Critics of the Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks projects argue that the government has failed to adequately demonstrate why these specific green and heritage sites must be sacrificed. Skeptics point out that there are alternative options for housing, such as the redevelopment of older, low-density estates, which could meet demand without destroying irreplaceable natural habitats. The core of the opposition is not necessarily a rejection of housing, but a demand for greater transparency and a more thorough exploration of alternatives before irreversible damage is done to the environment.
Many residents and activists feel that the current consultation process is insufficient, noting that dialogue sessions have often been restricted to immediate residents rather than the broader public. This has led to concerns that the government is not truly listening to the diverse range of voices that value these spaces for their ecological and "existence value." Critics argue that the sheer volume of signatures on petitions—now exceeding 46,000—is a clear signal that the public expects a higher standard of accountability and a more inclusive decision-making process.
Furthermore, there is a growing concern that the current approach treats nature as a secondary consideration rather than a fundamental part of the city's identity. Opponents warn that once these forests and heritage sites are cleared, they cannot be replaced. They are calling for the government to pause the current plans, provide more detailed justifications for the site selection, and engage in a more transparent, nationwide discussion about the future of Singapore’s land use.