Why Maju Forest, and Why Now?

Singapore has to build homes. We understand that. Our question is not whether Singapore should continue to provide housing, or whether new homes should be built near public transport. It is a much more specific question: Why does Maju Forest need to be cleared now?

The answer matters because clearing a forest is irreversible. Once the trees, soils, ecological networks and layers of habitat are removed, they cannot simply be replaced by planting new trees elsewhere.

If Maju Forest is genuinely required to meet an unavoidable housing need, then the public should be able to understand when that need arises, how large it is, what other land will become available before then, and why those options cannot be brought forward first. This is ultimately a question of sequencing.

Singapore already has a principle for this

Brownfield redevelopment is not an idea invented for the Maju Forest campaign. URA identifies the redevelopment of brownfield sites as one of Singapore’s strategies for optimising land. Previously developed sites can be intensified, redeveloped or put to new uses, allowing Singapore to accommodate growth while leaving undeveloped areas alone for longer.

In its current planning guidance, URA states that brownfield areas will be prioritised for redevelopment, including for new housing. This principle makes sense. When we need more space, it is logical to ask first: What have we already built on? Can existing developed land be intensified? Can obsolete or temporary uses be consolidated? Can former institutional, industrial or recreational sites be redeveloped? Can land coming to the end of its current use be planned for housing?

Only after those possibilities have been properly assessed should the question become: What undeveloped land do we need to sacrifice? Maju Forest is currently being asked to bear that cost. We believe the public deserves to see the sequence that leads to that decision.

There is already a housing pipeline around Maju

In discussions with our Member of Parliament, Christopher de Souza, residents identified a number of sites in the wider Maju, Clementi and Ulu Pandan area that warrant consideration.

These are not all vacant plots. Some remain in active use. Some will only become available in several years. Some may ultimately prove unsuitable for housing. That distinction is important. We are not claiming that every site can simply be turned into HDB flats tomorrow.

Instead, we are asking that these sites be considered as part of a transparent land and housing pipeline, with their current use, tenure, availability and potential future use made clear.

Among the sites identified are:

The question is not “Can we build here?”

It is “When could we build here?” This distinction is crucial.

A site that becomes available in 2027 is different from one that becomes available in 2032. A site required for an essential public function is different from one under a temporary lease. And a housing need that arises in 2035 is different from one that must be met in 2026. Yet without a publicly available timeline, it is difficult for residents to understand why Maju Forest must be committed now.

A question closer to home: what happens to the land at Clementi Avenue 5?

There is another piece of the Clementi housing story that deserves to be part of this conversation.

Just a short distance from Maju Forest, three HDB blocks at Clementi Avenue 5, Blocks 321, 322 and 323, were selected for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) in 2011. The three blocks contained 374 homes. Residents were offered replacement flats at Clementi Cascadia on Clementi Avenue 3, where 500 replacement homes were provided. The original blocks were subsequently vacated and demolished, along with the associated surface carpark and ancillary structures. SERS was intended to rejuvenate older HDB estates and optimise land use. In principle, it allowed older housing to be replaced with new homes while making more efficient use of land. Yet today, the former Clementi Avenue 5 site is not being rebuilt as HDB housing. Instead, the land is being incorporated into the infrastructure associated with the expanded Clementi MRT interchange.

We recognise that the engineering situation is complicated; the site sits above the newly extended Clementi MRT interchange, and building substantial structures above transport infrastructure is more expensive and technically demanding than building on conventional ground. But “more difficult” is not the same as “impossible”.

A few Sunset Way residents recalled that in an informal chat with HDB’s Chief Town Planner, Dr Chong Fook Loong, he indicated that construction above the interchange is technically possible, although the additional structural requirements would make doing so more costly. That distinction matters.

If building HDB homes here is technically possible but more expensive, then the question becomes one of planning priorities and public value:

How much more would it cost to put public housing back on land that previously held public housing, and how does that compare with the cost of acquiring, clearing and preparing a functioning secondary forest for new housing?

This is not simply a question about one vacant plot. It is about what we choose to do with land that has already been developed.

Public housing land, private housing land and forest land

Land is not economically neutral. Different development options have different costs, constraints and potential returns. Building over infrastructure may cost more. Building on a cleared and serviced site may cost less. Developing a forest introduces environmental costs that are not necessarily reflected in the financial cost of construction.

This is why we believe the public conversation needs to be about more than simply asking: “Where can we fit more buildings?” It should ask: “What is the best use of each piece of land, taking into account public housing needs, infrastructure costs, environmental value and long-term public benefit?”

At Clementi Avenue 5, the Government has already made one major land-use decision: three existing HDB blocks were removed. The replacement homes for those households were provided elsewhere. The former site therefore became available for a new purpose. If the additional cost of constructing above the Clementi interchange is the reason HDB housing is not being reinstated there, residents deserve to understand the numbers.

How much more would it cost?
What alternatives were assessed?
Was a public-housing scheme modelled?
What is the long-term intended use of the site?

And, crucially: How does that cost compare with the economic and environmental cost of opening up new land in Maju Forest?

The larger Clementi picture

Clementi Avenue 5 sits outside the constituency represented by Christopher de Souza. We recognise that. But planning does not stop at constituency boundaries.

The former HDB site at Clementi Avenue 5, the future Maju MRT station, Sunset Way, Maju Forest, Ulu Pandan and the other brownfield and redevelopment sites we have identified are all part of the same larger Clementi planning ecosystem. Decisions made on one parcel affect the choices available on another.

If a site that previously housed hundreds of HDB households is now used differently because rebuilding there is more expensive, while a forest is simultaneously being considered for clearance to create new housing land, then the public is entitled to ask whether we are making these decisions as part of a coherent long-term strategy.

Or are we simply choosing the sites that are cheapest or easiest to develop? That distinction matters. Because the cheapest land to develop is not necessarily the most responsible land to develop. A secondary forest may appear to be “available” because it is State-owned and undeveloped. But it is not empty. It is already performing functions that would otherwise have to be replaced at a cost: cooling the surrounding neighbourhood, absorbing stormwater, storing carbon, supporting biodiversity, providing ecological connectivity and giving residents access to nature. These values rarely appear on a development balance sheet.

What happens between now and 2032?

This is particularly important because Maju MRT is scheduled to open in 2032.

The Government has explained that development decisions take into account national housing needs, the availability of alternative sites and whether the necessary supporting infrastructure is in place. At the same time, URA’s Master Plan identifies new housing around upcoming Cross Island Line stations, including Maju.

We understand the logic of building homes near MRT stations. But if this is part of the rationale for developing Maju Forest, we need to understand the numbers.

How many additional residents does Maju MRT actually require? And when? We have not found a publicly available station-level forecast that tells residents:

• the projected daily ridership at Maju MRT when it opens;
• the projected ridership five years after opening;
• the projected ridership ten years after opening;
• the existing population already within its catchment;
• the population expected from developments already committed;
• the additional population assumed to come from visitors of Maju Forest; and
• how much housing is actually required to achieve those transport planning assumptions.

These are not unreasonable questions. They are the basic information needed to understand whether the timing of forest clearance is driven by an immediate housing requirement, a future transport requirement, or a combination of both.

What we know about the existing housing pipeline

There are already significant examples of previously developed land being brought into the housing pipeline around the wider area. The former ITE headquarters in Dover is planned for a mix of public and private housing. The former Raffles Junior College site at Mount Sinai has been identified for public housing. Albert Winsemius Lane is expected to be considered for residential redevelopment after Cross Island Line construction. These sites are important not because they prove that Maju Forest is unnecessary. They demonstrate something more fundamental: Singapore’s housing supply is not a single switch that is either on or off. It is a pipeline.

Land becomes available at different times. Sites are redeveloped. Leases expire. Existing uses are consolidated. Infrastructure is completed. New neighbourhoods are planned. The question we are asking is whether Maju Forest has to enter that pipeline now, or whether other parts of the pipeline can be brought forward first.

A 5-year question and a 10-year question

We believe the Government should publish a clear timeline showing the relationship between: 2026 → 2030 → 2032 → 2037 → 2042

and, for each period:

• projected housing demand;
• committed housing supply;
• potential brownfield and redevelopment sites;
• when each site becomes available;
• expected housing yield;
• Maju MRT’s projected ridership; and
• the additional ridership assumed to come from visitors of Maju Forest.

This would allow residents to understand the planning logic for themselves.

We are not asking Singapore to stop building

Singapore needs homes. Families need affordable housing. Young Singaporeans need places to live. Older residents need accessible homes. And good planning should put more homes near MRT stations. We support those objectives. But housing policy is also about where, when and in what order we build.

There is a difference between saying: “Singapore needs more homes.” and saying: “Singapore needs to clear this forest now.” The first is a broad statement about national housing policy. The second is a specific land-use decision that should be supported by specific evidence.

Before clearing a forest, show us the timeline

Maju Forest is not asking to be exempt from Singapore’s housing needs. It is asking to be considered after we understand the alternatives and their timelines.

If the Government can demonstrate that:

• the housing requirement cannot be met through the existing pipeline;
• brownfield and previously developed sites cannot be brought forward quickly enough;
• the projected population required around Maju MRT genuinely necessitates additional housing before those sites become available; and
• Maju Forest is therefore required within a defined timeframe,

then residents should be able to see that reasoning. But if the need for this land only emerges further into the future, why make an irreversible decision today?

We have time to plan. And time is precisely what makes sequencing possible.

Singapore’s own approach to land optimisation recognises the value of redeveloping previously developed sites while leaving undeveloped areas alone for longer. Maju Forest asks that this principle be applied here.

Before we clear a forest, show us why we have to.
And show us why we have to do it now.

Maju Forest is not a trade-off. It is a question of what we choose to build, where we choose to build it, and when.