The opinion piece by Dr Ho Hua Chew in The Straits Times of 1st May 2013 LINK made some wild allegations that were rebutted in my letter published in the same daily of 8th May
Now that Dr Ho has replied to my rebuttal LINK, I am posting the controversy so that those interested can can read all three accounts.
Dr Ho’s reply highlights the fact that he did not dispute the following:
1. That his definition of forest is flawed.
2. That he has no basis to claim that the removal of our unprotected “forests” will lead to pollution, environmental degradation or increased release of carbon dioxide into the environment.
3. That his call for a nationwide wildlife corridor was made without taking into account the success of the current park connectors.
To quote Alan OwYong, Immediate Past-Chairman of the Nature Society’s Bird Group: “Little knowledge is dangerous” – though made in another context LINK, it applies perfectly to Dr Ho’s original article.
The image below of a section of Bidadari by KC Tsang, cannot, even in one’s wildest imagination, be termed a forest!
Credit: YC Wee (text), KC Tsang (image)