Showing posts with label RWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RWS. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Meeting with Resorts World


A continuation of my engagement encounters with Resorts World.

Yesterday, a group of people who were interested in developments at Resorts World was invited for a closed-door meeting at RWS headquarters on Sentosa. Naturally, the first thing I had to do was make sure that I could at the very least blog the above statement.

In the event that I would make any further faux pas, I checked with Krist Boo (Vice-President, Head of Communications, Resorts World at Sentosa) who called the meeting, if I could at the very least mention that such a meeting occurred. Alas she paused for a while but monkey eventually got the green light to let it be known that this meeting took place. I hope that writing this doesn't get anybody in trouble! *fingers crossed*

To quote Krist at the beginning of the meeting, "We believe in doing what is right" and "we are committed to engage you". And that's why were all sitting there at 10am on a Saturday morning (18 Apr 2009).

At the end of the meeting, we were also asked to actively engage RWS instead of waiting for them to engage us. Moral of the story is, don't hesitate, start emailing RWS if you have questions and don't wait till information falls on your lap.

I truly hope to believe that RWS is really sincere in engaging stakeholders and are trying to do so, to the best of their limited abilities. So kudos for trying. I want to believe it when they say that they have to do it first in order to prove to us that they are doing it right. Hopefully it would not be too late by the time things are cast in stone.

Again, I must say that my intentions of blogging this is purely, and somewhat optimistically or naively, to share the fact that RWS is doing some form of engagement. In the field of environmental management and in my personal opinion, engagement is an important and wonderful thing. I like sharing wonderful things with my readers.

I can only hope that this is the beginning of more engagement and collaboration with Resorts World and other corporate entities in the future. If so, that would be a good progressive step in Singapore's business environment and civil society.

Why is engagement a wonderful thing?
Here's a document by The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management that explains briefly why "public, private and voluntary organisations preparing policies, plans, programmes, and projects relating to the environment should develop and implement policies for stakeholder engagement". [Read the document here]

Previous posts on Resorts World:
I signed the No Whaleshark petition, have you?, 12 Mar 2009
A chat with Resorts World, 2 Apr 2008
EIA of Sentosa Integrated Resort, 30 Jan 2008


Read full article here

Thursday, March 12, 2009

I signed the No Whaleshark petition, have you?

Today I signed a "no whaleshark in Singapore" petition that is supported by many major organizations locally and internationally such as PETA, Sea Shepherds, ACRES, Cicada Tree Eco-Place and the Green Volunteers.

The good thing about this petition is that once I put my name down to the form, it will email the pre-written letter (which you can also edit to customize) to the 1) Minister of National Development, 2) the Singapore Tourism Board and 3) Resorts World at Sentosa.

Shortly after I click sign, I got an automated reply from Resorts World with the following:

Corporate Social Responsibility "csr@rwsentosa.com" to "leafmonkey@gmail.com" 5:23pm

Thank you for taking the time to write to us.

We will be compiling your comments and addressing the points raised. Do visit our website (www.rwsentosa.com) for updates.

We look forward to welcoming you at the Marine Life Park.

The Marine Life Park Team
All I can say is, I will not be visiting the Marine Life Park.

And that is precisely why I signed the petition isn't it? How could they be asking me to visit the marine life park? I will not use my consumer dollars to support the captivity of large marine mammals. It's interesting that the whaleshark petition website quotes Jacques Cousteau. When I was in US, I was the news intern for Jacques' son, Jean Michael Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society who actually led the campaign to free the star of Free Willy, Keiko. Since then, I have never visited a single "marine life park" or "sea world".


Whale flute sighted in the wild. Photo taken in 2005.

Definitely not after I had the pleasure of going on a whale kayaking trip and seeing these large animals free in the wild. A whale shark is not a whale but there is no difference. Besides, first a whale shark, next a whale? No animal of that size should be kept in a tank. No fish tank would ever be big enough to replace the ocean. This is not a gold fish we can flush down the toilet bowl after it dies. Are we willing to take responsibility for that?

Have you signed the petition yet?


Read full article here

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

A chat with Resorts World

Last Friday, 28 March 2008, this monkey was invited to Resorts World for tea by Lynn Lee, the communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR) manager at Resorts World. Lynn emailed me about 2 weeks before that, saying that she's seen my previous post on the EIA of Resorts World, liked what I wrote, saying it's a balanced view and would like to invite me to tea. Unsure what she was really asking of me, I decided to go anyways.



To cut the long story short, when I arrived, Lynn greeted me together with Robin Goh, the Assistant Director of Communications. First they showed me the model of Resorts World and I felt like I've wasted $10 just to get to Resorts World (RW) only to hear a PR introduction to the "awesome" features of the integrated resort. Nonetheless, it was good to find out what is at RW.


Phase 1: Universal Studios

What you see in the above image is the future Universal Studio. This is the first phase of development and will also be the first to open. The road that used to run across this area has been rediverted. Previously the mention of transplanted trees were mainly from this road diversion and this area of development. They were moved to a nursery on Sentosa and will be replanted. Sounds more symbolic than anything else.

Logically, knowing our highly effective country, I am sure that there would be a tireless team in charge of ensuring that tax payers money are well spent; making sure that we get what we paid for. I'm sure when you order a big mac, you expect a big mac. If you get a hamburger, you would feel cheated. As such, I think this would mean to me that the chances of whale sharks and oceanarium making their way to Singapore is highly probable.


Phase 2

Nonetheless this is the second phase of development and according to Lynn and Robin, they are currently working with Louis Ng of ACRES to discuss various animal welfare and animal rights issue. I did not know enough to get any point across surely but I trust that Louis will do his best. One thing this monkey does know is that, I have hated Sea World after visiting it once when I was 13, seeing a killer whale stuck in a bathtub, I would never visit that oceanarium even if I know I'll never get to see a whale shark any other way. All I know is that whale sharks are nomadic and far-ranging as they follow plankton blooms over large areas of the eastern Indian Ocean.

What I did complain about, albeit redundant since it's already been reclaimed, is the fact that they reclaimed the coastline at the Phase 2 site, only to then dig it up to make into waterways for the Maritime Xperiential Museum and Oceanarium. What they did offer in consolation is that they will be giving lots of money away to support research in coral reefs. Considering that we only have 1 marine lab in Singapore, the chances of the money going to non-Singaporeans are oh-so-high.



However, optimistic monkey, having observed this phenomenon many times in Singapore's reclamation history, suggested that perhaps there is a chance that the reclamation may miss a few spots of corals in its reclamation. I see this as extremely improbable but the area right beneath the cable car tower has historically been left untouched. In fact, it used to be an islet, can you imagine? It has been joint to the main island of Sentosa over countless reclamation and yet there are corals there. A concern is that the area there is too steep for public walks. Nonetheless, I suggested to RW that marine groups in Singapore be allowed access to recce the area once the reclamation has been completed. That way we will be able to document and assess if walks are possible. If such, I suggested to Lynn and Robin's excitement that we can conduct free guided walks. Of course, all this is pending RW management approval. Access to various places in RW such as the promenade is free you see so people will then be given access as a collaborative move on RW's part.


Phase 3: on the right of the cable car tower

The cable car tower acts as the dividing line for Phase 3 of the development. This is the area closest to Joe Lai's heart as this is the development near the forest. Unfortunately, reclamation just started here and I could not emphasize to Robin and Lynn more about how if it's only a "small patch that will be reclaimed" as they claimed, then they better make sure they go out of their way to make sure most of the corals don't get crushed by the barge coming in and out, etc. They claim that they are now making all their contractors adhere to certain stipulations of environmentality and they apparently have a department to enforce. Ok, still, what is the guideline for environmentality is another thing altogether.


Sentosa is one of the last few rocky shores we have

But if they want to make it into a white sand beach which Sentosa is really a rocky shore habitat, then good bye corals. We'll see you in the next world. However, they claim that since this is Phase 3, there is still time for negotiation and renegotiation before work actually has to start. It would appear that this is still a grey zone.



Nonetheless, this monkey suggested that if the water slide in the forest still goes through, then at least allow the nature path to go right beneath these slides. Let me explain. There is a nature path that allows you access to these forest. You can find the entrance near Siloso Beach, beside Underwater World. However, at the moment, the path has been blocked at the point where Resorts World begins. Thus I suggested to Robin and Lynn that the path should not be blocked once the development completes so that it's an "open concept" and there is still free public access to the forest. And if we want to see (mostly) naked people swinging around down the water slide, that's what we got to "suffer" to enjoy the trees.


Phase 3: can you see the slides in the back sticking out of the trees?

Robin claims that the design of the water slide was originally meant to take out as little trees as possible anyways. I think they should contact Joe Lai to make sure each tree that's being "taken out" passes Joe's mark of standard. Ok, even I find that thought rather unimaginable. [I'm sorry I dare even let that thought crossed my mind, Joe!]

I do find it rather hard to believe when they said other than the water slide, all the other development, hotel and spa is taking place where the land was previously already developed. I had this feeling that the spa is cutting into the forest but then I don't have proof. Still, if you see the giant hole that is the RW now, we can only hope that they speak the truth. This kind of clear-everything-then-plant-back-later type of development, in academia, we called it the "scorched earth policy". Speaks for itself.



Meanwhile, RW strives to be uber green in their development even working at various "green" innovations. Whatever it is, my stand is that since the development is going to happen anyways, we have to stop wishing it'll go away miraculously. I prefer to make sure that it can only be as "green" as possible. Green not only in how much water or electricity it use but in its content and function. How it eats into the environment. Whether it allows people to access the forests and shores. Although all hope looks bleak, I remain somewhat optimistic. I like to give all a benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Or am I just too naive?

RW claims that they intend to have panels where they will consult stakeholders for their views and I can only hope that comes true. I will probably try my best to attend since it'll only serve me to know what they are planning and try my best to think of ways which will benefit both the natural environment and the development. That's what sustainable development actually means unfortunately. Development is still in the equation. Depressing as that is, we can't run away from that living in a small city state like ours. Am I too fatalistic or should I be more radical?

Update @ 4.36pm 2 April:
I got a call and decided to edit a small bit of my post and deleted my comments even though my comments were positive. *shrugs* Either way, I don't want to cause anybody to lose their jobs.

While I don't want anybody to lose their jobs, I believe in transparency. What I absolutely cannot understand is WHY I cannot even make positive statements about certain elements. This only tells me that the company is yet to be willing to adhere to those statements.

At the same time, understand my positionality. What about my "job"? Assuming I would even write a nice supportive post detailing only the positive things RW is doing, I would lose all the trust and respect from everybody in the community. In adherance to transparency, I write a critical piece. But if that results in me never being engaged or contacted ever again then, I guess, that's just too bad. If a positive reporting of efforts are needed, write a press release. If you would like a dog, please go to the pet shop. Can't blame me for being upset, can you? [Related Reads: It's not easy being green]


Read full article here