Thanks to all our presenters and all our participants for a very lively and energetic morning. It was not just the banter and discussion, the cut and thrust in the groups, but also a very lively chat that's been going on in parallel. That shows what the technology that we're using today enables to have – verbal discussion and verbal presentation, but also digital chat, to build a robust understanding of the issues that we're tackling. 

I went to quite a number of groups, and was very encouraged by the very lively and open discussion, not only about individual ideas, but that you could see a trajectory that actually many of you have a bold vision, a view of what Singapore should look like 50 years from now. And actually, if you interrogate further and you dig deeper, many of your big ideas are premised on a cause or an issue, or an underlying risk, or a good opportunity in the future that you'd like to address or to seize. 

And I could see people talking about architectural design, land use, some of you are concerned about ecology and our green spaces. Some of you are very concerned about the social integration, inequality. Some of you are quite keen to see how technology can enable differently abled people. It was a very lively discussion.

One of the participant’s rounding-up presentation, used the term that is quite salient – that of trade-offs, and trying to balance competing interests. In fact, as he was giving the presentation about balancing trade-offs, and he was trying to see whether we can make win-win outcomes out of them. So instead of them being trade-offs, can try to cohere them and align them, and try to benefit from turning competing interests and challenges into aligned opportunities. Just as he was presenting that, at the same time in the chat, there were people talking precisely about that – if you have more tropically friendly architecture, does it mean bigger windows, higher ceilings? Would that mean, as some others pointed out, less intensive use of land, and hence more urban sprawl and less green spaces? Then there was push back to say no, tropically friendly design can be compatible with intensive land use. 

So all these are a means to an end. But ultimately, what is driving all these comments and suggestions is that a more sustainable Singapore, a more liveable, a more resource intensive, lower carbon footprint, and living in harmony with the world that’s under lots of stress from intensive land use for intensive industry. And the lifestyle of humanity that is not compatible with the sustainability of this planet. So I think that's very encouraging. 

And as you were presenting, I took a lot of notes, and my URA colleagues were also taking notes. One participant spoke about community spaces managed by ground-up groups, and that's a vision of a future Singapore, 50 years from now, and along the way, I think she wants to see more pockets of spaces being given up to volunteers and people who step forward to create spaces for the community to bond. Another participant’s idea of forming Alliances for Action now and in the future, to design and decide upon the kinds of multiple uses, that multi-purpose spaces can embody and embrace.

One participant’s sharing in his group earlier, reminded me how our daily lived reality and our daily lived experiences can cause us to pause and think deeper about issues and about the future. And actually, he shared in his group that as a university student, he was trying to find spaces in the city to run an event, to use spaces in the CBD well, especially evenings and on the weekends when they are empty. He found that those spaces were not accessible to him, and to his fellow classmates and schoolmates.

That sparked off his thinking about why are spaces not just used in space, but also in time. CBD is very intensive to use in the daytime, on weekdays, but very under-utilised, and very quiet at night and on weekends. So why don't we make good use of space, not just physically, but also in time. That is in line with what many of you talked about in terms of sustainability, how do you make more intensive use of small Singapore to achieve so much, and yet be able to have natural spaces, spaces for community spaces for the arts and culture. Intensification is not just building higher, building deeper, stacking things up, but also making use of space throughout time. 

He had this concept about democratising access to buildings, which may mean some changes to the concept of property rights, how to have sharing society and all – this is sparked off from this experience as a student leader trying to find spaces in the CBD for activities, and coming up with a whole theory and thesis about the changes that may be needed to the idea of property rights, and of shared rights and shared spaces. So very exciting to see how all of you have used your daily lived experience, to push thought, and of innovation and change. 

A participant talked about sustainability – it’s big slogan about doing more with less, I think encapsulates a lot of what we've been talking about the whole morning. And in line also with another participant’s concept of robotics and drones, to be more energy efficient, to be more manpower sustainable, to do deliveries. 

Participants also talked about fruit trees along streetscape, about food security and urban farming, and intensification of urban farming. All these are in line with how we can maximise our very small city, to be able to put in things that we had to pull out long ago, we had to get rid of a lot of farming, many decades ago, in order to make space for our city. But now we're going full circle to say, yes, our city is already very busy and very intense, but we also want even more green spaces, more forests to be preserved and even enhanced, we also want farming to come back, in a big way. Not just tokenism, but intensive farming, 30 by 30, or even more than that, to sail us through turbulent waters in future where supply chain disruptions are likely to be more frequent, including for food.

One participant’s very attractive idea of a social highway, which was discussed in his group very intensively – about how we can design our residential and community spaces a lot more thoughtfully around people's daily lives and around life cycles and life stages, to bring people closer together, and to make communities less transient, less transactional, and a lot more rooted and committed. He made an idea of extending MOP for HDB from five to 10 years, and I saw a flurry of activity in the chat group, not just about personal rights and interests, but about the impact of that on social mobility. That really shows you that for all these ideas, we need to consider all the various considerations. 

My colleagues and I are very encouraged by today's discussion. We have many more of these sessions to go, in Phase 2, as we hone and look towards what Singapore may look like in 50 years’ time. 

If we look at what the Government has already been doing and announcing, and we should fully supplement and re-visit with many of the ideas you have raised. Think about how these plans may lead to a future Singapore. By 2040, full electrification, the end of the combustion engine, so our roads, our transport will be electrified, will be very different from today’s combustion engine vehicles that you see today. We've been pursuing an Underground Master Plan for quite a number of years, and then mapping efforts and strategies for underground are complex and challenging. But you can imagine 50 years from now, better use of our underground spaces. 

One Million Trees, City in Nature, our Ecological Profiling Exercise, EPE, looking at important spaces that have been zoned for human use, but which, based on EPE, we may decide to take for nature and green up. I shared with some of you, one of these books that WOHA, an architecture group, had where they envisioned all of us living on Jurong Island, in buildings one to 200 storeys tall, and the whole of the main land given up to nature. Very radical ideas, but technology facilitates mixed-use.

The movement that sparked off Golden Mile Complex, and now moving into Kampung Admiralty, moving into Yew Tee, integrated development. The idea that you can stack things, make better use of space, intensify, and yet create a social highway that was talked about earlier, in vertical spaces, and freeing up more for other uses, including for human-wildlife interaction for nature, spaces for community use, for the arts, more space for a lot of other things. 

30 by 30 – a future where we are a lot more confident in our food supply, because we applied technology and intensive urban farming, and integrating it into our city, to provide some of our nutritional needs. 

On the social front and tackling inequality, our plans, ComLink and ComLink-like initiatives, to tackle insecurity and inequality more intensively. And how does that translate into the sharing of urban spaces, and the idea of property and rights, ownership, and land and social progress. 

All these appear to be disparate ideas, but we're weaving them all together, in an overall plan. But the Long-Term Plan Review that we're carrying out this year, and well into next, will require all of us here to continue these conversations. Digitally, it’s not so convenient and easy to debate and argue, but we make the best of the situation.

I hope that at some future point in time, I can meet some of you personally, and continue this thought leadership that you're demonstrating, that will allow Singapore to form a caucus of people like you, thought leaders like you, that are thinking not just about ourselves, and of our own interests, but the future, and the lives of Singaporeans not yet born. 

That has been our challenge today. To think beyond ourselves, to think beyond our lives, and think about what Singapore will be like, in the context of the world, half a century from now. And taking active steps today, not to look out for our own interests, but for the interests of generations of Singaporeans who will live in the city, but who are not yet born. 

With that I thank you all. Let's continue this conversation, you can reach out to my colleagues at URA, or visit our Long-Term Plan Review website to find out more about conversations and activities that you can be part of. Phase 1 was very diffused and broad; all ideas welcomed. Phase 2 today is more focused; it’s focused around themes. Subsequent stages will allow you to hone in, and pursue your ideas more vigorously, and expect them to face a lot more opposition, in terms of people coming at you with their own ideas around the same theme, and how that trade-off can reach equilibrium. A lot of exciting times. We do this once every 10 years, a lot of brain power needed, but also a lot of heart. On behalf of URA and MND, I thank all of you.