What the point of all these.  As if all this smaller fry can override boss

Here are the key gaps, flaws, and omissions widely raised about the EIA/ecological assessments for both sites by experts, MPs, nature groups and residents:       1. Core Logical Gap: Highest-Impact Issue Not Properly Addressed   - The reports themselves rate direct loss of native secondary forest as “Major Negative – Certain” – the most serious impact category. - But mitigation measures (corridors, buffers, retention) mostly target edge effects and disturbance, not the permanent removal of irreplaceable mature habitat. - No assessment shows whether retained fragments can sustain the full species mix long‑term; compensatory planting cannot replace decades‑old forest.   2. Connectivity & Corridors Underestimated   - 30‑metre corridors proposed are widely seen as insufficient for wide‑ranging/secretive species like pangolins, civets and large birds; experts and residents call for 60 m or wider. - Landscape‑level connectivity was not fully assessed: Gillman links the Southern Ridges; Maju connects Clementi Forest, Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah – loss breaks a vital regional wildlife network. - No proper modelling of displacement risk: animals squeezed into smaller spaces face competition, starvation, roadkill or local extinction.   3. Cumulative & Long‑Term Impacts Missing   - Lacks cumulative impact analysis of nearby projects (e.g. Greater Southern Waterfront, other western Singapore developments) compounding habitat loss. - Limited assessment of long‑term ecosystem function: soil health, hydrology, pollination, seed dispersal – all degrade even if some trees remain. - Climate resilience factors like urban heat island mitigation, stormwater retention and carbon storage were not properly included or weighted in the EIA framework.   4. Incomplete Assessment Scope   - Brownfield/alternative‑site comparison was not done or published – the EIA assumes the chosen site without demonstrating no other feasible option exists. - Ecological Profiling Exercise results and full demand‑forecasting methodology were not released alongside impact reports. - Heritage‑ecology links weak: Gillman’s military landscape value intertwined with its forest not fully evaluated together .   5. Transparency & Decision‑Making Gaps   - Reports identify residual major negative impacts even after mitigation – yet do not explain why the project proceeds despite this. - No clear account of how EIA findings actually shaped or constrained the development footprint. - Monitoring plans are post‑construction only; no independent oversight, and no clear triggers to pause or adjust works if harm exceeds predictions.   6. Wildlife & Biodiversity Limitations   - Focuses heavily on presence/absence rather than population viability, breeding success or territory needs of sensitive species (e.g. straw‑headed bulbul, Sunda pangolin) . - Treats retained patches as “enough” without ecological carrying‑capacity studies. - Translocation/relocation of wildlife is assumed viable, but EIA does not prove receiving areas can support them.       In short: The EIAs acknowledge serious harm but do not adequately prove it can be mitigated, do not properly weigh irreversible loss against housing need, and omit broader landscape, cumulative and climate‑related considerations.    

EIA report    Gillman Barracks EIA_Main Report_Final.pdf https://www.hdb.gov.sg/-/media/about-us/our-role/plan-and-design-towns/planning-with-the-environment-in-mind/Gillman-Barracks-EIA_Main-Report_Final.pdf?f_link_type=f_linkinlinenote&flow_extra=eyJkb2NfaWQiOiI4OGI4NDcwOWJiNThlZDJhLWUxZGUxYzdhODNmN2E2NzQiLCJpbmxpbmVfZGlzcGxheV9wb3NpdGlvbiI6MCwiZG9jX3Bvc2l0aW9uIjowfQ%3D%3D&need_sec_link=1&sec_link_scene=im

MPs from the Workers’ Party and People’s Action Party have filed parliamentary questions on proposed developments at Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest ahead of the 4 August sitting, covering housing demand, public consultation, environmental impacts, alternative sites and heritage.   https://theonlinecitizen.com/2026/07/31/m-ps-file-questions-on-gillman-maju-forest-plans-as-public-feedback-deadline-looms-in-one-week   MPs File Questions on Gillman, Maju Forest Plans as Public Feedback Deadline Looms   Source: The Online Citizen, 31 July 2026 Feedback Deadline: 6 August 2026, 6pm Parliament Sitting: 4 August 2026       📌 Background   Proposed housing developments at Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest (Sunset Way) have sparked widespread public concern over ecological loss, heritage, consultation adequacy, and whether alternative sites were considered. MPs from both sides of the House have filed questions ahead of the upcoming sitting, while opposition has grown strongly online and at community dialogues.       🧾 Parliamentary Questions Filed   Workers’ Party (He Ting Ru, Dennis Tan)   - How public consultations are conducted: timelines, stakeholder selection criteria - Projected housing demand and how plans align with climate adaptation goals - Relocation support for arts/culture tenants at Gillman Barracks - Whether brownfield sites and older low-rise estates were evaluated as alternatives - Urged public to submit feedback by 6 August   PAP MP Rachel Ong (Telok Blangah)   - Whether lower-impact alternatives were assessed - How public feedback will shape final plans; why project proceeds despite residual environmental harm - Whether engagement continues after consultation closes - How future environmental monitoring will guide later development phases - Attended 26 July community dialogue alongside WP and PSP MPs; may file an Adjournment Motion after ministerial replies   PAP MP Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh)   - Whether brownfield capacity is assessed regionally before approving greenfield development - If Ecological Profiling Exercise results are part of decision-making and published alongside impact assessments - HDB’s housing demand forecasting methodology, accuracy over past 10 years, and variance between projections and actuals   PAP MP Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah)   - Filed two questions and an Adjournment Motion on Maju Forest - Whether nature group recommendations can be adopted; lessons from 2021 Dover Forest planning - Protection of ecological connectivity, biodiversity and endangered species - Working with MP Sim Ann, who noted plans are not final and 131 residents attended a dialogue on 17 July; 65 have given direct feedback to HDB       🗣️ Community & Public Response   - 26 July: ~120 people at Gillman Barracks dialogue; WP MPs joined nature walk and discussions - 30 July: ~300 residents at Telok Blangah CC session with HDB, URA, NParks; ~60 questions raised, mostly on ecology and whether consultation is meaningful - Key concerns: 30m wildlife corridor is insufficient – call for 60m buffer; cumulative environmental impacts; doubts plans can be changed after announcement - Petitions (as of 31 July, 5pm): - Save Gillman Barracks/Forest: >12,650 signatures - Save Maju Forest — Build the homes without erasing the wild: >33,600 signatures - Total: >46,300 endorsements - Next event: Community online town hall, 2 August 8pm (Maju Forest)       🏗️ Official Positions & Proposals   - HDB: Plans remain under review; balancing housing need with conservation; prioritised brownfield but limited options in the west; EIA will guide decisions - Gillman Barracks: Build public/private homes; retain >20 of 86 heritage buildings; preserve most secondary forest, stream and ≥30m corridors; 293 plant, 178 fauna species recorded (33 of conservation concern) - Sunset Way (23ha): ~8ha retained (stream, Old Jurong Line area) with nature trail; rest for housing with biophilic design - Feedback: All submissions by 6 August will inform final housing yield, flat mix, classification and timeline