Commentary: What revised Maju Forest plans could mean for future development decisions

Commentary

Framing the outcome in terms of winners and losers risks reinforcing the zero-sum thinking we should move beyond, says NUS landscape architecture professor Yun Hye Hwang.

New: You can now listen to articles.

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

02 Nov 2026 06:00AM

SINGAPORE: Following environmental studies and public feedback, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) announced on Wednesday (Oct 28) revised housing plans for Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks: The proposed housing supply will be cut by about 1,200 homes across both sites while retaining an additional six hectares of existing greenery.

In land-scarce Singapore, this is a significant decision amid continuing housing demand. Is it a victory for nature groups? In some respects, yes. Their sustained engagement has brought greater attention to the environmental implications of development. 

However, framing the outcome in terms of winners and losers risks reinforcing the zero-sum thinking we should move beyond.

In 2020, amid public debate over Clementi Forest, I argued in a CNA commentary that Singapore need not view forest conservation and housing development as mutually exclusive. Instead, I called for collaborative planning involving different stakeholders to explore alternatives that accommodate both.

Six years later, the revised plans suggest continued efforts to explore alternative approaches to urban development on forested sites. 

TREATING IT AS COLLABORATION, NOT JUST OPPOSITION

Following the initial announcement in July, HDB received approximately 9,500 public submissions and engaged around 1,000 stakeholders, including residents, nature groups, academics and built-environment professionals.

Importantly, the feedback covered more than objections to forest clearance. At Maju Forest, stakeholders raised concerns about habitat connectivity and proposed alternative development footprints and brownfield sites. 

At Gillman Barracks, discussions also highlighted military heritage, cultural identity and community value. Engagement also brings out the social and cultural value these places hold for the community, which formal planning assessments cannot fully capture. 

HDB said it considered these suggestions alongside housing needs and land availability, incorporating some while explaining why others could not be adopted.

This approach is not entirely new. In 2021, following environmental studies and public consultation, plans for Dover Forest were revised, with about one-third of the secondary forest designated for public housing and the remaining area set aside for a nature park. 

However, revising a plan following consultation is not necessarily the same as collaborative planning.

In a joint statement issued on Oct 30, residents involved in the Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks discussions acknowledged the additional greenery and stronger proposed ecological connections, but stressed that this did not constitute endorsement of the revised plans. They also expressed disappointment that requests to review the revised options before their announcement had been declined.

This highlights an important distinction between receiving public feedback and involving stakeholders in shaping decisions.

But how can the government remain responsive without becoming populist?

Responsiveness does not mean accepting every objection. It requires evaluating public concerns transparently against environmental evidence, housing needs and wider public interests.

Nor should the revisions create an expectation that public opposition automatically results in reduced development. Each site presents different conditions and trade-offs.

A more constructive approach would be to encourage early collaboration particularly for sites of recognised ecological significance, allowing stakeholders to identify priorities, explore alternatives and contribute to development scenarios before plans become highly defined. The extent of engagement should reflect each site's environmental significance and planning context.

RETAINING VS ADDING GREENERY

The revisions represent a meaningful adjustment to the relationship between development and existing forests.

However, given the constraints on how much land can be retained for nature, greater attention should also be given to the ecological quality of greenery within residential neighbourhoods.

When secondary forests are cleared, they are often replaced with urban landscapes containing substantial areas of managed greenery. While these cannot fully replace the naturally regenerated forests, they offer opportunities to support biodiversity beyond designated forest patches and integrate habitat-supporting functions throughout the neighbourhood.

At Maju Forest, which forms part of the Clementi Nature corridor, the wider landscape includes potential connections towards Clementi Forest and forest patches around Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang. 

While the proposed wider nature way may help maintain habitat continuity, equal attention should be given to the landscape design of the new residential neighbourhood, particularly its northern portion.

Every square metre of neighbourhood greenery and every metre of roadside planting offers opportunities to support wildlife movement through habitat-sensitive design, forest-edge protection and wildlife-friendly infrastructure. This requires balancing conservation priorities with infrastructure constraints while considering habitat quality, spatial configuration and long-term management. 

A PRECEDENT FOR BETTER PLANNING

The revisions do not eliminate difficult trade-offs between housing and conservation, nor do they guarantee long-term ecological benefits.

However, they offer an opportunity to improve how ecological knowledge and community perspectives inform subsequent planning decisions, particularly as both projects move towards the design phase. 

The planning process matters as much as the outcome. While not every stakeholder can be satisfied, meaningful engagement can help identify alternatives, clarify trade-offs and build a shared understanding of planning decisions.

The more valuable lesson is not that public opposition necessarily changes development plans. It is that collaborative, evidence-informed and adaptable planning becomes a more consistent part of how Singapore shapes its future landscapes.

Yun Hye Hwang is an Associate Professor in the Landscape Architecture Programme, Department of Architecture, at the National University of Singapore.

Source: CNA/ch