commentanalysis

8

While the cloudover the euro

zone may be the largestto burst, it is not theonly one threateningthe global economy.NOURIEL ROUBINI • 12

tOday • tUEsday 19 JUNE 2012

Is NIMBY flak an excuse not to engage?

The “Not In My Backyard” syn-drome, or NIMBYism, has been very much in the news recently.

It has been singled out as the rea-son for the strong opposition to plansfor a variety of facilities and ameni-ties such as a nursing home (BishanStreet 13), a rehabilitation centre (Ja-lan Batu), an eldercare centre (Wood-lands Street 83) and studio apart-ments for the elderly (Toh Yi Drive).

Are these “oppositionists” merelymindless NIMBY enclaves demon-strating reflexive opposition? Or isattributing such resistance to NIM-BYism too simplistic, and an easy wayout to dismiss such opposition?

Ordinary citizens should have a sayin what happens in their community,for several reasons.

It contributes to active citizenshipand a stronger sense of ownershipof one’s environment; town Councils

tHE NOt-IN-My-BaCKyaRd dEBatE

Eugene K BTan is AssistantProfessor of Lawat the SingaporeManagementUniversity anda NominatedMember of Parliament.Patrick H M Lohis Adjunct Professorof Strategy andOrganisationat SMU andvice-chairmanof The Citizens’ConsultativeCommittee inMountbattenConstituency,where Jalan Batuis located.

were created in 1988 for that explicitpurpose of getting residents involvedin their own communities.

And while bureaucrats may knowwhat is needed at a national level , theymay lack the ground knowledge of how best to implement national-level initia-tives at the precinct level.

CONTESTATION THE NEW NORM

In all four recent events, we see a well-coordinated eort by an apparent vo-cal minority to challenge and resistthe location and construction of theamenities.

In the Jalan Batu case, this hasmotivated another group (often de-scribed as the “silent majority”) towelcome the proposed rehabilitationcentre. We should not be surprised bythis robust debate in which dierentgroups contest each other based ontheir competing, and sometimes con-icting, needs.

Indeed, this contestation will prob-ably be the norm going forward. Thismeans that there is an urgent need todevelop the rules of engagement lest

and their enjoyment of the neighbour-hood.

Often, their fears are fuelled bymisperception and a lack of under-standing of the proposed amenities orhow they would t into the community.

Then, there are the usual stere-otypes and mischievous falsehoodsperpetuated about such amenities.For instance, we hear of how peoplemistakenly associate nursing homeswith hospices.

Neighbourhood communities alsotend to prefer the status quo and beover-protective of their self-interests.But in this process, people may fail toconsider the adverse consequences of their opposition, and end up limitingthe possibilities for adaptive change tomeet the community’s evolving needs.

CONTNUE ON PAE 10

these differences of views result indivisiveness and confrontation. Re-spect, civility and lawfulness will benecessary.

But, it would seem, the dialoguesessions organised to discuss the rel-evant issues were characterised insome media reports as one group try-ing to railroad the other group.

While we cannot expect a totalmeeting of the minds — especiallywhen participants have diametrical-ly opposite start- and end-points — itwould be a pity if participants and or-ganisers alike proceeded with closedminds. Then a valuable platform to better understand and address theissues, concerns and fears would belost — and deeper misgivings of theother party fostered instead.

FALSE FEARS AND STATUS QUO

To be sure, some NIMBYists were vo-cal and strident, making their pres-ence felt at the dialogue sessions.

These residents are selshly con-cerned with how such amenities might be detrimental to their property value

While bureaucratsmay know what isneeded at a national

level, they may lack theground knowledge of how bestto implement national-levelinitiatives at the precinct level.

EUENE K B TANAN PATCK

H M LOH