Environmental Impact Assessments for Industrial Developments

As the details of the site clearance at the Kranji site have been shared publicly by JTC at a press conference on 22 February, I will focus my response today on: one, environmental considerations in the planning process; two, on-going investigations into the incident at the Kranji site; and three, steps that we plan to take to strengthen our processes, including the environmental impact assessment (EIA) framework.

Let me start with the planning process.

Under the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA’s) Planning Act, development proposals require planning permission from URA before they are allowed to proceed. As part of this process, every development proposal goes through a thorough screening process, which reviews not only its potential environmental impact, but also other aspects such as its impact on traffic, public health and heritage.

Developments projects that: one, are near sensitive areas such as Nature Reserves, Nature Areas and other areas with significant biodiversity; or two, which are in marine and coastal areas; or three, which have potential trans-boundary impact, are subject to greater scrutiny. The developers of such projects will be required to undergo an in-depth consultation process with relevant technical agencies, namely NParks, National Environment Agency (NEA), the Maritime Port Authority (MPA) and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA).

Depending on the context of the site, the scope of the project works, and its potential impact on the environment, more detailed studies may be required. This can be an Environmental Baseline Study (EBS), or in some cases, a more detailed Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which sets out the environmental baseline, expected impact and mitigation measures.

The studies enable agencies to better assess the possible environmental impact of the development plans and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures, to guide the planning and potential development of the site. For instance, NEA assesses the potential for noise, water or air pollution, MPA assesses impacts on navigation and SFA on sea-based farms, NParks assesses impacts on terrestrial and marine biodiversity, covering both flora and fauna.

We adopt this calibrated approach across all development projects, whether they are for industrial or other uses.

While developers can call tenders for works while the environmental studies are on-going, activities on site can only proceed when the developer has received the necessary approvals from relevant agencies. This applies for both private and public projects.

Let me give an example of site clearance which involves the felling of trees. Under the Parks and Trees Act, the felling of any tree more than one metre in girth either on vacant land or in Tree Conservation areas can only proceed with the Commissioner's approval. NParks will require a tree survey, in order to assess the potential impact of the tree felling plan. If NParks assesses that conducting a further environmental baseline, or other forms of study, is not required, it may allow for some types of works to begin. However, NParks may require mitigation measures, such as the installation of hoarding or an Environmental Monitoring and Management Programme (EMMP) to be in place.

For past incidents of tree felling without prior approval, NParks had conducted investigations and penalties ensued. The environmental impact of such incidents varies depending on the site context and the extent of works undertaken.

Planning permission for the project to go ahead is only granted after a project has met the requirements imposed by the respective regulatory agencies. These include completing necessary detailed technical studies, such as environmental and traffic impact assessments, as well as putting in place mitigating measures.

Let me move on to the clearance of this Kranji site. Many Members have asked for updates on the investigations and the possible penalties on the site clearance at Kranji site.

As I have said on 22 February, in the press conference, NParks is currently investigating whether there had been breaches of the Wildlife Act and/or the Parks and Trees Act. We therefore cannot go into more detail at this point, and we ask that Members not speculate further. After investigations are complete, NParks will refer the case to the Public Prosecutor for directions, before sharing the findings with the public.

There are penalties for breaches of the Parks and Trees Act and the Wildlife Act. For instance, infringement of the Wildlife Act that came into force in June last year, may attract a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment up to six months, or both.

Members have also asked if the site clearance at the Kranji Road/Kranji Close site had affected the fauna baseline study. Thirteen hectares of vegetated areas, which includes the safeguarded green corridor and vegetated buffers along Sungei Pang Sua, remain. All clearance works onsite are currently suspended, while the study is underway. The results of the study will be made public when ready. Thereafter, JTC will engage relevant stakeholders on the findings, including the measures to enhance the greenery and connectivity of the site and its surrounding environs. The study findings will be used to design measures such as enhanced habitats, buffers and connectivity for wildlife.

Now, I move on to the third part of the presentation which is on steps to strengthen processes. Members have asked how we will seek to prevent such incidents from happening again. As Minister Chan Chun Sing had announced on Monday, a review will be undertaken of this incident, to identify gaps and learning points for project management, supervision and execution, as well as inter-agency coordination. Agencies involved in site clearance projects are conducting checks to ensure that their project supervision and implementation processes are in order.

In parallel, MND will continue our efforts to strengthen the Environmental Impact Assessment, or EIA, framework, in close consultation with the nature community and partner agencies. We are currently working to implement the following enhancements which we had announced publicly last October, namely: (a) increase the vigour or rigour of our environmental studies through a set of Biodiversity Impact Assessment Guidelines; (b) strengthen our enforcement regime through the amended Wildlife Act; (c) build up local expertise on ecological matters; and (d) make all environmental study reports publicly available, unless there are security considerations.

In our discussions with the nature community last year, we had identified several other ways to further strengthen the EIA process beyond what we had just rolled out in October. We will develop a more comprehensive picture of the islandwide eco-system and connectivity, so that we can better consider how the specific sites connect to our nature cores, buffers and corridors. We will do this in a science-based manner, on an islandwide scale, and we will conduct baseline studies for specific sites to understand their ecological profile and role in ecological connectivity. Members of the nature community will be invited to join us in this upstream work. The findings from these studies will add to the data and connectivity models that NParks has built up over the years, and help guide Government in carrying out longer term planning.

In addition, we have been reviewing whether it would be better to centralise the management of EIA consultants, instead of having individual developers or agencies manage their own. We are still studying this. Separately, we will explore how we can make better use of technology to strengthen project management.

Sir, Members may recall that we had negotiated for the return of the KTM railway line to Singapore in 2011, to meet, among other things, our land use needs. The land that we got back included the 24-km railway line, from North all the way South to Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, as well as adjacent parcels of land at various points along the track. These parcels of land were used by the railway for storage, for housing and for other purposes.

We struck a careful balance between conservation and development in our land use planning for the land that was returned, as follows.

First, by conserving the entire 24-km Rail Corridor from Woodlands all the way down South to Tanjong Pagar for recreation, community activities and for nature.

Second, by conserving the railway station building in Tanjong Pagar and the old Bukit Timah Railway Station, or BTRS, as part of our heritage and history.

And thirdly, by zoning the adjacent land parcels along the railway tracks, including the Kranji site, for development, to meet our people's needs for homes, jobs and amenities and so on.

So, we struck balance in three ways, and if Members may recall in the last Parliamentary Question (PQ) over Ulu Pandan Forest, as I sought to provide the broad outline of how we steward our land to meet various needs, including that for nature, for housing, for jobs and so on and so forth, we include a strategy of big moves – for example, Greater Southern Waterfront, Paya Lebar air base relocation and, of course, this KTM line that we brought back, including the land parcels adjacent, along the way – was one of those moves as well.

For the Kranji site, as Minister Chan Chun Sing had explained earlier, it comprised mostly scrubland scattered with trees when it was returned to Singapore in 2011. Until the detailed plans were finalised and works begun, the site was left vacant, with vegetation and trees allowed to grow to provide green cover until the time of development. Non-native Albizia trees sprouted in recent years – and biologists would know that Albizia trees grow at a very quick rate, they self-sow and they grow as fast as four to five metres a year and can mature in as fast as five years or less – and in Singapore's hot and humid climate, progressively dominated the site within a few years.

So, sites that have been cleared and with intention for some form of development, even as they are left fallow and bare, we allowed vegetation, green cover, so we enjoy that for the few years.

As I have explained in this House recently, we adopt a science-based approach to identify which areas of significant biodiversity to conserve. For instance, the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, just further north of the Kranji site, was once a fishing village. It had initially been planned for industrial use, for factories. Yet, after careful study through biodiversity surveys and ecological modelling, we decided to keep it as a Nature Park given its high ecological value, both domestically as well as internationally as part of a flyway. Agencies, therefore, had to forego development plans for the area.

For sites to be developed, we seek to preserve and integrate natural elements within the development where possible, to facilitate ecological connectivity. In JTC's masterplan for Sungei Kadut Eco-district, or SKED, 25 hectares out of 500 hectares was set aside for the first phase of the Agri-Food Innovation Park, or AFIP. This is the Kranji site in question.

For the Kranji site, while a portion of the KTM railway line was re-routed along Woodlands Road in 2015 to allow the entire site to be comprehensively developed, JTC worked with NParks to relook these plans. In 2019, they decided to retain the original alignment as a green corridor within the AFIP, even though this meant for JTC that land parcellation for industry would be more challenging.

This effort to retain the original railway line alignment, with additional green buffers on each side amounting to six hectares, along with a linear park along Sungei Pang Sua, is an example of our on-going efforts to balance nature conservation with land planning and development.

We are very encouraged by the growing nature consciousness among Singaporeans. This is part of City in Nature – not just quantitative or qualitative or ecological, but also the DNA mainstreamed in Singaporeans. We will be engaging Singaporeans more deeply on this issue as part of our national conversations on long-term land use planning later this year. We will continue to partner the community as stewards of our City in Nature, and we look forward to working together to achieve this vision.

Yes, three very short ones. JTC's project manager found the wrongful clearance works on 13 January. So, my first supplementary question is, is there a schedule for the frequency of site visits by the project manager? Is it meant to be daily, weekly, or monthly? Because he discovered this on 13 January.

Second supplementary question, the internal investigation by JTC, I would like to ask will this be complemented with an investigation by an external party?

And my third supplementary question is, it has been mentioned that stern warning has been issued to the contractor. Stern warning appears to me to be quite light. What does "stern warning" mean and what are the consequences?

Mr Speaker, Sir, three quick replies to Mr Seah Kian Peng's three supplementary questions.

Is there a schedule? Yes, there is a schedule where JTC officers are required to regularly visit the site. Whether that schedule has been adhered to, is the subject of an on-going investigation at this point in time and I will not further comment on this.

Second, on the nature of the investigations, as I have laid out on Monday, there are the internal NParks and JTC investigations as to whether the current processes have been followed. And I expect the respective agencies will want to do a thorough review to see whether the processes have been followed. In addition to that, we have appointed Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong to look at how these processes can be tightened, especially the inter-agency processes. Joseph will have access to both the views from the public sector, the people sector and also the private sector.

On the third question about the stern warning that was issued by JTC immediately to the contractor involved, at this point in time, NParks and JTC will do their investigations and subsequent to that, if there are any other wrongdoings uncovered by NParks' investigations, NParks will have the statutory powers to take the responsible parties to task. The penalties for those are laid out in the respective Acts. So, it does not mean that the stern warning is the end of all there is to be.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for National Development and one supplementary question for the Minister for Trade and Industry. I thank both Ministers for the answers.

For the Minister for National Development, I would like to ask the Minister whether he thinks that it is now time to consider codifying Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and other similar assessments like the Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) into our legislative framework. That means to have a law that codifies all these assessments, quite akin to what they have in the UK, where it prescribes when the EIA must be done, and when it does not have to be done, the legislation will state that it is because it is provided for in a differently scheduled provision under a separate area of law.

Related to this, under such a proposed framework, I would like to ask the Minister for National Development whether or not, in the proposed review that he is looking into, to consider a more holistic approach in assessment. At the moment, it is different types of assessment that we are doing – EBS, EIA, and the assessment that Minister Chan has mentioned because of the different conditions. So, I wonder if we can have a more holistic approach. And I say this because, for example, in this case, both Ministers mentioned about scrubland, that this Kranji woodlands being scrubland —

Sorry, Mr Speaker. There is some value in scrubland. Currently, it provides for our biodiversity – there is wildlife, there is floral and fauna. But eventually, it can also develop into something even better over time. So, if we have a holistic approach that can look into land of such a nature, it is in-between, it may not be secondary forest, but nonetheless, it is important biodiversity.

Next, I would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Minister can confirm that Huationg has been paid for the land clearance that it carried out in December last year and January this year.

I thank the Member for the questions. I will address the questions he has asked about the EIA framework, and then, my colleague Minister Chan will respond.

The first is whether we want or need to codify the Environmental Impact Assessment framework into legislation. I think we need to see what the framework is in place, currently, today, as augmented by recent developments, both in June last year and October last year; as well as the plans we have going forward. We look at EIA framework as a whole; and legislation is a tool as are other levers such as guidelines, incentives, processes, standards. They all are different tools with which we use to ensure that the framework is holistic, rigorous and comprehensive.

I said previously, no development, public or private, may take place without planning permission. URA is the gatekeeper with the Planning Act and related planning legislation, as that legislative gateway. As I said earlier, there is not only a masterplanning process in which multiple agencies representing the diversity of needs of Singaporeans, both present and future, but also representing the different constituencies and causes and concerns out there, come together regularly as part of the masterplanning process to look at our land use needs, including sites that we may need for connectivity, for biodiversity, for nature, for recreation. But also, when development plans are surfaced, way in advance of even the first works beginning onsite, there is a screening process.

So, URA acts as a gateway; the Planning Act and related planning legislation are the legislative tools which URA uses to provide that gatekeeping role. And a variety of technical agencies will then scrutinise the plans specifically. Each site will have its own variances, its own habitat, its own set of issues. Some of it could be traffic, some of it could be hydrology, some of it could be water quality, some of it could be issues of sedimentation, some about noise, some about biodiversity.

Where nature and biodiversity are concerned, NParks together with the professionals and scientists and arborists and horticulturalists and conservationists, with the support of the nature community whom we consult regularly, we will look at those sites. We will look at those sites for which a development plan is put forward for approval, and then, make an assessment and screen it – notwithstanding the upstream masterplanning phase when plans arrive.

The different agencies, depending on the specific context of the site, impose or require the necessary consultations, studies, which are then pegged onto that planning approval legislative framework.

This kind of approach allows for greater dexterity, greater responsiveness to the site in question. And so, it is a professional assessment, involves specific understanding of the site and the different considerations, both environmental and human.

And then, in June last year, in a Private Member's Motion by Member Louis Ng, together with agencies, the Wildlife Act was brought into force. And if Members may recall, some time back there was some question about whether there is legislative teeth for NParks to enforce in relation to biodiversity environmental management and monitoring. And so, now under section 10 of the Act, there is significant legislative power for the Commissioner to impose the requisite studies, to impose the requisite measures, and penalties are as I have articulated earlier in my speech.

And of course, there are other legislation involving, say, the pollution of waterways, pollution of water bodies, rivers, earth streams, so and so forth. And so, there is a legislative framework and they all come together, not just codified, and frozen in time, but responsive, allowing gatekeeping roles, allowing agencies to come in to making impositions, to impose studies, to then look at those studies and impose the EMMP and other plants.

So, the approach is holistic having said that last October last year, we sought to strengthen the capability of the sector, strengthen the capability that we have locally, strengthen both the understanding of developing agencies as well as EIA consultants. Our nature community tells us that actually what needs to be done is we need to bootstrap, up the standards and ensure consistency in our biodiversity impact assessment capability.

And hence, a very comprehensive approach in our new BIA guidelines which were launched in October last year. I am not quite sure how you can codify something like the BIA guidelines which will be used across different agencies, because it is very comprehensive from a scientific basis, looking at different habitats. So, when there is a mangrove habitat, whether it is intertidal, whether it is whether it is a secondary forest, whether it is scrubland, whether it is a mature forest, whether you look at the benthic habitats. All these are specifically set out in very detailed guidelines, put together by conservationists and in deep consultation with our nature community.

And of course, when development is about to begin and is in progress, there are powers under the Parks and Trees Act, powers to require a tree and flora survey, for which then you can decide whether to grant approval for the clearance of trees or the salvage or the conservation intitule of trees onsite that are of significance. As well as under the Wildlife Act, the imposition of EMMPs, as well as fauna surveys.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Dennis Tan's question is, no. Huationg has not been paid for the over clearance in January and December.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for Minister Chan. The first is in terms of the timing of the announcement by JTC on 16 February, can the Minister provide an explanation on that timeline? The discovery of the erroneous clearance was on 13 January and it would seem the announcement came after a member of the public – a private citizen – first shared about this on social media.

The second question is to just pay recognition to the fact that this land is ultimately for agri-technology. And so, does the Minister have any assessment of whether the delivery of this capacity and industrial development will be delayed as a result of this incident?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to the first supplementary question, the error was discovered on 13 January, and immediately, the stop work order was given to the contractor on the ground. Internal investigations commenced immediately within JTC. We made the information public in February, on 16 February as Mr Xie Yao Quan said, because there was public interest in this.

As a general rule as to when we make investigations public, a few considerations will have to be taken into account. First, will it affect the course of the investigations, will it prejudice the course of the investigations? Second, the nature of the incident and which aspect of it will be of public interest.

Our focus from January to February, within JTC, was to make sure that they can conduct the investigation thoroughly and fairly, without prejudice to the parties concerned. And we can all understand that once things come out to the public, certain evidence or certain investigations might be prejudiced. So, that is why we have not made public earlier the investigations.

But when there was public interest in this, we were also careful to make sure that we come out quickly with the facts that we have established, so that the public does not need to speculate, so that we can proceed with the investigations.

On the second point as whether there will be a delay in the execution of the project, there will already be a delay in execution of the project because of COVID-19. Now, we will complete the EMMP study, and then, we will consult the necessary stakeholders, and then, we will try to progress the project as originally planned in order to deliver, not just the economic benefits, the jobs, the food resilience, but also to deliver as part of the masterplan, the environmental enhancement in the area that will allow us to enjoy the place, live in the place, work in the place and play in the place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Ministers for their reply. I have one supplementary question. Many agencies are involved in land clearance works involving greenery. This includes LTA, HDB, PUB, JTC, SLA and so on. As part of the follow-ups, will the Government consider appointing a lead agency to oversee and overall coordinate land clearance activities, such that we can minimise the possibility of such an incident from happening again?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng for his observations and suggestion. Indeed, it is true. Often, in a complex project, there will be many agencies involved and this is the reason why both Minister Desmond Lee and myself have asked Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong to look into the inter-agency process to see how we can strengthen this.

At this point in time, I want to qualify. When we say strengthen the process, we mean to make it better, we mean to streamline it, and it does not necessarily mean that we must add on more processes.

If I may seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I grew up in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). And in the SAF, once in a while, sometimes, accidents happen. And very often when accidents happen, we ask ourselves how we can do better. And very often, sometimes, we will come to a quick conclusion that we need more supervision.

I have grown up learning that, that may not necessarily be the best solution. Because when more parties get involved, ultimately, who is responsible? If a soldier did not do his job well, we ask whether there were factors that affected his concentration, whether his training was adequate or whether there were other complicating factors. When a supervisor did not do his job well, we ask the same questions and at the end of the day, we want a streamlined process whereby there are clear lines of responsibilities for each of the parties involved in any complex project. And that is what Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong will help us look into.

I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng for the observations. And that, indeed, we should be careful that in trying to improve the processes and streamline the processes, we do not unnecessarily add on processes that might either diffuse the responsibility or make project coordination even more difficult going forward.

As we know, the contractors currently working on the ground are already facing various kinds of challenges from adhering to regulations to the challenges posed by COVID-19. And we should all try to come together to see how we can streamline the processes to improve the processes so that everyone is clear about their lines of accountability.

If I may just add, there will be many diverse interests in a complex project like this. There are developmental interests, there are contractors' interests, there are environmental groups' interests. And in all that we do, we seek to find a balance amongst all these interests, so that as much of the interest can be accommodated as possible. And that is how we will move forward. So, it is not either one or the other, it is not binary. It is always about working together to find the best way forward, so that we can achieve multiple objectives from environmental protection to development. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have this question for the Minister for National Development. I would like to ask if Minister can share from an urban planning perspective. Have there been plots of land that was earmarked earlier for industrial or housing development, that is under the masterplan, and was actually traded off in the interest of nature and also environmental protection over the years.

The answer is yes. You know that as part of the concept plan or now what we call the long-term planning process, we identify the broad strategies for Singapore and therefore, flow through the land use requirements into the masterplan. Agencies come together to look at the different sites, look at the needs that they have for housing, recreation, healthcare, nature, conservation, for heritage, so on and so forth. And then, they work out the masterplan, which is then exhibited and publicly consulted on, including by specific stakeholders and interest groups.

But having said that, over the years, this is not a static process. It is an iterative process, a dynamic one. Because our land use needs, population needs, our natural spaces also evolve and change, and therefore we have to be flexible and nimble and agile, and continuously relook at our masterplan.

Therefore, as I have said in my presentation earlier, there have been sites which have been zoned for other uses, but which, after discussion between agencies, after the use of scientific approaches, have had their plans changed and agencies forgo their initial intentions for that land. For example, where the Kranji site is, it was once railway land. The parcel was made complete by agreed re-routing of the rail corridor, but then, JTC then decided to put it back in again, because they felt that it was important to have that within an Agri-food Innovation Park, in consultation with NParks.

But just further north, is the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, which is a key habitat; it is ecologically linked to Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and also important as part of the East-Asian Australasian Flyway for migratory birds. What was therefore originally planned for industrial purposes has been changed to Nature Park. Likewise, a little further east would be Sungei Khatib Bongsu. Once, it was for prawn farming and fish farming as well as housing, kampong and some human use; subsequently, kept fallow for future development, specifically housing; and those plans were forgone after we evaluated the site and decided to keep it for nature areas.

Sir, I have two quick questions. One for the Minister for Trade and Industry and one for Minister for National Development.

For the Minister for Trade and Industry, was this erroneously cleared 4.5 hectares of land, would it have been eventually cleared anyway and if so, when would that have been done?

And for the Minister for National Development, the Minister, I believe, said that the developers can start planning works while environmental studies are on-going but they have to wait for approval before proceeding. However, if detailed requirements for developments are drawn out and multimillion-dollar tenders are issued before the studies are completed, is there a risk that the clearance of natural vegetation becoming a fait accompli by the time the environmental studies are completed?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Gerald Giam's question is that if you refer to the slide, there is a plan for the Agri-Food Innovation Park (AFIP). If all the necessary environmental considerations had been addressed, then the plan will be executed in full, as per what is shown in the slide.

I think the Member makes a very good point. Our position from a regulatory and planning point of view is that works cannot begin until necessary approvals have been obtained; and this may require detailed studies. But ultimately, the developer has to make a call whether they wish to proceed to call those tenders, and if so, then they run the risk of having to make major adjustments along the way.

Thank you, Sir. Just two quick questions for Minister Desmond Lee. One, I think Minister mentioned about the BIA guidelines earlier. Could I just ask, whether these are just guidelines or are they mandatory for developers to follow? Two, I do hope we can codify the current EIA framework into law because I think that will send a strong signal that we take the protection of forests seriously here in Singapore.

I recognise the Member's longstanding advocacy for the legislative codification of the EIA process. As I said previously, there is legislative gatekeeping and legislative empowerment in the entire process, but this is not just a legal process. It is an environmental process, a conservation process, a scientific process and it requires flexibility depending on the habitats and on the ecology of the area. And therefore, I think what we have today is an evolving system with recent enhancements. So, let us work on that and continue to study how we can improve.

As for the Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) guidelines, if Member has gone through them, they are very, very comprehensive. We hope through this process for developing agencies, including public developing agencies, to have a consistent baseline standard in carrying out these processes. Let us see how it is put into process and then decide what next steps to take.

The site in question is in my constituency and I have observed first-hand the change to the site on many walks with my residents. By equal measure, my residents also look forward to the transformation of Sungei Kadut to bring more jobs and residential opportunities for them.

I have two quick supplementary questions – one to the Minister for National Development; it is more factual. It relates to part of my question on how many such unauthorised clearances have occurred in the last 12 months and what were the actions taken to them?

The second is for the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service. As mentioned by a number of Members, many public officers are involved in any large scale and complex project, and often resulting in cross responsibilities. How does the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service plan to look into the processes and into this incident as a learning point, so that such unauthorised actions do not occur again? The Minister shared earlier that Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong will be looking into this. Could the Minister share if there are specific areas that the Permanent Secretary will be directed to look at so that we can improve on processes?

Over the last 12 months, NParks did not take action or did not have to take action for unauthorised tree clearances as part of development works. The last case that NParks pursued was in 2019.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two parts to Mr Alex Yam's questions. What would Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong do and then a second part is how do we approach this issue going forward?

The first, as I have mentioned in my response to Mr Yip Hon Weng's question, indeed, there are many parties involved in a complex project like this, including many parties within the Public Service and of course the private contractors, the consultants and so forth. Indeed, one of the things that I have asked Joseph to look into is how we can streamline the processes with clearer lines of accountability and responsibility, and this does not necessarily mean adding additional layers.

In fact, we should always look for ways to simplify and streamline the processes so that everyone is clear of their respective areas of responsibilities and there can be no doubt. If people are not up to the task, we have to ask ourselves how do we equip them, train them to do their job better. So, that is the first part.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may just round up this session. Ultimately, at the end of the day, at the heart of it all, no matter how many rules we have for all the agencies, for all the parties involved, ultimately, at the heart of it, we need people with the right values. I say this particularly for the Public Service – people with the right values who are conscious of their duties, determined to execute it well and constantly find areas to improve when the need arises.

I have every confidence that I have such a Public Service, in service of Singapore.

If we look at how the Public Service has done over the last one year through the COVID-19 pandemic, everyone not only doing what they are supposed to do but going above and beyond their call of duty when called upon to do well for Singapore. I have confidence that they will look at this thoroughly, learn the lessons and improve.

Because when I speak to the officers in JTC and NParks and when I look at them in the eye, I know. I see in their eyes the fire in their belly that they want to put this right. I am sure that even if I have not tasked them to do so, they themselves would want to get it right and improve.

This is the kind of Public Service that has brought Singapore to where it is today. This is the kind of Public Service that we can entrust our future together.

I thank Members of the House and the public for your support of our Public Service to keep doing what they have been doing for Singapore and to keep improving. Thank you very much.