The Real Reason For Indonesia's Sand Ban

Source: The Sunday Times

Link to article: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/167862.asp

By Sharon Vasoo

TODAY

Summary:
The article is about the implementation of the sand ban by Indonesia, the various reasons for the ban as well as a look at how it would affect Singapore and what Singapore would do to overcome it.

Comments:
On the 22nd of January, Indonesia made the decision of banning sand exports to all countries including that of Singapore.

The Trade Minister emphasized that the rational behind the ban was “resource conservation”. Sand mining activities erode the coastline, uprooting trees along the shore which end up in the seabed. This has decreased the supply of fish in the area which in turn affects the livelihood of the many fishermen whose trade is the rice bowl that feeds their family.

I feel that if Singapore is indeed harming the environment and the livelihood of the people of another country, she should either avoid it at all costs or find less damaging alternatives.

I thought: ‘This is new; Indonesia is finally taking steps towards protecting her natural environment and her people and should be applauded for it.’

If I were the son of a typical Indonesian fisherman and had to go to bed hungry as my dad did not bring home enough catch to sell, I would have cursed Singapore for bringing my family such misery.

I later felt however, that the supposed rational behind the ban made no sense. The sand ban would result in the closure of the sand mining industry which meant the retrenchment of its 3000 workers. Indonesia, with an unemployment rate of 11.8% certainly would not want more jobless people begging on the streets.

Indeed, the issue further unravelled itself during the course of a few weeks. The imported sand came from inland areas. This meant that Singapore had done its part in reducing the detrimental effects to the environment resulting from sand mining. Also contrary to previous claims, land reclamation projects by Singapore had not affected Indonesia’s borders.

The ban was enforced so as to put pressure on Singapore to resolve bilateral issues between the two countries. Indonesian wanted to ‘get tough’ with Singapore.

In my opinion, this is not the way to treat Singapore, especially since Singapore has been very supportive of the formation of a Special Economic Zone in Riau. Besides, she has constantly helped Indonesia in times of crises. The ban, as The Business Times chided was ‘A small act by a big nation’. Nevertheless, Singapore will continue to help Indonesia.

It has however given Singapore a wake up call that it has to strive towards self sufficiency. And as the saying goes, ‘No one owes Singapore a living’. I hope that like what we did when we came up with NEWATER, we can with sand.

However, the views I have expressed here could be tainted with biasness since I am a Singaporean and thus am naturally inclined towards the viewpoint taken up by the Singapore government. Also what I have commented on was that of politicking at the surface. I do not know and will never know what happens beneath and who to believe in since claims by the two governments contradict one another and thus may not be able to make an accurate judgement on this incident.

(497 words) – Excluding the summary