Assessments, Consultations and Consideration of Alternative Sites for Housing before Decisions on Clearance of Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest

Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether alternative sites for housing were evaluated as alternatives to Gillman Barracks; (b) whether smaller-footprint or lower-density options on the Gillman Barracks site itself, with greater retention of forest cover and heritage buildings, were also assessed against the current conceptual plan; and (c) what planning considerations led to the proposed site and footprint being preferred.

Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development whether, after the online feedback period for the Gillman Barracks Environmental Impact Assessment and Heritage Impact Assessment closes on 6 August 2026, the Government will hold dialogue sessions with residents, heritage groups and nature groups as part of the process of refining the development plans.

Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the phased directional clearance plan for Gillman Barracks under the Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan will include checkpoints at which monitoring data from earlier phases is reviewed before authorising further clearance; and (b) if so, what criteria would trigger a pause or adjustment to the clearance schedule.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent announcement on Maju Forest (a) how has the Government's approach to balancing public housing needs with the conservation of ecologically significant forests and heat resilience evolved over the past five years; and (b) whether alternative sites, redevelopment opportunities or higher-yield development options are systematically evaluated before such locations are selected.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development with regard to proposed housing developments on former forested sites (a) what criteria are used to determine whether retained forest areas are sufficiently large and connected to remain ecologically functional over the long term; and (b) how is the effectiveness of wildlife corridors subsequently monitored.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development in light of the possible development at Maju Forest, whether the concerns and recommendations of the nature and conservation groups on preserving greenery, flora and fauna can be adopted.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development given that the Environmental Impact Assessments at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks rate the biodiversity impact as major negative after mitigation (a) what threshold of harm sets a site aside if that finding does not; and (b) whether under-used state land, including the grounds of black-and-white bungalows and ageing low-rise estates, has been assessed as an alternative before clearance.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how were findings from the Gillman Barracks Environmental and Heritage Impact Assessments weighed against housing needs; (b) whether alternative sites were considered; and (c) what resident engagement was conducted prior to the redevelopment announcement, including whether closed-door discussions were held and how participants were selected.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how are findings from the Maju Forest Environmental Impact Assessment taken into account in ongoing considerations for housing at Sunset Way; (b) whether alternative sites can be considered; and (c) what measures are being considered to ensure any retained ecological corridor minimises edge effects and supports wildlife movement.

Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) what microclimate or urban heat-island modelling was conducted to assess the localised temperature impact of clearing forest cover at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks; and (b) what will be the projected impact on surrounding residential areas.

Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development regarding the Gillman Barracks redevelopment (a) what measures will be taken to ensure the preservation of its secondary hill forest and heritage buildings; (b) whether alternative brownfield sites were considered to minimise ecological impact; and (c) how public feedback from the environmental and heritage impact assessments will be incorporated into the final master plan.

Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development what planning criteria does the Ministry use to determine that brownfield and other previously developed sites are insufficient before greenfield sites are selected for residential development.

Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will further enhance the public accessibility of Environmental Impact Assessments by providing plain-language summaries of key findings and clearer explanations of how public feedback has informed planning decisions.

Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) how was public feedback gathered for the redevelopment of Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks; and (b) what other sites are being studied over the next five years for similar possible redevelopment for housing or other uses that may substantially affect existing heritage or natural areas.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent announcement on Maju Forest (a) whether future Master Plans will refrain from zoning forested greenfield sites for development where feasible, especially where the forested sites are of ecological significance, and prioritise the redevelopment and intensifying land use on existing brownfield sites; and (b) if not, why not.

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks redevelopments (a) what is the impact on surface temperature and greenhouse gas emissions; (b) whether brownfield alternatives were surveyed and what is the rationale for selecting these sites; (c) what is the estimated cost of clearing Maju Forest versus redeveloping a similar area in mature estates; and (d) whether Environmental Impact Assessments measure climate-related factors.

Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will publish, before consultations on the Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks sites close on 6 August 2026 (i) the projected housing demand these sites are intended to meet and (ii) the reasoning for selecting them over available alternatives.

Sir, my response will also cover related questions raised by Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr David Hoe1, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Shawn Loh, Miss Rachel Ong, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Patrick Tay2, scheduled for subsequent Sittings.

Mr Speaker, allow me to make one point clear at the outset. The plans for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way have not been finalised. Government will continue to engage stakeholders, to take in views and feedback before deciding how we will carry out the development of both sites. This could involve adjustments to the development layout and the amount of greenery and heritage to conserve.

We published the studies and conceptual plans so the public can study them, share their views and help us to shape the final development plans.

I want to assure Members that while the formal consultation period for the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) ends on 6 August 2026, our engagement with stakeholders will continue, as we adjust and refine the development plans based on the inputs received.

Sir, in my response, I will first explain why Singapore needs to build, where we choose to build and how we build. I will then explain how these principles apply to Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks.

First, why we need to build.

Mr Speaker, let us start with what I believe we can all agree on. We value our heritage and green spaces. We also want Singaporeans and our future generations to have access to affordable public housing. We want hospitals, schools, and places where we can work and earn a good living. We want roads and public transport so we can get around. We also need land for defence, essential infrastructure and coastal protection. And I wish we had an abundance of land, so we can provide all of these without having to make trade-offs.

But that is not our reality. Our choices are narrower than those faced by larger countries. We thus have to make the best use of our limited land. That is why we plan decades ahead, to meet Singaporeans' needs today while keeping enough options open for future generations.

Housing is one of our most pressing needs. Some asked why housing demand continues to grow even though our total fertility rate (TFR) is lower than before. Current low TFR figures reflect the smaller number of babies born in recent years. But Singaporeans who are buying Housing and Development Board (HDB) homes today and in the near future were born decades ago when our birth rates were higher.

Another reason is that household sizes are getting smaller. More young married couples prefer a home of their own to living with their parents or extended families. At the same time, many prefer to live near their parents, so they can care for and support one another. More singles are also setting up homes of their own. And more seniors now live alone or only with their spouse.

These trends mean we need more homes than we did in the past, as the total number of households has increased.

Many Members on both sides of this House have also called for the relaxation of eligibility criteria to provide wider access to public housing and shorter waiting times for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.

We understand and share these aspirations. But if we want more Singaporeans to qualify for HDB housing and to get their homes sooner, then we must build more homes and we must build them faster.

So, the question, Mr Speaker, is not whether Singapore should continue to build homes, hospitals, schools and other developments to meet our people's needs. The question is where we build and how we build responsibly.

Let us go on next to where we build.

Sir, we do not start with sites that have significant heritage or ecological value. We first ask a series of practical questions. Can we make use of vacant land? Can we make better use of existing land? Can we build higher, go underground, bring compatible uses together, or better use under-utilised spaces? That is what we have been doing and we will continue to do.

For example, relocating Paya Lebar Air Base to Changi and Tengah will free up a substantial area for redevelopment, as will consolidating our port activities at Tuas Port. We are also phasing out some golf courses and redeveloping older industrial areas for other uses. We are already redeveloping the former Keppel Golf Course as part of the Greater Southern Waterfront. By 2030, we will have taken back more than 400 hectares of golf course land for redevelopment.

Sir, we will also build taller where we can. This year, we announced Singapore's tallest public housing project – an over 60-storey development at Pearl's Hill.

Relaxing aviation height limits near airports also opens up new possibilities for us to build more intensely in suitable locations.

We build underground where possible too. We are developing rock caverns at Gali Batu, building on earlier projects such as the Jurong Rock Caverns. And through the North-South Corridor, we are moving vehicular traffic underground, freeing surface space for walking, cycling and greenery.

We are also doing more with existing sites and underused spaces, through integrated mixed-use developments, and by activating spaces beneath viaducts and on car park rooftops.

As we do all this, we pay close attention to greenery and heritage. Today, Singapore has about 7,800 hectares of green spaces, including our nature reserves. Even after accounting for planned developments in the latest Master Plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has safeguarded an additional 1,000 hectares of green space.

We are also strengthening ecological connections between core habitats. By 2030, we aim to restore and enhance 80 hectares of forest, marine and coastal habitats, and establish 300 kilometres of Nature Ways.

These efforts help make Singapore one of the world's greenest high-density cities. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Green View Index found that Singapore is ahead of most cities in urban tree coverage, including cities with much lower population densities.

We take a similar approach to heritage as well. We have conserved more than 7,200 buildings and structures in over 100 areas. Where possible, we retain significant heritage buildings and elements, and incorporate them into new developments.

Sir, these are guided by our long-term land-use planning process. Through our Master Plan, we engage Singaporeans and set out how we use our limited land for the next 10 to 15 years. And we review the Master Plan every five years through a major public consultation exercise, to ensure it remains relevant to our nation's changing needs.

A site's zoning reflects its long-term planning intention. But when we develop the site depends on our national needs, the availability of alternatives and if the supporting infrastructure is ready. Within this framework, we will always do our best to retain sites with significant greenery and heritage value.

But there will be occasions when no other suitable site can meet the same need, in the same area and within the required timeframe. And when that happens, we must weigh the trade-offs carefully and consider whether we can develop a site responsibly to meet an important national need, such as providing homes for Singaporeans.

Sir, the next question, then, is how do we build responsibly when it is necessary to develop a site.

We proceed with great care when a site has significant ecological or heritage value. Government agencies appoint independent external consultants to conduct an EIA or HIA, or both. These studies draw on inputs from nature and heritage groups. And the consultants do three things.

First, they establish what is on the site today. For an EIA, this means identifying the site's important habitats, plants, animals and ecological connections. For a HIA, it means establishing the significance of the site's buildings, structures, landscape and other heritage attributes.

Second, the consultants assess how the proposed development could affect these features.

And third, they recommend how to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential impact to the site. Depending on the site, this could mean retaining areas of high ecological significance, maintaining ecological corridors, preserving important buildings or incorporating heritage elements into the new development.

For an EIA, the consultants also propose a preliminary Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). The EMMP sets out mitigation measures, monitoring arrangements and reporting requirements that will apply during development.

So, our general approach is to avoid impact where we can, reduce them where we cannot, and mitigate those that remain. We publish the findings, potential impact and proposed mitigation measures in the EIA or HIA report. This allows residents and the wider public to study the proposal and to give their feedback and views. Agencies then consider the studies and feedback before finalising the detailed plans.

EIAs and HIAs are not meant to justify a detailed plan that is already fixed. They are an integral part of the consultation process through which the plan is shaped.

Once development proceeds, HDB and the National Parks Board (NParks) will monitor the works and require contractors to provide regular updates, to ensure the measures are implemented properly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now explain how we apply the principles that I have laid out for both Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks.

Sir, both sites have been earmarked earlier for residential use.

For Sunset Way, the planning intention for housing had been reflected in the Master Plan since 1980. That intention has been reviewed and reaffirmed at each subsequent Master Plan review, including the most recent review in 2025.

For Gillman Barracks, we announced the intention to study the site for development during the 2024 Committee of Supply debate. The site was subsequently rezoned to reflect that intention under Master Plan 2025.

But we did not come to these sites first. Over the years, we prioritised brownfield redevelopment in Clementi, Bukit Merah and surrounding areas. In Clementi and Bukit Merah, we redeveloped several older estates under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme. In Bukit Merah, we are redeveloping the former Keppel Golf Course, as I mentioned earlier. But demand for housing in these estates remains strong. The recent BTO launches at Clementi Emerald and Berlayar Rise were each oversubscribed by over four times.

Many Singaporeans, especially young families, want to continue living near their parents for mutual care and support. Many understand this and so asked if we can build on sites that appear vacant or underused instead.

Sir, let me explain that some of these sites are already intended for housing. One example is the former Raffles Junior College site at Mount Sinai where we are planning to introduce public housing in the near term, and the former bus facility at Ghim Moh where BTO construction is already in progress.

Some asked about the former Institute of Technical Education Headquarters site at the Dover-Medway area and a nearby site at Albert Winsemius Lane. The former will be redeveloped for a mix of public and private housing, to be launched over the next few years, and the latter is a Land Transport Authority (LTA) worksite that is needed to support ongoing works for the Cross Island Line. It will be considered for redevelopment in future after the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line is completed.

Others also asked about Maju Camp. Sir, we need Maju Camp to support our national defence needs, so we cannot use it for housing at this point.

For Gillman Barracks, some suggested building homes at Depot Lane Industrial Estate, the former Central Manpower Base (CMPB) and the "reserve site" at Pasir Panjang.

Depot Lane Industrial Estate is indeed part of our future housing supply and demolition of the buildings is currently ongoing to prepare the site. While the former CMPB has moved out of Depot Road camp, the site is still required by the Ministry of Defence and other users. This also applies to the Pasir Panjang reserve site, where there are existing uses like the Ministry of Education Outdoor Adventure Learning Centre. This site can only be redeveloped in the longer term.

In short, many of the sites suggested are already being developed for housing, are needed for other national purposes or cannot be redeveloped yet. That is why we need to develop Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way to meet our housing needs over the next decade.

But we recognise, Sir, that Gillman Barracks has both environmental and heritage value. That is why we commissioned the EIAs and HIA, because we assessed that the development could have significant environmental or heritage effects and wanted to carefully study the impact before finalising any plans. These are comprehensive reports, reflecting months of data collection and analysis by independent experts.

At Gillman Barracks, we are studying how to retain most of the native-dominated secondary forest within the site. We are also studying how to maintain ecological connections in the East-West and North-South directions.

The East-West connection would link Telok Blangah Hill Park and HortPark, and the North-South connection would comprise an ecological corridor, supporting the movement of birds towards Berlayar Creek and Labrador Nature Reserve.

Gillman Barracks also has a distinctive heritage character. We are thus studying the retention of all buildings assessed to be of "Exceptional" heritage significance, as well as most of those assessed to be of "High" heritage significance. This would allow the future neighbourhood to build on the character and charm of the former colonial buildings.

But where a heritage building cannot be retained because of practical site constraints, we will explore other ways to preserve its history. These include detailed documentation, salvaging and reusing suitable materials, and incorporating heritage interpretation into the future development.

At Sunset Way, we are studying the retention of a significant stretch of greenery along the former Jurong Railway Line. This would preserve an important part of our railway heritage while maintaining ecological connectivity within the site.

We are also studying the retention of a natural stream and its surrounding riparian buffer, which provides refuge for wildlife. These retained green areas will be supplemented with more native trees, and serving as buffers between the future neighbourhood and existing residential estates.

Our approach to both sites will be informed by science and evidence.

Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way lie within the wider Labrador Nature Park and Clementi Nature Corridor respectively, as NParks identified through its ecological profiling exercise. The proposed retention areas are based on findings of the environmental studies, that aim to maintain ecological connectivity across these wider landscapes. HDB will also study how to design these future neighbourhoods to reduce urban heat. This includes using environmental modelling to improve wind flow, incorporating greenery, using cool-paint and orientating residential blocks to minimise direct sun exposure.

Sir, some Members also asked how many homes the sites will eventually provide. We are not yet able to give an exact figure because the layout, scale and detailed design have not yet been finalised. But in our current conceptual plan, we already reduced the number of homes to retain important green and heritage areas identified through the studies. If we conserve even more, we will build even fewer homes. So, we must weigh this trade-off carefully before reading a final decision.

HDB has also been attending local grassroots advisers' dialogues with residents to hear their concerns and suggestions in person. We appreciate the time and effort that many have put into studying the reports, attending dialogues and submitting detailed feedback. I personally engaged many stakeholders myself and walked the ground at both Sunset Way and Gillman. Young People's Action Party (PAP) and PAP Sustainability Group have also conducted engagements, gathering feedback and sharing that feedback with me and my team.

Some nature enthusiasts, heritage advocates and nearby residents also asked us to preserve more greenery and heritage. Some also proposed additional mitigation measures.

At the same time, we also heard from many Singaporeans, including residents in Clementi and Telok Blangah, about their desire for more affordable and accessible public housing. Many tell us they hope their children will have an opportunity to live near them.

Sir, both perspectives reflect legitimate concerns and aspirations. After the formal consultation period closes on 6 August 2026, we will conduct further engagements with stakeholders and closely review the study findings and feedback we received before finalising our detailed development plans. We will also publish a report summarising agencies' responses to the feedback and any amendments made to the original set of plans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question before us is not whether housing, greenery or heritage matters. They all do. The challenge is how we balance these needs responsibly within our limited space. We will and must always make the best use of existing land and safeguard our most important natural and heritage assets.

But there will be times where we cannot avoid difficult trade-offs. When that happens, we must be clear about why we need to build, deliberate about where we build and take great care over how we build. We must be honest with Singaporeans about the choices before us, listen carefully to their views and improve our plans wherever we can. And after weighing all these different considerations, Government must decide in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.

This is the approach we are taking for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way. We are studying the environmental and heritage findings, listening to public views and examining how the proposals can be improved before the detailed plans are finalised.

Sir, these difficult choices are not unique to Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way. And they will continue to confront us as we build homes, strengthen our economy, expand our infrastructure and realise our vision of a City in Nature.

Sir, generations before us faced similar choices. They made them with courage and foresight, and Singapore is now better for it. Our responsibility is to do the same – so that we can leave to our children a country that is greener, more liveable and continues to provide opportunities and good homes for our people.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for your response and for receiving the feedback and proposals that my residents and I submitted on Gillman Barracks. These came from in-person meetings, community sessions and written feedback, including well-researched proposals that the residents put together themselves.

I understand and appreciate the stated need for more housing and the potential benefits for many families. Along these considerations, my residents have also raised deep concerns including the loss of biodiversity and ecological connectivity in the area, the loss of the very greenery that drew many residents to make this precinct to their home. For many, Gillman Forest is a place of respite, reflection and connection. Also raised is the impact on climate resilience and urban heat.

With that, I would like to ask four supplementary questions.

First, can the Government clarify whether, and if so how, the earlier Berlayer EIA informed the Gillman Barracks EIA, particularly in relation to ecological connectivity corridor design and the cumulative impact across the two adjacent developments?

Residents have raised concerns over developing Berlayer and Gillman Barracks in close succession, particularly since both sides form part of the same ecological network and serve the same wildlife. In this context, they have asked why the recommended ecological widths differ between the two, despite this shared ecology.

The Gillman Forest links the Southern Ridges, which includes the Telok Blangah Hill Park, Berlayer Creek through to Labrador Nature Reserve and Kent Ridge Park, forming a larger ecological landscape. Retaining it alongside shared residents, would also honour Singapore's 2021 pledge under the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030.

My second supplementary question: instead of residential development on Gillman Barracks, will the Government consider re-imagining and re-engineering the site to better meet the evolving needs of our next generation, creating spaces that protect and promote human creativity and connection?

My third supplementary question: will the Government review our planning and consultation processes to ensure they remain fit for purpose in the changing climate, specifically for forested or ecologically sensitive sites, could EIAs and public engagement begin at the master planning stage before land is slated for development?

My final supplementary question: will the Government provide a summary of the feedback collected, together with clarity on how it shaped the final development decisions? This matters deeply to residents, who want assurance that their voices have made a difference.

Sir, I thank Miss Rachel Ong for her strong advocacy on behalf of her Telok Blangah residents and for working together with our agencies to provide those feedback.

As I mentioned earlier on, the plans for both Sunset Way, and in this case, Gillman Barracks are not yet finalised. Even beyond 6 August, when the consultation period closes, we will continue to engage her residents. And after this further engagement and reviewing the feedback and findings from additional engagements with the residents, we will release reports summarising the responses to feedback and also any adjustments that we make to the original set of plans.

With regards to the Gillman EIA and its links to Berlayer, the Gillman EIA took into consideration the Berlayer Estate. So, there is connectivity. It has established an important connectivity, in fact, between Gillman and Berlayer for the movement of birds. And these draw upon the findings from the NParks' ecological profiling exercise, which I mentioned earlier on, and the Keppel Club EIA. And the conceptual plan, therefore proposes retaining the East-West Corridor, as I mentioned earlier on, and to establish a new North-South Corridor, to facilitate the movement of fauna.

Both studies also proposed a minimum 30-metre ecological corridor, and for Gillman Barracks, its recommended corridor stretches up to 200 metres.

So, we acknowledge that there is ecological connectivity between sites, we have done that through the EIAs and the EIAs for each site is different because each site is unique, but where possible, we recognise the connectivity.

On building on new spaces within this site, as I have mentioned, we will take in those feedback in the consultation process, even beyond 6 August. We will listen to residents and see where we can make adjustments.

On the spaces which the Member has mentioned, as I have mentioned, today, Singapore has over 7,800 hectares of green spaces and nature reserves. And if you look at the bigger picture, even after accounting for the planned developments in both sites in the Master Plan, URA has safeguarded an additional 1,000 hectares of green space.

So, net-net, we are building a green city. All of these plans, be it in Sunset Way or Gillman, are meant to enhance that ecological connectivity and also to balance between development for homes, as well as green and heritage places.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State Tan for the comprehensive response. I have three supplementary questions for you today.

Firstly, I would like to ask if the Minister of State can confirm if not proceeding with development is still an option for either site, rather than just adjusting developmental boundaries or taking mitigation measures?

The second supplementary question is, the Minister of State referred to quite a number of significant initiatives to free up further brownfield land, such as the relocation of Paya Lebar Air Base, the continuing relocation of our port terminals to Tuas, as well as taking back golf course land. Will enough of the brownfield land be freed up in time, so that we can continue to defer the development of green spaces like Maju Forest and Gillman Forest?

And my third supplementary question is regarding the location of the Cross Island Line Maju Station, does the Government regard the location of Maju Station as compelling or requiring the development of Maju Forest, in order to be able to sufficiently utilise the capacity that the station will provide? And if that being the case, will the Government consider in the future, when planning MRT lines, alignments and station locations, that we take into account the location of sensitive, ecological sites, such as Maju Forest, such that we do not perpetuate a vicious cycle where this station is planned for that location and therefore, it compels development of the forest?

Sir, I thank Mr Andre Low for his questions. I made it quite clear that the sites that we mentioned earlier on – Sunset Way as well as Gillman Barracks – have already been zoned for residential use under our Master Plan and they have been set aside for housing. So, we will proceed, but how we build is important. And that is why we have these EIAs and HIA to identify the ecological significance, the heritage significance, and then, we will mitigate as best as possible, the ecological and heritage impact to the sites.

With regard to alternatives, I mentioned earlier on that we have looked in the vicinity of both Sunset Way as well as Gillman Barracks for alternative sites – vacant land, brownfield sites, underused sites. And there are a variety of ways in which we consider the availability of the land, whether the land has leases remaining, whether they have additional uses, as I mentioned earlier on, whether the infrastructure surrounding that site is sufficient. Because when you build homes for our people, you also need the surrounding infrastructure to support them.

Which brings me to Member's third point about train. And that is one major consideration.

When we look and select sites for homes for Singaporeans, it is not just on those considerations, but it is also very important for us to determine whether we can build amenities to support the community and housing, whether there is sufficient transport links including stations. And when we do so, we do a couple of things. Number one, we do an ecological profiling exercise on a broad swath to look at the impact of where sites have ecological and natural heritage, natural significance. Then, when the sites are meant to be developed, we also look at the EIA and the HIA to mitigate those sites. And then, in the process, we get feedback and see how we can also better bring in amenities that will benefit home buyers and homeowners.

Thank you, Speaker and I also thank the Minister of State for his assurance that the Ministry of National Development (MND) continues to be equally committed to both providing affordable housing as well as our city in nature. As planning principles, we know the first gives Singaporeans a stake in society and the second is really what continues to make us exceptional as nature is functional.

I have three supplementary questions.

First, how are these planning principles consistent, even through reviews of various Master Plans? And can I confirm that MND is committed to the structured decision matrix and hierarchy, avoiding impact before minimising or mitigating in environmental or historical sites in guiding these decisions?

Second, our city in nature vision is ultimately about maintaining functional ecosystems that strengthen Singapore's resilience through biodiversity, ecological connectivity and climate adaptation. Beyond the size of the green spaces which are retained, what ecological criteria does the Government use to determine if a site should be avoided altogether? Is there a desired minimum viability that we are optimising for longer term? And when development does proceed, how does the Government monitor over time whether retained forests remain ecologically viable; for example, in terms of habitat quality, stormwater attenuation and urban cooling?

And finally, could the Minister of State please share more about the engagement process, including for this case of Maju Forest? How does the Government ensure that development decisions are made consistently and transparently, specifically, which nature groups and experts are consulted, at what stages of planning and how does the feedback finally influence the planning outcome? Has the Government considered whether EIAs and HIAs should be legislatively strengthened, brought earlier and the stages of the consultation process enshrined?

Thank you to Ms Nadia Samdin for the questions. I explained earlier on our development process quite in detail. But let me make a few emphases.

The first is that no development can take place without planning permission under the Planning Act. And as part of the planning approval process, all development proposals are screened for potential environmental as well as heritage impact. And the developments that are assessed to have likely significant environmental and heritage impact are then subjected to the EIA and HIA process, which I mentioned earlier on. And then, we work together with different stakeholders, community groups, residents, nature groups, to then study the EIA or HIA and to see where we can make adjustments.

On Member's point about the broader considerations, we have undertaken an ecological profiling exercise as I had mentioned, to better understand the role of sites in protecting and also supporting biodiversity and ecological connectivity. These findings are important because they help to identify important habitats and ecological corridors. I mentioned that earlier on. It also helps us and guides planning on how to balance development with nature conservation.

But the development priorities and development projects that are close to sensitive areas will be subject to and in fact, are subject to greater scrutiny. And it guides measures to help us to mitigate the impact. For example, we will protect our nature reserves and any nearby developments that may affect nature reserves are subject to very strict planning controls.

In consultation with the nature groups – I have met with many of them, including the Nature Society of Singapore, the Singapore Youth Voices for Biodiversity, LepakInSG, National University of Singapore academics and many residents as well. As I mentioned earlier on, our consultation process will continue even after 6 August and we welcome more feedback and more views so that we can take in those, as we look to finalise our plans in later stage.

I thank the Minister of State for his fairly comprehensive replies. I take comfort in the fact that he mentioned that the plans have not been finalised and I take comfort in the good Minister of State's position that there has been an agreement to extend the consultation period, or at least the engagement post 6 August. These are good valuable explanations for the residents that I serve.

My questions arise out of possible alternative sites. I accept the Government's national priority to have housing close to parents and to family – something that I support. But I think we can look at alternative sites close to Maju Forest and here I have two: between the MSCP and the canal at Sunset Way there is currently a construction site for the Cross Island Line. And if one was to build higher there, it would have beautiful waterfront living. So, that is one alternative that is within my own ward. Would that be considered?

And pardon the pun, taking a leaf out of Dover Forest and the debate I had some years ago, we managed to find alternative housing sites that preserve half of Dover Forest – and it was a win-win situation. So, I invite the good Minister of State to look at this as a blank sheet of paper to see whether we can achieve such a win-win. And therefore, an alternative site is also Clementi Avenue 5. I understand that it is a worksite, a large worksite for the Cross Island Line, and it will be a rather eloquent and elegant position to put high rise HDB flats.

So, I am not one to just throw the problem away. I am giving solutions. Would the good Minister of State consider this?

The last point, Sir, if I may, arises out of Ms Sim Ann and my engagement on the ground. We have had town hall meetings. We have done home visits. We have been responding to emails and we have visited Maju Forest twice. And there is this great affinity for the forest, it is a part of their lives and there is also heritage.

So, for all of these reasons, I ask for the same ethos, the same principles that governed the debate between the back bench and the front bench regarding Dover Forest, and if we can receive a win-win-win solution with alternative sites and as much mitigation as possible, I think that would be a great advantage and great fillip for this House.

So, in summary, those are my responses. I do support the national priority of building. My question is, where? And if we can find a good win-win-win compromise.

Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza as well as grassroots advisor, Sim Ann. They have been very actively engaging myself, Minister Chee, Minister Indranee – very strongly speaking up on behalf of the residents at Sunset Way. They have gone down to the ground. They have organised town halls. They have conveyed many of the residents' feedback to us. They have also visited the residents. So, they have been very actively engaged – both on the ground and to me, as well as our MND colleagues.

I mentioned earlier on the alternative sites, and I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for being very practical and also identifying some potential alternative sites.

We do our best to optimise the land use and to tap the vacant land and brownfield sites where possible, but there are no other suitable sites to meet the near-turn demand in the vicinity. For example, the Albert Winsemius Lane site that he mentioned earlier near the MSCP is currently being used for LTA for the Cross Island Line. Clementi Avenue 5 is also to support ongoing works for the Cross Island Line, but will be considered for residential development after the MRT line is complete.

So, these are already measures that we have taken into consideration. We first look at brownfield sites. We first look at underused land. We first look at vacant land. And we look into whether we can first use them. Then, we see whether there are alternative sites for us to build.

So, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his inputs and we urge him to continue engaging with us beyond 6 August, so that we can take in his residents' feedback and make relevant adjustments to the plans before they are finalised.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State the following supplementary questions.

One, in my Adjournment Motion on Serangoon River Forest earlier this year, I raised concerns that public engagement often takes place only after key land use directions, which includes non-consultative zoning decisions, have been determined. So, why were consultations not conducted before the scope and parameters of the environmental studies for Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, for example, were established? And will the Government consider engaging stakeholders at an earlier stage for future major redevelopment proposals?

My next supplementary question: I would like to again urge the Minister of State to clarify whether the development plans for Gillman Barracks and the housing proposed under consideration remain open to substantive revision, and whether the Government is prepared to reduce development intensity or footprint, and consider alternative sites? And I got one more alternative site. What about the Protective Security Command at Ulu Pandan?

My next supplementary question: would the Minister of State tell the House, what specific long-term population and household formation projections are driving the planning for HDB housing developments in Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, and indeed elsewhere? And will MND publish this figure so that the public can independently assess if clearing these forests is necessary now?

My next supplementary question: given residents' concern about the loss of canopy cover, has HDB modelled the potential urban heat impact of the proposed developments on both sides and what measures are being considered to ensure surrounding neighbourhoods do not experience significant ambient temperature increases?

And finally, could I ask the Minister of State to consider extending the current one-month consultation period beyond 6 August, so that the residents, experts and civil society can have more time to review the reports and submit their feedback?

Sir, Mr Dennis Tan had five Parliamentary Questions, and we have debated this many times before, for Serangoon River Forest. Let me try to answer him as best as I can.

First, we will be extending the engagements beyond 6 August. So, that is very clear. So, as I have mentioned, please share with us your views and your feedback, and we will take them into consideration as we finalise the plans. We will also publish the agencies' responses to this feedback.

On the canopy cover and urban heat, I spoke about this in my main reply about how HDB is already taking these steps in existing and also future developments to reduce urban heat through many of these factors.

On population, I have also mentioned why currently, we require more housing. Household formations have increased. Household sizes are smaller and there is increased demand for housing, particularly in the central areas where the two sites are. At close by, Clementi Emerald, for example, is four times oversubscribed. So, we need those.

And I also wanted to ask for Mr Dennis Tan and the Workers' Party (WP) colleagues in this House to also stand by us in this regard. Because we have debated housing in this House many times. We have debated it in, I think, 2023 on the debate on Motion for public housing and the WP stance on housing is very clear. Let me just share a little bit.

First, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua had proposed to reduce the age eligibility for singles to access public housing, from age 35 to 28. Mr Pritam Singh also suggested allowing a first-time couple who exceeded income eligibility criteria threshold to buy a BTO. Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua also pushed for the Government to increase public housing supply. Mr Louis Chua, in his Adjournment Motion in September 2022, implored the Government to take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and address the current demand-supply imbalance to ensure housing demand of all Singaporeans, not just singles, are met. He had also asked in the same Adjournment Motion for the Government to build residential homes ahead of demand and to have a fundamental rethink of the BTO system.

So, all of these are very clear positions that housing is required and we need to build more. And when we do that, it is not a question of why we build. I think it is very clear. It is a question of where we build. I have explained to Members the sites. I think the Protective Security Command is also set aside for residential housing, for example. And as I mentioned, also to Mr Christopher de Souza, we have already looked at all of the surrounding brownfield sites and where possible, we have to factor in the timing, the availability, the infrastructure, as well as the lease and other factors before we go into vegetated sites. And in this case, we have been quite comprehensive in that regard.

On the public engagement, I also already mentioned that we will continue to engage the public, and we welcome public consultation and feedback beyond 6 August.

Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. But first, I do not think my Parliamentary Question was answered.

So, (a) what is the threshold of harm that sets aside a site if a major negative EIA assessment does not? And (b) whether under-used state land, including the grounds of black and white bungalows and ageing low-rise estates, had been assessed as an alternative? I have been to the grounds of some of these black and white bungalows, and I think that they are very, very low density, and certainly, if you wanted to build more housing there, it would be ideal.

My three supplementary questions. First, residents value Telok Blangah for its greenery and forest, and that is a large part of its identity. I think that removing the forest removes that identity. So, in the spirit of alternative sites, I think, could the car workshops around Alexandra Village Food Centre be considered for development?

Second, can there be a formal extension of the consultation deadline beyond 6 August?

Third supplementary question: many nature observers expressed to me deep disappointment in what they perceived to be the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's (MSE's) lack of leadership and ownership in the decisions on Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest, and their perception that MSE has gone missing on this issue. In this very year, 2026, that MSE has designated the "Year of Climate Adaptation", why has MSE not been seen leading and advocating for this forest?

Sir, let me answer Mr Kenneth Tiong's questions. A "major negative" is a formal technical term used in the EIA and it is not always possible to avoid the ecological and heritage impact, including the type for Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks. But with the EIA and the HIA, we have plans already to mitigate these possible impacts and we will do what we can to do so.

On alternative sites, we have already explained why and where; we have looked into alternative and brownfield sites.

On the engagements and the consultation, I also mentioned that we will extend it beyond the consultation period on 6 August.

And on the MSE, I disagree with his characterisation. The Government makes decisions across different Ministries. We speak to MSE. MSE gives us the feedback. But at the end of the day, we will have to make decisions based on the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.

You cannot say you want housing, as the WP has already mentioned multiple times and said in this House, but yet, then also in the same breath, say, "Why don't you do this?" and "Why don't you do that?"

I think what is important is for us to look at the compatible uses, the trade-offs and for us to, at the same time, build homes for people whom both the WP and us want to build homes for and at the same time also preserve where possible heritage sites as well as ecological sites.

These are not incompatible. It requires us to make very deliberate decisions on where we build, which is alternative sites, and also how we build in this regard.

So, I hope that the Member agrees with me, and I hope that he will work with us as well in engaging the nature groups, explain all of these different considerations. And I also really wanted to say that MSE has been working very closely with us in terms of addressing many of these issues together.

Thank you very much. The suggestion that MSE should take on a different position than MND, and to make a strong stance because it is the Year of Climate Adaptation, to object to some of the decisions that have been taken by MND – it is not how we work as a government. For us, any one of us standing in front here, presenting a position to the Government, the rest of us are in support. So, I think if a WP Member is hoping for a fight between Ministers, I think they will be disappointed.

But in any case, the purpose of having the Year of Climate Adaptation is precisely for that: for all the agencies and the Ministries, when they are planning long-term land use, when they are planning long-term transport infrastructure, when they are planning long-term power infrastructure, to have a view on the adaptation that is needed, given the long-term climate change. It is not to change the way that we have worked effectively as a team in the Government.

Mr Speaker, Young PAP recently engaged Singaporeans on the proposed housing developments at Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest. My fellow Young PAP advisors, Mr David Hoe and Ms Lee Hui Ying, heard two key concerns.

First, some young Singaporeans felt let down. They have been taught in school to make personal responsibility for sustainability but perceive a disconnect between this message and these developments.

My first supplementary question: will the Ministry further enhance public accessibility of EIAs and HIAs, make them easier to understand among the general public?

Second, our young accept that trade-offs are necessary, but they feel that they lack sufficient information to understand why this particular trade-off was made. Questions remain, such as why more areas of high ecological value are not included within the proposed retained area, and they want to know how the decision was reached and whether every reasonable alternative has been considered.

Hence, my second supplementary question is, will MND publish a report similar to the National Climate Change Secretariat's response on Singapore's long-term low emissions development strategy to respond to these questions and suggestions, and explain how feedback informed its final decision?

Finally, Maju Forest is quite hilly and it may entail potentially higher construction costs that potentially could be passed on to HDB buyers. It is also a very desirable site, given all the nature and the greenery surrounding it. How can we keep public housing at these sites affordable for HDB buyers?

Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for leading, together with Mr David Hoe and Ms Lee Hui Ying, together with the Young PAP, to engage our youths. And I understand that they will be engaging them further.

We can understand why our youths feel strongly about this and our youths ought to feel strongly about this. These are important issues, these are important considerations. It means they treasure our heritage and they treasure our green spaces. We will continue to engage them beyond and to get their feedback on where we can make adjustments to the sites, but then also to explain the rationale as well.

On those sites, we are not yet able to give an exact figure about the plans because they are not finalised yet. We could make, for example, potential adjustments to the layout, to the scale and to the detailed design.

If you look at what we are trying to study, we are trying to study the retention of some of these green spaces, including a significant stretch of greenery along the former Old Jurong Railway Line, also a natural stream and a riparian buffer that will help to support wildlife. And we will also publish a report summarising the agencies' responses to feedback and also any amendments made to the original plans.

So, we will do all of that. We will continue to engage our youths.

Sir, if you just allow me, I also had not answered Mr Kenneth Tiong's questions earlier on about alternative sites. I wanted to make the point that, where feasible, bungalows have been redeveloped or earmarked for future redevelopment already. And previously, the demolished clusters, for example, of bungalows at Seletar Camp have made way for an industrial park – and that supports our aerospace sector. In the coming years, we will also be studying plans to redevelop bungalows at Medway Park as part of the Dover-Medway Estate.

So, again, it reinforces our point that, where we can, we will prioritise brownfield sites and vacant sites, but where we cannot, then when we have to build, then we build very carefully, taking into account the EIA, the HIA, and then also looking at mitigation measures, working together with residents, communities, youth groups, nature groups and the like.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I would just like to make the point that asking the Government to build new houses should not preclude us from questioning where these houses should be built and the trade-offs that need to be made for these houses.

Secondly, Sunset Way has been largely zoned for residential use since the Master Plan in 1980. But since then, Maju Forest has become ecologically significant amidst the loss of many other green spaces in Singapore, including Tengah and parts of Bukit Brown.

The Minister of State has mentioned that MND has safeguarded a lot of green spaces, but there are also different types of green spaces. Destroying a secondary forest and then replacing it with a park yields the same amount of green space, but the ecological impact is completely different.

So, in light of this, will the Government consider reclassifying forested greenfield sites that are currently zoned for development into sites to be preserved wherever feasible? And if not, what factors might lead the Ministry to consider re-zoning forested greenfield sites that have already been identified for development, for park or nature reserve use?

A second question is, what is the threshold for conducting EIAs before developments on greenfield sites?

Sir, I thank Mr Fadli Fawzi for agreeing with us that there is really a need for housing and I also agree with him that it does not preclude the fact that we need to ask tough questions. And I appreciate Members of this House for conveying those concerns of their residents as well as the community, in this regard. It is important to ask these questions and it is on the Government to explain them, to explain the different aspects of it and to also ask for the public as well as residents to work with us in the design of these areas.

I have answered quite substantively, the questions that the Member had asked, particularly the ones that I had answered Ms Nadia Samdin, about how we look at the overall green space, the ecological profiling exercise. I have also answered before, how we look at alternative sites; and I also answered earlier on, how the EIA and HIA is meant to identify where their ecological and heritage significance and then, where, that is, what is today, how the proposed development may impact ecological and heritage features within the site and also, how we also mitigate the impact.

So, overall, if we look at where we are as a nation, we are one of the most liveable cities in the world. And despite our limited space, we have gone on to conserve and preserve over 7,800 hectares of greenery, within all of these constraints.

If we look at sites like, even Maju, in 1976, it was a brownfield site. The vegetation started growing there and then, of course, right now, even as we plan for Sunset Way, we factor in those green features. The stream, for example; the ecological corridor, for example; the old Jurong line, for example. So, these were not there in 1976. But there are there now, they have grown onto an original brownfield site. There are secondary native forest.

And when we plan, we already factor in that because we want to preserve these green sites and these green features, we already are lowering the number of homes that we can build on these sites. So, we take those into consideration and we will be able to build desirable homes for our people living close to their parents and also, enjoy the greenery that abuts these sites.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.

Would the Ministry consider publishing a forward-looking list of intended planning studies within the near term, say about two to three years, that may affect areas with heritage or ecological significance, and actively engage the community from the outset?

The second supplementary question will be, would the Ministry consider incorporating measures of non-market values, including existence value, bequest value and cultural value, into its evaluation framework for redevelopment decisions affecting heritage or natural areas?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to respond to the Minister of State. I am not sure I agree that his characterisation of the WP's position is a fair one. I think the question at hand here is not about whether or not we should build more. The question is and I believe that Members of this House are actually asking whether this location and the decisions, or at least the announcements have been made, are going to be the best given that there is a lot of pressure on housing. We all know that residents have balloted many, many, many times for housing. So, again, we are not disagreeing about about this, but the question before us today is whether or not these sites are the best places to build.

And we also want to understand a bit more from the Government, why these announcements have been made, what are the considerations that have gone into it?

In this regard, I also want to ask a couple of supplementary questions on this. The first being that we are talking about Gillman Barracks and also, Maju Forest. I noticed and I believe the Minister of State also said earlier that the Southern Waterfront, for example, is an area that is being developed, and I believe that the numbers is estimated about 7,000 new units, and nearer to Maju Forest, we have got a Turf City development, where up to 20,000 housing units are being proposed, or at least being planned. So, I would like to ask, despite all these numbers coming up, is it actually the Government's or at least MND's assessment that these 7,000, 20,000 units coming up in the vicinity is not enough?

I also noticed that Minister Chee earlier in the last few days also mentioned that HDB is continuing to study the impact of reducing BTO age, and I am just curious about whether or not the announcement of the development of these two areas is tied in any way to any potential reduction in BTO eligibility ages?

The last supplementary question that I would like to ask is whether or not, we have heard a lot about EIAs and HIAs and when these are being conducted. We also heard a bit about zoning, and the Minister of State mentioned earlier that Sunset Way has been zoned since 1980 for residential housing purposes. So, I just wanted to know whether or not, whether there had been any precedence where formal EIAs or HIAs have been conducted before any zoning changes or zoning decisions are made in order for us to have a bit more forward guidance in deciding to do a formal assessment, something a bit more formalised – EIAs or HIAs – before we even decide to change the zoning.

I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her questions and I also thank her for acknowledging that Members in this House, on both sides of the aisle, acknowledge that we need to build more. And she also acknowledged that there is a lot of pressure on housing. She mentioned earlier on that residents coming and balloting many times for housing. I am sure she faced that with her residents coming to her. I definitely face my residents saying, "I have multiple ballots and I can't get the home."

And residents and homeowners want housing, they want housing, many of them want housing in central areas living near their parents. And that is why the demand for housing in these areas are now, four times oversubscribed, as I mentioned in my earlier reply. So, there is a huge demand for housing. And the question then, as Ms He mentioned, is whether the alternative sites, whether we have sufficiently looked at alternatives.

Yes, we have and we will continue to look for alternatives and focus on brownfield sites and vacant land before we touch a vegetated site. But these are all considerations that I have already mentioned.

On the BTO eligibility age, Minister Chee had mentioned that we are reviewing that. Then on the EIA and the HIA, I think there has been a little bit of misunderstanding on this. We need an EIA and HIA to present a proposal and that proposal then, is meant for agencies, it is meant for the community, it is meant for residents to then look at the proposal, see where the impact is and see how to mitigate that impact.

The EIAs are naturally very extensive, they run over 300 pages long. But we also have executive summaries of it. And with these engagements then, we can also go into the detail. So, the engagements, for example, that Mr Christopher de Sousa and Minister Sim Ann or Miss Rachel Ong has organised; or many others outside of it; or the YP has organised. These go into the details, make it a little bit easier.

But we do still need a plan. And the EIA and the HIA are plans. It showcases what is there, where the impact would be and also where the potential mitigations are. And again, as I reiterated, the consultation and the feedback process is ongoing and we hope that many will continue to give us that feedback. We will make the changes as necessary, because the development plans are not final.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions and one clarification for the Minister of State. The Minister of State spoke about the better use of existing land, building taller where we can and using under-utilised land. So, in this regard, I also note that the Government has committed to the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) from early 2030 to renew ageing estates. So, I would like to ask, when the recommendation was made to clear parts of Maju Forest, Gillman Forest and Gillman Barracks for housing, was there any consideration to bring forward this renewal as an alternative? And if yes, what were the comparisons?

My second supplementary question is actually related to the Minister of State's earlier reply about how he was unable to share the exact housing yield of these sites, because the layouts have not been finalised. So, I would like to ask whether there is a target per site yield that HDB is looking at? I note in the 2025 draft URA Master Plan that it does contain indicative site yields for sites, like Newton, 5,000; the Patterson, 1,000; and also for Bayshore, 10,000 to 12,000, and so forth. But none has been given in this Master Plan for Maju Forest as well as for the Gillman Barracks sites.

And related to this, I would like to ask the Minister of State, what is the exact size of the housing demand that these sites are meant to respond to? It is something that my colleague Dennis Tan has asked. How much of this housing demand reflects local family formation per the Minister of State's outline about households getting smaller versus planned population growth?

And finally, I have one clarification. Given the volume of questions raised in this House today and the clear public interest and feedback on this, could the Minister of State clarify whether MND will be extending the consultation window beyond 6 August —

Yes, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification: whether this window is extended beyond 6 August, just like what was done for Dover Forest in 2021, or is it simply that MND will continue to engage the public and relevant agencies beyond 6 August? I am asking this so that Singaporeans can have more of a meaningful opportunity to participate.

Sir, for Ms Eileen Chong's questions, I have answered about the process of how we looked into the ecological profiling exercise, the EIAs and HIAs, but she raises some important points which I wanted to address.

The first is on the sites in the Master Plan with housing use, I think she mentioned Newton and other places, it is because the plans are firm. The plans are firm. Newton is my constituency. For Maju Forest and for Gillman Barracks, they are not firm and that is why we have the consultation period. That is why we have the EIA. That is why we are extending that, so that we can make adjustments.

And I mentioned earlier on that we make adjustments already prior with the EIA and HIA, where we could potentially have built more homes for Singaporeans. But we already have the EIA and HIA where we already accept that there will be lesser homes and the feedback exercise that will go beyond 6 August, as Speaker had mentioned, I have explained many times, will continue to help us to shape these plans as we go ahead.

On VERS, this is a long-term policy to have gradual redevelopment. It is not specifically linked to this. But earlier on, I have already mentioned why there is a demand for housing. I have already mentioned the smaller household sizes, I have mentioned greater family formation and also where people want homes. So, that is why we need to take this decision, look at the sites, look at where to build, look at alternatives and then, where we build, we do our best to mitigate the impacts of development – all to build homes for Singaporeans, which is our main objective.

Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State. May I know how the Government intends to support the arts community at the Gillman Barracks, either in relocating them or in continuing their work as an enclave in another area?

Sir, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her question. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has already engaged tenants at Gillman Barracks since 2023 and informed that the site has already been safeguarded for residential use in the longer term. SLA has also kept the tenants updated on the environmental and heritage studies which I mentioned earlier on, as well as upcoming development works.

For arts tenants, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for thinking of our arts practitioners in the site. I want to assure her that SLA is working closely with the National Arts Council (NAC) to support them. NAC will continue to engage the tenants and work with relevant agencies to facilitate their relocation, where possible, including pointing them to suitable alternative spaces and opportunities within Singapore's arts ecosystem.

Sir, if you allow me to wrap up very quickly.