Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the main factors taken into consideration when deciding on the possible underground alignments in the vicinity of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR) for the Cross Island Line; (b) in view of the moderate environmental impact on the nature reserve for the alignment option that cuts beneath the CCNR, whether the Ministry will consider the alternative alignment along Lornie Road which will allow the MRT line to serve more residents and commuters in that vicinity and also result in the protection of our nature reserve and primary forest; and (c) whether the Environmental Impact Assessment report that was recently published can be made available for viewing online.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan(MOT): Mdm Speaker, the Cross Island Line (CRL) will be an important part of our future MRT network. It will link east to west, from Changi to Jurong, covering more than 50 km with about 30 stations. The exact alignment is being studied. Our preliminary estimate is that commuters from residential areas like Loyang, Pasir Ris, Hougang, Ang Mo Kio, Sin Ming, Bukit Timah, Clementi and West Coast will make at least 600,000 trips on the CRL every day. This will place the CRL higher, in terms of capacity and usage, compared, for example, to the North East Line (NEL). The CRL will also significantly enhance our network resilience as commuters will have many more routing options with the CRL connecting to other lines.

What this means is that – nearly half of the 30-plus new stations will be interchange stations and that means that every other station will be an exchange station where you can switch to another line. This will significantly enhance the resilience of our network.

Now, specific to the question raised by the Member, the Government is studying two possible alignments for the CRL in the vicinity of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). Both options are underground, and construction of the tunnels for this stretch of the CRL will be carried out using bored tunnelling, instead of the cut-and-cover approach. Cut-and-cover means you cut through like a huge bulldozer and chop down whatever is in between, then you build the tunnel and you cover it up. With bored tunnelling, you avoid all the trauma and damages above the tunnel.

For the 4-km direct alignment option, 2 km will be deep below the CCNR. How deep is deep? About 40 m – or 12 storeys – below ground level. And more importantly, at that level, this is what geologists call the hard bedrock level. In our case, this is the Bukit Timah granite. At this level, there are no vegetation, no trees, no animals. Under this option, there will not be any construction of infrastructure at surface level within the CCNR.

The skirting alignment option, on the other hand, is about 9 km long. Because it is 9 km long, it will require longer tunnels. And therefore, it will require ventilation shafts and facilities on the surface; whereas in the earlier option, because it is short enough, you do not have to build all those quite ugly exhaust ducts which you see at some of our road junctions.

This option could incur around $2 billion – $2,000 million – more in expenditure and could result in land acquisitions. The Member suggested that the skirting alignment could potentially serve more residents. However, the catchment there is already served by the Circle Line and the upcoming Thomson-East Coast Line.

The CRL is a massive project and the Government will decide on its entire alignment only after making a total assessment including financial viability, technical feasibility and other relevant considerations. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is only one of the many studies which we need to undertake to help us determine the best alignment for the stretch of the CRL in the vicinity of the CCNR. Later, my MND colleague will provide some details on the EIA and also describe how the Government agencies are working closely with the nature groups on the EIA. It has been a very productive collaboration, although much remains to be done.

As the alignments can have different impact on the environment, commuters, taxpayers, businesses and home owners, the Government has a responsibility to study both options thoroughly. Besides the EIA, there are upcoming technical site investigation works which will allow us to determine the soil profile and condition. This will feed into the Engineering Feasibility study. Only after all these environmental and technical studies on both possible alignments have been completed, and taking into account the potential impact on the nature reserve, the travelling distance and time for commuters, the cost to taxpayers, and the potential acquisition of homes and businesses, will we be able to make an informed decision on the project and its exact alignment. There will be many more public consultations so that we can adequately factor in all views. All these studies and consultations may take two more years to complete.

Meanwhile, the EIA Phase 1 report is available online. 

Louis: I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. One, could the Minister clarify what is the total cost for the construction of the CRL and what percentage increase that is of the total construction cost if we use the skirting alignment?

Second, if we do use the skirting alignment, could the Minister clarify exactly which buildings or which houses may need to be acquired? 

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Madam, a short answer to both questions is: I do not know yet. As I have said, this is a massive project and usually, it would take easily four to five years for all the important studies to be made. In fact, although the EIA is published now, this is a product of two years of discussions and consultations. In this particular instance, it is because of the interest of nature groups and the sensitivity of the possible impact of any work of this part of the CRL on the nature reserve that the issue now surfaces.

For the next leg of the studies, if we are allowed to proceed with the site investigation, we will be doing much more public consultations and that will allow us, LTA, to firm up on many of the answers to many of the questions that have yet to be answered, such as – who are affected, how much will it cost and so on. We have some idea because this is not the first time we are building an MRT line. We can have some idea about how much the cost will be, but one can never be sure because what happens underground is invisible; we do not know. And soil conditions, even though we are a tiny little red dot, the geology of east and west, north and south, can be very different. That is why it is so important to do a thorough site investigation.

So, the bottom line is this – what we are seeking is permission, in this case, from MND, to allow us to proceed with the site investigation for which there is a necessity to do this EIA. The EIA, after two years of study, is now published online. By the gazette requirements, Singaporeans, interest groups, stakeholders, are invited to give their comments. I am quite sure MND will take all those views into consideration and decide whether they would allow the site investigation to proceed. And if they do, we can then enter into Phase 2 of the EIA, which will study what are the tunnelling methods, what will be the impact of those construction works and subsequent running of the train on the nature reserve, and more importantly whether, there are suitable mitigation measures.

Sorry for a long reply, which is that there are many questions which remain unanswered. What I urge of Singaporeans is this: keep an open mind. Go with the facts, keep an open mind and look for the evidence.

Madam, over the weekend, I took my granddaughter, 3 years old, to watch Disney's latest movie "Zootopia", the utopia for the animal kingdom where all animal species, even though they are former predators or preys can live in harmony, peaceful with one another. It was a good movie because it was not just for the kids; it carries important values, and some political messages. It tells the story of a little female bunny whose ambition is to bring about justice and change the world, and she wants to be a police officer. The police world, at that time was largely monopolised by larger animal species and all males. But she was determined to be a police officer. So, she had to fight stereotyping, sexism, racism, bias and prejudice. In the end, she succeeded through wit and effort, and demonstrated what she can achieve. Likewise, for the EIA, let us keep an open mind. I have read some of the very toxic comments on the EIA. They were made even before the EIA was published. I think there is an English word for that – that is bias, prejudice. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Can the Minister just clarify whether the EIA will be made available to the public and whether local biologists and NGOs will be involved in doing the EIA surveys?

Mr Baey Yam Keng (The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Thank you, Mdm Chair. I just would like to respond to Mr Louis Ng. I think the EIA has to be done promptly and professionally. Any player who has the right expertise and experience would be considered favourably. I am sure local players might have an advantage because they know the flora and fauna of Coney Island much better.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on site investigation works on the two alignment options as part of Phase 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Cross Island MRT Line; and (b) how is the Ministry engaging volunteers from the nature community to monitor and manage the impact on the ground as the rainy season increases the risk of spills into forest streams caused by boring works.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan (MOT): Site investigation works on the two alignment options have commenced, and are expected to complete by end-2018. We consult with the nature groups regularly. LTA has also appointed one of the nature group representatives as an advisor to monitor and audit the implementation of the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan developed in Phase 1.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Labelling of "Palm Oil" as an Ingredient at Committee of Supply 2017.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. Consumers play their part in the anti-haze efforts if they consciously buy from companies which only source sustainable haze-free palm oil in their products. However, palm oil is often labelled as vegetable oil in Singapore, which means that consumers are kept in the dark about whether the products they buy contain palm oil. To inform consumers on what they are consuming, the European Union have changed their food labelling regulations to ensure that the types of vegetable oil used in food products were explicitly stated on the labels. Will AVA consider taking similar steps to improve transparency in our food labels?

Dr Koh Poh Koon (The Minister of State for National Development): Mr Louis Ng asked about the possibility of labelling palm oil on food labels so that consumers can play their part in anti-haze efforts. This is an idea that requires further study. For instance, requiring this labelling on food labels could help consumers make more conscious decisions no doubt. However, this would also be stricter than current international standards and may be misperceived as a trade barrier. So, for the moment, we have taken the approach of encouraging the industry to voluntarily declare that their palm oil is from sustainable sources. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will talk more about the haze issue later in his COS session.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry can make public the results of all environmental impact assessments or studies done in relation to the development of Tengah; and (b) what are the plans for existing wildlife living in that area.

Mr Desmond Lee (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, Tengah is slated for new town development. As part of responsible development, HDB is conducting an environmental baseline study so as to better understand the existing topography, hydrology, flora and existing wildlife in the area. We will share the key findings of the study with the public in due course.

One key feature which HDB has planned is the Forest Corridor which is approximately 100 m wide and 5 km long and will serve as a wildlife connector between the Western Water Catchment Area and the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. The plan is also to replace the concrete canal with a naturalised stream and water body. NParks will separately study how to retain the existing greenery within the Forest Corridor, as well as to enhance it by introducing more native forest species. Over time, this Forest Corridor is envisioned to be a lush habitat supporting the rich biodiversity.

HDB will put in place wildlife management strategies, which will include shepherding wildlife to the adjacent forest areas that will not be developed in the short term. This is to minimise potential impact to wildlife within the development sites when works are in progress.

Louis: Thank you, Madam. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Can I check if there is a timeline for the baseline studies that the Minister of State mentioned and will we actually be doing an EIA or EIS instead? Thirdly, is MND or HDB working with any of the wildlife or nature groups with regard to this study?

Mr Desmond Lee: First, with regard to the environmental baseline study, we expect it to be completed by the first half of 2017. Second, we are conducting an environmental baseline study because Tengah is made up of young secondary forests, scrubland, abandoned sundry cultivation like  kampong , farms and orchards, and old brickworks that were demolished in 2008. It was then used as a military training ground. Hence, we are conducting an environmental baseline study, together with other studies as I earlier mentioned. HDB is consulting various stakeholders, which include nature and animal welfare groups.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether any environmental impact assessment or studies have been done in relation to the land acquisition for the expansion of Tengah Air Base.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): An environmental study will be carried out before the land preparation works for the expansion of Tengah Air Base (TAB) commence. The study will guide the implementation of mitigation measures to minimise the potential impact of the TAB expansion on flora and fauna in that area.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are considered in the investment decisions of Singapore's sovereign wealth funds; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring these institutions to adopt ESG standards used increasingly by private investors and sovereign wealth funds in countries such as Malaysia and South Korea.

Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, GIC and Temasek operate on a commercial basis in order to maximise long-term risk-adjusted returns, and their individual investment decisions are independent of the Government. While the Government does not prescribe how they invest, both emphasise sustainability in their investment activities.

The investment activities of GIC and Temasek are oriented towards generating long-term returns on a sustainable basis. Both entities recognise that good sustainability practices are good for business and can have a positive impact on long-term returns. Conversely, companies with poor sustainability practices carry business and reputational as well as environmental, social and governance risks.

And that is why GIC integrates sustainability considerations holistically into its investment processes, in order to protect and enhance the long-term value of its investments.

Likewise, Temasek is committed to delivering sustainable value over the long term as a responsible investor. It takes a strong interest in not only understanding sustainability-related challenges but also the opportunities for innovation, business growth and new investments.

And more than just considering environmental, social and governance factors when making decisions as an investor, asset owner and shareholder, Temasek is a strong advocate for sustainable economic and social development. For example, it has seeded independent public good institutions to build new capabilities and established six Temasek Foundations championing various causes, including sustainability and innovative solutions to improve liveability and mitigate climate threats.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures have been put in place to reduce the number of roadkill in the Mandai area; (b) whether such measures apply to all areas where there are construction activities near national parks and nature reserves; and (c) when will the hoardings along Mandai Road be completed.

Ms Sun Xueling (for the Minister for National Development): The current construction work in Mandai is being carried out by Mandai Park Development (MPD), which is a private developer. As with all developments near nature reserves, MPD was required to assess the potential impact of their works on the flora and fauna in the area prior to beginning construction. MPD is also responsible for implementing measures to mitigate the impact of their development works on wildlife in the area.

MPD has since undertaken a number of measures to reduce roadkill in the area. As the Member has mentioned, hoardings have been installed around the development areas on Mandai Lake Road. MPD, the relevant Government agencies and the nature community are currently discussing the need for additional hoardings. Where it is ascertained that additional hoardings will protect wildlife, the relevant Government agencies will work with MPD to determine the location of these hoardings. Other measures that MPD has put in place include a rope bridge to help arboreal animals cross the road safely, and vehicle speed reduction measures, such as warning signs, speed bumps and a lowered speed limit.

The measures implemented by MPD are specific to the Mandai development. Other projects may require different measures. 

Louis: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Can I check whether the eco-bridge was part of the proposed mitigation measures for this Mandai development and, if so, why was it not done? Secondly, what oversight does MND have over this construction that is going on in the Mandai area in terms of checking whether these proposed mitigation measures are done? And third, are there any penalties imposed on the developer if the proposed mitigation measures are not carried out?

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. Following planning approval, MPD implements an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) to ensure that mitigation measures are being carried out during the Mandai Rejuvenation Project's development and operations. The EMMP is monitored and reviewed by an Environmental Advisory Panel which includes subject matter experts from the scientific community, academia, nature groups and the private sector. If there are unanticipated environmental impacts that require additional mitigation, MPD should modify their EMMP in consultation with the relevant technical agencies. 

The Member had asked about the eco-link. It has already started construction. I will have to check whether or not it was part of the EIA. Based on my understanding, it was.

Louis: May I check on the penalties if the developer does not implement some of the proposed mitigation measures?

Ms Sun Xueling: Based on my understanding, there are no penalties. But as I have mentioned, because there is an EMMP, there is regular consultation between the parties, and MPD would modify their environmental plan in consultation with the relevant technical agencies when there are unanticipated environmental impacts.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to impose penalties on companies which do not implement proposed wildlife and environmental mitigation measures when carrying out construction near national parks and nature reserves. 

Mr Lawrence Wong: Development projects that are near to sensitive areas such as Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, areas of significant biodiversity, and marine and coastal areas, are required to undergo an in-depth consultation process with the relevant technical agencies. Where necessary, agencies will stipulate the environmental requirements that need to be met, and ensure that mitigating measures are put in place by the developer to minimise the environmental impact. Agencies will also work with developers to ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, through environmental monitoring and management programmes. Should the developers deviate from the measures, agencies will ask developers to take appropriate actions to rectify the situation.

If there is any unanticipated environmental impact or when the mitigation measures prove insufficient, developers will need to modify existing mitigation measures or put in additional mitigation measures, in consultation with the relevant agencies. 

MND and the technical agencies are reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment framework to ensure that it remains robust and meets the intended objectives. As part of this review, we will study how best to ensure that mitigating measures are implemented in the right spirit, and whether there is a need to strengthen the penalties for non-compliance. 

Today, developers who violate regulatory requirements already face penalties under the various environmental Acts. These include NEA's Environmental Protection and Management Act, and PUB's Sewerage and Drainage Act in relation to air, noise and water pollution, and NParks' Parks and Trees Act in relation to activities within nature reserves and national parks. 

For example, under the Parks and Trees Act, conducting activities within nature reserve and national parks which causes alteration, damage or destruction to any plant, or injury to or the death of any animal or any other organism, are considered offences. The penalty for these offences is a fine of up to $50,000, imprisonment of up to six months or both. A fine of up to $500 is further imposed for every day or part of the day which the offence continues after conviction.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) when will the Ministry make public the full findings of the animal monitoring programme conducted at the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, such as the number or frequency of animal sightings before and after the site investigation works; and (b) whether the site investigation works have resulted in a "mainly moderate impact" on the environment, which the environmental impact assessment has projected will happen if mitigation measures are taken.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan (MOT): In June 2018, LTA announced the completion of Site Investigations for two underground alignments being studied for the Cross Island Line (CRL) in the vicinity of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). These investigations took place between May 2016 and September 2017, and were the first steps in assessing the feasibility of the two alignment options – under or skirting round the CCNR. 

Site Investigation works included drilling of boreholes. As some of the drilling was conducted in the ecologically sensitive CCNR, a fauna monitoring programme was developed by LTA, in consultation with NParks and Nature Groups. This consisted of camera traps, which are motion-activated sensors, and transect surveys, which are manual surveys of animal sightings in a specified region. The data collected is being analysed by a professional Environmental Impact Assessment consultant. Initial findings have also been shared with NParks and Nature Group representatives, whose comments are being incorporated to further improve the analysis. LTA will share the results of the analysis, when ready, after consulting the Nature Groups. 

In addition to fauna monitoring, environmental monitoring for water, noise and light pollution and waste management were put in place. Project management protocols and impact mitigation measures were strictly followed, with compliance monitored weekly to ensure that the environmental impact of Site Investigations was minimized. While the full impact of site investigations is being studied, the camera traps picked up the presence of animals like the Sunda Pangolin and Lesser Mousedeer after the completion of Site Investigation works. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider making Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) mandatory for all construction works near national parks or nature reserves and making such EIA reports publicly available.

Mr Desmond Lee (The Second Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, today, development projects that are near sensitive areas, including Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, areas of significant biodiversity as well as marine and coastal areas, are required to undergo an in-depth consultation process with the relevant technical agencies to discuss the scope of works, the possible environmental impact and corresponding mitigating measures.

 If the potential environmental impact of a project is assessed to be significant, we will require the project developer to conduct further environmental studies to thoroughly assess the nature and magnitude of the impact, and to implement more extensive mitigating measures to address them.

 As I have previously said in this House, our intention is to make publicly available the findings from such environmental impact assessments, unless there are specific reasons such as security considerations that require us to maintain confidentiality. 

Louis: I thank Minister for the reply. I understand that he said that only the findings are released, bearing in mind that some of these reports might contain some sensitive data. Taking the Tengah case for example, where there are some disputes on the ground with regards to the findings of the study, whether releasing the full report minus the sensitive data, will help to clarify some of the concerns on the ground and also provide more assurances on the ground? 

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. EIA reports have been gazetted in full to make very clear to interested parties, including the environmental groups, what the findings are and what the impact is. For Tengah, the findings of the environmental baseline study were shared with the public through the media in October last year. We will also be engaging with nature groups to share with them the details of the environmental baseline study. As the Member would know, Tengah is and remains a military training ground. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Strengthening Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Processes at Committee of Supply 2019.

Louis: Sir, Singapore has lost 90% of our original forest cover and we really need to protect what is left. Urgently.

Recently, there has been much concern about the environmental impact of the Cross Island Line and the Mandai developments. There will be similar developments in the future, and many have argued for mandating EIAs.

Earlier this month, I asked the Minister if EIAs will be made mandatory for construction works near national parks or nature reserves. The Minister replied that the Ministry will require developers to conduct further studies and implement more mitigating measures "if the potential environmental impact of a project is assessed to be significant."

Can the Minister clarify how and who will assess the potential environmental impact of a project and how we ascertain that further studies are required? Can we also mandate that EIA consultants file their final reports to the authorities rather than the developers so as to ensure their independence? For construction works in or near sensitive security areas, can the Ministry make EIAs public after removing sensitive data related to national security?

Mr Desmond Lee (The Second Minister for National Development): Members also pointed out that development should not come at the expense of greenery. We would like to assure Mr Louis Ng, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Ong Teng Koon and Mr Pritam Singh that maintaining and enhancing our greenery will continue to be a key pillar of our urban planning strategy. In our post-independence years, this was what set us apart from other cities with similar growth strategies. Indeed, as Minister Heng Swee Keat said in his Budget round-up speech, greening is part of our identity.

But our small size, as a city state, means that our land and resources are scarce and finite, and the tensions and trade-offs for us when it comes to land use are magnified many times compared to larger countries. This is a reality we live with every day, and our planners are always seized with these challenges. So, we have to continue to be judicious about how we use land to meet our needs as a city and as a country, while ensuring that we safeguard land for the aspirations of our children and our future generations.

In this regard, any decision to clear land and forest cover is not taken lightly. If we do, it is a decision we make after very careful deliberation and inter-agency discussion, taking into account Singaporeans’ needs and the many trade-offs involved. As was in the case of Tengah, which was needed to provide homes over the next two decades for 42,000 families, and jobs for more than 20,000 people as the town develops progressively. These are not just difficult trade-offs in the present day, between greenery and biodiversity on the one hand, and housing and jobs on the other. But trade-offs between the present and the future – between land use for today’s needs and keeping land for our children and grandchildren and generations not yet born.

At the same time, in response to Mr Louis Ng’s question, we work to ensure that when development does take place, proposals are thoroughly examined for any potential environmental impacts among other issues. 

Our Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework covers all Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, other sensitive natural areas, as well as marine and coastal areas. Those who propose development close to these areas are required to consult our technical agencies on their plans together with URA and MND. And these technical agencies include Nparks. We take a prudent approach to this consultation. If we have reason to believe that a project may significantly impact the environment, then the developer will be asked by technical agencies to conduct a further environmental study. We would like to assure the Member that studies are undertaken in an independent and objective manner,

By specialists who have every interest to maintain their professional standing. The Study reports are also carefully assessed by the technical agencies, such as NParks, AVA, MPA and NEA, to ensure their adequacy. In addition, to reiterate my previous answer to Members’ question in this House, we will make the findings of such Environmental Impact Assessments publicly available, unless specific considerations require otherwise. That said, our review of the EIA framework is ongoing. MND and the technical agencies are studying how best to strengthen our policies and processes, to ensure the framework remains robust for the future. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis: Thank you, Chairman. Minister Desmond mentioned last night that we are reviewing the EIA framework in Singapore. I think that was already mentioned in June 2017 if I am not wrong. I am just wondering whether is there a timeframe for this review and when do we expect to complete it.

Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, the EIA review has been on-going for some time. It requires us to look at the entire process to understand the experience of the last few EIAs and we endeavour to put something out, this year.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Sir, may I just ask, specifically, when will we be making this decision on which alignment we will be using?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I do not have a date to announce at this point in time.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry is investigating how a forested area in Kranji was cleared before a biodiversity baseline study was completed; and (b) whether it will be strengthening the environmental impact assessment framework further to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to address the House comprehensively on the issue of the site clearance at the Kranji site, my response today will also cover issues raised by Members who had filed related Parliamentary Questions (PQs) for subsequent sittings. To be specific, this includes PQs filed by Members Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Alex Yam Ziming, Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Rachel Ong. I seek your understanding on this approach.

As the details of the site clearance at the Kranji site have been shared publicly by JTC at a press conference on 22 February, I will focus my response today on: (a) environmental considerations in the planning process, (b) on-going investigations into the incident at the Kranji site, and (c) steps that we plan to take to strengthen our processes, including the EIA framework.

Let me start with the planning process.

Under URA’s Planning Act, development proposals require planning permission from URA before they are allowed to proceed. As part of this process, every development proposal goes through a thorough screening process, which reviews not only its potential environmental impact, but also other aspects such as its impact on traffic, public health and heritage.

Developments projects that: (a) are near sensitive areas such as Nature Reserves, Nature Areas and other areas with significant biodiversity; or (b) which are in marine and coastal areas; or (c) which have potential trans-boundary impact, are subject to greater scrutiny. The developers of such projects will be required to undergo an in-depth consultation process with relevant Technical Agencies, namely NParks, National Environment Agency (NEA), the Maritime Port Authority (MPA) and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA).

Depending on the context of the site, the scope of the project works, and its potential impact on the environment, more detailed studies may be required. This can be an Environmental Baseline Study (EBS), or in some cases, a more detailed Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which sets out the environmental baseline, expected impact and mitigation measures.

The studies enable agencies to better assess the possible environmental impact of the development plans and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures, to guide the planning and potential development of the site. For instance, NEA assesses the potential for noise, water or air pollution, MPA assesses impacts on navigation and SFA on sea-based farms, NParks assesses impacts on terrestrial and marine biodiversity, covering both flora and fauna.

We adopt this calibrated approach across all development projects, whether they are for industrial or other uses.

While developers can call tenders for works while the environmental studies are on-going, activities on site can only proceed when the developer has received the necessary approvals from relevant agencies. This applies for both private and public projects.

 Let me give an example of site clearance which involves the felling of trees. Under the Parks and Trees Act, the felling of any tree more than one metre in girth either on vacant land or in Tree Conservation areas can only proceed with the Commissioner's approval. NParks will require a tree survey, in order to assess the potential impact of the tree felling plan. If NParks assesses that conducting a further environmental baseline, or other forms of study, is not required, it may allow for some types of works to begin. However, NParks may require mitigation measures, such as the installation of hoarding or an Environmental Monitoring and Management Programme (EMMP) to be in place.

For past incidents of tree felling without prior approval, NParks had conducted investigations and penalties ensued. The environmental impact of such incidents varies depending on the site context and the extent of works undertaken.

Planning permission for the project to go ahead is only granted after a project has met the requirements imposed by the respective regulatory agencies. These include completing necessary detailed technical studies, such as environmental and traffic impact assessments, as well as putting in place mitigating measures.

Let me move on to the clearance of this Kranji site. Many Members have asked for updates on the investigations and the possible penalties on the site clearance at Kranji site.

As I have said on 22 February, in the press conference, NParks is currently investigating whether there had been breaches of the Wildlife Act and/or the Parks and Trees Act. We therefore cannot go into more detail at this point, and we ask that Members not speculate further. After investigations are complete, NParks will refer the case to the Public Prosecutor for directions, before sharing the findings with the public.

There are penalties for breaches of the Parks and Trees Act and the Wildlife Act. For instance, infringement of the Wildlife Act that came into force in June last year, may attract a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment up to six months, or both.

Members have also asked if the site clearance at the Kranji Road/Kranji Close site had affected the fauna baseline study. Thirteen hectares of vegetated areas, which includes the safeguarded green corridor and vegetated buffers along Sungei Pang Sua, remain. All clearance works onsite are currently suspended, while the study is underway. The results of the study will be made public when ready. Thereafter, JTC will engage relevant stakeholders on the findings, including the measures to enhance the greenery and connectivity of the site and its surrounding environs. The study findings will be used to design measures such as enhanced habitats, buffers and connectivity for wildlife.

Now, I move on to the third part of the presentation which is on steps to strengthen processes. Members have asked how we will seek to prevent such incidents from happening again. As Minister Chan Chun Sing had announced on Monday, a review will be undertaken of this incident, to identify gaps and learning points for project management, supervision and execution, as well as inter-agency coordination. Agencies involved in site clearance projects are conducting checks to ensure that their project supervision and implementation processes are in order.

In parallel, MND will continue our efforts to strengthen the Environmental Impact Assessment, or EIA, framework, in close consultation with the nature community and partner agencies. We are currently working to implement the following enhancements which we had announced publicly last October, namely: (a) increase the vigour or rigour of our environmental studies through a set of Biodiversity Impact Assessment Guidelines; (b) strengthen our enforcement regime through the amended Wildlife Act; (c) build up local expertise on ecological matters; and (d) make all environmental study reports publicly available, unless there are security considerations.

In our discussions with the nature community last year, we had identified several other ways to further strengthen the EIA process beyond what we had just rolled out in October. We will develop a more comprehensive picture of the islandwide eco-system and connectivity, so that we can better consider how the specific sites connect to our nature cores, buffers and corridors. We will do this in a science-based manner, on an islandwide scale, and we will conduct baseline studies for specific sites to understand their ecological profile and role in ecological connectivity. Members of the nature community will be invited to join us in this upstream work. The findings from these studies will add to the data and connectivity models that NParks has built up over the years, and help guide Government in carrying out longer term planning.

In addition, we have been reviewing whether it would be better to centralise the management of EIA consultants, instead of having individual developers or agencies manage their own. We are still studying this. Separately, we will explore how we can make better use of technology to strengthen project management.

Sir, Members may recall that we had negotiated for the return of the KTM railway line to Singapore in 2011, to meet, among other things, our land use needs. The land that we got back included the 24-km railway line, from North all the way South to Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, as well as adjacent parcels of land at various points along the track. These parcels of land were used by the railway for storage, for housing and for other purposes.

We struck a careful balance between conservation and development in our land use planning for the land that was returned, as follows.

First, by conserving the entire 24-km Rail Corridor from Woodlands all the way down South to Tanjong Pagar for recreation, community activities and for nature.

Second, by conserving the railway station building in Tanjong Pagar and the old Bukit Timah Railway Station, or BTRS, as part of our heritage and history.

And thirdly, by zoning the adjacent land parcels along the railway tracks, including the Kranji site, for development, to meet our people's needs for homes, jobs and amenities and so on.

So, we struck balance in three ways, and if Members may recall in the last Parliamentary Question (PQ) over Ulu Pandan Forest, as I sought to provide the broad outline of how we steward our land to meet various needs, including that for nature, for housing, for jobs and so on and so forth, we include a strategy of big moves – for example, Greater Southern Waterfront, Paya Lebar air base relocation and, of course, this KTM line that we brought back, including the land parcels adjacent, along the way – was one of those moves as well. 

For the Kranji site, as Minister Chan Chun Sing had explained earlier, it comprised mostly scrubland scattered with trees when it was returned to Singapore in 2011. Until the detailed plans were finalised and works begun, the site was left vacant, with vegetation and trees allowed to grow to provide green cover until the time of development. Non-native Albizia trees sprouted in recent years – and biologists would know that Albizia trees grow at a very quick rate, they self-sow and they grow as fast as four to five metres a year and can mature in as fast as five years or less – and in Singapore's hot and humid climate, progressively dominated the site within a few years.

So, sites that have been cleared and with intention for some form of development, even as they are left fallow and bare, we allowed vegetation, green cover, so we enjoy that for the few years. 

As I have explained in this House recently, we adopt a science-based approach to identify which areas of significant biodiversity to conserve. For instance, the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, just further north of the Kranji site, was once a fishing village. It had initially been planned for industrial use, for factories. Yet, after careful study through biodiversity surveys and ecological modelling, we decided to keep it as a Nature Park given its high ecological value, both domestically as well as internationally as part of a flyway. Agencies, therefore, had to forego development plans for the area.

For sites to be developed, we seek to preserve and integrate natural elements within the development where possible, to facilitate ecological connectivity. In JTC's masterplan for Sungei Kadut Eco-district, or SKED, 25 hectares out of 500 hectares was set aside for the first phase of the Agri-Food Innovation Park, or AFIP. This is the Kranji site in question.

For the Kranji site, while a portion of the KTM railway line was re-routed along Woodlands Road in 2015 to allow the entire site to be comprehensively developed, JTC worked with NParks to relook these plans. In 2019, they decided to retain the original alignment as a green corridor within the AFIP, even though this meant for JTC that land parcellation for industry would be more challenging.

This effort to retain the original railway line alignment, with additional green buffers on each side amounting to six hectares, along with a linear park along Sungei Pang Sua, is an example of our on-going efforts to balance nature conservation with land planning and development.

We are very encouraged by the growing nature consciousness among Singaporeans. This is part of City in Nature – not just quantitative or qualitative or ecological, but also the DNA mainstreamed in Singaporeans. We will be engaging Singaporeans more deeply on this issue as part of our national conversations on long-term land use planning later this year. We will continue to partner the community as stewards of our City in Nature, and we look forward to working together to achieve this vision.

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Thank you, Sir. Just two quick questions for Minister Desmond Lee. One, I think Minister mentioned about the BIA guidelines earlier. Could I just ask, whether these are just guidelines or are they mandatory for developers to follow? Two, I do hope we can codify the current EIA framework into law because I think that will send a strong signal that we take the protection of forests seriously here in Singapore.

Mr Desmond Lee: I recognise the Member's longstanding advocacy for the legislative codification of the EIA process. As I said previously, there is legislative gatekeeping and legislative empowerment in the entire process, but this is not just a legal process. It is an environmental process, a conservation process, a scientific process and it requires flexibility depending on the habitats and on the ecology of the area. And therefore, I think what we have today is an evolving system with recent enhancements. So, let us work on that and continue to study how we can improve.

As for the Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) guidelines, if Member has gone through them, they are very, very comprehensive. We hope through this process for developing agencies, including public developing agencies, to have a consistent baseline standard in carrying out these processes. Let us see how it is put into process and then decide what next steps to take.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Percentages of Public Sector Buildings Certified as BCA Green Mark Gold Plus and BCA Green Mark Gold

Louis asked the Minister for National Development what percentages of public sector buildings, excluding schools, with air-conditioned floor areas of (i) at least 10,000 sqm and (ii) at least 5,000 sqm and less than 10,000 sqm, are respectively certified as BCA Green Mark Gold Plus and BCA Green Mark Gold.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): As of December 2019, close to 70% of public sector buildings with air-conditioned floor area of 10,000 square metres or more, excluding schools, have attained the Green Mark Gold Plus certification. 60% of public sector buildings with gross floor area exceeding 5,000 square metres but with air-conditioned floor area below 10,000 square metres, excluding schools, have attained the Green Mark Gold certification.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Steps Taken to Encourage Schools and Centralised Institutes to Achieve at Least BCA Green Mark Gold Certification

Louis asked the Minister for National Development what steps will the Ministry take to encourage more primary schools, secondary schools, mixed-level schools, junior colleges and centralised institutes to achieve at least the BCA Green Mark Gold certification.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): MOE and BCA have been working together on many infrastructural improvements and upgrades over the years for more Government and Government-Aided schools to meet Green Mark Gold standards. Of 332 such schools, 115 have attained at least a Green Mark Gold certification to date. The aim is to have the remaining schools achieve this certification by early 2025.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Conduct Independent Environmental Assessments and Release Regular Reports to Public during Construction of Cross Island MRT Line

Louis asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will conduct independent environmental assessments and release regular reports to the public on the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures during the construction of the Cross Island MRT Line within and around the Central Catchment Nature Reserve.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan (MOT): LTA will require its appointed contractor, who will construct the Cross Island Line (CRL) in the vicinity of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR), to engage an environmental consultant. The consultant's role is to strictly implement the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP). The EMMP is part of the gazetted Environmental Impact Assessment report for the CRL alignment in the vicinity of the CCNR. It was formulated in close consultation with stakeholders, such as nature groups.

 LTA will also invite key representatives of nature groups to be part of the implementation process, which includes jointly reviewing these mitigation measures.

 In addition, LTA will engage a group of experts to form an Environmental Advisory Panel (EAP). The EAP's role is to review and provide an independent assessment of the environmental consultant's implementation of the EMMP.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2020.

Reducing Cross Island Line (CRL) Impact on Wildlife

Louis:  Sir, there is no doubt that the Cross Island Line is needed and I also have no doubt that we can reduce its impact on our biodiversity. People are concerned that the clearance and construction work at worksite A1W1 will have a major impact in breaking up wildlife habitats.

It would mean that tree-dwelling animals like the Raffles' Banded Langurs might not be able to get from one forest patch to another and this will threaten their survival. There are only 61 Raffles' Banded Langurs left in Singapore. The stakes are extremely high. These highly threatened monkeys are only found in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. This is one of their last strongholds. If the forest is cleared for the worksite, the Langurs who rely on tree canopies will be forced to come down to the ground to use the roads to cross and they will likely get injured or killed. 

We know through the work of Dr Andie Ang that a bachelor group of four male Langurs – Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Raphael – need the forest at the worksite A1W1. While mitigation measures have been proposed, Dr Andie feels that these measures will not work. She personally told me that she fears for the survival of this species.

Will MOT consider moving worksite A1W1 further into Singapore Island Country Club (SICC) where the forest that the Langurs need will not be impacted?

Dr Lam Pin Min (The Senior Minister of State for Transport): We will also continue to monitor the environmental impact of our other land transport projects.

Take, for instance, the Cross Island Line. We have engaged stakeholders extensively since 2013 and will continue to do so even as the project enters the Advanced Engineering Studies phase. Concerning the proposed worksite near the Singapore Island Country Club (SICC) that Mr Louis Ng mentioned, LTA is committed to exploring how the worksite's footprint can be optimised and is in discussions with SICC to make use of its non-playing areas.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications on the Cross Island Line (CRL). I thank Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min for sharing that they are exploring the non-playing areas in SICC so that we can move the worksite A1W1. But can I check whether we are looking into moving just a partial worksite of A1W1, or moving the entire worksite into the non-playing areas in SICC?

The second question is with regard to the establishment of the Environmental Advisory Panel that we are setting up to provide independent assessment of the implementation of the environmental monitoring and management plan. Can I just check who is LTA going to select to be part of this Panel?

Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for his supplementary questions and his interest in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). Before I dwell into the questions that he has asked, I would like to assure the House that LTA, as well as MOT, have been working very, very closely with the nature groups in this journey. We have been engaging the nature groups and various stakeholders very intensively over the past six to seven years. I myself have met the nature groups' leadership on many occasions; even my predecessor, Minister Josephine Teo had done the same.

And this trust that we have built between MOT, LTA and the nature groups (NGs), is a very strong one. Therefore, I would like to reassure Mr Louis Ng as well as the rest of the nature groups' leadership, that we continue to work with them, even after the announcement of the alignment of CRL.

In fact, post-announcement, LTA has already engaged has already engaged the advanced engineering study consultant to look into the design of the alignment of the stations for CRL Phase 2 and that includes the optimisation of the worksite at A1W1. We shall wait for the report of the study before we can ascertain exactly how much we can optimise A1W1. But rest assured that we are also in a discussion with SICC to see how we can use some of the non-play sites within the golf course, so that we can minimise the impact of the the engineering works to the environment.

At the same time, we have also engaged an environmental impact study sub-consultant who will work with the advanced engineering study consultant to study the environmental impact of Cross Island Line Phase 2 on key biodiversity areas along its alignment.

I understand that Mr Louis Ng is also quite concerned about the Raffles Banded Langurs. LTA has also enlisted the help of our local primate specialist, Dr Andie Ang – we all know her very well – to study these together with the EIS consultant. There has been actually quite a number of mitigating measures suggested by Dr Andie Ang and we are currently working very closely with her.

With respect to the Member's specific question on the worksite, like I have mentioned, we will await the study, but definitely we will see how we can optimise the site in order to minimise the impact on the primates that he has mentioned – Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Raphael. We will make sure that the impact will be kept to a minimal, as much as possible.

As to the Member's second question on the Advisory Panel, I think we shall wait for LTA to make the necessary announcement.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Improving the BCA Green Mark Scheme

Louis: Sir, the BCA Green Mark Scheme is a good policy that we should build on. Young PAP and climate activists have proposed that the scheme be reviewed and updated with a more weight given to reducing energy consumption and shifting dependence to greener sources. 

The School of Design and Environment Block Four (SDE 4) at NUS is a good example. It has net-zero energy consumption. It uses a hybrid cooling system that combines the use of air-conditioning and ceiling fans to provide thermal comfort to building occupants. YP and climate activists have proposed that such features be propagated to new buildings.  

I understand that there already is a Green Mark for Zero Energy buildings. But we should also raise standards for the other Green Mark schemes. Buildings should be held to a higher standard before we can call them "green". Will MND consider raising the Green Mark standards for (a) new Government buildings; (b) all commercial buildings; and (c) all private and public residential buildings to encourage sustained reductions in overall energy consumption? 

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (The Minister of State for National Development): We can do more. Over the next few months, BCA will co-create the Singapore Green Building Masterplan 2020 with our stakeholders, as we push the boundaries for Green Buildings.

We are considering a few initiatives. First, to push for more energy efficient buildings, we intend to raise the minimum energy performance standards. This will lower emissions, and also benefit building owners over the building life-cycle. Concurrently, we will review our Green Mark certification standards, as highlighted by Mr Louis Ng. BCA will engage stakeholders to develop shared aspirations for sustainability standards in the Built Environment, and we need to work out how to get there in partnership.

Next, we want to enable greater transparency in building energy performance. Today, close to 80% of commercial building owners voluntarily opt to disclose their buildings' names and addresses along with their energy performance data, which is published by BCA annually. We intend to identify all buildings when publishing the data henceforth, so that the best performing buildings will serve as role models to encourage others to improve their own energy efficiency. We will share more details by this year.

We call on stakeholders to co-create the Singapore Green Building Masterplan 2020 with us over the next few months. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Transport whether, for the Cross Island MRT Line, the Ministry will consider moving work site A1W1 further into the Singapore Island Country Club to reduce the impact on a group of langurs which rely on the forest where the current work site A1W1 is located.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOT): Since 2013, LTA has been working closely with the nature groups to address their concerns on the impact of the Cross Island Line (CRL) on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). LTA has also engaged an advance engineering consultant in early 2020 to look into the optimisation of the worksite at A1W1, to reduce the potential impact to the Raffles Banded Langurs.

The study and engagement have led to two significant changes. First, LTA has further optimised the worksite and reduced the footprint by over 50%. Second, LTA secured the agreement of the management of the Singapore Island Country Club to move part of the A1W1 worksite into the premise of the club. With these measures, the worksite will be significantly further away, at approximately 150 metres instead of 30 metres, from the area where the Raffles Banded Langurs are known to roam.

The key representatives of the nature groups have reviewed the optimised A1W1 worksite and they are supportive of the changes. LTA will continue to work with them on further measures to mitigate any potential environmental impact at the A1W1 worksite when construction of the CRL begins, so as to strike a balance between preserving the environment and wildlife, and improving transport infrastructure for the benefit of Singaporeans.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether an independent environmental impact assessment has been conducted on the development plans for Dover Forest and, if not, whether it can be conducted before any development takes place there.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): The Ulu Pandan site, known to the public as "Dover Forest", is a 33-hectare site earmarked for residential development in URA’s Master Plan since 2003.

As part of the planning process, development proposals are subject to an evaluation of the potential impact to the environment, as well as other factors, such as traffic and public health. Based on the site context and advice from Technical Agencies for this development proposal, HDB engaged an external consultant to conduct an Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) to understand the existing topography, flora, fauna and hydrology within the site. The EBS also guides HDB’s development plans and identifies existing habitats to retain within the site.

HDB had engaged nature groups extensively and iteratively to seek their feedback on the EBS findings as well as the proposed treatment for the site in response to the EBS findings. The EBS report was also published online to take in public feedback, with the feedback period extended by an additional four weeks to allow the public more time to share their views.

Based on the findings from the EBS, feedback from nature groups and the public, as well as NParks’ Ecological Profiling Exercise, HDB has revised their urban planning and design strategies for Ulu Pandan, taking a holistic and science-based approach to balance development and nature conservation in Singapore. The revised conceptual development plans were announced earlier in July. Measures include putting off the development plans for the western half of Ulu Pandan in the medium term to be reviewed again in about 10 years’ time, while agencies work towards safeguarding a sizeable nature park within the western half of Ulu Pandan which is richer in biodiversity compared to the eastern half of the site.

The nature park will serve as an ecological connector and habitat between Clementi Forest and the Southern Ridges, as well as to complement the connectivity along the Rail Corridor in the vicinity of Ulu Pandan, which is one of the two ecological corridors identified in NParks’ Ecological Profiling Exercise. Additionally, a Green Corridor, measuring up to 40 metres wide at some stretches, along Ulu Pandan Canal, is also proposed to be established to serve as an ecological corridor to facilitate wildlife movement along Sungei Ulu Pandan.

HDB will be engaging a specialist consultant to develop an Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP), which will mitigate and manage any potential environmental impact arising from the infrastructure works, and closely monitor the works from start to end.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)