School Bans Smartphones for Students Starting 2026: Is This the End of Digital Freedom? Shocking Reasons Inside!

The recent closure of a back-lane path in Kovan has ignited a debate between residents and a private landowner, with surprising results in public opinion. On October 28, 2025, the owner of the strip of land between Robey Crescent and Jalan Arif decided to block a path that had long served as a vital shortcut for many locals. This route provided a direct connection from a private estate in Kovan to a nearby bus stop on Hougang Avenue 2 and various amenities located at the HDB blocks across the street. For numerous residents, including seniors, children, and daily commuters, this shortcut was an integral part of their daily lives.

A Yahoo poll conducted following the closure revealed that 50 percent of the 876 respondents sided with the landowner, while 32 percent expressed support for the path's users, and 18 percent felt sympathetic to both sides. The findings underscore a complex community divide amid the land dispute.

At the center of this controversy is Mr. Koh, a local resident and the son of the developer who owns the path. This familial connection has made him a focal point of frustration for neighbors who feel let down by the sudden restriction. Koh stated to The Straits Times that he did not erect the gate himself. When pressed about his brother, who operates the company owning the land, Koh said he was advised to avoid further involvement in the matter.

Residents have voiced their concerns to Kenneth Tiong, their Member of Parliament from the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Many have reported that the detour created by the path’s closure significantly extends their travel time, making commutes approximately six times longer than when utilizing the back lane.

This closure not only disrupts the daily routines of the local community but also raises questions about the rights of landowners versus the needs of residents. The path had existed for years, contributing to a sense of community and accessibility that many now feel has been upended. As this issue continues to develop, it serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between private property rights and the public's need for accessible routes in urban areas.

As the community contemplates the future of this closed pathway, it remains to be seen what actions will be taken next, both by the residents and their representative. In the meantime, the ongoing dispute highlights a broader conversation about urban land use and the impacts of development on local communities.