Straits Times Forum 15 Jun 11;
IN HIS letter on Monday ("Bukit Brown: Progress comes first"), Mr Paul Chan cited instances in the past when the Government redeveloped cemeteries along Orchard Road and Bishan. Those were done during different times in Singapore's history when physical and social growth was of utmost importance.
Today, surely as the country matures and grows, our mindsets should change. The redevelopment of Bukit Brown Cemetery will not only close another window to our heritage, it will also change the whole ecosystem of the area.
I live near Bukit Brown Cemetery. I am no bird lover, but the variety of birds that live here is truly amazing.
The road where I live is on much lower ground than that at Dunearn Road, which is about 700m away. Not once have the houses along my street been flooded during heavy downpour in the 18 years I have lived here. This is because my street leads directly to Bukit Brown Cemetery, where the rain water is readily absorbed by the rich undergrowth. I shudder to think of what will happen if redevelopment really does happen.
The preservation of the heritage and ecosystem of this cemetery is of more importance than redevelopment and "progress". Why create artificial green lungs when there is already one so rich on its own? Not everything can be measured in dollars and cents.
Ho Kwai Yuen (Madam)
Why destroy natural habitat when other land available?
Letter from Ronald Chan Today Online 15 Jun 11;
I REFER to the debate over the conservation of Bukit Brown. Let us not take into account the heritage value of Bukit Brown in this discussion. After all, we have bulldozed other national monuments like the old National Library despite their sentimental value.
There is also no operational value in "Bukit" Brown, which reportedly stands at only 1m above sea level.
Neither is it exactly in the Central Catchment Area, being excluded from it by Lornie Road.
The question is, why destroy this green area at the heart of our island when it is not the only place in Singapore left to develop? It is, after all, a pristine, untouched ground since it has been used as a cemetery.
As former Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan noted, the next two areas to be developed are Simpang and Tengah. These two areas have been trampled by National Servicemen and their value as a nature reserve is no longer high.
A huge plot of land also remains available in Punggol West. It is a sparsely populated private housing area and not an untouched natural habitat either.
So as we can see, there is no shortage of land in Singapore for housing. These three plots of land can easily sustain a substantial number of residents, and using these plots would not really compromise Singapore's natural habitats since they have already been interfered with.
Already we are not far off from the projected 6.5 million population. Do we really need that many more flats? Besides, we can make up the numbers with the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme in selected estates.
Why touch a prime natural habitat when there is no urgent need to do so? I urge the authorities to reconsider their plans to develop Bukit Brown. After all, readers have remarked that we need these green lungs in the heart of our island to prevent the flood waters from rising. It remains to be seen, pending further research by the floods panel, whether this is indeed the case.
Walking the tight rope of progress
Straits Times Forum 17 Jun 11;
THE flurry of letters following the Urban Redevelopment Authority's decision to redevelop Bukit Brown Cemetery reflects the multitude of views regarding our heritage and the conundrum of conservation versus construction in land-scarce Singapore.
While it is true that our old buildings and structures are archives of the nation's history and their wanton destruction is sacrilegious, conservation without due regard to costs and well-considered precedents is equally untenable.
Bukit Brown Cemetery is indeed an oasis of calm amid the sprawling suburbia, serving not only as the final resting place of our ancestors including several luminaries, but also as a nature reserve where people can have a reprieve from the stress of the concrete jungle.
Yet, it is little different from the Fort Canning, Forbidden Hill, St Joseph's Church, Ulu Pandan, Bidadari and other cemeteries that were closed and subsequently redeveloped.
Historians may lament their passing as our memories of them evanesce; but beneficiaries of their replacements have concrete evidence to celebrate.
Should Bukit Brown Cemetery be conserved, much enhancement needs to be done. As it stands, it is overgrown and neglected, infrequently visited, of interest to only a few, and lacking in universal appeal.
Tasteful preservation through a memorial, together with beneficial advancement for the living, seems the balanced way to progress.
Dr Yik Keng Yeong
