The Backyard Environmentalists of Petaling Jaya

It’s fantastic how residents associations have stood up in 2008 to make known their grouses, especially about the poor performance of the Klang Valley’s various municipal authorities. Banding together into one of many Joint Action Committees, Petaling Jaya ("PJ") and Kuala Lumpur ("KL") citizens in particular have conducted public demonstrations, filed suits and led the way in exploiting the media and local press to further their causes, ranging from complaints about out of control advertising billboards, poor sanitation and traffic woes to broader issues such as environmental protection. It goes to prove that the best way to get asses off couches is to bring the cause into our backyards.

The ongoing saga of Bukit Gasing in Kuala Lumpur is a classic example of the power of NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) activism. Back in 2006, residents living in the foothills of what used to be colonial rubber estates, got wind that development was being contemplated by owners of undeveloped portions of the area, which these residents have been enjoying as a green backdrop for several years.

For those who aren’t aware of the situation, a group of PJ residents living in the foothills of Gasing Hill conducted an effective campaign in 20006/2007 to mislead members of a very gullible Malaysian press corps into believing that a forest reserve was about to be developed by unscrupulous developers in cahoots with corrupt city officials. By recasting their neighbour as a mysterious agent of politicos bent on the destruction of forests, these residents managed to garner a huge swell of public support, with its calls for demonstrations drawing participants even from other towns.

It subsequently surfaced that the so-called forest reserve was actually overgrown residential lots with corresponding titles dating back to the 1970’s, before anyone came to live in the area. In effect, these residents were trying to deprive their neighbours of their right to build after they the present residents had themselves happily bought homes in the “forest reserve”. It’s a pity that the same amount of energy isn’t being applied to the true destruction of rainforests in rural Peninsular Malaysia: simple math would suggest that saving thousands of acres of virgin jungle will do the world a lot more good than defending 38 acres of a dilapidated rubber estate in the city. But therein lies the rub: those thousands of acres aren’t in the backyards of these activists.

Hypocrisy at the Zoo

The Singapore Zoo recently unveiled a new show “The Rainforest Fights Back”, in which a fat and gaudily bejewelled man claiming to be a land developer attempts to “cut up” precious tracts of rainforest to be developed into a hotel, resort and various other projects. In proceeding to the targeted site deep in the forest, he gets lost but is able to hoodwink an innocent native girl to guide him in excahnge for a bag of candies. She is of course dismayed when his intentions to transform her forest become known but luckily, the animals of the forest get into the act, and repel him by throwing nuts at him.

Perhaps the Zoo ought to have consulted with Capitaland, presently the largest developer in South East Asia, (and a major sponsor) of the Zoo when the show was being planned. Had they done so, they would have more accurately portrayed the villainous developer as a highly educated, expensively bespoked graduate of NUS with connections to the Singapore government instead of the uncouth bumbling red-neck portrayed on stage. I don’t think any self respecting developer would be caught dead either dressed like or behaving like that actor.

On a general level, it’s been perpetually interesting to observe how conservationists generally come from highly developed nations which have already chopped down their own forests. Statistically, more forests are actually cut down for farmland, timber, dams and subterraneous natural resources rather than for development. However, it probably wouldn’t resonate as well with a gullible audience to be presented with the notion that forests are being cut down so that they can get hamburgers from their fast food outlets, furniture for their apartments, and fuel for the powerplants generating electricity for their TV’s and computers. Nor would it be politically correct to suggest that the natives are themselves burning rainforests in order to create farmland, build new villages and in general eke out a better life for themselves. It is indeed more convenient to appeal to this affluent audience’s sense of righteous indignation by portraying that forests are being destroyed for luxurious holiday destinations which would be beyond even their ability to pay for.

The test of true concern which citizens of developed nations have time and again failed at is found in their unwillingness to provide sustained support for those whose lot in this world is pathetic. We’re ok when it comes to occasionally giving a donation, but we balk at the notion of providing regularly to undeveloped nations. And don’t even think about asking us to drive around less, or not switch on our air-conditioners so often, or eat less beef, or shop less at our malls.

Incidentally, the Singapore Zoo is great. Everyone with the opportunity should pay it a visit.