Preservation of Dover Forest in Ulu Pandan

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Preservation of Dover Forest in Ulu Pandan

8.46 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic.

I would first like to record my appreciation to the Singapore city planners and the MND planning team that have really allowed Singapore's reputation as a City in a Garden to flourish in the minds of so many who look to our city for urban planning ideas. This Motion is meant to support that vision of Singapore being a City in a Garden and, by extension, being a place where people live around lush greenery, nature and wildlife.

It is with such a spirit that I wish to deliver this speech. Of particular importance to me is Dover Forest, which is a 33-hectare forest within my ward. I have looked very carefully at the Environmental Baseline Study which I must thank MND and HDB for so openly sharing with the public. But if one looks at the study, you will see vast numbers of plant and animal species, including species that are critically endangered. This has caused me some concern if we were to demolish the forest. Now, this forest is also between Ghim Moh, Mount Sinai, Pine Grove and Holland Grove estates. So, it is not just a forest but a shared and extended green landscape that the residents have, for a long time, admired and grown used to. Ulu Pandan residents know that I have a record of both developing the land in Ulu Pandan to make the best use of it but also, where possible, to preserve an environment of greenery to surround their estates. When Ghim Moh Link was being built some years ago, I walked the ground along the canal and worked together with different agencies to get signs hammered into the ground to state "protected tree".

It would be too easy to just say "halt and do not demolish Dover Forest" without giving alternatives. So, in the spirit of partnership and transparency, I would like to share with URA and MND some possible alternative sites and, in so doing, also share the long-term aspiration for Ulu Pandan and how this fits in. I have given a significant amount of time thinking about how to preserve as much of the forest as possible. One way to achieve this is through the use of vacant sites.

In considering possible alternative locations for the development of BTOs, I would like to propose the vacant plot of land next to the Ulu Pandan CC. In fact, in the Master Plan 2019, it is publicly stated that those two vacant plots of land have a gross plot ratio of 4.6 and 4.9, respectively. That, to me, is a golden opportunity to have a serious rethink about how we can grow, enhance and rejuvenate Ghim Moh Town. My idea is to use the 4.6 and the 4.9 gross plot ratio sites as BTO plots as well as possible SERS plots in rejuvenating some of the older blocks in Ghim Moh. I can appreciate that SERS is a sensitive topic. Although I am not expecting an answer today, given its sensitivity, I would like to put on record that my long-term aspiration, which I have given a fair amount of time thinking about, includes both an influx of BTO flats and also the rejuvenation of Ghim Moh for the existing residents living there.

When Ghim Moh Link was built some years ago, the residents from the old Blocks 9 to 12A, through SERS, moved to Ghim Moh Link and the old blocks were demolished. That land which the old blocks stood on, is now the vacant plot of land beside Ulu Pandan CC. This vacant plot of land opens the door to unprecedented possibilities of how we may use the land in as creative a way as possible.

So, when I say that the two plots completely vacant now can be used for both BTO as well as, subject to MND's clearance, for SERS, I do not say that in a flippant manner. The older flats in Ghim Moh, which were built in 1976, are 45 years old. One such group of flats is a group of six blocks of 3-room flats on the other side of the Ulu Pandan CC. The current gross plot ratio for those blocks – being blocks 1 to 6 Ghim Moh Road – is 2.8. I ask that the gross plot ratio be reconsidered so as to increase it.

There could be a selective en bloc of these six blocks to the vacant plot of land next to the CC. This then will release the whole plot where these Blocks 1 to 6 currently sit on, thereby releasing another jigsaw piece, another plot of land, for my other residents who are living around Ghim Moh market, that is, in Blocks 7 to 21, to be rehoused into that vacant plot of land, possibly through SERS. The vision is to continue to keep the market as the heart of Ghim Moh while, at the same time, rejuvenating the whole of Ghim Moh town through a deliberate and phased SERS development and the use of high gross plot ratios. The land around the market can then be redeveloped for more and taller housing, if my idea of offering SERS to Blocks 1 to 21 is accepted by MND. This will mean the ability to accommodate new residents in BTO flats as well as provide new flats with new leases for existing Ghim Moh residents, through SERS. This is my suggestion as an alternative, instead of felling Dover Forest.

I can anticipate that there are constraints. One constraint that MND may tell me today in response is that the pieces of land I have in mind are insufficient to accommodate BTO and SERS flats. My response, if I may, to that point is that there are two other under-utilised plots of land in Ghim Moh that we can use for planning purposes. The first is MOE's Language Centre, which was the old, now defunct, Ghim Moh Primary School. Residents of Mount Sinai, as well as residents of Ghim Moh, would know that there is a huge old unused field there lying fallow. So, that also allows for space for additional housing. If MND's view is that this is still insufficient land, although I do not think it is insufficient, but if MND is of the view that it is still insufficient, I have an additional solution to propose. This involves questioning whether or not we need the old sprawling RJC campus to remain. In my view, it is under-utilised. In fact, it is not housing any school now and its fields are unused. According to the Master Plan, the campus is subject to detailed planning. I am offering a proposal for that "detailed planning" today.

So, I come here with solutions – vacant plots of land next to the CC, using the old RJC campus site and the big field next to the now-defunct Ghim Moh Primary; all of these are under-utilised. Such a holistic rejuvenation of Ghim Moh Town will allow it to flow seamlessly into Holland Village with the rail corridor being the natural green valley between the two towns. So, one can picture that – a rejuvenated Ghim Moh with a green valley being the rail corridor seamlessly linking on to Holland Village and that town.

Mr Speaker, I am also making a broader point. I believe in providing alternative plans and solutions within my own constituency. For example, when the former Nexus International School campus was transformed into a temporary dormitory to house essential migrant workers in June 2020, we welcomed these workers in Ulu Pandan. In the end, it worked out to the benefit of everyone. It also built mutual trust and respect between residents and workers. We – the residents of Ulu Pandan and I – did not take a NIMBY approach to the workers and have welcomed them to the Nexus site. In fact, we were discussing that it being called the Nexus International School, how wonderful it would be if, after our essential workers came in and occupied the dormitory, there will be a nexus created between the workers and the residents. And I dare say there has been, fortunately.

So, the point that I am making is, if more BTO flats need to be built, we have a solution in Ulu Pandan. I am not taking the easy way out by saying "go build in someone else's constituency." The solution I am offering ties in with my longer term aspiration to both develop and rejuvenate Ulu Pandan while preserving greenery. That solution involves using vacant or under-utilised plots of land around Ghim Moh to accommodate new residents in BTO flats, as well as to rejuvenate Ghim Moh through a deliberate and phased SERS exercise.

This allows for a compact community allowing for the inflow of new residents to live alongside existing Ghim Moh residents. Some of the new residents will be the children of existing Ghim Moh families who will be able to buy BTO flats next to their parents. But this idea of conservation and having residents live within a green environment surrounded by greenery and nature is not something that has been crystalised by virtue of what we are debating today. This has been my long-term aspiration for Ulu Pandan residents I serve.

Allow me now, Sir, to expand on this long-term aspiration as it foretells or provides insight into why the Motion was worded as "Preservation of Dover Forest in Ulu Pandan". It was worded such because it is part of a wider aspiration for residents and it is not constrained to residents living in Ghim Moh. If you can picture it from a satellite view, if we were to retain Dover Forest, it would mean that we have a wonderful loop of nature around the whole constituency. Dover Forest links up all the way to Clementi Road, where if you cross Clementi Road, the Ulu Pandan park connector runs along and links up to my residents in Sunset Way. And there is a railway bridge that connects to an expanse of green land that goes behind the Sunset Way HDB estate and eventually leads to Clementi Forest, which then eventually leads out to the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Railway Station. If one comes back down the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Railway Station heading south, you will go through the estates of Old Holland, Greenleaf, Mount Sinai and then back to Ghim Moh. So, a loop of greenery within Ulu Pandan itself.

Parallel to this vision of keeping Ulu Pandan as green as we can was our effort, together with NParks, to create as many access points into the Rail Corridor for the residents in Ulu Pandan.

So, actually we have managed to secure access at eight points. These points are at Holland Green, Greenleaf, Ghim Moh, Ulu Pandan CC, Mount Sinai, Bukit Timah Road, Ewart Park, Holland Road. And there are other estates within Ulu Pandan that will be able to link up to the Rail Corridor, especially through the Holland Green Linear Park, which we recently opened. For example, for residents living in Namly Estate and Coronation Estate, all they have to do is cross Sixth Avenue, walk down Laurel Wood Avenue and they will get to Holland Plain which will link up eventually to the Rail Corridor.

My hope is that we will be able to have a footpath that connects Holland Green Linear Park to Clementi Road through the scenic route of Clementi Forest which, I should state, I would like preserved, where possible. In fact, there is a whole belt of condos along Bukit Timah Road that will be able to link up to the Rail Corridor, through the sky walk above Bukit Timah Canal as part of the Bukit Timah-Rochor Green Corridor Initiative.

So, if you can picture a satellite’s view, that would mean everyone living in between King Albert Park and Sixth Avenue, both condo-dwellers and house-dwellers, will be able to walk down, connect to Bukit Timah Railway Station, link to the Rail Corridor, head south, head to Ghim Moh and down to Dover Forest.

So, Mr Speaker, the idea is to have Ulu Pandan residents live within a landscape of lush greenery. In order to do that, I have to be able to provide alternative sites and alternative solutions to protect Dover Forest.

This aspiration for the constituency I serve, especially the phased rejuvenation of major towns, will take 20 years or more from today – very likely, beyond my time as a Member of Parliament in this House. But that should not stop me from aspiring for my residents today. What I am trying to get across today to the planners is the need to think long and hard before making irreversible decisions. A 40-year-old forest is home to creatures over many life cycles. Many life cycles of creatures and species create an eco-system. That eco-system has been adopted and made to become part of the wider shared landscape of Ulu Pandan residents.

There are other proposals obviously, which I may not have time to go into, but these also include how we can bring nature, greenery and greater amenity to our residents living in Farrer Gardens, building a jogging and cycling flyover over Clementi Road to link the Park Connector from Pine Grove Estate to the Sunset Way Estate, and also allowing Ulu Pandan residents in the Sunset Way HDB blocks to access the green corridor behind them that will link to Clementi Forest. I hope MND will consider these proposals, aspirations, hopes and dreams for Ulu Pandan.

In conclusion, Sir, it is with all this in mind, that is, the environmental baseline study, the desire of many Ulu Pandan residents to retain Dover Forest, the idea of it being a part of a nature loop around the constituency and the longer term aspiration for Ulu Pandan as a constituency that I stand today in the hope that the planners will revisit and will come up with solutions, some of which I have suggested, so as to preserve the Dover Forest.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tan Kiat How.

9.04 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, for raising this matter.

Mr de Souza shared that the Ulu Pandan site, which some refer to as the “Dover Forest”, is close to the hearts of his residents and he spoke up very passionately about this topic. As someone who grew up in the area and spent much time exploring the spaces there, I can well appreciate these sentiments, and the way that Mr de Souza described the regions that he has in Ulu Pandan gives me a tinge of regret for moving out.

Sir, first and foremost, I want to acknowledge the concerns and wishes of Mr de Souza’s residents. The Ulu Pandan site used to be a rubber plantation before it was abandoned. It was re-zoned for residential use under the Master Plan 2003. We were mindful of this characteristic when planning for its development. Hence, the HDB engaged a consultant to conduct an environmental baseline study to inform our plans. Nature groups were consulted and many residents living in the area provided feedback when the report was published online and we received a wide range of views.

Some called for the preservation of the Ulu Pandan site and asked HDB to consider alternative sites in the area instead, and Mr de Souza mentioned a number of these sites in his speech. Others supported using the site for public housing so as to meet the needs of Singaporeans. However, these respondents also called for the site to be developed in a way that allows for their children and their grandchildren to continue enjoying the greenery.

We are studying the feedback and welcome more Singaporeans to provide their views as we refine plans for the Ulu Pandan site. HDB will extend the public consultation period for another four weeks. We will carefully consider the feedback received and share our plans when ready.

We take this approach of consulting stakeholders and balancing the different needs of Singaporeans seriously. Minister Desmond Lee spoke about this important stewardship role earlier. Because land is scarce in Singapore, we have to plan judiciously. We recycle our limited land, for instance, through selling it on a leasehold basis, allowing us to refresh our land use and renew our cityscape and neighbourhoods. We optimise our limited land supply by co-locating uses, increasing the density of land plots, redeveloping existing sites and, where it makes sense, going underground. For example, the East Coast Integrated Depot, will incorporate three MRT depots and one for buses. Doing so will save 44 hectares of land, which is about twice the size of Changi Airport Terminal 4.

With careful planning, we can safeguard some of our ecologically important sites as green spaces, such as the Kranji Marshes. And where we have to develop greenfield sites, we do so after careful deliberation, seeking to preserve and integrate natural elements into the developments.

At the heart of these decisions, it is not just about balancing the various needs of Singaporeans today, but, importantly, it is also about balancing the needs of today’s generation with those that come after us. And that is why I am very heartened that despite the differing viewpoints we received on the Ulu Pandan site, there was a common thread running through the feedback: there was a strong desire to be responsible stewards for future generations.

And we put in just as much thought and effort into conserving nature. It is part of our DNA, deeply intertwined with our Singapore Story. The lush greenery we see today is the result of dedicated and sustained efforts by generations of Singaporeans who have been greening our city and planting trees year after year for over 60 years. It is the result of deliberate decisions made by earlier terms of Government, who have safeguarded our green spaces even as they developed our urban landscape and built homes for Singaporeans.

But we are not done. We have a vision to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. We will continue to identify core biodiversity areas and their surrounding buffers, and retain these sites where possible. We will also continue to strengthen ecological connectivity through enhancing our network of ecological corridors, such as the Bukit Batok Nature Corridor. This will better connect habitats in nature reserves and nature parks to that in gardens and parks.

And we are committed to do more. We will intensify greenery and integrate nature into our built environment, for example, through partnering the community to plant one million trees by 2030 and to implement more skyrise greenery in our buildings and infrastructure. These efforts will help us mitigate the impact of urbanisation and climate change and provide a high-quality living environment for Singaporeans, with greater access to nature’s benefits. Mr Speaker, let me speak in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the concerns and wishes of Mr de Souza’s residents. The Ulu Pandan site which some referred to as “Dover Forest”, was rezoned for residential use as part of the Master Plan 2003.

HDB engaged a consultant to conduct an Environmental Baseline Study before it proceeded with its planning.

We received a wide range of views from different groups. Some called for the preservation of the Ulu Pandan site, while others supported using the site for public housing to meet the needs of Singaporeans. For those who supported the development of the site, they called for it to be developed in a way that allows for their children and grandchildren to continue enjoying the greenery.

We welcome more Singaporeans to give their views and inputs, as we consider our plans for the Ulu Pandan site. HDB will extend the public consultation period for another four weeks. We will carefully consider all the feedback received and share our plans when ready.

We take this approach of consulting stakeholders and balancing the different needs of Singaporeans seriously. Because land is scarce in Singapore, we have to plan judiciously. It is not just about balancing the various needs of Singaporeans today but, importantly, it is also about balancing the needs of today’s generation with those that come after us.

We put in just as much thought and effort into conserving nature. The lush greenery we see today is the result of dedicated and sustained efforts by generations of Singaporeans who have been greening our cities and planting trees year after year, for over 60 years.

It is the result of deliberate decisions made by earlier terms of Government who have safeguarded our green spaces even as they developed our urban landscape and built homes for Singaporeans. These decisions have provided the solid foundation in our vision to transform Singapore into a City in Nature.

(In English): In conclusion, we are committed to act as responsible stewards for Singapore and Singaporeans, for today’s generation and those that come after us, striving to make good use of our limited land, preserving as much of our natural heritage as we can. We will continue to consult and engage with Singaporeans, consider their feedback and suggestions seriously as we balance the various needs.

I am confident that we can do so if all Singaporeans continue to see ourselves as stewards for what we have and for the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 9.13 pm.