Here's how to help — today.

Although Singapore boasts 7,800 hectares of green space and URA has reserved another 1,000 hectares, forests make up only 16% of Singapore's land cover. A good portion of the rest are parks and managed greenery, not forests.

Our secondary forests are dwindling and under threat: Singapore experienced a net loss of 380 ha of tree cover between 2000 and 2020, mainly driven by housing and infrastructure development. Based on recent URA masterplans, Singapore might lose more than half of its secondary forests to development.

Planting one million trees and creating new parks will not make up for forests that have taken decades to develop into rich ecosystems and habitats. Deforestation is irreversible. This is not a balanced trade-off.

Forests have been scientifically shown to cool urban environments, mitigating rising heat under the Urban Heat Island effect and climate change. 2026 has been declared the Year of Climate Adaptation — why is the government planning to deforest and replace forests with concrete?

Site-specific studies at Maju and Gillman Forests have not been conducted on how deforestation will affect local urban microclimates. Given that the elderly are more vulnerable to heat, and Singapore's ageing population, the lack of study on deforestation's urban heating effects is concerning.

There is no evidence that heat-mitigation strategies such as improved wind flow or added greenery can cool better than forests.

The EIAs for both Maju and Gillman Forests have clearly shown the extent of potential negative environmental impact. However, there is no EIA law requiring the government to consider that negative impact. Nor is the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) audited by an independent party once construction begins.

There are neither human nor climate studies for either site: assessing human–environmental connections with the forest, the ecosystem services it provides, its contributions to physical and mental wellbeing, and the carbon storage that would be lost to deforestation. While the former Jurong Railway Line at Maju Forest has been lauded for its railway heritage, why has there been no Heritage Impact Assessment in Sunset Way?

Given the limitations of the present EIA framework and the glaring lack of studies prior to development, we appeal to the government to perform and redo the necessary studies before any development takes place.

The government has stated that development will continue, mainly because Maju and Gillman forests have been zoned for residential use. However, rezoning — such as through gazette amendments — outside of Master Plan review periods often occurs for developmental needs.

If Singapore prides itself on flexible planning and governance, can the same flexibility be applied for nature conservation?

Master plans have changed multiple times before — Sungei Buloh (once designated an agrotechnological prawn farm) and Chek Jawa (once designated for land reclamation for military training). If Singapore's priorities have changed in the past for conservation, why not now?

Throughout HDB's EIA feedback window, Singaporeans appealed for more transparent information and meaningful public participation. This has not been the case. It is unclear why the feedback window is uniformly four weeks across all projects of varying environmental scale and complexity.

We ask: Will MND provide a full list of brownfield sites considered, and why they cannot be used? What are the housing and demographic projections, and how will building over Maju and Gillman forests meet housing demand? What are the timelines for engagement and development after the window closes? And how have MND and MSE worked together on developing greenfield sites?

We appeal to the government to engage with stakeholders in good faith well beyond the EIA feedback deadline of 6 August.