MAJU FOR THE PEOPLE

An event organised by SG Climate Rally for concerned citizens to gather and demonstrate their support for the preservation of Maju forest, Gillman forest, East Coast, and other nature areas in Singapore facing planned deforestation and otherwise destructive development.

We will discuss the impacts and costs of such developments on wildlife and people alike; call for more timely, transparent and robust public feedback procedures around development plans; and reimagine Singapore's relationship with our forests.

Our Demands

1. Protect our nature areas

— protect nature, biodiversity and ecosystems for us and future generations

• Safeguard our important nature spaces permanently::

• We demand that current nature parks are safeguarded permanently and not treated as land banks for development. Many of these are zoned as residential/reserve sites, including Thomson, Windsor, Dairy Farm and Rifle Range Nature Parks.
• We demand that all biodiversity important nature areas identified in the Our Wild Spaces 2.0 report are safeguarded permanently as nature parks: Tagore-Springleaf, Ulu Sembawang, Clementi-Maju, Alexandra Woodlands, Toh Tuck Forest, Adam Drive Forest, Bukit Brown Cemetery, Serangoon River Forest, Loyang Mangroves, Bahar Forest. These only make up less than 2% of Singapore’s land area.
• Safeguard Gillman forest and barracks, as a place demonstratedly important for residents, users, biodiversity, and heritage, or develop in a way that preserves the existing forest, community, and heritage areas.

• Nature is a foundation of our health and wellbeing:. Our nature areas are important places for recreation, health, cultural significance, education and learning, besides providing ecosystem services like heat and flood mitigation (see article by NUS Prof. Rachel Oh)
• No destroying forests and nature without robust justifications:

• We must pause developments in Maju, Gillman and East Coast until the government can give more robust arguments to justify the need for such projects. These arguments should also explain any other arbitrary targets or policies that are expected to motivate the projects, such as GDP projection.
• At East Coast, no further development or preparatory works should continue until there is a comprehensive understanding of impacts, including human impacts, robust and complete biodiversity baseline studies, and environmental impact assessments. The Ichthyological Society of Singapore has demonstrated how the current EIA has lacked rigour and grossly misunderstood fish biodiversity, missed key ecological areas, neglected stakeholder consultations, and arrived at erroneous conclusions.

• Stop deforestation and honour the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use signed by Minister Desmond Lee in 2021, in letter and spirit

2. Let the people decide

— we want transparency, accountability and public participation

• Make EIAs a legal requirement as part of the development process. This should include:

• Conducting EIAs and engaging the public before plans are made, so that the decision to not develop is also a possible outcome: The current EIA system comes after the land is already planned for development, and cannot be averted in the government's eyes. No EIA has resulted in more than a partial retention of existing forests — even in the Dover case, the development was postponed rather than cancelled.
• Conducting EIAs more holistically and including human and social impacts: Currently sites are assessed individually. We ask for evaluating sites on a national level so that ecological connectivity across Singapore and the region can be considered. The human and social impacts of losing forests that will be felt by residents should be assessed as well.
• Transparency and participation for the public: The current EIA process treats public feedback like a box to check rather than genuine civic participation. Residents responding to Maju and Gillman forest plans describe a resignation — showing the public no longer has trust that their voice has a meaningful stake in the process. In order to increase inclusive, genuine participation and greater accountability from the state, we ask that agencies commit to the following for all public engagements:

• engaging nature groups AND the wider public (not just residents) much earlier in the process before plans are made, in open door town halls, rather than closed door processes and impersonal forms
• increasing the length of public feedback windows and overall accessibility of EIAs, whose academic jargon and length is not accessible to many. Development agencies should be making active engagement and outreach efforts to residents and all affected people to explain the potential development, its impacts, and then seek informed feedback.
• publish the numbers of what drives these development decisions, for housing developments include how future housing need is estimated, current housing supply, potential supply met through proposed developments, etc.
• including explanations for considerations for alternative sites (GCBs, brownfield sites, golf courses, redevelopment of existing urban spaces, etc) and why they are not suitable
• publishing all EIA responses received, along with summaries and how the feedback received is factored into further decisions about the site and development (reference NCCS LEDS example).

3. Redefine progress for all

— put fairness and our wellbeing over economic growth

• Value real benefits of nature, not artificial GDP growth and property investments: To the government, a forest has no value, while clearing it for housing "unlocks" millions of dollars of GDP. This drives people to real estate speculation, leading to continued expectations of increased housing demand and higher rents and costs of living that are ultimately detrimental to society. But if we think of the many ways forests support our physical, mental and social wellbeing, they should be valued much more highly, while housing should be priced more affordably to discourage speculation.
• Fair distribution of resources, not profits for a few: Our forests are shared public goods, while the lush landscapes of "heritage" black-and-white bungalows are only enjoyed by a few. If land is scarce, we should keep the areas that benefit the most people, and forests are at the top of the list given how little we have left.
• Fairness should extend to our neighbours too: Other than disturbing marine wildlife, the reclamation of Long Island requires huge amounts of sand that has historically been mined and traded illegally and destroyed ecosystems and livelihoods. A 2021 study showed that Singapore’s per capita deforestation footprint is higher than many other countries like the US, UK and China, and almost all of it is non-domestic. Protecting our forests should not mean reclaiming more land to make up the shortfall, or outsourcing deforestation outside our borders.

For more info, refer to the All EIA Resource Guide, and Gillman and Maju campaign websites

Important Facts and References

All EIA Resource Guide

Gillman and Maju campaign websites

Maju Forest & Gilman Baracks Forest Clearing, Long Island Reclamation - A Collective Response

Talking points adapted from Save Maju Forest: Action Guide

1) Singapore has already lost most of its green spaces and biodiversity.

• Singapore has lost over 99% of its primary forest (meaning over 99% of the land cover in Singapore has been impacted by human activity). The loss of habitats drove rapid extinctions, with researchers estimating at least 50% of butterflies, nearly 90% of birds, 35% of plants, and 60% of large mammals going extinct in the last 200 years.

2) Singapore’s forests are scarce and dwindling. The remaining secondary forests play critical roles in conservation and climate mitigation.

• Although Singapore boasts 7800 hectares of green space and URA has reserved another 1000 hectares, forests only make up 16% of Singapore’s current land cover. A good portion of the rest are parks and managed greenery, not forests.
• Our secondary forests are dwindling and under threat: From 2001 to 2025, Singapore has lost over 3,000 ha of tree cover, equivalent to a 16% decrease in tree cover since 2000, and 1.4 Mt of CO₂e emissions. Based on recent URA masterplans, Singapore might lose more than half of its secondary forests to development.
• According to NParks data, total forested area dropped from 26% of Singapore's total land in 2006 (~18,170 ha) to 20% in 2024 (~14,700 ha). (Singstat)
• The planting of one million trees (primarily around roadsides) and continued creation of parks does not make up for forests that have taken decades to develop into rich ecosystems and habitats.
• Our remaining biodiversity relies heavily on secondary forest patches to survive. According to a recent NUS study, the slowdown in extinction rates can largely be credited to the existence of secondary forests in Singapore, which serve as refugia for endangered species. As these patches get smaller and farther from each other, the rate of extinction will only accelerate.
• Furthermore, forests have scientifically shown to cool urban environments, mitigating rising heat under the Urban Heat Island effect and climate change. This is particularly significant given Singapore is warming 2x faster than the global average. 2026 has been decided as the Year of Climate Adaptation—why is the government planning to deforest forests and replace them with concrete? Site-specific studies at Maju and Gillman Forests have not been conducted on how deforestation will affect local urban microclimates. Given how the elderly are more vulnerable to heat, and Singapore’s ageing population, the lack of study on deforestation’s urban heating effects is concerning.
• Forests also play critical ecosystem services such as flood mitigation, water filtration, and prevention of soil erosion. The past few weeks, we have heard feedback about the intangible benefits of forests—the mental and physical wellness, cultural and personal identities, sense of belonging—which forests facilitate. In the second-most overworked city in the world, forests offer Singapore’s residents a way to lower stress and decrease the risk of depression and other mental health concerns.

(Reference Lepak and SVYB's Our Wild Spaces 2.0 report)

Tagore Forest (109 ha, bottom orange) is zoned residential while Thomson Nature Park (52 ha, bottom left purple) is zoned reserve site

3) We need a more scientifically informed EIA policy

The EIAs for both Maju and Gillman Forests have clearly shown the extent of potential negative environmental impact. However, there is no EIA law to show that negative environmental impact has to be considered by the government. Neither is the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) audited by an independent party once construction has begun.

4) There are neither human nor climate studies done on both sites

assessing human-environmental social connections with the forest, present ecosystem services provided by the forest, its contributions to physical and mental wellbeing, and the amount of carbon storage potentially lost to deforestation. While the former Jurong Railway Line at Maju Forest has been lauded for its “railway heritage,” why hasn’t there been any Heritage Impact Assessments done in Sunset Way?

5) Master Plans are not cast in stone

• The government has stated that development will continue, mainly because Maju and Gillman forests have been zoned for residential use. However, rezoning, such as through gazette amendments, outside of Master Plan review periods often occur for developmental needs.
• If Singapore prides itself for flexible planning and governance, can the same flexibility be applied for nature conservation?  
• Master plans have also changed multiple times in the past, such as in Sungei Buloh (designated to be agrotechnological prawn farm) or Chek Jawa (designated for land reclamation for military training). If Singapore’s priorities have changed in the past for conservation, why not now?
• Landed properties take up a total of 3130 ha for 69,000 housing units, or roughly the combined area of Bedok, Tampines and Punggol towns which have 212,000 housing units (Master Plan 2025, HDB)

6) Transparency and accountability matters.

Throughout the HDB’s EIA feedback window, Singaporeans have been appealing for more transparent information and meaningful public participation. This has not been the case. It is unclear why the EIA feedback window is uniformly four weeks across all projects of varying environmental scales and complexity.

• Will MND provide a full list of brownfield sites that have been considered and justifications as to why they cannot be used?
• What are housing and demographic projections with a clear reference to how building over Maju and Gillman forests will meet housing demand?
• What are the timelines for engagement and development after the feedback window is closed?
• How has MND worked together with MSE on the issue of development of greenfield sites? Have there been formalised procedures put in place between the two ministries regarding the selection of greenfield sites for development?

Gillman (detailed guide)

• The EIA identifies native-dominated secondary forest as having high ecological value
• The surveys recorded 293 plant species, including 22 native species of conservation significance (2 Critically Endangered, 7 Endangered and 13 Vulnerable), together with 1,566 large trees, of which 176 are particularly large specimens.
• The EIA itself predicts that several impacts to biodiversity remain moderate or major even after mitigation, particularly habitat loss and ecological connectivity for fauna.  

Maju (detailed guide)

Despite the EIA identifying AHEVs (Area of High Ecological Value), a significant portion of these AHEVs are not protected under the PRA (Proposed Retained Area) and will be cleared.

• Habitats become fragmented, reducing biodiversity and impairing key ecosystem functions, with effects magnifying over time.
• With zero/insufficient buffer between retained AHEVs and the development, AHEVs are at risk of edge effects.
• EIA shows that even after mitigation, biodiversity impacts remain high, with the possibility of Major Negative Impact. According to the EIA, this rating stems from the loss of over 50% of high-value habitats.

Past Meetings

30 July Gillman Gathering
Based on the discussions during the 30 July 2026 dialogue, residents respectfully put forward the following recommendations for HDB, URA and NParks' consideration:

1. Clarify what remains open to change. Residents would appreciate greater clarity on which aspects of the proposal, such as site layout, housing density, ecological buffers, heritage retention and mitigation measures, remain open to refinement following this consultation.
2. Publish a comprehensive response to public feedback. In addition to summarising the feedback received, residents encourage the agencies to publish their responses to the key issues raised, explaining how feedback has been considered and whether it has resulted in changes to the proposal.
3. Strengthen opportunities for ongoing engagement. Given the significant public interest, residents hope there will be further opportunities to engage with the agencies as the plans are refined, rather than consultation ending with the current feedback exercise.
4. Provide greater transparency on the planning rationale. Residents would welcome additional information on how housing demand projections, alternative sites, ecological value, heritage considerations and community wellbeing were assessed and balanced in selecting Gillman Barracks for redevelopment.
5. Give careful consideration to the Environmental and Heritage Impact Assessments. Residents encourage the agencies to adopt, wherever feasible, the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Heritage Impact Assessment, including strengthening ecological connectivity, preserving mature forest where possible, and safeguarding Gillman Barracks' unique heritage character.
6. Recognise the broader community value of Gillman Barracks. Beyond its ecological significance, many residents described Gillman Barracks as a defining feature of Telok Blangah that contributes to physical and mental wellbeing, recreation, arts and culture, heritage, and neighbourhood identity. Residents encourage these values to be explicitly considered in future planning decisions.
7. Continue building trust through open dialogue. Residents appreciated the opportunity to engage directly with HDB, URA and NParks and hope this marks the beginning of an ongoing dialogue. Transparent communication, timely updates and continued engagement will help build confidence that residents' views are meaningfully considered throughout the planning process.

Notes on Parliament Sitting

Based on the Parliamentary Questions and Supplementary Questions asked at the 4 August 2026 Parliamentary Sitting, only 8 questions were substantially answered, receiving a reasonably direct response:

• Why Singapore continues to require additional housing.
• Broad planning considerations when selecting housing sites.
• Why brownfield sites cannot always substitute for greenfield sites.
• The purpose and role of the EIA and HIA.
• Why ecological mitigation is proposed rather than avoiding all impacts.
• The intention to continue engaging stakeholders before detailed plans are finalised.
• Why every site is assessed individually rather than applying a single planning template.
• General explanation of the housing planning process.

Most questions were only partially answered, in that they received responses, but not at the level of detail requested. Examples include:

• Housing demand projections.
• Why Gillman was preferred over named alternatives.
• Urban heat impacts.
• Cumulative ecological impacts.
• Future dialogue after 6 August.
• How public feedback will influence planning.
• What aspects of the proposal remain open to change.
• Assessment of brownfield sites.
• Climate considerations.
• Timing of EIAs.
• How ecological corridors were determined.
• How heritage recommendations will be implemented.
• Monitoring after development.
• Housing planning assumptions.
• Sequencing of development.
• Consideration of neighbouring developments.

Questions that remain unanswered:

• Can the Government still decide not to develop Gillman or Maju?
• What ecological threshold would cause a site to be preserved?
• Why Gillman/Maju over each specific alternative site?
• Can housing density or the development footprint still change?
• Will phased clearance include formal review checkpoints?
• Why wasn't consultation conducted earlier?
• Could EIAs be undertaken before zoning decisions?
• Was the forests' cooling effect modelled?
• How were community wellbeing and social value assessed?

Will the Government publish a response matrix showing how feedback changed the proposal?