During my Adjournment Motion in January, I spoke about the urgent need to rethink our approach to green preservation. In response, the Minister of State characterized the Serangoon River Forest site as a former landfill with regenerated vegetation and comprising of ( I quote) "young, exotic-dominated secondary forest, scrubland, grassland and ponds" (unquote).
I have since received feedback from a resident, Ms Han Sai Por, who articulated a point at the heart of this policy gap. She said that the disagreement is not about the intent to be sustainable—it is about the valuation of our land.
The Problem with Static Planning.
Our current planning system is heavily anchored in the past. If a site was a landfill in 1998 or zoned as a "Reserve Site" decades ago, that historical classification seems to override the biological reality of 2026. Yet, over the last 25 years, nature has reclaimed these spaces. These secondary forests, while not "primary," now provide frontline climate resilience: river-bank stabilization, runoff filtration, and significant urban cooling for dense neighbourhoods.
The Case for Dynamic Planning.
We must move away from a purely species-centric lens that dismisses "young" forests. To a resident worried about the urban heat island effect, the cooling services are not "lesser" because the trees are non-native.
Some countries are starting to put the revitalization of brownfield sites as a Nature Based Solution (NBS) strategy high on their policy agenda. Is it time we start doing the same? Does our current planning framework sufficiently value these regenerated ecosystems? How is the "ecosystem service value"—such as flood regulation and heat mitigation—quantified when deciding whether to clear a site?
Firm Commitments on Transparency and Assessment
The determination of "ecological sensitivity" remains opaque. Currently, the public often only sees the results of an EIA once a project is decided. We rarely see the "screening" process that concludes an EIA is unnecessary. However, even back in 1990, Prof Tommy Koh, had, in the foreword for the Nature Society of Singapore’s Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore, expressed hope that ( I quote) “all development projects in Singapore will require an environmental impact assessment” (unquote).
I call on MND to consolidate its assessment framework into two mandatory commitments:
- Integrated Baseline & Functional Assessments: Will the Ministry commit to conducting baseline studies for all forested plots—regardless of zoning—that evaluate both biodiversity and functional climate roles (including heat mitigation and flood absorption) before any development decision is finalized?
- Institutionalizing EIA Transparency: Will the Ministry mandate an EIA and include clearer thresholds for duration of fallow status and site size? For a start, studies have shown that a brownfield site can become ecologically important within 5-10 years, and become significant mature ecosystems after another 10 years. Even small sites between 0.1-0.5 hectares can become ecologically meaningful in the same time period, depending on their function and location. Crucially, if the government decides that an EIA is not needed, can the Ministry publish the assessment and scientific rationale?
In conclusion, the "Avoid, Minimize, Mitigate" hierarchy is a cornerstone of environmental policy. Yet, too often, we jump straight to "Mitigate"—e.g. using noise barriers or phased clearing—while "Avoid" is treated as a foregone conclusion. A case in point is the current bus depot construction at the Serangoon River Forest. We must exhaustively evaluate alternatives, such as multi-storey industrial depots at existing transport nodes, before touching our remaining green buffers.
