Mr Speaker,
I speak today on a matter of increasing urgency and public concern: the need to fundamentally rethink how we assess and justify the trade-offs between essential development and the preservation of our existing green spaces. The question is how we move our planning calculus from measuring gross inputs to ensuring net, positive outcomes for our environment and our people.
Context and the scarcity trap as a policy decision
Mr Speaker, Singaporeans broadly understand and accept the real constraints we face: land scarcity, the need for new housing, infrastructure renewal, and climate adaptation. We support the need for development.
But Singaporeans also care deeply about the quality of life—the neighbourhood liveability, the mental well-being afforded by nature, and the preservation of mature landscapes.
The tension we observe on the ground arises not because development and preservation are inherently incompatible, but because, in practice, these two commitments are not weighted equally in our decision-making.
For too long, the default notion used to justify redeveloping green spaces —“we need to develop in land-scarce Singapore”—has been used as a thought-terminating cliché. It is factually correct, but it serves to end deliberation rather than begin it.
This position was clearly articulated by the then Minister for National Development, Mr. Desmond Lee, when addressing similar development trade-offs in his reply to my written Parliamentary Question on the development of Clementi Forest on 4 January 2021:
(and I quote) "After weighing the alternatives and trade-offs, there will be areas that we cannot avoid developing. Nonetheless, for these sites, possible environmental impacts will still be carefully managed, and natural elements will be integrated within developments where possible."(unquote)
While the intent to manage impacts is welcome, my motion questions the starting premise—whether this insistence on development is truly unavoidable, or if our current framework has a structural tilt that forces the conclusion of "no choice" too early in the process, sometimes before assessment can be done for a fully-informed deliberation. Likewise, once a land is zoned B2 industrial, rightly or wrongly, should MND or URA accept that it would always be irreversible, even if there is rich biodiversity from 10 to 25 years or more of forestation, including the existence of vulnerable birds?
Mr Speaker, land scarcity in Singapore is real, but it is not neutral, and it is not value free. It is shaped not only by geography, but by a series of long-standing planning assumptions that I would urge the government to revisit. When green spaces, whether greenfield or brownfield sites, are presented as inevitable sacrifices, we must ask: have we genuinely exhausted all options to better rationalise existing cleared land? Have we truly intensified under-utilized spaces, gone underground, or rethink land-intensive systems before concluding that forests must once again bear the cost? The issue, therefore, is not whether Singapore should develop, but whether our decision frameworks adequately account for what we lose. We must ask whether our structures truly account for the cumulative, long-term, and irreversible losses that are the inevitable consequence of endless densification.
The Serangoon River forest: a case study of policy failure
Mr Speaker, this structural tilt is vividly illustrated by the ongoing works at the Serangoon River Forest—a mature ecological space, unofficially named by some residents—which has been earmarked for a B2 Industrial Estate. Works to develop a bus depot in the middle of the part of the forest between Tampines Road and Buangkok East Drive began a few months ago to the chagrin of my residents living less than 200 metres away, including residents at Kingsford Waterbay condominium.
I have been engaged by these residents, and many others in Hougang, who highlight this area’s role as the last green lung in their vicinity. Their concerns have also been reflected in media coverage.
The most striking policy issue here is the lack of transparency in the process of assessing this site's current value and whether the process can be further enhanced.
It is clear from the response to my Parliamentary Question in November 2025 by the Ministry of National Development that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or baseline biodiversity study was required before the government decided on, and commenced, the bus depot construction.
The justification given for this exemption is that the site is classified as a “brownfield site” comprising primarily “young regrowth scrubland.” This classification appears to rest on the historical use of the surrounding area stretching up to Lorong Halus , which included two kampungs, agricultural, sewage, and landfill activities, before the land naturally reforested over the last 10 to 25 years between Tampines Road and Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1.
Mr Speaker, this is where the structural tilt becomes a structural failure of imagination.
A "brownfield" designation prioritizes the past commercial zoning over the present ecological function. It allows the government to look at a 10 to 25-year-old forest and call it "scrubland" simply because it was historically a developed site.
- Does the mere fact that a site was once developed strip a current, mature forest of its ecological and social worth?
- Does the label "brownfield" give us a permanent exemption from the duty to conduct an EIA or a baseline biodiversity study, regardless of the vegetation's age and density?
If we are committed to re-greening Singapore, we must acknowledge that natural rewilding is a success story, not a planning inconvenience. When we encounter ‘brownfield sites’ where natural rewilding has occurred, could we assess them not solely by what they were or even what they are at this moment, but by what they are demonstrably becoming?
By proceeding without an EIA, we lose the opportunity to gather essential, objective data on: the exact species (including vulnerable birds sighted by residents and groups like the Nature Society of Singapore), the actual maturity and cooling capacity, and the critical ecological connectivity of the site. This absence of data means the decision to clear is made in an information vacuum, relying on decades-old zoning rather than current, verifiable ecological reality. The question is not whether such sites meet a narrow threshold of environmental significance today, but whether they are on a clear ecological trajectory that, if allowed to continue, will support meaningful biodiversity over the next 10, 15, or 20 years.
A second policy question is whether all planning assumptions have been revisited to site the bus depot on existing developments in the area, instead of developing on green space. This is not an issue pertinent to Lorong Halus Bus Depot alone, but for all pending development on green spaces. Are there unpopular, but critical, planning choices we could make to preserve the little greenery we have left? For example, Singapore’s road network occupies about 12% of our total land area today, remaining at the same percentage for the past decade, even though car ownership per household has declined, and is estimated to serve 481,000 households. At the same time, public housing occupies only 8% of land take, per data from a 2019 parliamentary response, yet serves more households, at nearly 80% of the 1.46 million resident households in Singapore. Is there asymmetry in our planning outcomes, where some land-uses consume a disproportionate share of land relative to the households they serve, yet are rarely subjected to scrutiny, with green spaces bearing the cost?
These figures are not cited to argue against roads or transport infrastructure, which are clearly essential. Rather, they illustrate an asymmetry in how land use trade-offs are examined. When housing, transport, or other established systems require land, their footprints are often treated as given. When green spaces are involved, however, the conclusion that they must give way is often treated as the more convenient choice. The policy question I urge the Government to review is: are we prepared to more aggressively review and make difficult decisions for land-hungry systems, either by reducing usage or going underground or above-ground, rather than repeatedly clearing the remaining greenery?
Mr Speaker, there is also a profound intergenerational dimension to this issue that we cannot ignore. When we defer the hard task of rationalising land-hungry systems today, we effectively pass the burden of rationalisation to future generations, while simultaneously depriving them of the very green spaces that could have provided environmental resilience, cooling, and liveability. In other words, future Singaporeans will inherit the same land-intensive systems, but with even less natural capital left to work with.
When we clear a mature green space and replace it with hard, permanent infrastructure, we lock in a particular development pathway, often for decades, sometimes permanently.
Built infrastructure can be more easily and quickly adapted, intensified, or removed as needs change. Green spaces are not like that.
When we clear an established forest or green corridor, the loss is immediate, but recovery is slow. The cooling effect, ecological function, and the biodiversity that took decades to develop cannot simply be reconstructed on demand. Even with replanting, it may take many years for equivalent functional value to return.
The clearing of green spaces should be subjected to a higher justification threshold than land uses that can be undone for as long as alternatives exist - whether through co-location, going underground, intensifying existing sites, or reconfiguring under-utilised land,
As we face rising temperatures, more intense rainfall, and increased urban stress, the ability to re-deploy land for cooling, absorption, or ecological buffering becomes more valuable, not less. Decisions that permanently eliminate these possibilities should therefore be subject to especially careful scrutiny.
A more balanced decision framework would explicitly ask: does this development lock us into a path that cannot easily be undone? If so, is that loss of flexibility justified by truly exceptional public benefit?
The true cost of loss: functional value and irreversibility
Mr Speaker, our current metric of success often stops at gross numbers: "We will plant one million more trees." But this target, while laudable, obscures the net loss when mature greenery is cleared, especially when the decision is not informed by an EIA.
Loss of functional value: cooling and ecology
The Serangoon River Forest is not just a collection of trees; it is a vital part of the climate control system for this part of the north-east.
- Heat Mitigation: Studies show a pronounced Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect in densely built areas. Mature, dense canopies provide the most effective, passive solution to shade and cooling through evapotranspiration.
- By removing this forest, we are imposing an immediate, permanent environmental cost on the surrounding Hougang, Sengkang, Punggol, Tampines and Pasir Ris residents—higher ambient temperatures, reduced shade, and degraded thermal comfort.
- Ecological and Social Value: Ecological science tells us that green spaces function as systems, not isolated plots. Clearing this mature area risks fragmentation of a key corridor. This is the biggest stretch of green spaces on the Eastern half of Singapore, from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1, yet all zoned Industrial B2. Beyond nature, further development would result in residents in Hougang, Sengkang, Punggol and elsewhere in the north-east, losing a space that provides a unique sense of well-being and community life—an intangible asset that no number on a balance sheet can capture. The building of the bus depot is sadly the first step in that direction.
- Water Absorption: A study conducted by NTU in 2021 showed that forested areas provide a critical "sponge effect," intercepting rainfall and regulating runoff. Given the increasing unpredictability of rainfall and the greater incidence of ‘ponding,’ removing this function, especially near a river, is a decision that must be weighed with the utmost care against potential flood risk.
- Finally, exercising along a natural forest offers far greater mental health benefits than walking along a sterile concrete canal. Economic valuation confirms that preserving the Serangoon Forest provides superior welfare for residents using the Park Connector.
The cost of time and interim conditions
Mr Speaker, if the replacement benefit takes decades to materialise, are those years of increased heat, reduced air quality, and degraded surroundings treated as real costs in the project balance sheet?
When we evaluate mitigation, we must factor in time and irreversibility. If a functional loss is permanent, or requires a recovery period of say 5, 10 or 20 years, it must face a substantially higher justification threshold than a minor, reversible inconvenience.
A new framework: net outcomes and functional value
To address this structural tilt and prevent further decisions based on historical zoning instead of current functional value, we need a balanced decision framework that explicitly values what we preserve.
I propose the following elements for a revised planning and assessment framework:
1. Net outcomes over gross inputs: We must measure the net change in unfragmented canopy cover, cooling effect, and ecological function. We must factor in the time-to-replacement when evaluating mitigation, acknowledging the ecological premium of mature, established greenery.
2. Mandatory functional assessment: The "brownfield" classification must no longer provide an automatic exemption from environmental studies. Any vegetated site above a certain maturity or size must undergo a mandatory Functional Assessment, regardless of its zoning history, to determine its current role in heat mitigation, flood absorption, and ecological connectivity and preservation.
3. Functional value and strategic green belts: We must prioritise green spaces by what they do in a regional context. As the government plans the massive new HDB town at the Paya Lebar Airbase site, it must recognise that large parts of the limited existing green spaces within and on the eastern fringe of the airbase will be developed or severely affected by the construction. These airbase green spaces may be smaller or have less ecological merit than the current Serangoon River Forest stretching from Tampines Road to Serangoon East Dam and Coney Island. It would make far greater ecological and planning sense to preserve and utilise this current, well-developed Serangoon River Forest—as an established green belt to mitigate against the heat impact from the future big new town. This is strategically superior to relying on artificially created neighbourhood parks or park connectors at the airbase site.
4. Alternatives-first approach and justification: Agencies must clearly demonstrate that avoidance and minimisation were explored before mitigation is proposed. Specifically, when my residents appealed to LTA or MND for the bus depot site to be shifted to the current heavy vehicle park along Tampines Road, other than mitigation measures, no reason has yet been given for not agreeing to the shift, nor was there any reason given to justify why the bus depot has to be sited in the middle of the forested area between Buangkok East Drive and Tampines Road.
5. Irreversibility and time horizons: Apply a higher justification threshold to any decision that results in an irreversible loss or requires a recovery period.
6. Cumulative and area-level impact: We must evaluate impacts at the neighbourhood or corridor level, not project by project. Multiple compliant decisions, when accumulated over time in a small area, can still lead to a degraded, less liveable environment.
7. Transparency in communication: When trade-offs are made, we must clearly state what is gained and what is lost in plain terms, ensuring that the environmental costs do not disproportionately fall on the immediate neighbours while the benefits are distributed city-wide. These should also be actively communicated to the stakeholders early on, rather than leaving it to consultation exercises.
8. Symmetrical scrutiny of land-intensive systems: We must hold planning decisions across all existing land uses to the same level of scrutiny as green spaces. When development is proposed on vegetated land, we must ask whether existing land-hungry systems have been reviewed, intensified, co-located, or rationalised to avoid further loss of natural capital.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, our success as a mature city depends not just on our ability to overcome physical land scarcity, but on our wisdom in how we manage the scarcity of natural capital.
If we allow the label of “brownfield” to exempt us from doing a basic baseline biodiversity study or an EIA on a mature, self-reforested site, and if we fail to see the strategic value of this established green lung in the face of major future regional development like the Paya Lebar Airbase town, we risk making decisions that are blind to current ecological reality and future climate needs.
I urge the Ministry of National Development and all planning agencies to review their decision frameworks to ensure that our decisions are based on net outcomes, functional value, and long-term resilience. What we choose to preserve today is what will define Singapore's liveability tomorrow.
Finally, I plead with the government to fully consider the interests of the residents living near the Serangoon River Forest: please review and consider relocating the bus depot to the heavy vehicle park at Tampines Road. And please consider retaining as much as possible of this vital green lung of the North-East, which is home to one of the largest collection of birds, including conservation status birds, in Singapore, stretching from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1, for the benefit of all our residents living in the North-East and all Singaporeans.
Thank you.
