Singapore government leads campaign for nature

As a clean and verdant Singapore lulls its citizens into a false sense of security about the environment, the government takes the lead in raising consumer awareness of green issues.

COMPARED to other countries in the region, Singapore has a head start in the race towards "greenness". The country already prides itself on being a tidy, efficient, "clean and green" metropolis — thanks largely to a government that uses self-sponsored media campaigns to shape social behaviour.

Yet some would argue there is a difference between being merely litter-free and fully "green" in a planetary sense. "Singapore must change from being squeaky clean to being squeaky green," noted British environmentalist David Bellamy, who visited the Lion City in conjunction with "Earth Day" ceremonies in April. The government realizes the problem and has lately tried to get the ball rolling in an unequivocally "green" direction. In fact, this is the main difference between the green movement in Singapore and that of other countries.

In most other countries, the green crusade starts from the ground up, by way of grassroots consumer groups that exert pressure on politicians to adopt more environmentally responsible policies and companies to produce more environmentally friendly goods. Singapore’s own green effort, by contrast, has the distinction of being almost entirely government-driven. The changes have been initiated at the top, with the hope they will trickle down to the lowest rungs of consumer society.

"We are a lot more progressive than the rest of Asia, but Singapore’s green movement is far, far behind compared to the West," says journalist Richard Seah, editor and publisher of The Good Life. "Of course, the West generates a lot more waste and pollution than we do. The average Singaporean’s idea of greenness is limited to CFCs and unleaded petrol," he says. "This is not what being green is all about. The government is the main, visible driving force because consumers are not inclined to form lobby groups and stage demonstrations."

Seah says that, on a scale of one to 10, with 10 representing excellence, he would rate Singapore’s overall greenness (concern for the environment, as reflected in active programmes to cut waste, fight pollution and recycle) a four. While that might sound poor, he says most other Asian countries would probably receive a green rating of only two or three.

There is another reason for the lack of consumer lobbying in Singapore. The country is so affluent, clean and comfortable that most citizens do not sense an urgent need to rescue their environment from imminent disaster. "Singapore is a relatively clean and small country to begin with, with only 900,000 households," says vice president and managing director of Burson-Marsteller, Bob Chew.

"There are no apparent problems. Industry has been pretty well regulated, with the heavy industries isolated in [remote sections of the island like] Jurong and Tuas. It’s a question of who’s going to push this? There is no garbage in the street, so consumers are not lobbying."

Unlikely as it may sound, it could be argued that Singapore's founding father and first prime minister (until his retirement last November), Lee Kuan Yew, was a green pioneer of sorts long before the environment became an international cause célèbre. While the average Singaporean might be content, the country’s spic-and-span quality has not lulled the government into ignoring larger environmental issues. Last year saw the launch of the government’s "Clean and Green Week...Green for Life" public-education programme. The event was held last November 4 to 10, and is intended to be an annual event.

The Ministry of the Environment spent S$650,000 (US$365,000) over a one-month period to promote the campaign on television, radio and in newspapers. The account was put out for tender in June 1990, with Ogilvy & Mather Public Relations winning it in August. (It is not yet certain if O&M will handle this year’s "Clean and Green" campaign.) The campaign was a natural outgrowth of Tree Planting Day, an annual event initiated by Lee Kuan Yew in the early l970s. Another early initiative was the government’s clean rivers project (the much needed clean-up of the Singapore River and Kallang Basin), begun in 1977 and completed a decade later.

Clean and Green Week was a daily series of activities and promotions, variously targeted at schools, consumer groups and the business community. Major programmes included tree-planting in housing estates, a "Care for the Environment" exhibition at Marina Square, a "Ride and Walk" programme for the business sector (encouraging participants to leave their cars at home for a day and use public transport to get to work) and "Adopt-a-Beach-and-Park" for children.

To spread the word, O&M came up with print ads, a TV spot, outdoor posters, taxi-top ads and a wide variety of collateral such as a Clean and Green Week colouring book for children (sponsored by Shell and the Ministry of the Environment). About 200,000 copies of the colouring book were printed and distributed to children in primary grades three, four and five. Much of the promotional material featured an official mascot, a cartoon frog named Captain Green. "Part of our strategy was to think long term and come up with a launch programme whose particular identity could be carried on for the next five years," says client service manager at Ogilvy & Mather Public Relations, Edwina Ong.

The campaign’s spokes frog does not go into hibernation between campaigns. He can still be found on posters displayed all around Singapore, including shopping centres and subway stations. "We encouraged companies either to sponsor some programmes we were planning, or to organize their own events," says Ong. O&M was heartened by the level of private-sector support, considering that 1990 was also the year of Singapore’s 25th anniversary celebrations (with ensuing corporate tie-ins and promotions).

"For us it was a great thrill, because a lot of companies already had their funds tied up in anniversary spending," says Ong. "it was very encouraging to receive the level of support from the business community that we did." Among the many companies chipping in with sponsorships or donations were Esso, Fraser & Neave, British Petroleum, DuPont, Mobil Oil, Burger King and Rank Xerox.

Clean and Green Week sprouted around the same time that corporations were awakening to the possibility of environment-related promotions and sponsorships. "The green movement has really taken root in Singapore very fast," says Bob Chew. "Two years ago, there was absolutely no interest. It was such virgin territory in 1989 that if you wanted to go after the environmental category [with a corporate promotion or sponsorship], you could really own the category. Only The Body Shop and Guardian Pharmacy were doing anything in Singapore. Prior to that, campaigns were spotty and intensive, like, ‘We have a problem with the river, so let’s clean it up’."

Chew thinks the initial phase of corporations using the environment as the promotional "flavour of-the-month", has worn off. "It was the flavour-of-the-month a year ago," he says. "Before, you could get involved easily and not be all that committed. But now, you have to be committed and get down to the nitty-gritty aspects of being green." This means companies now realize that greenness begins at home and that in order to trumpet greenness, the companies themselves must take the time and expense to put their houses in order by doing things like using recycled paper, cutting the amounts of air-conditioning, lighting and electricity being used, saving water and encouraging the use of car pools and public transport by employees.

Chew says public relations agencies have a responsibility to guard against insincere or "me-too" corporate promotions or sponsorships. "More clients are coming to us and saying, ‘Hey, the environment is a hot issue, let’s do something’," he says. "You have to be very wary of creating environmental programmes just for the sake of the bandwagon. It devalues [the PR initiative] and will come off as a hollow exercise. If you’re a hazardous chemical company or an oil shipper, you may not want to get involved in a major environmental campaign. It just might not be appropriate. I’m not going out and pushing the environment [to clients], because I think it’s up to the company to suggest that, and it depends on their values." Past or present Burson-Marsteller clients that have undertaken environmental promotions since 1989 include HongkongBank, DuPont, Seagate, General Motors and Alcoa.

Though both the Singapore government and the private sector have taken great strides in spreading the green message, the country still has a long way to go before it meets David Bellamy’s vision of a "squeaky green" place. For instance, Singapore still has no large-scale recycling programmes for beverage cans (which are still tin, not aluminium) or newspapers. Styrofoam containers and non-biodegradable plastic bags are still the order of the day in shops and hawker centres. The country remains a throwaway society even though it tends to throw things into bins rather than onto the pavement.

Ironically, some Singaporeans think that the government’s paternalistic approach, as reflected in campaigns like "Clean and Green Week.. .Green for Life", might be lulling citizens into a false sense of security. "Because the government is doing something, the public thinks nothing more needs to be done," says Richard Seah. "In some ways, it might have a negative effect. Because of all the tree-planting in Singapore, the idea of deforestation is very unreal to Singaporeans. They see trees coming up everywhere, and they don’t see any trees coming down. But the truth is, Singaporeans consume about 7.5 million trees per year. There is no way we can plant back that many. We are very deceived by the comfortable life here."