College of Integrative Studies Cover Sheet for Submission of Assessments This form must be completed and submitted with all assessments. Student’s name: Eliott Tay Zi Yan Student ID: 01436053 Section: G2 Course code and title: COR2202 – Science, Environment & Empire Instructor’s name: Dr Fiona Clare Williamson Assessment title/topic: Mid-term Assignment Date of declaration: 16/10/2023 Essay Timothy P. Barnard is an American writer who has spent the last three decades writing books and journal articles on the environmental and cultural history of Southeast Asia. A Spiteful Campaign is a continuation of his research on the Singapore Botanic Gardens, outlining British influence in the management of the natural environment. More importantly, it delves into the role that Henry Nicholas Ridley, the first director of the Singapore Botanic Gardens, played in the ecological transformation of Singapore and Malaya under British rule. During this period, “rampant deforestation brought about unprecedented ecological effects – including water scarcity” (Chia, 2021). Hence, this begs the question of whether the environmental exploitation of Singapore and Malaya was inevitable or avoidable. This paper argues that while environmental exploitation could have been prevented, pre-existing circumstances of the time made the chances of prevention very slim. At his core, Ridley had an unbridled enthusiasm for botany. In fact, Barnard describes Ridley as “the epitome of a colonial scientist” (Barnard, 2022) and subsequently, the reason for this description is clear. He was the architect of the rubber economy in the Malay Peninsula, having “developed techniques to grow, harvest and process rubber”. This in turn proved to be significant in promoting economic development in the region. In Nature Contained, Barnard (2014) expounds upon Ridley’s dedication to botany as well, as the latter had “launched the first scientific agricultural journal in the Malay Peninsula” after extensive research on the plant species in the region. Prior to being posted to Singapore, Ridley was in Brazil, and he had written a journal article titled Notes on the Botany of Fernando Noronha that documented the flora he discovered in the archipelago. Ridley’s numerous publications reflect his passion for both documenting and sharing his knowledge. Moreover, Ridley was known for his persistence as well. According to Barnard, Ridley recognised the conservative nature of the farmers and their resistance to “the idea of scientific agriculture”. However, he was so convinced of the untapped economic potential of rubber trees that he practiced “filling his jacket pockets with fresh seed when visiting plantation managers”. This suggests that Ridley wanted to be prepared for the time when farmers would finally consider planting rubber trees instead. Ultimately, a combination of disease ravaging the coffee crops, and rubber plantations earning profit made the farmers admit defeat and “approach Ridley for advice”. In a way, his persistence paid off, although it was not a direct result of his own efforts. Ridley could be viewed as being ahead of the times as well, having thought about how to promote sustainable practices in agriculture and botany. Barnard points out that Ridley had “advocated a more ecological approach”, with methods such as “close planting and limited weeding” to be implemented to control soil erosion. Additionally, he had “refined the latex extraction method” (Tinsley, 2009) which enabled latex to be harvested without damaging the rubber trees. This reflects how Ridley was trying to strike a balance between ensuring that British firms profited from agriculture, and sustainable agricultural practices. Having played an essential role in establishing the gardens as the “premier centre of British botanical research in the region” (Kathirithamby-Wells, 2005), it would seem as if Ridley could have single-handedly prevented environmental exploitation. Yet, it could be contended that in the larger scheme of things, Ridley lacked the political power to enforce his ideas. He could only advocate and hope that the colonial authorities would heed his advice. Prior to the rubber boom, the colonial officials had little interest in learning “tedious and time consuming” botany. In fact, Barnard shares that Ridley felt contempt towards these officials and even “openly ridiculed” them. However, once rubber was proven to be a crop with immense economic potential, these officials pounced on the opportunity to circumvent Ridley as he was viewed as a hindrance to economic gains. The desire to do so was so great that colonial officials even considered “approaching the Government of Netherlands India” to take charge of the newly formed Department of Agriculture. This highlights how uninterested the colonial government was in scientific knowledge unless they could exploit it for their own benefit. In fact, the colonial government faced pressure from British firms to create the new Department of Agriculture, as the latter had no trust in Ridley to secure a “primary position … potentially profitable industry” as written by Barnard. Unfortunately for Ridley, his attempt to balance profits with sustainability had backfired on him. As a result, a “spiteful campaign” was launched against Ridley. “Spiteful campaign” can be defined as a concerted effort to cause harm to a particular individual out of malice. In this case, the colonial government progressively undermined Ridley’s authority and power in three ways. First, the independent Departments of Forestry and Agriculture were established by Joseph Swettenham, signalling that the “empire’s economic development [took precedence over] botanical experimentation”. Second, Ridley’s persistence and passion for botany was turned against him as well, earning him the moniker ‘Mad Ridley’ which stopped anyone from taking his criticisms seriously. Third, Barnard states that “credit for the introduction of rubber … Swettenham and Hugh Low”, even though it was Ridley who had laid the groundwork for the rubber economy. Eventually, as Ridley’s power was slowly stripped away, the plantation industry evolved into a “dominant component of the Malayan economy”. At the same time, environmental degradation had accelerated, with the “practice of commercial shifting cultivation caus[ing] substantial deforestation” (Vincent, 2005). Although there is some merit to the argument that the environmental exploitation of Singapore and Malaya could have been prevented, this might just be a product of hindsight bias. Fundamentally, imperialism sees countries extending their power and influence through military, economic and diplomatic means. Imperialism is a demonstration of superiority by the ruler over the ruled. Therefore, the British would have felt that it was their right to exploit the environment for their own gain. Even if Ridley’s authority had not been undermined by the colonial government, it is more likely that history would repeat itself, nonetheless. Word Count: 1000 References Barnard, T. P., & Taylor, N. P. (2014). The Environmental Relevance of the Singapore Botanic Gardens. In Nature contained: Environmental Histories of Singapore (pp. 123–128). essay, NUS Press. Barnard, T. P., & Lee, J. W. (2022). A spiteful campaign: Agriculture, Forests, and administering the environment in Imperial Singapore and Malaya. Environmental History, 27(3), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/719685 Chia, J. L. (2021, April 1). Deforestation in 19th-century Singapore. BiblioAsia. https://biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg/vol-17/issue-1/apr-jun-2021/deforestation/ Kathirithamby-Wells, J. (2005). Forests in the Pioneer Era, 1874-c.1900: Boon or Bane? In Nature and nation: Forests and development in Peninsular Malaysia (pp. 75–76). essay, Singapore Univ. Press. Tinsley, B. (2009). Gardens of perpetual summer: The Singapore Botanic Gardens. National Parks Board, Singapore Botanic Gardens. Vincent, J. R. (2005). Natural Resources and the Environment in the Malaysian Context. In Managing natural wealth: Environment and development in Malaysia (pp. 8–9). essay, Eurospan Ltd.
