Endangered Species (Import and Export) (Amendment) Bill

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, today's Bill aims to strengthen Singapore's efforts against the illegal wildlife trade. I have had the privilege to be involved since the first draft of this Bill. I know that MND has made many changes to reflect feedback from NGOs and other stakeholders. I thank both MND and NParks for their consultation and positive engagement. There is no doubt that today's Bill helps. As the public consultation found, there is consensus that harsher, broader penalties does deter the illegal wildlife trade. That said, this Bill does not do enough to tackle the problem. There is a need to rethink the broader policy approach towards tackling this illegal wildlife trade. 

Let me start by clarifying what the illegal wildlife trade is all about. In its first undercover investigation conducted back in 2001, ACRES found that 73.5% of shops surveyed in Singapore were illegally selling bear bile and bear gall bladders. Some may say this is just the sale of goods to willing buyers. But I hope we will look closer. I have seen the suffering that fuels this market. The first bear I met lived her life in a cage not bigger than herself. She was stabbed into her gall bladder so that they could drain the bile from her every single day. The first bear I met in a bear farm is also the first bear that I watch passed away. She took her last breath before my very eyes.  

Over the past 20 years, I’ve seen many other animals in similar conditions. I have seen monkeys restrained with chains so tight that it bit into the flesh of their neck, chains that were never loosened as the animals grew over the years. 

Many people think Singapore has little to do with this suffering. The reality is they could not be more wrong. Singapore is a critical nexus in the illegal wildlife trade. In the past decade, we have seized illegal shipments of animal parts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Elephants, rhinoceroses, pangolins – these are just a few animals whose dead, dissected bodies are smuggled through Singapore's world-class port. 

In April 2019, we broke the record by finding 12.9 tonnes of pangolin scales being smuggled in a shipment from Nigeria. This was worth over $50 million and cost the lives of over 17,000 pangolins. Just a week later, we seized another 12.7 tonnes of pangolin scales. Three months after that, we seized a shipment of 8.8 tonnes of ivory, estimated to come from nearly 300 African elephants. Just a few weeks ago, a man was arrested in South Africa for attempting to carry 26 kilogrammes of rhinoceros horns into Singapore in his hand luggage. Such seizures are just the tip of the iceberg. Smugglers have found ways to circumvent our border security and bring these animals and their body parts onto our soil.  

Singapore can and needs to do much more. I would like to raise four specific proposals. 

My first proposal is that we categorise wildlife trafficking as serious offences under the Organised Crime Act (or OCA). In practice, this means amending OCA so that it considers offences under sections 4, 5 and 19 of ESA and sections 8 and 9 of the Wildlife Act as serious offences. The impact of this would be massive. For so long, our policy framework on the illegal wildlife trade has targeted the runners, the low-level criminals carrying the goods. But my proposal attacks the heart of the problem: the syndicate leaders, the masterminds making everything happen. Including wildlife trade offences in OCA gives the authorities more tools to investigate and punish these kingpins, who today may evade punishment under the ESA framework. As we debated in this House previously, a lot of the people we prosecute under ESA are the runners, not the kingpins.  

Just as important, it lets us follow and cut off the money. Under OCA, our officers can issue financial reporting orders to get information and then use civil confiscation regime to deprive syndicates of their financial gains.

The Minister for Home Affairs has said that to classify an offence under OCA, the offence must meet two criteria. It must pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore, and it must be associated with organised crime in Singapore.

Wildlife trafficking clearly meets the first requirement: it poses a significant threat to our public safety and security. The first threat is to public health. Wildlife traffickers operate outside the scrutiny of our health officials. This makes the animals they transport more likely to spread zoonotic diseases to humans. COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease and so is monkeypox. I do not think I need to dwell further on how dangerous zoonotic diseases are. 

The second threat is to our ecology. Animals brought into Singapore in an unregulated way may become invasive species that threaten our native wildlife. The Javan myna we see every day is an excellent example. Brought in via the caged bird trade, they have been threatening the survival of native birds like the oriental magpie-robin and the common myna who is not so common anymore. 

The third threat is to economic stability. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reports that wildlife crime cases have been connected with offences, such as corruption, drug trafficking and money laundering. Failing to effectively tackle illegal wildlife trade in Singapore may also increase our risk of our financial institutions and trade systems being abused to facilitate other serious crimes.  

Does wildlife trafficking meet the second requirement of being associated with organised crime in Singapore? The answer has to be yes. When you look at the size and value of the animal-part seizures at our borders, we are talking about operations that must, by logic, involve financing, coordinating and operations on a large, organised scale. A $50 million shipment of pangolin scales is not the work of isolated individuals. Indeed, the FATF describes the illegal wildlife trade as a "major transnational organised crime", run by highly organised criminal syndicates that engage in complex fraud.  

The Minister for Home Affairs has said that the 18 cases of wildlife crime we prosecuted have not been found to be associated with organised crime in Singapore or overseas. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The statistic merely points to the need for greater investigative powers, particularly those provided under OCA, which will help connect instances of wildlife trafficking to their kingpins.  

Let us remember that OCA was enacted not only to combat existing threats of organised crime. As described by Minister Iswaran when passing OCA, it is meant to "prevent organised crime from taking root in Singapore." 

Let us not wait until we prosecute a confirmed syndicate member and when illegal wildlife trade syndicates are deeply rooted in Singapore before we strengthen our laws.  

Beyond the direct benefits of catching criminals, there is a reputational benefit for including the ESA offences under OCA. 

Singapore has always prided itself as a global financial hub. But it has come under criticism by FATF, which has said Singapore is insufficiently focused on complex, transnational cases of money laundering. Separately, FATF has called for countries to provide their agencies with the mandate and tools to conduct financial investigations into the illegal wildlife trade. Including ESA under OCA would thus benefit us by addressing FATF's concerns, allowing us to meet international standards to combat money laundering and improving our reputation both as a financial hub and a key fighter against wildlife crime.  

 From the start of this month, FATF will have its first Singaporean President, Mr T Raja Kumar. With the first Singapore presidency of FATF, I hope we can build on FATF's focus on tackling the financial trails of illegal wildlife trade internationally.

On the national level, we can do better in strengthening our organised crime laws to tackle illegal wildlife trade.  

Recently, Hong Kong also amended its "Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance" to include wildlife crime as an organised and serious crime. This move was widely reported and globally praised, with many organisations affirming the amendment as the "most appropriate route to effectively combat wildlife crime".

On behalf of NGOs and law professors in Singapore, I have submitted a position paper on including illegal wildlife trade offences under ESA and the Wildlife Act to the Organised Crime Act to Senior Minister of State Mr Tan Kiat How. The paper was prepared together with the NGOs, lawyers and law professors. I look forward to working together with Senior Minister Tan and MHA to see how we can move forward on this proposal.  

Sir, my second proposal is to include a reward for informers under ESA.

I am glad the Bill recognises the importance of informers in policing wildlife crimes by granting them protection under the new section 22B. Wildlife crimes are difficult to detect. Smugglers use creative strategies, complicated trade routes and fraudulent documents to avoid detection. For example, one of the shipments of pangolin scales was caught and was packed and declared as frozen beef. I imagine it cannot be possible for us to fully scrutinise every single shipment of frozen beef passing through Singapore. Informers are thus an important asset to assist our enforcement agents in their work.  

But providing protection is not enough. We need to incentivise informers to come forward and make reports. We can do this by allowing informers to be rewarded by our fines imposed under ESA. This is similar to what is done under section 13 of the Wildlife Act. 

My third proposal is to increase the maximum aggregate fine for offences under ESA. This Bill does make a progressive step of increasing the limits of fine to the market value of the specimens involved. This is still not enough. The illegal wildlife trade is a hugely profitable enterprise. Successfully smuggling pangolin scales or elephant ivory earns these criminals millions of dollars. We need penalties that really hurt the profits of the syndicates or it would not be enough to deter them from using Singapore for their operations.

Instead, I propose that the fines be increased to three times the market value of the specimens involved. This would make the fines in a genuine penalty similar to the civil penalty for insider trading, tax evasion or illegal customs drawback claims.

My last proposal is that we make buying scheduled species an offence. As long as there is a domestic market, smugglers will always try to bring in animals illegally.

In 2019, when I asked about our efforts to deter the pangolin trade in Singapore, Minister of State Sun Xueling acknowledged that tackling the illegal wildlife trade requires buyers to reduce their demand. It is nice that she just stepped in. I wholeheartedly agree with her. I know buying is currently already an offence but it is not explicitly stated in the Bill. We should be explicit by stating clearly in the Bill that it is an offence to buy scheduled species. We would be following in the footsteps of many other countries. Legislation in the US, EU, Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam already include “purchasing” as an offence.

Sir, I will end with an extract from one of the most powerful speeches I have heard on fighting the illegal wildlife trade. This was a speech by HRH Prince William at the 2018 Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference in London which I had the privilege to attend. HRH shared how, on his visit to Africa, he saw rhinos under such threat that they had more bodyguards than him. He said, quote: “It is heart-breaking to think that by the time my children George, Charlotte and Louis are in their twenties, elephants, rhinos and tigers might well be extinct in the wild. I, for one, am not willing to look my children in the eye and say that we were the generation that let this happen on our watch. It is time to treat the illegal wildlife trade as the serious organised crime that it is. It is carried out by ruthless cross-border criminal networks. It is fueled by corruption. It damages economic growth and sustainable development. It undermines governance and the rule of law. It robs communities today of their future sources of income. And it exploits the poorest people in some of the most vulnerable countries on earth.

Organised criminal networks are adding to their profits through involvement in wildlife crime. They see it as a lucrative and relatively low-risk activity. They are the very same groups who move drugs, people and weapons. These networks are sophisticated, coordinated, adaptable and professional. They innovate faster than we can and they exploit weaknesses in our systems.

Let me be clear; I am not asking anyone in this room to prioritise efforts to fight the illegal wildlife trade above drug trafficking or violent crimes. I know very well that law enforcement resources and judicial systems are stretched.

But I am asking you to see the connections. To acknowledge that the steps you take to tackle illegal wildlife crime could make it easier to halt the shipments of guns and drugs passing through your borders. And to recognise that this is a transnational crime that you cannot leave to your passionate, but thinly stretched, wildlife crime officers to tackle alone.

You might find it easier to arrest a kingpin or a middleman for trafficking illegal wildlife products than to catch him red-handed smuggling heroin. Remember – "Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, not murder." 

I hope we will remember this powerful speech by HRH Prince William as we increase our efforts in tackling this cruel and wasteful illegal wildlife trade. Sir, notwithstanding my suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Tan Kiat How (The Senior Minister of State for National Development) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken for their views and support of this Bill. Let me first address the points they have raised on ESA, followed by briefly addressing the other suggestions they have made to tackle illegal wildlife trade that go beyond the Act. 

First, on the proposed penalties for illegal wildlife trade in ESA. 

Members, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng all have observed that that the illegal wildlife trade can make for very lucrative business and asked if the penalties for illegal wildlife trade could therefore be further enhanced to increase deterrence. For example, by raising the proposed imprisonment term for individuals who illegally trade Appendix II or III species from four to five years, as suggested by Mr Yip Hong Weng, and increasing the maximum aggregate fine further across the board to three times the market value of the goods. 

First, I agree with Members on the need for adequate penalties. That is why we have further enhanced our penalty framework, following feedback from the public consultation exercise we went through earlier. 

We will increase the fines and jail terms that can be meted out for individuals who illegally trade in CITES species as well as penalties for the domestic trade in CITES species to align with that for international trade. We will also introduce stiffer penalties for corporate offenders who illegally trade CITES species. These are corporations, unincorporated associations or partnerships. In addition, the maximum aggregate fine will be raised across the board to match the market value of all illegally traded CITES species comprised in the offence, where the market value is higher than the maximum aggregate fine of $500,000 or $1,000,000 for individual and corporate offenders respectively. 

So, you can see that we are taking significant steps in raising the penalties from the current Act, while also providing greater clarity to existing penalties such as specifying that the offender will be fined on the basis of each specimen of the CITES species comprised in the offence.

At the same time, we need to strike the right balance, by ensuring that the penalties meted out are proportionate to the offence and consistent with our domestic legislation.

For example, we have proposed higher penalties in this Act as compared to the Wildlife Act that Mr Yip Hon Weng mentioned which covers common wildlife. This is in view that illegal trade in CITES species has a significantly higher impact on the survival of these endangered species in the wild. 

In addition to pegging the maximum aggregate fine to the market value of the goods, we have also proposed a maximum aggregate fine of $1,000,000 for corporate offenders. This allows the Courts the flexibility to consider other aggravating factors and to impose much heavier penalties in cases where the market value of the goods is low.

This cap for the maximum aggregate fine for corporate offenders is proportionate to other serious offences in our domestic legislation, for example, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, where corporate offenders may be subject to a fine of $1,000,000 or twice the value of the benefits reaped from offences such as drug dealing. 

Moreover, it is not just about consistency with our domestic legislation. Importantly, ESA gives effect to our commitment as a CITES party. It touches on Singapore's obligation as a CITES party to combat illegal wildlife trade. 

As cited by Mr Leon Perera, we have indeed benchmarked our proposed penalty framework against neighbouring jurisdictions in the region.

I would like to clarify with Mr Perera that we are not the lowest in the region in terms of penalty. Our penalties will be roughly on par with our neighbours. For example, the proposed range of four to eight years for the maximum imprisonment terms for illegal wildlife trade offences is comparable to Malaysia, whose maximum imprisonment is up to seven years. It also places Singapore on the middle end of the spectrum regionally.

The Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar impose a maximum imprisonment term of up to 10 to 15 years, albeit with a significantly much lower monetary fine compared to our framework. Meanwhile, in Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia, the maximum imprisonment terms are up to five years. So, we are not the lowest – compared with our neighbouring jurisdictions. 

We have introduced differentiated heavier penalties for offences involving CITES Appendix I species, which is also aligned to jurisdictions such as Brunei, the Philippines and Hong Kong. 

In addition, the Bill will introduce provisions to allow for the seizure or forfeiture of items used to conceal CITES species as well as their conveyances. This will serve to further deter illegal wildlife trade as would-be smugglers would face the prospect of losing their vehicles as well as any additional cargo that was used to commit the offence. 

In a nutshell, we are taking steps to significantly raise the penalties. At the same time, we are mindful that the penalties need to be proportionate to the offence and are broadly consistent with other domestic legislation as well as comparable with our neighbours. 

I would like to assure Members that we will continue to review our penalty framework to ensure that they serve as a sufficient deterrent against illegal wildlife trade.

Members have also pointed out that it would be important to reduce consumer demand for illegally traded CITES species by targeting buyers. 

Although buyers of illegally traded CITES species can already be penalised under the Act, Members such as Mr Louis Ng suggested to explicitly include the act of buying as an offence in the Act. This was also a suggestion raised during our public consultation exercise, which we have considered carefully. 

Although "buying" is not explicitly set out as an offence in our legislation, Mr Yip Hon Weng has also pointed out there are other levers that penalise buyers of illegally traded CITES species. And NParks has taken enforcement action using these levers. 

For example, under section 4 of ESA, any person in possession of a CITES species that has been illegally imported is guilty of an offence. This includes possession of such a species purchased from a seller. 

Under section 19 of ESA, any persons who abets the commission of any offence under ESA is also guilty of an offence. This means that buyers can be penalised for facilitating the sale of illegally traded CITES species, including CITES species that cannot be sold, such as elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns.

Over the last five years, NParks has used these provisions to charge eight persons for the possession of illegally traded CITES species and three persons for facilitating the sale of such species.

I would like to assure Members that NParks will continue to be vigilant on this front and exercise these levers to tackle this issue. 

At the same time, we are mindful that there may also be persons who are unsuspecting purchasers of illegally traded CITES species.

Most of the general public might not be able to differentiate between CITES species and non-CITES species, much less be able to verify if the species was traded legally.

Hence, we aim to tackle this issue upstream. NParks conducts regular checks on businesses and individuals who sell CITES species to ensure that they have the relevant permits for the species. 

Just last year, NParks carried out two island-wide operations and seized more than 90 wildlife specimens, including some CITES species, from sellers who had listed them on social media and e-commerce platforms. These online sellers did not have the relevant permits for the CITES species. 

So, I would like to assure Members that we are paying close attention to such illegally traded CITES species on online platforms, including e-commerce platforms.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if online sellers would be prosecuted as a business or commercial entity even if they did not have a business registration.

In the case that I just mentioned, based on NParks' investigations, the online sellers were persons who were keeping the wildlife as pets or breeding them at home for sale. They are individuals with no registered businesses and will be dealt with accordingly under ESA.

Also, in response to Mr Yip's comments, I would like to clarify that there are CITES species that can be kept as pets in Singapore but only with permission and the relevant permits from NParks. 

Whether CITES species can be kept as pets is based on several factors, including the potential impact to animal and public health, animal welfare, environmental impact and public safety. NParks regularly reviews the suitability of these wildlife species as pets. So, apart from regulating the wildlife trade in Singapore, we also regulate the keeping of wildlife as pets to safeguard animal health and welfare.  

We also aim to maintain a balanced ecosystem, which can be disrupted when non-native wildlife is illegally abandoned or released into our green and blue spaces. 

NParks receives tip-offs and monitors online and social media platforms for cases of illegally kept wildlife and will not hesitate to take strict action.

For example, in 2020, NParks charged an individual for the illegal possession and sale of a boa constrictor, which is listed in CITES Appendix II, on the online messaging service, Telegram. The individual was later fined $1,000. 

With the amendments proposed in this Bill, such offenders will be subject to stiffer penalties, including a monetary fine of up to $100,000 and a maximum imprisonment term of up to six years for the sale and advertisement of illegally traded CITES species. This is in addition to our work with enforcement agencies and the industry to ensure that all CITES species are legally traded in Singapore.

Our partnerships also play an important role to enhance our measures to combat illegal wildlife trade, including to bolster our capabilities to effectively tackle new forms of illegal wildlife trade, such as the recent shift of the trade on to online platforms, as Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted.

Let me just touch on this item as part of our investigation and enforcement regime under ESA. 

Today, NParks works closely with the industry, such as e-commerce platforms and online auction houses, to combat the illegal trade of CITES species online. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested we hold the digital platforms accountable for removing content advertising and facilitating the sale of illegally traded CITES species. We regularly engage these platforms to raise awareness on the impacts of illegal wildlife trade and educate these stakeholders on how they can contribute to our efforts to prevent the online trade of these products. Thus far, the industry has been cooperative and committed to prevent the illegal sale of these products on their platforms.

Mr Yip referenced the Digital Services Act. The European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on this set of new rules only earlier this year and from what we understand, it has not been formally approved. We will continue to monitor this space.

NParks also works closely with enforcement agencies and international organisations, tapping on their expertise and experience, to complement its capabilities and resources in tracking down illegal wildlife traders online. For example, NParks works with the Singapore Police Force to extract information from digital devices that may be helpful in our investigations. 

NParks also has a group of well-trained enforcement officers to tackle illegal wildlife trade. These officers are trained in the implementation of CITES provisions, the identification of CITES species, investigative methods and the use of technology to aid enforcement. Their officers also attend international conferences and workshops, including those organised by INTERPOL on combatting cyber-enabled wildlife crime, to keep up with developments in this field, as well as to share best practices with one another.

Mr Louis Ng asked if we could include a reward to incentivise informers to make reports, drawn from fines imposed under ESA. I thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. Indeed, NParks will receive tip-offs from time to time to enforce against illegal wildlife trafficking and that is why we have made amendments to protect the identity of these informers, which may encourage more persons to provide information about such illegal activities. 

We are in the midst of exploring the feasibility of a reward programme, to further encourage informers to step forward. We are reviewing the approaches taken by other agencies, such as the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore. We will continue to explore the implementation of such a programme administratively.

Let me also take the chance to clarify a few points that were raised by Mr Leon Perera, one of which regarding the Bengal Cat. Mr Leon Perera, I think, may have misinterpreted or heard my earlier speech wrongly. The Bengal Cat is a cross between the wild Asian Leopard Cat, a CITES-listed species, and a domestic cat. Today, traders are not required to produce a permit in the ESA when trading Bengal Cats, but traders have been cooperative and are doing so. Moving forward, when the amendments to the Act come into force, it will be a requirement in the ESA for traders to provide these permits for the trade of such Bengal Cats. So, just to clarify the point that Mr Leon Perera raised just now. 

The second point that Mr Leon Perera also raised was about going beyond the CITES agreement to have, for example, reverse listings, and to include different species that are not currently listed in the CITES appendices. Allow me just to clarify with Mr Leon Perera, that CITES currently, in the world, is the only international agreement under the United Nations framework that regulates the trade of endangered species. It is the international body, to which almost all countries have signed up, to enforce regulations for sustainable trade in these endangered species. So, CITES is the main vehicle in which these rules and regulations are enforced and implemented across the world. The intent of ESA is to give effect to Singapore's obligations as a CITES Party, and to enforce these rules as a responsible member of CITES. 

On his point about taking leadership in ASEAN, I am very glad to share with Mr Leon Perera, that indeed, we are taking leadership as far as we can within the region. For example, earlier in my speech, I said that we set up the Centre for Wildlife Forensics, which became a CITES reference laboratory. In March earlier this year, NParks' youth stewards, under the Youth Stewards for Nature programme, also organised a World Wildlife Day Regional Youth Symposium, bringing youths from across the region, come together to discuss these issues, think about solutions and work together as one community. So, indeed, we are playing our part in the region and taking our leadership role as well as we can with our members in our region and I welcome all the young people sitting up there too to join our programmes. 

Let me just touch on the last part of the questions that were raised by the various Members, which were on the overall scope of ESA.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the scope of ESA could be expanded to include non-CITES species, or streamlined with the Wildlife Act, to regulate all wildlife matters in Singapore. 

Today, NParks oversees various Acts which deal with different aspects of animal-related policies. ESA regulates the trade of animal and plant species listed under the CITES in Singapore. This primarily tackles the international trade in the species and affirms our international commitment as a Party to CITES. The Wildlife Act, on the other hand, ensures the protection, preservation and management of Singapore's wildlife. So, these pieces of legislation have different but complementary functions and they come together to support our efforts to safeguard animal health and welfare.

It is important that we have a strong and robust legislative framework underpinning our efforts to tackle wildlife crime. This is why we continue to review and update our legislation. The Wildlife Act, previously named the Wild Animals and Birds Act, was amended and came into force in June 2020. And now, we are also amending ESA, to keep pace with the times and ensure that we can continue to effectively combat all forms of illegal wildlife trade in Singapore. 

Let me now move on to other issues that were raised on tackling illegal wildlife trade beyond ESA's scope.

To enhance our levers to combat illegal wildlife trade, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Ng asked for illegal wildlife trade to be recognised as a serious organised crime in Singapore. I thank the Members for their suggestions. 

The Organised Crime Act provides law enforcement agencies powers to act against organised crime and is focused on criminalising activities that are of greatest concern to Singapore. 

I note Mr Louis Ng's points on the potential threats of illegal wildlife trade to public health, wildlife ecology and its use in international money laundering. These are valid considerations. I also thank Mr Louis Ng for sharing with us your position paper that you have put together with academics and NGOs and I have shared that with my fellow colleagues. We will review and assess these with the relevant agencies.

Beyond legislation and enforcement, we agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that public education and outreach is key in combating illegal wildlife trade and in safeguarding animal health and welfare in Singapore. 

We will continue to engage the community to raise awareness on Singapore's role on this front, and in turn, reduce demand for illegally sourced wildlife products in Singapore, including those sold on virtual platforms. For example, we have embarked on webinars and exhibitions to educate the public on the best practices as consumers, such as how they can identify and purchase legal CITES products.

NParks and the World Wide Fund for Nature-Singapore have jointly organised roundtable discussions with the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online, which includes digital platforms such as Facebook, or Meta, TikTok, Lazada and Carousell, to raise awareness on the illegal sale of exotic pets online. 

In January this year, they also jointly engaged over 80 representatives from the shipping industry, to share best practices for tackling the illegal trade in wildlife. 

Last but not least, NParks involves youths in efforts to tackle illegal wildlife trade as part of its Youth Stewards for Nature programme, which I mentioned earlier. 

Mr Deputy Speaker sir, let me conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support and suggestions, and our partners and stakeholders for their feedback and support in our review of ESA. 

Overall, the amendments will help to strengthen our regulations for the trade of CITES species and to enhance our penalties and enforcement powers against such illegal trade. Weeding out illegal trade in CITES-listed species requires the concerted effort of all stakeholders. The fight also goes beyond Singapore and requires strong cooperation at the bilateral, regional and international levels. We will continue to partner with the international community and with local stakeholders and the community, to combat illegal wildlife trade and safeguard our planet's natural heritage.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have answered and addressed all the questions and suggestions from Members. I beg to move. 

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for a very detailed response. But could I just have two clarifications? One, on making buying an offence. I know that it is currently covered under ESA, but the call from the NGOs really is to make it specific. So, section 4 of ESA already states many words – import, export, re-export, sell, advertise. Why not just add that one word: buy? If we could understand what are the concerns from the Government of just adding that one word. 

Second, on the reward for informers, I did it through a private Member's Bill to introduce section 13 into the Wildlife Act, which does provide reward to informers for people who are in possession or trading of less endangered species. So, it would be a bit strange now. We provide you a reward if you give us a tip-off for less protected animals, but we do not legislate it and give you a reward for if you give us tip-offs for more protected or endangered animals. I really hope we can close that loophole. Thank you.

Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Louis Ng raised two points, one about the insertion of the explicit mention of buying as an offence under the Act. As I explained earlier, it is an offence to possess or facilitate the sale of illegally-traded CITES species. And we have actually enforced these levers, previously under the existing Act, even today. On the other hand, I think we are also mindful of sending a signal that actually there are many people in the general public who may not be able to recognise what is a CITES listed species, what is a non-CITES listed species, what was illegally traded or not, and we do not want to send the wrong signal to those members of the public as well.

So, I just want to assure the Member that we have considered this carefully, as part of the public consultation feedback that I personally had with many of the NGOs and many of the focus groups. I understand the concerns and I think if there is an issue about signalling to consumers and buyers that they have to be careful and be mindful of what they purchase and where they purchase from, that I agree. And we continue do public education and awareness and consumer awareness campaigns. We will continue to work on those issues.

The second point that he raised was around the reward for the informers. I mentioned in my clarification that we are exploring and reviewing this framework and we are not closed to this idea. So, give us some time, we are looking into this. It is an important area and that is why we have moved in this Act, in this amendment, to protect the identity of such informers because we rely on tip-offs and many of these informants to give us the tip-offs and the information for us to do our operations and enforcement. So, to Mr Louis Ng's second clarification, just to assure him, we are looking into this area. 

Source: Hansard