eds.), Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths

to Keep Singapore Going, (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2011), 335.




4. Tan Guong Ching, (Oral History interview, National Archives of Singapore, Disc No. 1, Accn. No.003133/4), March 21–22, 2007).

5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Lee Ek Tieng, (Interview for NEA Technical Magazine, December, 2011). 8. Ministry of Environment, Singapore: My Clean and Green Home (25th Anniversary Book) (Singapore:

Ministry of Environment, 1997), 22. 9. Ibid., 24.10. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J., Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 117.11. Joseph Hui, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History interview, Singapore, December 30, 2011). 12. Latif, A.I., Lim, K.S., A Builder of Singapore (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 203.13. “Environment: A lot has been done - a great deal more needs to be done”, �e Straits Times, September 19,

1972, p. 12.14. Andrew Tan, Joseph Hui & Khoo Seow Poh, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History Interview, Singapore,

July 29, 2011).15. Pakiam, J.E., et al., Environmental Protection In Singapore: A Handbook (Singapore: Science Council of

Singapore, 1980), 3. 16. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 11.17. Tan Guong Ching, (Oral History interview, National Archives of Singapore, Disc No. 1, Accn. No. 003133/4),

March 21–22, 2007).18. Rosa Daniel, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History interview, Singapore, July 27, 2011).19. Clean Air Bill, Hansard (1971).20. Annual Budget Statement, Hansard (1972).21. National Environment Agency, Tax Incentive Scheme For Highly E�cient Pollution Control Equipment,

accessed February 15, 2002. http://app2.nea.gov.sg/tax_incentive_scheme.aspx


3Balancing Growth with

Environmental Protection

As Singapore developed, environment chal-lenges became more complex, choices

became starker, and trade-o�s sharpened (see Appendix D Institutional Changes and Trade-o�s). Technological advancement and innovation helped to derive cost e�ective solutions and mitigate the trade-o�s.

3.1 SINGAPORE RIVER CLEAN-UP (1977–1987)

In the early part of the clean-up of Singapore’s polluted rivers in the 1960s, approximately 46,000 unsewered squatters were resettled under the Resettlement Policy, including 42,000 in the Kallang Basin and 4,000 in the Singapore River catchment area; the resettlement involved 26,000 residential families, 610 pig farms and 2,800 backyard trades and industries.

�e Singapore River clean-up reinforced the importance of managing pollution at source. At an early stage of development, Singapore decided to establish separate systems for drainage and sewerage. �ese systems formed the foundation of Singapore’s future environmental governance.

It paved the way for Singapore to both achieve environmental objectives and reap long-term economic bene�ts. In the process, pollutive activities such as pig farms, textile manufacturing industries and lighterage activities were phased out to protect Singapore’s scarce water resources.

“. . . the constraints are going to get greater. We’ve got continuing population growth; we have to ensure economic growth which remains an imperative for a better quality of life. �e conversations that we (MEWR) need with other agencies about our trade-o�s will be increasingly sharpened. We have got to make some really tough decisions which will require the involvement of top levels of political and civil service leadership. �ere needs to remain a key strategic priority that sustainability cannot be sacri�ced for the sake of economic growth.” 1

— Rosa Daniel, Deputy Secretary (Policy), MEWR, 2011



Under the policy, all persons and business establishments a�ected by resettlement were to be o�ered re-housing in HDB �ats and compensation, which applied to only Singaporeans. Non-Singaporeans were allowed to rent �ats.2 “It [resettlement] was a straightforward solution. �e way the government approached the whole thing was to set down policy and objectives, but it didn’t just evict anyone out of their squatter huts or from the streets. It always gave an alternative. For instance it built hawker centres to house food hawkers . . . �e secret of success was providing people with that alternative…�e engineering challenge was just to build the infrastructure fast enough to keep up with policy demands,” said Mr Lee Ek Tieng.3

�is resettlement work was made possible by the valuable legacy from the British colonial authorities which set up the Singapore River Working Committee in 1954. �e committee provided a list of recommendations on how to clean up the Singapore River. �e estimated cost of implementing these recommendations was $15 million, which was later revised to over $23 million in 1960. �e recommendations were reviewed by the Government in 1965 and were subsequently incorporated into the wider 1971 Concept Plan. By 1969, a year a�er the enactment of the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA), Mr Lee Kuan Yew took a personal interest in increasing Singapore’s water supply and tackling river pollution.4

�e steering committee agreed on a target period of eight years instead of 10 years for the clean-up, leaving two years for contingencies.5 Ongoing programmes to clear hawkers, lay sewers and relocate squatters, started in the late 1960s, were accelerated. �e committee was backed by an operational group, formed in 1978 and headed by Mr Chiang Kok Meng of the Pollution Control Section of the Sewerage Department.6

3.2 PHASING OUT POLLUTION AT SOURCE

Textile Manufacturing Industries

�e toughest part of Mr Chiang’s job was relocating the residents and phasing out riverine activities. �ere were several instances of tension between government agencies.

“I had a lot of �ghts with the EDB because their portfolio is to promote industry. My portfolio was to make sure the industries were clean industries . . . We did kill one or two industries such as textile manufacturing. �ey were very angry. But I couldn’t help it. I had to put my foot down.” 7

— Chen Hung, Head of the Sewerage Department, recalls having to dissuade EDB o�cials from allowing the setting up

of factories within the catchment area



Removing Hawkers from the Streets

�e river clean-up project also accelerated the 1971 hawker resettlement programme and created new synergies for environmental protection. Close to 5,000 street hawkers within the catchment areas were relocated to markets and hawker centres. �e Hawkers Department and Engineering Service Department worked with the HDB and URA to relocate 31,000 street and illegal hawkers. �e new food centres were equipped with washing facilities to prevent waste water from polluting the Singapore River. Hawker centres were also built near streets to ensure a constant �ow of clients. Unhygienic practices by hawkers were eliminated by a combination of persuasion and punitive action. By 1986, the last of the street hawkers had been relocated. Vegetable wholesalers were also relocated to the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Market.8

�e resettlement served to clean up the streets and transform Singapore into a Garden City as well as to improve public hygiene standards. In addition, it had an economic bene�t and addressed the problem of labour shortage. As Mr Chua Sian Chin, then Minister for Health, said:

“I know of many instances of hawkers who have been o�ered steady jobs and who have turned them down because they frankly say that working in a Jurong factory is too irksome and they do not make as much money as hawking.”9

When the economy took o� in the 1970s, there was a shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour for the booming industries. �e Ministry of Health had di�culties recruiting cleansing workers and garbage truck drivers. Similarly, di�culties arose in the recruitment of domestic servants even when the Government was willing to pay $120 to $150 a month with full board and lodging, plus Central Provident Fund contributions. �e building industry also experienced a shortage of workers.10 By resettling the hawkers, additional manpower was made available to work in more economically-e�cient sectors.

The Phasing Out of Pig Farms and Relocation of Factories

Waste from pig and duck farms were major sources of water pollution. At the onset of the river clean-up programme, there were about 610 pig farms and 500 duck farms located primarily in the northern area in and around Ang Mo Kio. �ere were also hundreds of backyard industries, such as tanning, charcoal production and the making of soybean products. �ese industries operated in homes and small factories scattered across the catchment areas. Mr Tan Teng Huat, the Chief Engineer of Pollution Control, and Mr Chen Hung, the Head of Sewerage, advocated a phased, gradual process of relocating these industries, with backyard industries relocated to factories.11

�e pig and duck farms were relocated to Punggol. However, by the mid-1980s, to eradicate such pollutive and unhygienic activities, as well as to conserve Singapore’s limited land and water resources for housing and industry, the Government made the decision to phase out the pig farming industry altogether. �e Government paid farmers $205 per square metre at one stage to acquire their establishments. �is signi�cantly reduced the amount of organic waste polluting the Kallang Basin.

Balancing Growth with Environmental Protection 21



Shipyard Industries

As the deadline for completing the clean-up loomed, two other industries were still operating directly in the rivers. �e �rst was the shipyard industry operating in the Kallang Basin and the second was the lighterage industry along the Singapore River.

At the time, over 60 shipyards of varying sizes sat on land owned by the JTC or private companies. Making the most out of the gentle tides to conduct their activities, these massive establishments �lled the Kallang River with large quantities of oil, debris and even the hulks of boats that were damaged beyond repair.

In relocating the shipyards, the various parties were locked in a stasis of competing interests. But eventually, the evolution of the Singapore economy settled the matter. �e recession in the early 1980s resulted in a dip in the shipping trade and forced many of the shipbuilders to amalgamate and relocate to new premises in Pandan, Jurong or Tuas. By 1985, only six boatyards remained along the Geylang River.12

�e Government made deliberate trade-o�s between economic development and the environ-ment. One example was where shipyards were proposed to be removed from Tanjong Rhu. Mr Tan Gee Paw noted that it was impossible to keep the rivers clean with ship painting, scraping, oil, grease and unsewered workers’ dormitories there.

�e EDB was against the proposal of moving these yards to Tuas, as they were generating $60 million revenue a year. As a result, the yards remained, and besides polluting the river, there were also expensive long-term repercussions. Most notably, the East Coast Park Expressway had to be built high enough for the ships to go under, which meant a more expensive highway and vehicles having to travel a much longer distance. �is showed that while engineers had their way most of the time, there were instances when practical economic considerations held sway.13

A�er addressing the primary sources of pollution, rubbish and �otsam that had accumulated in the river and along the riverbanks were dredged and removed. More than 260 tonnes of rubbish were eventually col-lected and disposed of during a month-long operation. In 1986, the PWD also improved and tiled the riverside walkway, while the Parks and Recreation Department carried out landscaping along the riverfront.

In addition, the Kallang Basin riverbed was dredged to remove the mud and one metre of sand was poured in. Certain sections of the Kallang Basin were also covered with sand to create aesthetically pleasing sandy banks.15 �e clean-up cost the Government nearly $300 million, excluding resettlement compensations.16

At the Clean Rivers Commemoration in 1987, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew awarded gold medals for public service to key o�cers, headed by Mr Lee Ek Tieng, then Permanent Secretary

“�e problem is it’s o�en very di�cult to quantify the environmental bene�t in monetary terms. Unfortunately, that’s the way it is. In a cost bene�t analysis, it is di�cult to express the environmental or health bene�ts in terms of dollars especially if these bene�ts are very intangible in nature.” 14

— Joseph Hui, Deputy CEO of the NEA



of the Environment, responsible for the accomplishments.17 Today, towering buildings rather than warehouses mark the skyline along the Singapore riverfront. Bumboats and barges have been banned from the river since the Clean Rivers Campaign started in September 1983, except for river taxis catering to tourists. Land prices along the Singapore River increased. In 1986, Boat Quay was set aside for conservation.

Meanwhile, a�er the clean-up of the Singapore River, a series of anti-pollution measures were introduced to protect the new and existing catchment areas as well as to control developments within unprotected areas.18 In parallel with the need to protect water catchments, the Government also had to grapple with competing demands between housing and industrial development — for the use of scarce land.

3.3 MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EX TERNALITIES OF GROW TH

Looking ahead, with the growth of industries, re�neries and petrochemical complex on the main island and Jurong Island (see Appendix E), NEA will have to grapple with having to cut down the emissions from the growing industries, both in air and water, and PUB will have to manage the increase in water consumption, (See Box Story 2 below).

�is is not just to meet the more stringent ambient air quality guidelines set by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), but also to tackle the supply-side constraints that Singapore faces.

B O X S T O R Y 2MANAGING WATER INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES:

WAFER FABRICATION PLANTS

The development of water-intensive wafer fabrication plants is an example of how con�icts be-tween industrialisation and Singapore’s water scarcity can be resolved through a mix of collaborative learning, and technological and policy innovation.

Mr Khoo Teng Chye, former Chief Executive of the PUB, pointed out that that while Singapore was able to manage water consumption by households, industries such as the electronics factories, petrochemical plants and power stations which are major consumers of water19 were more di�cult to tackle. Water consumption from the non-domestic sector accounts for about 40 per cent of the total amount.

In the 1980s, when Singapore restructured its economy towards value-added and high-technology industries, wafer fabrication and Integrated Circuits (IC) design operations were promoted. Factories like wafer fabrication plants especially, require large quantities of water for cleaning and cooling




purposes.20 While Singapore needed them for jobs and growth, they in turn needed more of the very scarce resource of water.

In early 1984, the �rst silicon wafer manufacturing plant in Singapore — and South-east Asia — by SGS Microeletronica (later known as STMicroelectronics in 1987) opened in Ang Mo Kio. To facilitate the growth of wafer fabrication21 plants in the 1990s, the Government set aside 170 hectares of land in Woodlands, Tampines and Pasir Ris for wafer fabrication parks.22 Development of the �rst wafer fabrication parks began in Woodlands in 1995. Today, 15 wafer fabrication parks have been established in Singapore. The industry created numerous jobs and contributed substantially to the economy. As Mr Chan Soo Sen, then Trade and Industry Minister, noted, “Everyone was excited because semiconductor plants were a great source of jobs.”23

However, the success in developing the semiconductor industry also came at a high price as they were water-intensive and Singapore was water-scarce. Apart from the semiconductor industry, the petrochemical complexes are also water-intensive.24

Innovation To Solve Water Scarcity Constraints

When Mr Philip Yeo was EDB Chairman between 1986 and 2001, 25 wafer fabrication plants were planned. However, due to Singapore’s limited water resources and the fact that wafer fabrication plants required large amounts of ultra-pure water, con�icts arose between the EDB and PUB, the water agency. There was a need to strike a balance between domestic water supply and industrial water consumption. Mr Yeo said: “. . . the PUB guys screamed,” when he proposed to build 25 wafer fabrication plants. Eventually, the EDB compromised and set up 15 wafer fabrication plants due to Singapore’s water scarcity.25

Even then, this created a large demand for industrial water. To cater to this, the PUB introduced NEWater, which was initiated in 2001 to increase Singapore’s water supply from unconventional sources. The substitution of PUB water with NEWater for non-potable use freed a large quantity of potable water for other priorities.

The PUB and EDB worked with each other to encourage the industries to substitute water use. NEWater was identi�ed as a suitable source of water for industrial use, particularly for wafer fabrication plants which required ultra clean water for their processes. The PUB, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Singapore Utilities International (SUI), worked closely with seven wafer fabrication companies in Tampines/Pasir Ris and Woodlands to encourage them to substitute NEWater for their potable water consumption, mainly for cooling purposes.26

A competitive NEWater pricing structure vis-à-vis potable water was crucial to incentivise take-up and gain industries’ acceptance, particularly for wafer fabrication plants. At the same time, too low a price of NEWater would thwart the PUB’s e�orts to reduce water consumption. A NEWater price of $1.30/m3 was decided upon to balance between the two objectives.27

NEWater was also exempted from Water Conservation Tax (WCT). As then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted: “When NEWater was mixed into the potable water supply system, all end-users should pay NEWater cost as the marginal cost of water, and the WCT should be lowered to the di�erence between the NEWater cost and that of the average cost of water. This, however, would require political and strategic considerations.” 28



To encourage uptake of NEWater, the PUB absorbed the costs for connection pipelines from the mains to the meter, and for the necessary retro�tting works from the meter to the fabs’ tanks, as well as for certi�cation and corrosion studies by their specialists.

At the end of 2002, NEWater factories at Bedok and Kranji Water Reclamation Plants were commissioned. Since February 2003, NEWater has been supplied to wafer fabrication plants in Woodlands and Tampines/Pasir Ris and other industries for non-potable use. In January 2004, a third NEWater Factory was commissioned at Seletar Water Reclamation Plant which began supplying NEWater to wafer fabrication plants in Ang Mo Kio. The total initial capacity of the three NEWater factories was 92,000 m3/day.

In January 2008, the contract for the �fth and largest NEWater plant in Changi was awarded. With this addition, NEWater will meet 30 per cent of Singapore’s current water needs by 2010, when the plant was completed.29

NEA works closely with the economic agencies such as EDB and JTC to hold dialogue sessions with the industries and re�neries to explain the need to cut down emissions. �is includes explain-ing the scienti�c and health studies �ndings which forms the basis for the WHO and USEPA’s review and tightening of air quality guidelines. Globally, both developed and developing countries are tightening their controls to meet these new guidelines.

Over time, Singapore has earned the reputation of keeping its air quality to be among the best in Asia and comparable to the developed countries.

Mr Tan Quee Hong, former Director of Pollution Control Department describes his engagement with the industries as being “squeezed on both sides”. On the one hand, there is a need to allow industries to grow; on the other, there is also a demand to meet more stringent environmental standards.

Mr Tan said: “We want the industries to know that it is imperative for plants, both existing and new, to cut down on their emissions in order to achieve an overall reduction of the emissions . . . �e whole of government has recognised this great challenge, and that there is a whole of govern-ment approach to work with them to achieve the objective of allowing more growth of our industries while improving and sustaining our good air quality to meet the new WHO guidelines.”30

In response, the industries have agreed to programmes to cut their existing emissions and ensure that new plants are more e�cient and equipped with pollution control equipment. �ese equipment will be at least 50 per cent more e�cient in controlling the sulphur dioxide emissions.31

Endnotes 1. Rosa Daniel, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History interview, Singapore, July 27, 2011). 2. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 71.




3. Lee Ek Tieng, (Interview for NEA ENVISION Magazine, December, 2011). 4. Chua, M.H., Pioneers Once More: �e Singapore Public Service 1959–2009 (Singapore: Straits Times Press

and Public Service Division, 2010), 95. 5. Ibid. 6. Chua, M.H., Pioneers Once More: �e Singapore Public Service 1959–2009 (Singapore: Straits Times Press

and Public Service Division, 2010), 96. 7. Ibid. 8. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 71–72. 9. Budget of the Public Health Division, Hansard (1970).10. Ibid.11. Chua, M.H., Pioneers Once More: �e Singapore Public Service 1959–2009 (Singapore: Straits Times Press

and Public Service Division, 2010), 97.12. Ibid., 98.13. Tan Gee Paw, (Oral History interview, Project on �e Civil Service — A Retrospection, Oral History Centre,

Ref 3170, Singapore, November 6–December 11, 2007).14. Joseph Hui, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History recording, Singapore, December 30, 2011).15. Ibid.16. Ibid., 73–74. 17. Lee, K.Y., (Speech presented at the Marina Barrage Commencement Ceremony, Singapore, March 22,

2005).18. Water Pollution Control & Drainage Bill, Hansard (1975) and Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green

and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 130.

19. Khoo Teng Chye, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History recording, Singapore, July 29, 2011).20. Public Utilities Board, Water: Precious Resource for Singapore (Singapore: Public Utilities Board, Singapore,

2002), 40–41.21. �is involves imprinting circuits on silicon wafers which are then cut into semi-conductors of chips.22. “New $1.3b wafer fab plant for Singapore”, �e Straits Times, June 7, 1996, p. 1.23. Chan, S.S., (Speech presented at groundbreaking of Panasonic Semiconductor Asia Pte Ltd’s Expansion Site

for Assembly and Test, Singapore, February 7, 2006).24. Philip Yeo, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History recording, Singapore, July 29, 2011).25. Ibid.26. Chan, Y.K., (PUB’s Progress Report on Supply of High-Grade Water to Wafer Fabrication Plans to Chairman

& Members of the Board, Singapore, September 21, 2001).27. Wah, Y.H. & Yang, W., Water & Used Water Pricing (Internal paper)(Singapore: Public Utilities Board,

2009).28. Ibid.29. Ibid.30. Tan Quee Hong (deceased), (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral history recording, Singapore, January 5,

2012).31. Ibid.


4Economics of the Environment

In Singapore, the formulation of environmental policies and legislation has bene�ted from the careful application of economic principles.1 During the early 70’s, the Government introduced

legislation such as the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Regulations under the Acts, combined with pricing mechanisms, �nes and enforcement actions to curb water and air pollution as well as illegal dumping.

Towards the 2000s, cost-bene�t analysis was widely used to guide decision-making, especially in resolving con�icts between environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness.

An example of this would be when the Government accepted the proposal to build Singapore’s �rst coal power plant proposal on Jurong Island (See Box Story 3).

Economics plays a particularly important role in guiding environmental policies where exter-nalities exist. An economic approach to environmental problems starts with an analysis of incentives — and the realization that incentives of the private sector are not always aligned with the needs of society. Private owners will, in the pursuit of rational self-interest, take into account only the private costs of his actions, without considering the social costs — or the harm imposed on the rest of society — arising from these activities.

�is misalignment of incentives between the producer and the rest of society is at the heart of all negative externalities. �e economic solution to the problem of environmental externalities, such as pollution and climate change, is to establish a price for these externalities. �is can be achieved either through a tax on the externality — a carbon tax for instance — or a cap-and-trade system in which the government sets a quota for the total amount of externalities that can be produced and allows for the “pollution permits” to be traded.

Both taxation and a cap-and-trade system share the economists’ emphasis on getting incentives right. �is di�ers from a regulatory approach that focuses on setting minimum mandatory stand-ards. In dealing with environmental externalities, governments have tended to rely more on such regulations than on environmental taxes. All three have been used in Singapore’s unique blend of environmental economics.



Water Pollution

Water pollution from industrial plants is a common externality. Singapore deals with this water externality through a combination of legislation and pricing. Regulations were put in place to control the discharge of trade e�uent into water courses and land, as well as public sewers. Under the regulations, the party which discharges the e�uent is required to install, and make available the results from test points, inspection chambers, �ow meters etc. at point of discharge. First-time o�enders are �ned up to S$10,000, while subsequent o�enders face double the �ne.

For discharge of used water from domestic, industrial and other premises into public sewers, industries were given the option to treat the waste-water themselves to compliance level or to discharge slightly lower quality e�uent into the public sewer at a fee under the trade e�uent tari� scheme. �e fee imposed is meant for recovery of costs incurred in treating the additional pollution load at the water reclamation plant.

Air Pollution

In the �rst half of the 1980s, the vehicle population grew with the rising a�uence of the population. With that, lead concentration levels in Singapore rose. As lead pollution can a�ect the proper functioning of the brain and lungs, motorists were therefore creating a negative health externality among pedestrians and those living or working near roads.2

�is market failure was corrected through legislation and by pricing the externality. To control the emission of lead from motor vehicles, lead in petrol was progressively reduced from an uncontrolled level of about 0.84g/litre to 0.15g/litre in 1987. To encourage the use of unleaded petrol, a di�erential tax system which made unleaded petrol about 10 cents per litre cheaper than leaded petrol was implemented. Leaded petrol was totally phased out by 1998.3

�ese measures led to signi�cant improvements in the air quality. �e lead level in ambient air dropped to 1.2 g/m3 in 1990 and then to 0.1 g/m3 in 2000.

Another more recent example of how Singapore dealt with negative externalities in the form of air pollution and practice cost bene�t analysis is illustrated in the case of Singapore’s �rst coal-�red power plant at Jurong Island (See Box Story 3).

In dealing with the potential emissions problems brought about by the coal-�red plant, the Government approved the plant based on various key factors such as compliance of environmental emission standards set forth by the NEA. To allow �exibility, the Government evaluated the pollution control equipment based on its performance and compliance with the stipulated environmental standards.



B O X S T O R Y 3TUAS “GREEN” COAL PLANT

The petrochemical industry grew rapidly in Singapore. By the turn of the millennium, the petrochemical industry on Jurong Island (See Appendix E Managing Resource- Intensive Industries on Jurong Island) required that a power plant be built. Tuas Power (acquired by China Huaneng Group) proposed building a coal-�red power plant on Jurong Island. Naturally, this raised environ-mental concerns. The case of setting up a coal plant to provide energy economically on Jurong Island dem-onstrates the use of cost-bene�t analysis in managing stark trade-o�s as well as the critical role played by technology in pushing the frontiers and in managing negative externalities arising from the development of the coal-�red plant.

While coal is a cheaper option than fuel oil or gas, and contributes to the diversi�cation of Singapore’s energy fuel sources, it also increases carbon emissions and is a more polluting source of energy. Conventional coal plants also emit more ash than natural gas and fuel oil plants.4

In September 2008, the Government approved Tuas Power’s proposal to build a new biomass-coal multi-utilities complex (MUC) at the new Tembusu cluster on Jurong Island. The MUC comprises a biomass-coal cogeneration plant, a desalination plant, and a waste water treatment facility. Construction of the $2 billion clean coal/biomass cogeneration plant commenced on 4 November 2009 and the TMUC was o�cially opened on 27 February 2013 by Mr Lim Hng Kiang, current Minister of Trade and Industry.6 Tuas Power was given the green light on strategic grounds to build the MUC which supplies steam, chilled water and electricity, and treats industrial waste for incoming petrochemical investors at the Tembusu sector.7 The regulator Energy Market Authority (EMA) granted Tuas Power the approval to import a small quantity of coal for the project. However, it banned the use of coal for power generation, or on a large scale, which could jeopardise the viability of the Lique�ed Natural Gas (LNG) project.8

On environmental grounds, Tuas Power would have to implement measures to meet environ-mental standards set by NEA. The Tuas Power MUC was assessed, based on factors like the quantity of solid waste disposed, and emissions of air pollutants like sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate

Economics of the Environment 29

“From the environmental point of view, we want our power plants to be more energy e�cient and clean. Hence, we have imposed performance standards on our power plants to minimise their environmental impact . . . . But we note that there are new and better technologies that improve the e�ciency of coal-�red plants. We will monitor these developments carefully. �e technology on clean coal is evolving. �e Ministry is keeping a careful eye on these developments . . . . As to whether or not we have a position on the matter, as I mentioned in my reply, we will evaluate all proposals with the other economic agencies to make sure that they meet our standards. At the same time, we want to keep our options open and continue to monitor these developments closely. We keep track of developments across the world. �ere are even technologies being experimented in America in which we monitor closely so that we understand what are the bene�ts, what are the upsides and what are the downsides.” 5

— Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Former Minister for the Environment

and Water Resources during the parliamentary debate on the proposed

coal plant



matter. Through careful handling of coal and coal ash, the use of biomass and the plant’s advanced energy e�cient technology, emission levels would be kept lower than many oil-�red power plants.9

Coal from neighbouring countries is transported in covered barges, unloaded via fully enclosed conveyors and stored in covered silos to prevent exposure to the environment. Since biomass is a renewable, zero-emissions energy source, the clean-coal/biomass boilers technology allows com-bustion to take place at lower temperatures, keeping emissions to a level comparable to that of an oil-�red plant.10

In response to environmental concerns raised by the public, Mr Tan Quee Hong, former Director of Pollution Control Department (PCD) of the NEA, and Ms Jenny Teo, former Director of Corporate Communications Department (CCD) of the EMA, said: “In approving the project, the Government has taken into consideration these measures by Tuas Power to ensure environmental sustainability. In particular, the National Environment Agency has assessed that the TMUC meets existing environ-mental standards in terms of the emissions of air pollutants.11 The TMUC project o�ers a good balance between the need to ensure Singapore’s cost competitiveness and maintain our environmental sustainability . . .12 We assure that Singapore remains committed to do its part in global e�orts to tackle climate change, and to improve the quality of our living environment.” 13

�e above are attempts to price the externality directly and forces the producer to take into account the costs of his actions on society. �is creates incentives for him to cut down on his pro-duction of the externality.

If the government can quantify the social cost of an externality, the sensible course of action would be to tax it. With a tax on the externality, its price is known upfront although the quantity of the externality that is eventually produced remains uncertain. A cap-and-trade system also limits the production of the externality. By creating a market for the externality, a cap-and-trade system allows for market participants to “discover” the price of the externality. Again, this price has the desired e�ect of creating incentives for producers to reduce their production of the externality.

�e choice between the two is not a straightforward one, but where the government is less sure about the social cost of the externality but has information about the quantity of the externality it wants to control, a cap-and-trade system makes sense. �is is the case with the way Singapore phased out ozone-depleting substances.

Phasing out Ozone-Depleting Substances-Cap and Trade System

A tender and quota allocation system was implemented to control the amount of ozone depleting substance (ODS) imported for use in Singapore. On 5 January 1989, Singapore became a party to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to phase out ODS such as chloro�uorocarbons (CFCS)



and halon.14 At that time, Singapore’s economy was highly dependent on the electronics and chemical industries; policies to phase out ODS had to be handled carefully.

�e Government regulated the use of ODS with a market-based allocation mechanism. Launched on 5 October 1989, the Tender and Quota Allocation System (TQS) allowed market forces to deter-mine the price that industries had to pay for ODS.

Two desirable outcomes were achieved, namely the distribution of the limited quantity of available ODS to those with the highest replacement costs, and a strong market signal to encourage ODS users to look into substitutes, conservation measures, and recycling.15

To help companies make the transition, technical consultancy and services were o�ered by the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board to assist �rms who want to recycle controlled ODS or to switch to substitutes. �e Public Sector R&D fund was granted to the Board to initiate the various ODS alternatives and conservation programmes.16

As a result, Singapore successfully phased out the consumption of ODS by January 1996, well ahead of the time frame set for developing countries, which was 2010 and was presented the Out-standing Ozone Unit Award by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1997.

With a cap-and-trade system, the quantity is known but the price of the permits that are traded is not known ex ante and is subject to discovery by the market participants. Such a system results in quantity certainty but not price certainty.

Cost-recovery

�e Government adopts a cost-recovery approach where the user is made to pay the full-cost recovery price for the goods or services provided. �is forces consumers to economise on their con-sumption, and promotes the e�cient allocation of public resources. �e cost-recovery principle is implemented through setting appropriate prices or user fees. Except for the provision of public goods such as sewerage services, environmental services provided by the Government are typically charged at a full-cost recovery rate. Examples of such services include the treatment of used water and waste incineration services.

As consumers have discretion over the amount of used water that they discharge and send to water reclamation plants (WRP) for treatment, they are charged user fees to minimise water wastage. PUB owns the water reclamation plants (WRP) and recovers the capital and operation fees through user fees. Similarly for incineration services, consumers have discretion over the amount of waste disposed. Consequently, gate fees at incineration facilities are reviewed yearly and are set on a cost recovery basis that includes recovery of capital cost. �is also helps to ensure economic viability in the waste disposal sector given the capital intensive nature of the industry.17

�e pricing of waste management services in Singapore re�ects the application of economic principles to promote the “right” behaviour.




4.1 PRICING WASTE MANAGEMENT SER VICES CORREC TLY

Singapore’s industrial and commercial sectors contribute almost half of all waste produced in Singapore. To encourage recycling among industries, a framework that pegs waste disposal fees to the volume of waste has been put in place. Such a price mechanism forces industries to weigh the marginal cost of waste disposal against the marginal cost of recycling; as long as the unit cost of recycling was lower, it would make sense for industry to choose this over disposal.

Singapore also has a 20-hectare Sarimbun Recycling Park managed by the NEA for recycling bulky wastes such as wood/horticulture and construction and demolition waste. �e park is divided into 14 plots. As demand for the plots eventually exceeded their availability, the assignment of the plots was changed from a direct allocation to a concept-and-price system in October 2008. �is change meant that the scarcity of these plots would be properly priced, and that the plots would go to the user that would derive the most bene�t from having the plot. In addition, the NEA also works with the JTC to provide land for setting up recycling plants in the JTC industrial park. Some of these plants recycle e-waste, plastic and wood waste; other operations include various recyclable sorting operations.18

Apart from encouraging recycling among industries, the Government also intervenes directly in markets, in particular, the waste industry, to ensure the e�cient allocation of resources and to correct market failures. For example, to discourage illegal dumping, the gate fees at incineration plants used to be deliberately set far below cost recovery levels before April 1991. However this created perverse incentives as it provided an implicit subsidy for refuse disposal, and discouraged waste recovery and recycling. By making it arti�cially cheap to burn waste rather than to recycle, the government was inadvertently discouraging waste reduction and recycling. Meanwhile, the total cost of disposing refuse borne by the Government was rising, as the growing amount of waste produced by an expanding economy meant that a fourth incineration plant and a larger land�ll site were needed. As the economy grew, land prices were also rising. All this raised the costs of not properly re�ecting the true social costs of waste disposal and incineration services. To tackle these pressure points, punitive measures such as �nes of $50,000 and tighter enforcement were put in place to reduce the incidence of illegal dumping. But more importantly, the Government decided to move towards cost recovery gradually.19

Between 1991 and 2002, the Government brought the gate fees on par with costs — from $15 to $77 per tonne. Prices were adjusted not more than $10 per tonne each year to minimise the impact on households and industries. For every $10 increase in incineration gate fees, a typical household in HDB �ats would incur an increase of 90 cents a month in refuse collection fees.20

Over the years, there has been increasing interest in applying economics to the environment, such as establishing the economic cost of pollution. At the same time, such application needs a judicious hand since social or environmental issues are not always reducible to straightforward cost-bene�t calculation. Aside from the empirical di�culties of obtaining good information, there is also a more fundamental obstacle of trying to aggregate individuals’ subjective values and perspectives.21



Environmental issues are inherently complex — some values remain intangible, while “value” itself is embedded into individual perceptions. Added to this, the long-term nature of projects with uncertain future outcomes, it is not surprising that the full environmental cost or bene�t of a certain initiative is almost never certain.22

When asked if public projects in Singapore were evaluated based on economic basis, Mr Poon Hong Yuen, ex-director at the Ministry of Finance and current CEO of National Parks Board, explained that it was not pure economics.

“Where you can, you will use the economic comparison. So for example, if you are comparing whether you want to have a petrochemical cracker from Shell or from Exxon, then you compare. You can do CBA (cost-bene�t analysis). But if you are evaluating a project like building libraries, whether you want better libraries, it is quite di�cult to put it down to dollars and cents.”

“So we shouldn’t place too much faith in some of those seemingly, very economic arguments. I think you need to have an economic rationale still, that’s quite important. It helps. We shouldn’t do away with it. I think social agencies like us should not go to the other extreme and say no economics.”

In short, the complexity of public policy needs a similarly sophisticated toolbox which includes both market tools such as prices, tax and quotas, as well as rules and regulations. For instance, the government o�en set regulatory standards on the amount of pollutants (for example, sulphur dioxide) that a factory or power plant may emit.

�ere are sometimes good reasons for imposing these “green” standards. Environmental and technical standards for equipment help to create a level playing �eld among producers when there are high costs involved in switching to cleaner technologies. Standards overcome coordination problems and realise network e�ects and economies of scale more quickly.

Regulation can be the more cost-e�ective policy instrument when there are large numbers of people individually generating small negative externalities (for instance, through energy use). When consumers are not sensitive to prices, it may make sense to rely on regulations rather than incentives. We see this in the attempt to change Singaporean behaviour in energy e�ciency drives in the section below.

Endnotes 1. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 234–235. 2. Ibid., 249–250. 3. Ibid. 4. Building of coal-�red power plant (Impact on environment), Hansard (2008). 5. Ibid. 6. Oon, C., “Singapore �rst ‘clean’ coal plant to be built”, �e Straits Times, September 26, 2008. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid.




9. Energy Market Authority, Government Approves New Biomass-Coal Multi-Utilities Complex On Jurong Island, accessed February, 2013. http://www.sedb.com/etc/medialib/downloads/media_release_2008.Par. 49133.File.tmp/Press%20Release.pdf

10. Oon, C., “Singapore �rst ‘clean’ coal plant to be built”, �e Straits Times, September 26, 2008.11. Tan, Q.H., “Reply to letter, Tuas ‘Clean’ coal plant balances cost and green concerns”, �e Straits Times,

October 15, 2008.12. Ibid.13. Ibid.14. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 251–252.15. Ibid.16. Ibid.17. Ibid., 240–242.18. National Environment Agency, Environment Protection Division Annual Report 2008 (Singapore: National

Environment Agency, 2008), 61.19. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 242–243.20. Ibid.21. Poon Hong Yuen, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral history recording, Singapore, July 27, 2011).22. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 234–235.


5Long-Term Plans for a Sustainable

Singapore

Through careful land-use planning and e�ective pollution control, Singapore had become a “Garden City” by the late 1980s.

However, in light of increasing concern over global environmental issues, as well as rising expectations of Singaporeans of higher standards of living, a major policy review was carried out since the early 1990s. A series of long-term plans formulated by various agencies and ministries were implemented to ensure the sustainable development of Singapore. �e plans implemented were the Singapore Green Plan (SGP), the Sustainable Development Blueprint (SDB) and the National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS).

�e SGP was �rst released in 1992 by the ENV (now known as the MEWR). It was presented at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (commonly known as the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. �e plan aimed to show Singapore’s e�orts in promoting environmental sustainability and to demonstrate its commitment to becoming a model “green city” in terms of recycling and refuse management.1 �e plan was formulated a�er extensive public consultations and set out policy goals for the year 2000. It was the �rst formal plan to show the balance between environmental and developmental needs2 in areas such as environmental management and infrastructure, education, international environmental programme and technology.3

Following the Green Plan, the ENV formed a company called SEMAC Engineering with the idea of exporting their expertise in the area of water pollution control, air pollution control or solid waste disposal including setting up of environmental policies. �is pioneered the current vibrant Environment and Water Industry.

In late 2007, an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC) was formed to oversee inter-agency coordination on climate change and study what Singapore can do to reduce carbon



emissions and mitigate the e�ects of climate change. In the same year, a National Climate Change Strategy was formulated.

�is articulated Singapore’s responses to climate change, including both ongoing measures and future plans to adapt to climate change and reduce CO2 emissions.5 It also focused on local competency-building e�orts and participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) where Singapore commits to mitigating the e�ects of climate change through energy e�ciency policies and a move towards cleaner fuels.

�ese measures not only mitigate the e�ects of climate change, but also ensure greater resource e�ciency, thereby sustaining future growth.6 A National Climate Change Committee led by the MEWR also provides an avenue to engage and obtain feedback from various stakeholders on climate change and energy e�ciency.7

In April 2009, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (formed in January 2008) launched a new national framework called the Sustainable Development Blueprint (SDB) to guide Singapore’s sustainable development e�orts up till 2030.

5.1 RESOURCE EFFICIENC Y

Today, 40 years later, air conditioning is widely used and is a big consumer of energy. Consumers of air-conditioning energy include buildings, households and even industries such as wafer fabrication, pharmaceuticals and data centres that require air conditioning for clean rooms and controlled spaces. “However, the primary focus of designers and operators of such systems was reliability and adequacy of supply, with real energy e�ciency considerations con�ned to a very small group of professionals,” Mr Ananda Ram Bhaskar, current Director of Energy E�ciency and Conservation Department (EECD) of the NEA, pointed out.8

“At that time, I think, there was a realisation that there was a lot of expertise within Singapore but we were not fully making use of it. We were just very inward-looking and not trying to export our expertise. �is was one of the areas that we knew that we could sell our services. �e UN agencies keep on sending their trainees to us for training and so on, they would send people to us, to learn from us. So we said: ‘Hey, why don’t we set it up as a commercial venture and just export this same services. Instead of charging peanuts to the UN agencies, we can actually make it commercially viable.’ So, the idea was born.” 4

— Tan Guong Ching, Former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Environment, 2007

“In 1973, with the oil crisis when oil quadrupled from US$2 to US$8 and then again and again, we watched the Japanese, how they control the air-conditioners, not to go below 25 degrees Celsius in summer and they learnt to cut per unit cost, per unit production of electricity per product. Unfortunately, we are not as well-trained and disciplined as the Japanese and we never achieved their standards. But we watched them, their buildings, the way they tried to cut o� thermal heat from warming up the buildings and so on



�e NEA was tasked to look into energy e�ciency. As Mr Ram shared: “�e reason that the then Ministry of Environment took on this role [of energy e�ciency] is the link between energy production/transformation and emissions — both pollution and carbon emissions.”10 In the past, Singapore learnt from Mr Goshi. Today, the NEA sought advice from Mr Lee Eng Lock, a homegrown, but world-renowned guru in air conditioning e�ciency in Singapore. Mr Lee is a pioneer of super energy e�cient designs of clean rooms, hotels, and o�ce buildings. He has routinely designed electrical and mechanical systems that use half the energy of standard buildings.11 �e NEA consulted Mr Lee and exchanged views. As Mr Ram recalled: “What he said was true — people were building air conditioning systems without looking at energy e�ciency, when, for a building, that is the largest consumer [of energy] . . . .”12

�is has led to a policy innovation which took a system, rather than component approach, of air conditioning for maximum energy e�ciency.

�e NEA worked with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) to incorporate minimum energy e�ciency of air-conditioning system as one of the assessment criteria under the BCA Green Mark Schemes. �e BCA Green Mark is a green building rating system that evaluates a building for its environmental impact and performance.13

5.2 WASTE TO RESOURCE

Over the years, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has put in place a solid waste management system to ensure that all waste are collected and disposed of safely. �is has contributed to the clean and healthy living environment in Singapore. With the upward trend in waste growth, and as more

“Singapore is one of the forerunners in this area [the air conditioning of buildings] in the world, nobody else is looking at it the way we are. Even in the US, the tendency is to focus on components whereas we say no it is the air conditioning system as a whole. So we must develop metrics that measure the e�ciency of whole systems, rather than components because putting together the components does not necessarily result in e�cient systems. It depends on how you size your equipment, design your pipes, how the controls work, etc. So the metric is for the system rather than the components.”

— Ananda Ram Bhaskar, Director of Energy E�ciency and

Conservation Department (EECD) of the NEA

Long-Term Plans for a Sustainable Singapore 37

We tried to emulate them and, in fact, I got the Chairman of the Productivity Centre, a man called Mr Goshi,to come here and explain to us how he does it. But we never reached their standards.” 9




land and facilities are needed to manage waste, the NEA will roll out its plans to develop a more robust and e�cient waste management industry. �ese enhancements are essential to manage waste growth by minimising waste and recovering resources from waste even as recycling rates improve.

�e plans for enhancements are intended to help address challenges such as the scarcity of land for waste facilities, the need to reduce waste and promote greater recycling, as well as the need to raise the overall industry standards and productivity. Optimal land use and productive use of land, together with e�orts to create a strong and vibrant industry that delivers high service standards, will also ensure sustainability and a�ordability of waste management services.

To achieve the objective of developing a robust and e�cient waste management industry, three key thrusts have been identi�ed. �ese are (a) To maintain a highly e�cient waste collection and disposal system to deal with large volumes of waste while upholding high standards of public hygiene and ensuring a�ordability; (b) To continue to encourage and facilitate consumers and businesses to practise the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) by fostering partnerships and introducing regulations; and (c) To introduce better ways to optimise land use for waste collection and disposal facilities.

Enhancements targeting the various segments are: (a) For the consumers and businesses, measures will be implemented to enhance outreach on the

3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) while infrastructural improvements are piloted to achieve improved waste minimisation and recycling rates. �e Singapore Packaging Agreement (SPA) which helps to reduce packaging waste has been extended, while it will also be a mandatory requirement for large commercial premises to report their waste management data and waste reduction plans to the NEA from 2014 onwards.

(b) For companies involved in waste collection, recycling and disposal, NEA is working with them to raise standards and productivity, and leverage technology and innovations.

(c) For solid waste management industry as a whole, NEA is consolidating the public waste collection sectors for greater economies of scale and embarking on feasibility studies for better waste management solutions.

5.3 INNOVATION AND FUTURE URBAN SOLUTIONS

In the 1990s, there was considerable tension between the HDB and the ENV over land use at Punggol. Projections indicated that the existing dumping ground would be exhausted by the late 1990s. �e ENV wanted to build a land�ll site at Punggol whereas the HDB wanted to build quality coastal residential housing to cater for the increase in housing demand.

Developing Punggol for waterside homes would fetch a higher value, compared to building a land�ll. A�er factoring in the opportunity cost, the ENV sourced for an alternative site for the next land�ll. With competing needs for land and the experiences of other land-scarce countries, the Government conceived the idea of an o�shore land�ll.14 �e development of Pulau Semakau was approved by the Cabinet in 1994 and operations started �ve years later.



�is is an example of how, when faced with constraints, the urban planners came up with solutions that managed to accommodate competing demands. Other examples include the inno-vative planning and �nancing structure of Jurong Island, the 10-year master plan for Jurong Island Version 2.0 where existing heavy industries such as our petrochemicals and re�neries will be improved in terms of their energy, water and environmental footprints, and the management of negative externalities of a coal plant (See Box Story 3).

Such innovation is not the result of mere chance but the result of systematic and institutional incentives, with an emphasis on discovering cost e�ective solutions. In 2001, a $20 million Innova-tion for Environmental Sustainability (IES) Fund was set up to encourage industries to undertake innovative environmental protection projects which have potential for commercialisation. To date, more than 60 projects have received funding to test new techniques or innovative methods to turn recyclables into marketable materials.

In 2006, the National Research Foundation (NRF) was set up as a department in the Prime Minister’s O�ce. �e NRF sets the national direction for research and development (R&D) and funds strategic initiatives, builds up R&D capabilities and capacities through nurturing local and foreign talents. Overall, its mission is to establish a research agenda that transforms Singapore into a knowledge-intensive, innovative and entrepreneurial economy. One of the strategic areas earmarked by the NRF for R&D was Environment and Water Technologies (EWT) which focused on the concepts of Clean Water and Clean Energy. �e NRF committed a budget of $330 million over �ve years to grow the EWT sector.15

Recently, innovation e�orts have been centred on clean energy, testing urban solutions, and water. �e Urban Solutions Programme O�ce of the EDB was formed to promote Singapore as a “Living Laboratory” where leading-edge urban solutions can be developed and exported. New technologies are being test bedded with a view to o�ering alternative options in future when they become cost-e�ective. From transportation and public housing, to energy management and water treatment, Singapore has turned the challenges of urban development into rewarding economic opportunities which can be replicated and implemented successfully in the region. (See Figure 4 below)

Long-Term Plans for a Sustainable Singapore 39

FIGURE 4 Future Urban Solutions

Source: Source: EDB (Urban Solutions Group).



Speci�c technologies have been test-bedded to replicate Singapore’s success in water and urban management and to achieve its sustainable targets set out in the Sustainable Development Blueprint. �ese innovative Urban Solutions include solar test bedding at HDB housing precincts, Smarter Power Grids for future readiness and sustainable mobility in the form of electric vehicles.16 �e success in water management is illustrated in the innovation of NEWater to overcome Singapore’s water constraints, in particular the need to manage water-intensive industries such as the wafer fabrication plants.

Endnotes 1. Tan Guong Ching, (Oral History interview, National Archives of Singapore, Disc No. 2, Accn. No.003133/4),

March 21–22, 2007). 2. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 263. 3. Teo, P., Yeoh, B. S.A., Ooi, G.L. & Lai, K. P.Y., Changing Landscapes of Singapore (Singapore: McGraw-Hill

Education (Asia), 2004), 31. 4. Tan Guong Ching, (Oral History interview, National Archives of Singapore, Disc No. 2, Accn. No.003133/4),

March 21–22, 2007). 5. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Energy Growth Report- National Energy Policy Report (Singapore: MTI,

2007), 8. 6. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 305. 7. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Energy Growth Report — National Energy Policy Report (Singapore: MTI,

2007), 8. 8. Ananda Ram Bhaskar, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral history recording, Singapore, January 4, 2012). 9. Lee Kuan Yew, (Transcript of dialogue presented at the Singapore Energy Conference, Singapore, November

4, 2008).10. Ibid.11. Building & Contruction Authority, Lee Eng Lock pro�le, accessed February 15, 2013. http://www.bca.gov.

sg/academy/courses_tests.aspx?Course_Exam_Code=CS00059512. Ananda Ram Bhaskar, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral history recording, Singapore, January 4, 2012).13. Building & Construction Authority, Green Mark Scheme, accessed February 15, 2013. http://bca.gov.sg/

GreenMark/green_mark_criteria.html14. Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. & Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environmental and Water

Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 238.15. Environment and Water Industry Development Council, EWI launches programmes for start-ups and

post-graduate scholarships, accessed 28 March 2007. http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Contents/Contents.aspx? Yr=2007&ContId=823

16. Singapore Economic Development Board, Singapore’s urban solutions for cities of the future, accessed June 7, 2010. htp://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/news/articles/singapore_s_urban.html


6Conclusion

As Singapore develops into an even denser and compact global city, the environmental challenges will become more complex and trade-o�s more di�cult. As Singapore progresses, its environ-

mental policies will have to keep pace with its evolving economic structure and diversi�cation of the economy. However, the key fundamentals of our environmental policy will remain. �ese are:

(a) Vision & leadership

(b) Long-term planning & e�ective implementation

(c) Creating a stake for everyone

(d) Continuous adaptation and innovation

Increasingly, Singapore faces challenges such as climate change, depletion of fossil fuels and increasingly stark resource constraints. Dealing with these complex challenges requires good scienti�c and technical knowledge that can only be attained through long term capability building and collaboration with others, as well as identifying innovative technical solutions that are pragmatic and cost-e�ective. Dealing with these challenges also involves inducing signi�cant changes in people’s lifestyles and behaviours.

Achieving higher environmental standards as an end in itself could undermine Singapore’s competitiveness.1 But the argument is not a linear one — more environmental protection does not necessarily mean less economic competitiveness. �e key is to ensure that higher environmental standards keep pace with the aspirations of citizens, takes advantage of new technologies, and takes into consideration the imperative of maintaining economic growth and competitiveness.

Singapore’s environmental journey can be seen as three phases of development. First, it addressed the twin goals of economic development and environmental protection to ensure that the environ-ment did not su�er as consequence of rapid economic growth. Second, it used the gains from economic prosperity to promote an even higher quality living environment for the community. �ird,



it strived to develop in an environmentally responsible manner so as to ensure sustainable growth and ful�ll its obligations as a responsible international citizen.

Singapore’s pragmatic approach to environmental sustainability combines its traditional policy beliefs — frugality in use of its limited resources, far-sighted urban planning, and strong regulatory standards — with new ideas and policy innovations such as o�shore land�lls, water recycling and pricing of scarce resources correctly.

In an increasingly networked institutional context, where business and the environment interact in complex ways, a policy approach which incorporates the environment as a part of good urban governance may provide the country with its next competitive edge.

Endnote1. Ananda Ram Bhaskar, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History interview, Singapore, January 4, 2012).


References

INTER VIE WSAnanda Ram Bhaskar, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History recording, Singapore, January 4, 2012).Rosa Daniel, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History interview, Singapore, July 27, 2011).Joseph Hui, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History recording, Singapore, December 30, 2011).Lee Ek Tieng, (Interview for NEA ENVISION Magazine, December, 2011).Poon Hong Yuen, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral History recording, Singapore, July 27, 2011).Andrew Tan, Joseph Hui & Khoo Seow Poh, (Centre for Liveable Cities interview, Singapore, July 29, 2011).Tan Gee Paw, (CLC lecture series — Pioneers of Singapore: In conversation with Tan Gee Paw, February 28,

2011).Tan Gee Paw, (Oral History interview, Project on �e Civil Service – A Retrospection, Oral History Centre, Ref

3170, Singapore, November 6–December 11, 2007).Tan Guong Ching, (Oral History interview, National Archives of Singapore, Disc No. 1, Accn. No.003133/4,

March 21–22, 2007).Tan Guong Ching, (Oral History interview, National Archives of Singapore, Disc No. 2, Accn. No.003133/4,

March 21–22, 2007).Tan Quee Hong, (Centre for Liveable Cities Oral history recording, Singapore, January 5, 2012).

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTSAddendum to Presidential Address at the Opening of the Second Session of the Second Parliament, Hansard

(1971).Addendum to Presidential Address by the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, Hansard

(2011).Annual Budget Statement, Hansard (1972).Building & Construction Authority, Green Mark Scheme, accessed February 15, 2013. http://bca.gov.sg/

GreenMark/green_mark_criteria.htmlBuilding & Contruction Authority, Lee Eng Lock pro�le, accessed February 15, 2013. http://www .bca.gov.sg/academy/courses_tests.aspx?Course_Exam_Code=CS000595Chua, K.C. & Goh, P.C., PUB Case Study on Water Catchment Policy (Internal paper) (Singapore: Public

Utilities Board, 2010).


44 References

Civil Service College Singapore, Centre for Governance and Leadership, Carrying Coals to Singapore: A Biomass-Coal Co-Generation Plant on Jurong Island (internal paper) (Singapore: Civil Service College, 2008).

Clean Air Bill, Hansard (1971).Energy Market Authority, Government Approves New Biomass-Coal Multi-Utilities Complex On Jurong Island,

accessed February, 2013. http://www.sedb.com/etc/medialib/downloads/media_release_2008.Par.49133.File.tmp/Press%20Release.pdf

Environment and Water Industry Development Council, EWI launches programmes for start-ups and post-graduate scholarships, accessed 28 March 2007. http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Contents/Contents.aspx?Yr=2007&ContId=823

Lee, Kuan Yew, (Speech presented at the Marina Barrage Commencement Ceremony, Singapore, March 22, 2005).

Lee, Hsien Loong, (Speech presented at the joint opening of the Singapore International Water Week, World Cities Summit and East Asia Summit Conference On Liveable Cities, Singapore, June 24, 2008).

Lee Kuan Yew, (Transcript of dialogue presented at the Singapore Energy Conference, Singapore, November 4, 2008).

Ministry of Environment, Singapore: My Clean and Green Home (25th Anniversary Book) (Singapore: Ministry of Environment, 1997).

Ministry of Trade and Industry, Energy Growth Report- National Energy Policy Report (Singapore: MTI, 2007).

National Environment Agency, Tax Incentive Scheme For Highly E�cient Pollution Control Equipment, accessed February 15, 2002. http://app2.nea.gov.sg/tax_incentive_scheme.aspx

National Environment Agency, Energy E�ciency Programme O�ce, accessed September 13, 2011. http://www.e2singapore.gov.sg/energy-e�ciency-programme-o�ce.html

National Environment Agency, Environment Protection Division Annual Report 2008 (Singapore: National Environment Agency, 2008).

National Environment Agency, Annual Report 2010 (Singapore: National Environment Agency, 2010). National Environment Agency, Environment Protection Division Annual Report 2011 (Singapore: National

Environment Agency, 2011).Pollution Control (Pig), Hansard (1984).Public Health Budget, Hansard (1970).Public Utilities Board, Water: Precious Resource for Singapore (Singapore: Public Utilities Board, Singapore,

2002).Responses by then-Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on August 20, 2009 to questions posed by Mr Gu

Shihong, Director of the China News Service Branch in �ailand, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. China News Service published its report on the interview with then-Senior Minister Goh on September 3, 2009 at http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/ speechesninterviews/seniorminister/2009/September/responses_by_seniorministergohchoktongtointerview

questionsposedb.htmlSingapore Economic Development Board, Singapore’s urban solutions for cities of the future, accessed June 7,

2010. htp://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/news/articles/singapore_s_urban.htmlUnited Nations, A Proposed Industrialisation Programme for the State of Singapore (New York: Commissioner of

Technical Assistance, Department of Economic and Social A�airs, 1963).


References 45

Wah, Y.H. & Yang, W., Water & Used Water Pricing (Internal paper)(Singapore: Public Utilities Board, 2009).Water Pollution Budget, Hansard (1982).Water Pollution Control & Drainage Bill, Hansard (1975).

OTHERSAsad-ul Iqbal Latif & Lim, Kim San, A Builder of Singapore (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009).Chew, Valerie, Singapore Green Plan (SGP), accessed on October 20, 2008. http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_

1370_2008-11-22.html.Chou, Loke Ming, Nature and sustainability of the marine environment, In Tai Chee Wong, Belinda Yuen &

Charles Goldblum (Eds.), Spatial Planning for a Sustainable Singapore (Singapore: Springer, 2008).Chua, Mui Hoong, Pioneers Once More: �e Singapore Public Service 1959–2009 (Singapore: Straits Times Press

and Public Service Division, 2010).“Environment: A lot has been done — a great deal more needs to be done”, �e Straits Times, September 19,

1972.Han, Fook Kwang, Ibrahim, Zuraidah., Chua, Mui Hoong, Lim, Lydia, Low, Ignatius, Lin, Rachel & Chan, Robin

(Eds.), Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2011).Lee, Bryan, “Singapore to spend $2 billion on port expansion”, �e Straits Times, December 21, 2007.Lee, Bryan, “Singapore Port Project, $20 million to limit harm to environment”, �e Straits Times, December

21, 2007.Lee, Kuan Yew, From �ird World to First: �e Singapore Story, 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times Media and �e

Straits Times Press, 2000).Lee, Kuan Yew, (Dialogue at the World Cities Summit 2010, Singapore, June 29, 2009).Lee, Sing Kong and Chua, Sia Eng, More than a Garden City (Singapore: Parks and Recreation Department,

Ministry of National Development, 1992).“New $1.3b wafer fab plant for Singapore”, �e Straits Times, June 7, 1996.Oon, Clarissa, “Singapore �rst ‘clean’ coal plant to be built”, �e Straits Times, September 26, 2008. Pakiam, James Edwin, et al., Environmental Protection in Singapore: A Handbook (Singapore: Science Council

of Singapore, 1980).Tan, Q.H., “Reply to letter, Tuas ‘Clean’ coal plant balances cost and green concerns”, �e Straits Times,

October 15, 2008.Tan, Yong Soon, Lee, Tung Jean & Tan, Karean, Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards Environ-

mental and Water Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009).Tay, Simon Seong Chee (Ed.), A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy: Re�ections by Ngiam Tong Dow

(Singapore: NUS Press, 2006).Teo, Peggy, Yeoh, Brenda. S.A., Ooi, Giok Ling & Lai, Karen P.Y., Changing Landscapes of Singapore (Singapore:

McGraw-Hill Education (Asia), 2004).Wong, Tai-Chee and Yap, Lian-Ho Adriel, Four Decades of Transformation: Land Use in Singapore, 1960–2000.

(Singapore: Eastern University Press, 2004).Yuen, Belinda, Planning Singapore: From Plan to Implementation (Singapore: Singapore Institute Of Planners,

1998).



Appendices

APPENDIX A

KEY POLICY TIMELINES OF THE ENVIRONMENT

(I) Clean Air Policy (w.r.t. industries related activities) Timeline

Time frame Historical development / milestone

1963 �e Local Government Integration Ordinance, 1963, was passed, forbidding discharge of accumulated dust and e�uvium, and of smoke in a manner that would endanger health. �ese provisions were subsequently incorporated in the Environment Public Health Act, 1968.

1970 Formation of the Anti-Pollution Unit (APU) as part of the Prime Minister’s O�ce in April 1970 on an ad-hoc basis to combat air pollution.

1971 �e APU was formally approved by Parliament on 1 April 1971. �e functions of the APU were to control air pollution from industrial and commercial premises as well as to prosecute o�ending factories. Ambient air-quality monitoring with six stations were set up and by 1972, there were 22 air-monitoring stations set up in industrial and residential areas.

1971 �e Clean Air Act was passed. Provision was made for the prevention and reduction of air pollution arising from industrial or trade premises. Emission standards for industrial and trade premises were also speci�ed.

1972 �e Clean Air (Standards) Regulations were passed to specify pollutant emission limits for factories.

1978 �e Government revised and tightened the emissions limits to take into consideration technological advancements in air-pollution equipment or new pollutants which arise due to new industries and manufacturing processes.

1994 Air-monitoring system upgraded to Telemetric Air-Quality Monitoring and Management System (TAQMMS) which comprised 13 remote air-monitoring stations. Sulphur dioxide from power stations and oil re�neries are monitored closely.

1997 Source emission testing scheme was introduced where industries monitor their exhaust emissions regularly to comply with legal limits and random checks were carried out.

2000 Emissions cap on major SO2 emitters imposed (phased implementation).

2001 �e Government further revised and tightened the emissions limits and this is stipulated in a new legislation known as Environmental Protection and Management (Air impurities) Regulation.

Today �e clean air act has since been repealed and resides under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA).


48 Appendices

(II) Pollution Control Policy (w.r.t. industries related activities) Timeline


1971 �e APU was set up, backed by the Clean Air Act to combat air pollution. Penalties were imposed. Environmental control and an integrated land-use planning and developmental control, and judicious siting of industries were put in place before industries start operation. Industries were also screened for potential unmanageable pollutions prior to setting up and operating in Singapore.

1971 In the 1971 Concept Plan, land was zoned according to the purpose of utilization, into nature reserve, green zone, residential area, industrial area and others. Land was also set aside for critical environmental infrastructure, such as the sewerage system, and waste disposal and incineration facilities. Projections for future land requirements for such infrastructure have also been factored into the Concept Plan, as has land required for environmental conservation up till today.

1972 Formation of the Ministry of the Environment (ENV) to deal with all aspects of pollution, drainage and environmental health. Tax relief measures implemented to incentivise companies to adopt anti-pollution measures.

1973 Decision to build Singapore’s �rst modern WTE incineration plant in Ulu Pandan.

1975 �e Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act passed.

1977 Cleaning-up of Singapore River and Kallang Basin launched.

1977 Trade E�uent Regulations introduced.

1979 Singapore’s 1st Incineration Plant - Ulu Pandan Incineration Plant commissioned to cope with growing waste volume.

1983 Water Catchment policy introduced to control developments within unprotected catchments.

1983 Legislation was reviewed and the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act, 1975, was amended to provide penalties to prevent indiscriminate dumping of toxic wastes.

1985 �e Poisons Act passed to regulate hazardous chemical substances through licensing control.

1987 Completion of the Singapore River clean-up programme.

1991 Ministry put in place a Safety Audit scheme requiring companies with large inventories of hazardous substances to identify and rectify systematically weaknesses in their management systems and practices if handling hazardous chemicals.

1994 Code of Practice on Pollution Control published to inform industrialists of necessary pollution-control requirements for compliance.

1994 To manage growing waste and land scarcity, development of Semakau land�ll approved by the Cabinet.

1997 Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act to ensure sound and e�ective management, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes in Singapore.

1999 Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act repealed and relevant powers streamlined into Sewerage and Drainage Act and Environmental Pollution Control Act.

2008 While an EIA is not a legislated requirement in Singapore, URA has in placed a policy since 2008 to coordinate interagency e�orts to safeguard the environment. Prior to this, EIAs are conducted on an ad-hoc basis and not coordinated. �e EIA process ensured measures are in place to prevent or mitigate environmental pollution and hence to reduce trade-o�s between development and environmental protection.


Appendices 49

(III) Water Catchment Policy Timeline


1983 �e policy was put in place to control developments within the unprotected catchment areas. An urbanisation cap of 34.1% in the unprotected water catchment areas was set.

1999 To grapple with the need to protect water catchments and competing demands between housing and industrial development — for the use of scarce land, the urbanisation cap of 34.1% in the unprotected water catchment areas was li�ed.

2002 A working group led by the NEA and comprising the PUB reviewed the 1983 Catchment Policy. A negative list of industries that would not be allowed in the new catchment areas was drawn up. �e �rst such list was based on the water-treatment technologies available at the time and provisions for future upgrades to handle water from the new Marina, Serangoon and Punggol reservoirs. A separate working group comprising of the PUB, JTC and EDB eventually worked out a much reduced negative list of 18 industries. “Strategic industries” that were on earlier lists but considered vital to the nation’s economy were given special provision to be sited within the new catchment areas if they met the stipulated criteria.

(IV) Singapore’s Environment Timeline (1968–1975)


50 Appendices

1976 to 1982

1983 to 1989


Appendices 51

1990 to 1995

1996 to 2000


52 Appendices

2001–2005

2006–2009


Appendices 53

2010–2013



APPENDIX B

GOVERNANCE TOOLS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

(I) Legal Instruments

TOOL DESCRIPTION

Clean Air Act Passed in 1971. Provision was made for the prevention and reduction of air pollution arising from industrial or trade premises. Emission standards for industrial and trade premises were also speci�ed. It has since been repealed and resides under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA).

Environmental Protection and Control Act (EPCA)

Came into e�ect in 1999. It consolidated previous laws on air, water, and hazardous substances control.

Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA)

Formerly known as Environmental Protection and Control Act (EPCA). Amended and renamed EPMA, in 2008, to include additional provisions on protection and management of environment and resource conservation.

Poison Act Passed in 1985 to regulate and control hazardous chemical substances. �e act has been subsumed under EPMA.

Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act

Passed in 1997 to ensure sound and e�ective management, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes in Singapore.

Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) and Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act

EPHA ensures a high level of public health and cleanliness. It covers areas such as public cleansing, refuse disposal, industrial waste, food establishment, hawker centres and sanitary conditions.

Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act

Passed in 1975. It consolidated the Local Government (Disposal of Trade e�uents) Regulations, passed in 1970 and the Environment Public Health (Prohibition of discharge of trade e�uent) Regulation, passed in 1971.

Sewerage and Drainage Act Formerly part of the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act which disaggregated into Sewerage and Drainage Act (SDA) and Environmental Protection Control Act (EPCA) administered by the ENV with stipulations on control of discharge of used water and trade e�uent into the public sewers and watercourses respectively.

Water Conservation Tax �e tax was introduced to discourage excessive consumption of water in both households and industries.

Energy Conservation Act To be enacted in 2013. �e legislation will set minimum energy management requirements for large industrial energy users.

Incentives/accelerated depreciation allowance to install anti-pollution devices

Tax relief measures were implemented in 1972 to incentivise companies to adopt anti-pollution measures. Today, accelerated depreciation allowance is granted to any person undertaking a trade, profession or business for capital expenditure on air and water pollution control equipment.

Energy E�cient Incentives NEA introduced a basket of incentives such as the Energy E�ciency Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe), Grant for Energy E�cient Technologies (GREET), etc. to help industries reduce their energy intensity.


56 Appendices

(II) Executive Policies

TOOL DESCRIPTION

Clean and Green Singapore Campaigns

�e clean and green Singapore campaigns have been carried out to communicate the vision of a “Clean and Green” Singapore and to cultivate environmental ownership. Each successive Prime Minister carried on the strong political will, launching the “Clean and Green” campaign personally nearly every year till today. Some examples of campaigns:– 1967 “Garden City” campaign– 1968 “Keep Singapore Clean” campaign– 1969 “Keep Singapore Clean and Mosquito-Free” campaign– 1971 “Tree Planting Day”– 1990 �rst “Clean and Green Week” (CGW) incorporating “Keep Singapore Clean” campaign

and “Tree Planting Day”– 2007 CGW rebranded as Clean and Green Singapore (CGS)

Garden City programmes Since 1960, Lee Kuan Yew’s policy was consistent in creating a Garden City with a clean and green environment to di�erentiate Singapore from other third world countries, boost Singapore’s image to attract foreign investors and tourists and to provide good quality of life for the people to di�erentiate Singapore. Greening e�orts started since the 1960s and Singapore has moved from becoming a Garden City to a City in a Garden. Alongside, the Singapore River clean-up was also initiated in 1977.

Land-Use Zoning Land-use zoning is an important tool used to mitigate the e�ects of industrial developments in residential areas through judicious siting of industries.

Integrated land-use planning and developmental controls

Basic environmental concerns were also considered during land-use planning in the Concept Plan:– Identi�cation of development constraints and major land uses that a�ect the environment,

e.g. airports, live-�ring areas for military training, areas for pollutive and hazardous industries;

– Projection of land needs for environmental infrastructure such as refuse facilities (incinerators and dumping grounds), sewage treatment plants, etc.;

– Identi�cation of possible areas for major utility installations and infrastructural needs that may be pollutive, e.g. gasworks, explosive storage, other hazardous goods storage;

– Identi�cation of possible areas for nature conservation; – Continued protection of water-catchment areas.

Pollution Control Policy Control of pollution was an important policy consideration for Mr Lee Kuan Yew where all projects were evaluated on their environmental impact. For example:– New industries will be screened to ensure that they will not pose unmanageable health and

safety hazards, and pollution problems in Singapore.– A list of scheduled industries which could potentially lead to severe pollution was drawn

up. �ese industries required a licence to operation.– Pollutive industries have to install abatement measures. Incentives in the form of tax relief

were available to help industries cope with the high cost of such devices.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Policy

In 2008, the URA put in place the EIA policy to coordinate inter-agency e�orts to safeguard the environment. �e EIA process ensured measures are in place to prevent or mitigate environmental pollution and hence to reduce trade-o�s between development and environmental protection. Prior to that, the EIA was conducted on an ad-hoc basis, as requested by the NEA, and was not a legislative requirement.

Jurong Island V2.0 initiative To balance economic developments with environmental protection, a 10-year Master Plan to enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of the Jurong Island infrastructure in tandem with technological and R&D advancements was drawn up. JIV2.0 focuses on new infrastructure developments and the system-level optimisation of valuable resources like energy, carbon, water and land, and strategies to improve environmental sustainability include energy optimisation, water su�ciency via desalination and waste-water collection and recycling, as well as enhanced e�orts to reduce emissions of air pollutants.


Appendices 57

TOOL DESCRIPTION

Water Catchment Policy �e policy was put in place to control developments within the unprotected catchment areas. To grapple with the need to protect water catchments and competing demands between housing and industrial development — for the use of scarce land, an urbanisation cap of 34.1% in the unprotected water-catchment areas was li�ed in 1999. In 2002, a working group led by the NEA and comprising the PUB reviewed the 1983 Catchment Policy. A negative list of industries that would not be allowed in the new catchment areas was drawn up.

Policy of not subsidising energy Singapore has a policy of not subsidising energy. �is will discourage excessive consumption of energy and encourage businesses to switch to more cost-e�cient technologies.

National Energy Policy Framework (2006) and Energy E�ciency Master Plan (2007)

To promote energy e�ciency through campaigns and incentives/schemes within households and industries to reduce energy consumption.

Waste Management – Targeted at waste minimisation, promoting recycling and volume reduction.– Waste disposal fees for industrial and industrial waste are pegged to the weight of waste

disposed of to encourage waste minimization and recycling. – Setting gate fees (waste disposal fees at incineration plants) on the basis of full cost

recovery ensures economic sustainability of the waste disposal sector and encourages waste reduction and recycling.

Long-term plans for sustainable developments and resilience

Long-term vision was translated into long-term plans and blueprints which set national targets in response to future challenges such as climate change and energy issues. Some examples include: Singapore Green Plan (SGP) 1992, SGP 2012, Sustainable Development Blueprint (SDB), National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS) 2008.

(III) Institutions

TOOL DESCRIPTION

Anti-Pollution Unit (APU) �e APU was set up in 1971 under the PMO, to look at air pollution. It was subsequently merged with the ENV in 1983.

Ministry of the Environment (ENV)

�e ENV was formed in 1972 to tackle air and water pollution, environmental health and waste-disposal issues which could be a pressing issue in the future. Departments under the MOH and MND which had dealt with pollution control, sewerage drainage, and environmental-health issues were absorbed in the new ministry.

Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR)

Previously known as the ENV, renamed in 2004, and its operational functions were taken over by its two statutory boards, viz. the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Public Utilities Board (PUB).

Public Utilities Board (Renamed as PUB, the national water agency today)

Reconstituted as Singapore’s national water authority. It manages Singapore’s water supply, water catchments and used water in an integrated way.

National Environment Agency (NEA)

�e NEA safeguards the environment and environmental health by planning, developing and operating solid waste disposal facilities, controlling air and water pollution, hazardous chemicals and toxic wastes, and providing environmental public health services and public-health education.



APPENDIX C

ANTI-POLLUTION UNIT’S FUNCTION

�e Anti-Pollution Unit (APU) was tasked to control pollution from industrial and trade premises. �e APU’s functions include: (1) Measuring air pollutants, identifying and surveying air pollution sources; (2) Investigating complaints, dra�ing legislation on air pollution control; (3) Working with other government agencies to ensure that new urban and industrial development did not compromise air quality; and (4) Screening applications for the setting up of new factories in Singapore and the proper siting of industrial establishments.1

Endnote1. Tan, Yong Soon, Lee, Tung Jean & Tan, Karean, Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey towards

Environmental and Water Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009).



APPENDIX D

INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES AND TRADE-OFFS

�e Anti-Pollution Unit (APU) was set up in 1971 and the Ministry of the Environment (ENV) was established in September 1972. Similar to the APU, the ENV was armed with legislation on water-quality standards and began controlling industrial e�uents. On 1 April 1983, the APU was transferred to the ENV. In 1986, the Pollution Control Department (PCD) was formed within the ENV by merging the APU and water-pollution control section of the Sewerage Department. �e PCD became a department under the National Environment Agency (NEA) which was formed in 2002 as a statutory board under the ENV.

�e PCD under the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the NEA is responsible for air and water-pollution control, and hazardous substances and toxic industrial wastes control. �e PCD monitors the ambient air quality and the quality of water bodies in Singapore to assess the adequacy and e�ectiveness of the water-pollution control programmes. It is also responsible for the formulation and implementation of joint programmes on transboundary pollution with the neighbouring coun-tries. �e Central Building Plan Department (CBPD), formerly an unit under the PCD ensures that environmental factors are incorporated into land-use planning, development and building control of new developments. Apart from pollution control, the EPD also plans, develops and manages waste-disposal facilities; regulates waste collection in domestic and trade premises; and promotes recycling programmes to conserve resources.

In September 2004, the ENV was renamed as the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) and its operational functions were taken over by its two statutory boards, viz. the NEA and the Public Utilities Board (PUB). Prior to joining the ENV, the PUB was set up as a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) on 1 May 1963 to take over the supply of electricity, piped gas and water for Singapore. It was responsible for ensuring Singapore’s industrial and economic development and the population’s well being would be sustained by provision of an adequate and dependable supply of water. In 2001, the PUB was reconstituted the water authority and the regulation of electricity and gas industries were transferred to a new statutory board, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) under the MTI.

Today, the NEA and PUB protect the environment and environmental health by planning, developing and operating sewerage, drainage and solid waste disposal facilities, controlling air and water pollution, hazardous chemicals and toxic wastes, and providing environmental public health services and public health education. Armed with a series of legislations, they ensured that Singapore’s environment measures up to desired performance standards. �ese acts include: Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) previously known as Environmental Protection and Control Act (EPCA) which looks into air, water and noise pollution; Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act which looks at hazardous substances; Environmental Public Health Act


62 Appendices

(EPHA) and Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act which covers public cleansing, refuse disposal, industrial waste, food establishment, hawker centres and sanitary conditions. On the other hand, the PUB administers the Sewerage and Drainage Act which also regulates the discharge of used water and trade e�uent into the sewers while the NEA regulates the discharge of trade e�uent into the watercourse.

Apart from environmental agencies, in the 1960s, the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Science and Technology have also been entrusted with varying types and degrees of powers to control and protect emerging environmental sectors of concern. For example, the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) is tasked with controlling sea-based sources of pollutants and the regulation of all maritime activities with potential for oil, chemical and waste release such as bunkering, onshore and o�shore oil re�ning, shipbuilding and repair. In 1996, the MPA was formed through the merger of the Marine Department, National Maritime Board and the regulatory departments of the former PSA. Prior to 1996, the control of sea-based sources of pollutants was under the PSA.

Economic agencies and environmental agencies worked together to prevent pollution in the early days. �e EDB’s Trade Waste and Industrial E�uents Committee involved the Environmental Health Branch, to formulate policies on e�uents, or liquid waste discharged from industrial plants. �e Light Industries Service Unit (LISU) of the EDB also worked with the Trade Waste and Industrial E�uents Committee to address industries’ pollution concerns from industries. When the LISU received a proposal for setting up a sago industry in 1962, the trade waste committee expressed their concern at the pollution of streams by the industry. �e LISU carried out technical studies to assess the feasibility of modernising this industry. �e matter was then placed before the Industrial Waste Committee for a central site where common facilities may be provided at reasonable cost to the manufacturers.


Appendices 63

Trad

e-of

fs b

etw

een

Econ

omy

and

Envi

ronm

ent

Goo

d fo

r En

viro

nmen

t

Goo

d fo

r Eco

nom

y

Bad

for E

cono

my

Bad

for

Envi

ronm

ent



Endnotes1. National Environment Agency, Environment Protection Division Annual Report 2011 (Appendix 8)

(Singapore: National Environment Agency, 2011).2. PUB, the national water agency, internal documents.


APPENDIX E

MANAGING RESOURCE-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES ON JURONG ISLAND

Today, Jurong Island is among the world’s top 10 petrochemical hubs. Home to over 95 leading petroleum, petrochemical, specialty chemical and supporting companies, the total investment made by these companies exceeds S$31 billion.1 Collectively, these companies account for the majority of the energy and chemical industry manufacturing output and of Singapore’s total manufacturing output. While it contributed to economic development, these industries are resource-intensive and brought along substantial environmental impact. Faced with resource constraints, how did Singapore manage resource-intensive and pollutive industries on Jurong Island?

Since 1891, Singapore’s oil trade started with Shell distributing kerosene and petrol from the o�shore island of Pulau Bukom. In 1961, Shell built Singapore’s �rst re�nery on Pulau Bukom which helped to launch the country’s energy and chemical industry later.2 In the 1980s, the Government identi�ed the chemicals sector as a vehicle for the nation’s economic growth.3 To create a world class hub for petroleum, petrochemical and chemicals industries, seven o�shore islands4 were reclaimed and amalgamated to form Jurong Island.5 Approved in 1995, the 14-year land reclamation project was completed in 2009, at a cost of $7 billion.6

Solutions were put in place at planning and development stages to cope with the resource constraints of land, energy and water. �e siting of these potentially pollutive chemical industries on o�-shore islands prevents pollution e�ects on the population in the city and in residential areas. Jurong Rock Cavern — Singapore’s �rst underground hydrocarbon storage facility — was developed in 2007 to increase storage capacity and ensure that logistics continues to grow and remain competi-tive to support the oil industry.

�e physical clustering of these industries also provides opportunities for industry integration and other bene�ts arising from economies of scale. As a result of the clustering, materials, energy and water could be exchanged between companies. �e arrangement also allows the utilisation of by-products as the output of one plant becomes the input of another which creates a closed-loop-zero-waste environment and enhances resource utilisation. Waste-water treatment and utilities such as steam and hydrogen, as well as storage requirements to support manufacturing plants, are provided by a comprehensive host of third-party providers. To ensure the high energy consumption would not lead to an increase in the carbon footprint, cleaner energy sources with low carbon content, such as natural gas, were introduced in 2000 as an alternative energy source for electricity generation. A Lique�ed Natural Gas (LNG) terminal which would be ready by 2013 is being built to help meet the increase in energy demand. Apart from promoting the use of clean energy, Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) emissions from major emitters were capped on top of the stipulated emissions standards, from 2000, to ensure ambient air quality remained within the safe limits established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).


66 Appendices

As Singapore continues to expand its petrochemical hub, a Jurong Island Version 2 (JIV2.0) initiative was proposed to further boost its S$57 billion energy and chemicals industry, which contributed 28% of the economy’s manufacturing output in 2009. �e initiative is a Government e�ort, in partnership with the industry to enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of the Jurong Island infrastructure in tandem with technological and R&D advancements. Backed by a 10-year Master Plan, JIV2.0 focuses on �ve areas, namely, water, environment, energy, alternative feedstocks, and transport and logistics. It focuses on new infrastructure developments and the system-level optimisation of valuable resources like energy, carbon, water and land. Technology solutions, such as tapping waste heat to power production processes, converting “waste” — carbon dioxide into useful products, and reducing the carbon footprint, were developed.7 Other strategies to improve environmental sustainability include energy optimisation, water su�ciency via desalination and waste water collection and recycling, as well as enhanced e�orts to reduce emissions of air pollutants and improve already high standards of processing. For instance, the system-level energy e�ciency solution aimed at improving collective energy e�ciency is currently under study for Jurong Island V2.0. It involves the harnessing of cold energy generated by the LNG terminal slated to come on-stream in 2013. By utilising the cold energy for an air separation unit, overall energy requirement is reduced which in turn results in lower operating costs for end-users.8

Endnotes1. Jurong Town Corporation, History of Jurong Island, accessed September 5, 2011, http://www.jtc.gov.sg/

Industries/Chemicals/Pages/Jurong-Island-History.aspx2. Lee, Hsien Loong, (speech at opening of the Shell Eastern Petrochemical Complex, Ritz-Carlton Hotel,

Singapore, May 4, 2010).3. Jurong Town Corporation, History of Jurong Island, accessed September 5, 2011, http://www.jtc.gov.sg/

Industries/Chemicals/Pages/Jurong-Island-History.aspx4. Pulau Ayer Chawan, Pulau Ayer Merbau, Pulau Merlimau, Pulau Pesek, Pulau Pesek Kecil, Pulau Sakra and

Pulau Seraya.5. Jurong Town Corporation, Annual Report 2002 (Singapore: Jurong Town Corporation, 2002).6. Ibid.7. Lee, Hsien Loong, (speech at opening of the Shell Eastern Petrochemical Complex, Ritz-Carlton Hotel,

Singapore, May 4, 2010).8. Lee, Yi Shyan, (speech presented at Inauguration Ceremony of Singapore Oxygen Air Liquide (Soxal),

Chemical Process Technology Centre, Jurong Island, Singapore, June 3, 2011).


Date post:	11-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment · The Singapore Urban Systems...

Documents