Forum: See public consultation system from a global perspective

There has been much recent discussion on the redevelopment of Gillman Barracks, and some have argued that public consultation should begin earlier.

That criticism deserves to be taken seriously. The perception that key directions were settled before consultation began is real, even if unintended.

But the claim that feedback merely records objections is not borne out by recent history. At Dover Forest, the Housing Board extended the public consultation by four weeks after strong public response, and ultimately retained the entire western half of the forest after considering the feedback gathered and the site’s biodiversity.

At Clementi Forest, a petition of over 13,000 signatures was followed by the Government’s confirmation that there was no immediate need to develop the site, leaving that choice to future generations.

Gillman Barracks itself reflects the same posture: Nature and heritage groups were engaged before the studies were published, and the conceptual plan retains all four buildings of exceptional heritage significance, and most of the natural environments.

We should also see our system from a global perspective. In California, housing projects requiring a full environmental impact report take an average of 2½ years just to be approved, and a lawsuit treating university enrolment growth as an environmental impact nearly forced UC Berkeley to cut its incoming class by a third. By 2025, the state had moved to exempt most urban housing from environmental review altogether. 

Singapore has avoided both extremes. We neither build blindly nor consult endlessly. Our agencies study, listen, then decide and deliver, which is why young couples here still get homes while their counterparts elsewhere wait out lawsuits.

Consultation here is not perfect, and it can start earlier. But scepticism should be tested against outcomes, and these, from Dover to Clementi to Gillman, tell a fairer story than the critics allow.

Frank Chua