Louis asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past five years (a) what is the estimated population of stray dogs, stray cats and wild monkeys respectively; (b) what is the number of stray dogs, stray cats and wild monkeys respectively which have been culled; and (c) what is the number of stray dogs, stray cats and wild monkeys respectively which have been trapped and subsequently re-homed or relocated.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): The estimated populations of stray dogs, stray cats and wild monkeys are about 7,000, 60,000 and 1,900 respectively.

AVA is the first responder agency on animal matters. When there are safety concerns from the public, AVA has to impound the stray animals. AVA works closely with animal welfare groups to rehome the animals, if they are deemed suitable. Those which are not rehomed, including the aggressive and sick animals, will be humanely euthanised as a last resort.

The AVA annual report contains the number of stray animals that are impounded and rehomed annually. Last year, AVA euthanised 942 dogs, 888 cats and 623 monkeys. At the same time, AVA rehomed 265 dogs and 129 cats. AVA will continue to work with animal welfare groups to rehome stray animals.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Improve Collaboration between AVA and Animal Welfare Groups at Committee of Supply 2016.

Louis: Sir, I first declare my interest as the Chief Executive of an animal welfare group. The current estimated populations of stray dogs, stray cats and wild monkeys are about 7,000, 60,000 and 1,900 respectively. Last year, AVA euthanised 942 dogs, 888 cats and 623 monkeys, in an effort to manage the populations of these animals or in response to public feedback.

AVA currently devotes significant resources into hiring for-profit companies to manage stray dogs, cats and wild monkeys. AVA is working with animal welfare groups (AWGs) to rehome the dogs and cats that were impounded but this does not address the root of the problem. AVA currently does not partner any AWGs to manage the monkey issues.

Will AVA consider working more closely with and divert funding from the for-profit companies to the non-profit AWGs who are struggling to find funding and were already on the ground and helping to manage these issues?

This is a win-win solution that will address both public safety and animal welfare concerns and result in a more humane and long-term approach. It might also result in cost savings for the AVA.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (The Minister of State for National Development): Mr Louis Ng has asked about collaboration between AVA and animal welfare groups or AWGs, on animal-related issues. AVA already does so. For instance, the Animal Concerns Research & Education Society or ACRES is one of AVA's contractors for responding to wild animal issues.

AVA also works with SPCA and the Cat Welfare Society on the Stray Cat Sterilisation Programme (SCSP). Under the programme, AVA co-funds the cost of sterilising and micro-chipping stray cats in HDB estates. The AWGs also help to mediate cat-related feedback and manage community cat feeders to prevent nuisance to the community. Animal welfare groups play a very important intermediary role in the community. Going forward, AVA will expand the programme to cover stray cats in industrial and commercial areas, and private estates. With this expansion, we hope to sterilise 20,000 more stray cats.

AVA also works closely with animal welfare groups on public outreach regarding animal-related issues. And through the Responsible Pet Ownership Programme, AVA has held roadshows and joint adoption drives with animal welfare groups, emphasising that a pet is for life and should not be abandoned. AVA plans to collaborate with AWGs to further such outreach efforts.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider updating and aligning the definition of "animals" in the Road Traffic Act with the definition in the Animals and Birds Act to ensure that there is alignment of legislation across the statutes.

Mr Desmond Lee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Madam, the definitions of "animals" in the Road Traffic Act and the Animals and Birds Act are not scoped in the same way. The objectives of the two Acts are different.

The Animals and Birds Act seeks to prevent the introduction and spread of diseases through animals, control the movement of animals, prevent cruelty to animals, and safeguard the general welfare of animals in Singapore. On the other hand, the primary intent of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure the safety of road users, including motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

The specific provision in the Road Traffic Act relating to animals had been confined to farm animals of commercial value. The original intent of that legislation was to ensure restitution to their owners should an accident occur.

The question is whether we should now mandatorily require all motorists to stop, should they hit an animal. The primary requirement must be safety. They should stop, if it is safe to do so. If the motorist requires assistance in relation to attending to the animal, he can contact the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) or Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

The Ministry of Home Affairs intends to review the definition of "animals" in the Road Traffic Act, and also consider any amendment in the context of road safety, especially the safety of the motorist and other road users. In response to the Member's question, yes, we will review. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory to educate prospective or current residents of "nature-inspired" developments on the appropriate response to wildlife sighted in their areas and why members of the public should not feed wildlife.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): It is important to carefully manage human-wildlife interactions. In this regard, agencies like NParks and AVA are already taking active measures to do so.

First, NParks organizes biodiversity programmes like the Festival of Biodiversity and Community in Nature initiatives. Taken as a whole, these programmes help to generate public awareness of, and appreciation for, our native wildlife.

Second, agencies disseminate guidelines on how residents can minimise potential human-wildlife conflict, particularly in residential districts close to nature areas. For example, the guidelines touch on proper methods of securing trash bins and keeping food out of sight. Moreover, AVA officers conduct walkabouts in areas where residents have faced issues relating to animal nuisance. AVA officers also attend meetings to address residents’ concerns in these areas.

Third, NParks conducts specific outreach activities to discourage animal feeding. These include distributing advisory pamphlets to residents, conducting workshops for school children, and displaying prominent signage against wildlife feeding in parks and nature reserves.

That said, there will always be a small minority who persist in inappropriate behaviours like feeding. In these cases, a more targeted approach which may include official warnings or enforcement action is necessary.

Most residents who live close to nature areas behave very responsibly, have made adjustments, and appreciate the wildlife as part of their living environment. The Government will continue with its efforts to engage the broader community in public education initiatives, and to work constructively to address problems related to wildlife that might arise. With tolerance, understanding, and a spirit of compromise, most human-wildlife issues can be resolved.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many residents have complained about the free-ranging chickens at Sin Ming; (b) what percentage of residents living around Thomson View and Blocks 452 to 454 Sin Ming Avenue have complained about the chickens; (c) whether AVA has considered asking people to adopt the chickens or other more humane alternatives; and (d) whether AVA will set a threshold in terms of the number of complains and complainants before culling other chickens or animals.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, AVA is the designated Government agency that responds to all public complaints about animals. While AVA responds to such public feedback, its actions are guided by a professional assessment of the risks that these animals might pose to public health and safety. In other words, when feedback is received, AVA conducts surveillance to determine the actual situation on the ground. If there are no significant public health or safety concerns, AVA will advise feedback providers on ways to mitigate the issues. This includes removing food sources within properties, animal proofing homes, or even pruning vegetation in the vicinity of the area of complaint.

In the case of free-roaming chickens near Sin Ming Avenue, AVA found that the population had more than doubled to 50 birds. Studies have shown that chickens are more susceptible to the bird flu virus, as compared to other birds like pigeons. In other words, there is a higher risk of free-roaming chickens being exposed and infected with bird flu from migratory wild birds, which are often reservoirs for the bird flu virus. There is also scientific evidence that chickens can in turn transmit the disease to humans, creating a zoonotic disease. In fact, the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that the majority of human cases of bird flu infection have been associated with contact with infected live or dead poultry, including chickens. That is why AVA felt that it had to take action to manage the chicken population in Sin Ming. Unfortunately, AVA's actions were perceived to be motivated solely by noise concerns, which is not the case. That said, AVA acknowledges that engagement and communications with residents and other stakeholders on this issue ought to have been better managed.

Some have suggested that the chickens could be relocated to the wild, for example, in places like in Pulau Ubin or other forested areas. But the chickens in Sin Ming and in most of our urban settings are highly unlikely to be of native stock and are therefore different from our indigenous breed of Red Junglefowl, which is an endangered species known to occur only in Pulau Ubin and the Western Catchment area. They were brought in by humans at some point, perhaps to be raised as pets. So, releasing the free-ranging chickens into the wild can adversely affect the stock of the native species genetically, especially if there is inter-breeding that takes place thereafter.

The community, I must say, also plays an important role in helping to achieve harmonious human-animal interactions. The reality is that there is often a lack of natural predators in any urban ecosystem such as Singapore. So, the delicate balance of nature does not always function in the predominately urban setting. In this regard, we all need to act responsibly, by not feeding wildlife. Such a practice further disturbs the balance in ecosystem and will invariably increase human-wildlife contact, and then, subsequently, lead to conflict. It will also potentially increase the risk of human-animal cross transmission of diseases. We should also refrain from abandoning our pets, as not only is it cruel and against the law, but it is also a cause of imbalance and has adverse impact on our native wildlife population.

At the same time, AVA is continuing to undertake research with academics, wildlife experts and other public agencies to find the best ways to manage the population of free-ranging chickens and other birds. For example, in January 2016, AVA initiated a study with NUS to better understand the ecology and population of selected bird species in Singapore. One of the bird species that this study is focusing on is the free-ranging chickens.

Through these research studies and public engagement efforts, AVA aims to strengthen its capabilities and develop more effective science-based methods to manage the animal population in our midst. AVA will also involve different stakeholders including community and animal welfare groups in exploring various approaches and solutions. Culling will only be done as the very last resort.

Ultimately, we want to thrive as a city in a garden. Living in harmony with nature and enjoying the flora and fauna around us.

Louis: I thank the Minister of State for the response. But I think he did not reply to the point about how many people complained about the Sin Ming chickens that I have posed in the Parliamentary Question (PQ). Add-on clarifications from that, can the Minister of State clarify why AVA considered relocation as an option, if the concern was bird flu rather than noise? I think also AVA cited the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) statement in 2014 about battling bird flu to justify the culling, but FAO actually stated that it does not support the culling of wild birds. I quote, "Attempts to control the spread of H5N1 by culling large numbers of wild birds are not recommended." It is not recommended as it is ineffective, according to FAO, and amongst many other reasons cited, and I quote, "because they require resources to be diverted from more effective ways of combating the virus such as improving biosecurity and clamping down on the illegal or unregulated movement of poultry." Can the Minister of State clarify why then did AVA cull the birds which the experts advised against?

Third, why did AVA not vaccinate the birds instead which is, again, what the experts recommend rather than culling them? Lastly, there are now more chickens in Sin Ming. Can the Minister of State clarify if AVA will be culling the remaining population of chickens there?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, I thank the Member for his clarifications. Now, let me first state clearly that chickens, though free-roaming are not wild birds. So, they are two different species altogether. That is an important fact to know because the risk profile in terms of transmitting avian influenza or bird flu is different. Let me just run through this whole thing again so that everybody can follow the sequence.

The Member asked how many complaints AVA received. In 2015 and 2016, AVA received more than 20 feedback from various residents living in the vicinity of Thomson View and Blocks 452 to 454 in Sin Ming Avenue. This is in contrast to the six feedback that have been received in the year before, in 2014. So, there is an increased number of feedback over this time period.

Residents that fed back highlighted that they have spotted more chickens in this area. So, there is an observation by the residents that the chicken population is increasing in this area. AVA conducted surveillance upon receiving the feedback, to determine the situation on the ground. The surveillance findings showed that the population of chickens in that area had indeed increased significantly over the last two years. The number of chickens had grown from about 20 in 2014, to more than 50 in 2016 - so, it has more than doubled.

Chickens, as I said, are different from wild birds and are scientifically known to be more susceptible to the bird flu virus than other birds, and they can transmit the diseases to humans. Essentially, a low pathogenic strain of bird flu, once it goes into a host in a free-ranging chicken, has a higher chance of undergoing genetic mutation, genetic recombination and subsequently acquire a more virulent behaviour with a higher chance of transmission to humans creating zoonotic diseases.

So, given the increase in chicken population in that area, the decision taken then was to remove some of the chickens − some, and not all. AVA, thus, removed over 20 free-roaming chickens, of which more than 60% are roosters which created some of the noise nuisance as well. So, in effect, AVA has removed the number of chickens to reduce the population of free-roaming chickens close to its baseline level.

The question is then, what is an acceptable number of chickens allowed to be free-ranging. The reality is there is no magic number and there is no science to say that there is a sweet number to say 10 is good; 50 is bad; 20 is even better.

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)'s guidelines recommend culling poultry infected with highly pathogenic avian flu. For low pathogenic strains, more countries like USA, Canada, the EU and Australia will cull also the infected poultry as well because the virus in chickens can evolve rapidly into a more virulent form as I said earlier. The EU actually has made a decision dated 14 February 2017, just recently, on the transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza from wild birds to poultry. During high risk periods in high risk areas, EU member states are prohibited from keeping poultry in the open air unless poultry are protected against contact with wild birds be it with nets or roofs, or by any other appropriate means. This effectively means, that as far as the EU is concerned, no free-roaming chickens are allowed because that increases the risk of disease transmission.

Now, while there are no specific recommendations to cull free-roaming chickens when there is no infection existing in a country, there are recommendations to house them in a bio-secure environment just like any other chicken farm with the intent to prevent bird flu transmission and infection. Hence, conceivably, one can surmise that any free-roaming chicken can be postulated to be at risk of acquiring bird flu and subsequently, transmitting to humans.

The factors for determining the risk level in an area include detection of bird flu in the faeces of wild birds and location along migratory bird fly ways, and Singapore is located along a migratory bird fly way. So, if we were to reduce the bird flu risk to zero, then technically, all chickens would have to be culled.

Therefore, in this instance, because of a lack of guidelines to say what the actual number should be, AVA takes a very calibrated and measured approach to reduce the risk posed to public health to what we hope is an acceptable level.

Louis: Madam, just a few more clarifications. I would really like to know how many people actually complained rather than how many complaints you received. Second, so we have culled 24 chickens, there are 26 remaining. It is a matter of time before the 26 will become 50 again. Will AVA then proceed to cull another 24 chickens? Lastly, I just want to mention. I have seen the photographs of the chickens or some of them at Sin Ming Avenue. They are indeed a Red Junglefowl. There are two birds there: the domestic chickens and the Red Junglefowl. Just to clarify because AVA had mentioned earlier that the free-ranging chickens seen on mainland Singapore are not the Red Junglefowl. That statement is inaccurate.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, in answer to the Member's question about how many people did provide feedback. Based on our records, in 2014, there were three feedback providers; in 2015 there were five. That is in the area of Sin Ming and Thomson View; and in 2016, there were 13. And clearly, this correlates with the increased sighting of birds and therefore, the number of feedback providers and the number of feedback have gone up accordingly.

As to whether the birds that were running around are the Red Junglefowl or just the foreign species, I think AVA will have conduct genetic studies to determine or maybe get the experts to ascertain. So, I think this is a point that is difficult for us to ascertain the truth just by speaking like this in this House.      

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Engaging Animal Welfare Groups to Help with Enforcement at Committee of Supply 2017.

Louis: Sir, the last cut, from 2011 to 2015, the number of feedback AVA received on animal cruelty and welfare rose from 410 to 840 cases. However, AVA continues to face substantial challenges in investigations, including the lack of eyewitnesses and direct evidence, as well as increase in online crimes. As such, would AVA consider engaging animal welfare groups to complement its efforts, just as NEA engages and empowers citizens for anti-littering efforts?

Dr Koh Poh Koon (The Minister of State for National Development): Mr Louis Ng made several suggestions to better tackle animal crime, including increasing the number of AVA inspectors for wildlife crime, introducing sniffer dogs to detect smuggled wildlife and working more closely with Animal Welfare Groups (AWGs). I thank the Member for his interesting ideas. We will certainly consider them. AVA already works closely with AWGs on animal cruelty cases. This has been found to be mutually beneficial and this cooperation has resulted in several success investigations. I believe AVA is happy to engage more AWGs who can be helpful in this way.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked Minister for National Development (a) how many residents have complained about the free-ranging chickens at Sungei Api Api in the last year; (b) how many chickens have been culled at Sungei Api Api; and (c) whether AVA will consider vaccinating all free-ranging chickens against bird flu instead of culling them.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (for the Minister of National Development): Madam, following feedback from residents on the presence of significant numbers of free-roaming chickens in Sungei Api Api, AVA did a check and found that there were more than 100 chickens in the area. Hence, AVA had taken actions to remove some of the free-roaming chickens to better manage the bird flu risk. This was done at around the same time as the operations in the Sin Ming Avenue area. And although there is a recent news report that gave the impression this happened after my reply to the Parliamentary Question, this was not the case.

The vaccination of free-roaming chickens alone may not be an effective solution to manage the bird flu risk. There are many bird flu strains and the virus has been known to mutate. While bird flu vaccinations can provide some partial protection against certain strains, the vaccinated chickens can still be infected by other strains that are not covered by the vaccination, particularly since the free-roaming chickens are free to interact and make contact with other wildlife. Moreover the chickens will continue to reproduce in the wild, and their chicks will not be protected by the same vaccination given to the adult chicken. Through research studies and public engagement efforts, AVA aims to enhance its management of animal populations, including the free-roaming chickens. AVA will involve stakeholders like academics, wildlife experts, the community and animal welfare groups in exploring various approaches and solutions to this problem. 

Louis: Madam, I think the Minister of State did not reply to the first two parts of the question. How many people actually complained? How many chickens were culled? Thirdly, is AVA planning to engage the NCs in that area because I think they had some concerns, Fourth, whether any red junglefowls were culled. This time round, I have personally seen those chickens; there are red junglefowls there. Lastly, is AVA planning any further culling operations for chickens in any other areas?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, I thank the Member for his concern for the chickens but let me just put things in the context. We are in an area where we are at risk of bird flu, and I think Members will remember the news last month, 5 March, that there was a bird flu outbreak close to home in Kelantan affecting six districts and 30-over areas within that district. To date, the Malaysian authorities have released a report to say they have culled 56,953 chickens. This definitely has an economic impact from the Malaysian side.

Being so close to home, AVA takes a risk-based approach to mitigate the risk to our own country, to our own people. In reducing the number of chickens, AVA takes an assessment on the ground, not necessarily based on the number of complaints or feedback per se. But if the numbers are high enough for us to take pre-emptive action, regardless of any number of feedback, we will have to take actions to reduce the risk.

We have to understand that this is not just about the chickens, it is also about public safety and human health. At the end of the day, AVA also has a responsibility towards the health and safety of Singaporeans. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

 Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what measures and regulations are in place to prevent pest control companies from placing and using hazardous bait, such as poison, in such a way that the safety of other wildlife and vulnerable members of public could be harmed; and (b) whether the Ministry can enforce stronger rules to prevent the indiscriminate use of pest poisons.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): Vector control operators are regulated by the National Environment Agency (NEA) under the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act (CVPA). All personnel involved in vector control work have to undergo mandatory training in the safe handling and use of pesticides before they are licensed or certified by the NEA. For instance, vector control personnel are trained to only dispense rat bait in rat burrows or in tamper-proof bait stations which other animals cannot easily access.

Apart from regulating vector control operators, the NEA also regulates the use of pesticides to ensure that they do not pose any public health concerns. NEA's evaluation of pesticides is done in accordance with the World Health Organization Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) and only pesticides that are approved for use by the NEA can be sold in Singapore after they are registered, labelled and classified properly.

My Ministry takes a serious view of the indiscriminate use of pesticides and will take enforcement action against any vector control operator and vector control personnel who infringe the regulations. Any person caught conducting vector control work without a licence shall be liable for a court fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for up to three months, or both. The NEA may also suspend or cancel the registration of any vector control operator or the licence of any vector control personnel in cases where there are serious breaches of its licensing conditions.

These penalties have proved to be a sufficient deterrence. Over the past five years, there have only been six incidents that required enforcement actions to be taken against vector control operators or personnel. Hence, there is no need to put in place stiffer penalties to prevent the indiscriminate use of pesticides.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Increasing AVA’s Budget at Committee of Supply 2018.

Louis: The next cut. Sir, I have raised animal protection issues for the past two COS and this year I really want to record my deep appreciation for the good work that AVA has done and to thank them for the tremendous progress they have made in the animal protection movement in Singapore.

While there are still issues to be worked on, nothing and nobody is perfect but we are definitely heading in the right direction and the collaborative approach has yielded much success for both our residents and the animals.

And so this really is not a cut per se. In fact I propose we do not cut their budget but hope that Minister can consider increasing their budget so that the team that has done amazing work with very limited resources can do even more this year and can achieve even more progress. 

Mr Desmond Lee (The Second Minister for National Development): Lastly, some Members have spoken about animal issues and human-animal interactions. Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang described his most recent experience working with AVA on animal protection issues. I would like to thank the Member for his encouraging words and I am sure our officers would be very encouraged by what he said.

AVA will continue to partner Institutes of Higher Learning, Animal Welfare Groups (AWG), and the broader public to address human-animal issues and develop solutions, using a humane, science-based approach that involves close partnerships with the community.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Members of the public and civil society groups were invited to submit their feedback and comments to the proposed amendments to the WABA through face-to-face consultations and online surveys.

Some key findings:

• Almost three-quarters of Singaporeans feel that the feeding of wild animals should be banned.

• More than four-fifths also believe that animals should not be released into the wild without a permit.

• 66% of respondents felt that current penalties are not adequate to deter individual offenders, while 90 per cent felt that the penalties for repeat offenders need to be more severe.

For more information on the survey, click here.

Louis delivered the following bill speech in support of the National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill.

Louis: Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive of ACRES, an animal protection charity, the same ACRES that my GRC colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah was talking about. Perhaps, I should start by thanking her for sharing the extensive list of animals we have in Yishun and the amazing biodiversity we have. I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary will reply to some of the concerns she has raised, but I would like to add that, perhaps, we have so many rats also because we have removed all the pythons which eat the rats. 

But, Sir, I have spent more than half of my life, over 20 years, speaking up for animals and giving them a voice. I have to say that this merger of AVA and NParks is good news for the animal protection community. It addresses a significant problem we face on the ground. 

Many times, we respond to feedback related to monkeys, for example. If that particular monkey is in a nature reserve, we would inform NParks. As we wait for NParks officers to arrive, the monkey moves, sometimes just by a few metres, and ends up outside the nature reserve. We then have to inform AVA. There was once the monkey was at a bus stop, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has said, and we were told to inform LTA instead. As these animals are quite mobile, things can get quite complicated with multiple agencies involved. 

Thus, the move to combine all non-food plant and animal related functions is very much a welcomed one. This will enable a more unified and coherent approach. I stand in support of this Bill but would like to seek a few clarifications.  

First, I would like to seek clarifications for the rationale for limiting the definition of “animal”. The definition of “animal” under the current Act, which references the Parks and Trees Act, includes “any other living creature, vertebrate or invertebrate”. Basically, it includes everything. 

The proposed new definition is more restricted. The word "invertebrate" is no longer there. Anthropods are now included in the definition of animals but there are invertebrates that are not anthropods. This includes cnidarians, such as jellyfishes and annelids such as earthworms and leeches. 

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify the rationale for limiting the definition of "animal" in this way? What prompted this change?

Next, the positive aspect of this merger is that it will create synergy. We are merging so that, instead of two organisations, we have one organisation focused on animal and plant issues.

I thus find it strange that after this merger, we then split the Director-General’s duties. Instead of one DG, we will have 4 DG positions. A DG for Animal Health and Welfare, a DG for Wildlife Management, a DG for Wildlife Trade Control, and a DG for Plant Health. While I understand that the DG for Animal Health and Welfare and the DG for Wildlife Management will be the same person, the DG for Wildlife Trade Control will be a different person. 

Why are we merging and then splitting? I find this will complicate things on the ground. For example, many wildlife trafficking cases involve both species protected under CITES and under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and also species not protected by CITES that fall under the Wild Animals and Birds Act. There is often animal cruelty involved as well and that offence will fall under the Animals and Birds Act. 

Prior to all the changes, this case would have been covered by one DG. Now, it will involve three DGs. Would this not be a waste of resources? Do officers handling the case have to send reports to the different DGs and the DGs will then have to meet to discuss the case? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how the DGs will work together now, and whether there will be separate lines of reporting for enforcement officers? 

Lastly, I would like to focus on the issue that I have raised many times in this House – culling. Whenever we have animal-related nuisance complaints or feedback, culling seems to be the solution. Be it chickens or monkeys or birds or wild boars, we have culled them. We have made progress on this front, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned, and now have good TNRM programmes for dogs and cats, which focus on more humane, scientific and long-term solutions. These programmes address both residents’ concerns and animal welfare concerns. I hope that with this merger, with NParks’ strong background in science, we will start to develop more holistic, science-based management approaches towards managing animal populations in Singapore. 

Sir, we have been culling animals for decades. I ask that we look at this not just from an animal welfare perspective but also look at it from an effectiveness perspective. Culling has clearly not worked. If culling worked, we would not have the same animal-related problems in the same areas year after year. We spend tons of resources, including financial resources, on a solution that does not seem to produce results. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also confirm whether there are any scientific studies that show that our current culling measures work? 

As a biologist by training and having done a literature review, I have found no scientific studies that support our current culling measures. Certainly, there are no scientific studies that suggest culling based on public complaints is effective. In fact, there is scientific research that shows the contrary, that is, that culling not only fails to reduce the population, it actually leads to an increase. 

We have to understand that with our current measures, while there is a clear reduction in numbers following a cull, at times within a few weeks, with pigeon, for example, the pigeon numbers may be back to the pre-cull numbers and, at times, exceed it. Why? Because we usually kill the adult birds who may be the non-breeding birds. The younger, healthier and stronger breeding birds survive the cull. According to the Pigeon Control Advisory Service, “pigeons control their own numbers very effectively according to the volume of food available to them. An adult pair of pigeons will usually breed four to six times a year but can breed more frequently in optimum conditions, producing two young each time. If, however, the food supply reduces and there is only sufficient food available to support the existing flock, adult birds may only breed once or twice a year or possibly not at all. 

Pigeons will not breed if there is insufficient food to service the needs of their young. If the food supply increases for any reason, following a cull, for example, pigeons will breed continuously until the flock reaches the point where it is fully exploiting the food available to it. In other words, there is a minor population explosion each time a cull takes place. The end result is an estimated 15%-30% increment in flock size over and above the pre-cull figure.”

Sir, many others have used culling as a solution and have found as well that it does not work. In the City of Basel, for example, they had 20,000 pigeons in 1963. Over a period of 24 years of intensive culling, they killed 100,000 pigeons. In 1988, they did a count. Instead of having 20,000 pigeons, they now have 30,000 pigeons. Despite the culling, the population increased by 33%.

Clearly, culling did not work. The City of Basel then focused on a public awareness campaign to address the public feeding of pigeons. It installed pigeon lofts, removed the pigeon eggs and controlled the availability of food. Within four and a half years, the city’s pigeon population decreased to 10,000 birds. Some culling continued during this period but that was to prevent the birds from starving to death due to the lack of food. This is very different from the culling that takes place in Singapore, which takes place in response to public complaints. 

The culling of monkeys is similarly ineffective as it is usually the young ones who get trapped. The mother monkey which lost her young goes into heat again, the male monkey mates with her and another baby is born, replacing the monkey which was killed. If we somehow manage to kill an entire troop, the neighbouring troop will then take over the territory of the troop who were killed, with more resources, they breed more and, sooner than later, we will have the same number of monkeys again. 

Sir, I can go on and on about this. Culling ignores the science and puts a burden on valuable Government resources. I sincerely hope that we can move forward on this issue and that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share more about how NParks intends to manage the animal populations in Singapore. 

Sir, this Bill is much needed and opens a new and exciting chapter in the animal protection movement in Singapore. When this merger was first announced, there were some concerns as to whether it was really true. Is it really happening? Was this fake news? 

The problem is that it was announced that the merger would take place on 1 April, on April Fools' Day. I hope that the public is now assured that this is not a joke and perhaps that it is really happening, and maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can also provide some assurances on that. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in full support of this Bill.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Ms Sun Xueling (The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development): Let me start by addressing Members’ comments on the Bill. Mr Louis Ng expressed concerns about the limiting effect of the new definition of “animal” which replaces the present one in the National Parks Board Act. The new definition is non-exhaustive, as signified by the use of the word “includes”. The new definition in the Bill therefore allows for the inclusion of invertebrates as an animal.

Mr Ng also asked why we split the duties of AVA’s Director-General of Agri-Food and Veterinary Services among four newly-created Director-Generals in the Animals and Birds Act, the Wild Animals and Birds Act, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, and the Control of Plants Act. The administration of each of these four Acts will be transferred under the Bill from AVA to NParks. Each Act has a significant different and distinct purpose and scope from the other. Hence, the Bill provides the flexibility to appoint separate technical experts for each role. But notwithstanding this, as Mr Ng has pointed out, the same person could be appointed as the Director-General for more than one role, if he or she has the right expertise. Regardless of the number of officers performing these roles, they will report to the same CEO who will ensure that there continues to be close coordination across the different teams.

Ms Sun Xueling: Third, we will continue to take a holistic science-based approach to animal management This entails understanding the underlying drivers, putting in place appropriate public education programmes, and applying the appropriate animal-management measures for each specific case. A sustainable animal management strategy requires a holistic suite of measures. This can include removal of food sources, use of contraceptives, habitat modification and population control.

For instance, Mr Gan and Mr Ng spoke about the management of wild birds in HDB estates. AVA has worked closely with grassroots organisations, Town Councils and NEA to educate the public about proper food waste management, as well as stepped up enforcement in problem areas where the presence of improperly disposed food waste exacerbates the situation. AVA has repeatedly highlighted in its public communications that such food sources attract birds and increases their population. This point has been carried by various media outlets, such as The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Today in their coverage of such issues.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, my journey in amending the Wild Animals and Birds Act or WABA, started more than 14 years ago, before I became a Member of this House. On 13 March 2006, the media published my letter in which I said, "It would seem that there is much ambiguity in the Wild Animals and Birds Act and perhaps, it is time to improve and amend the law to make it a more effective tool in the protection of wild animals."

In the past 14 years, we have focused on strengthening other animal-related legislation, including the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act or ESA, the Animals and Birds Act or ABA, and the Parks and Trees Act or PTA.

The WABA has not been substantially amended since 1965. I am glad that it is now time to amend this Act and align it with other animal-related legislation that we have already strengthened. 

Sir, I am happy to introduce this Bill on behalf of the people and the animals. This Bill drafted by people, and based on feedback and suggestions from the people. This journey and this Bill has been made possible by the work of the Wild Animal Legislation Review Committee or WALRC. I am proud to chair this committee of passionate individuals. It feels like it was just yesterday, but we held our first meeting in February 2018, more than two years ago. 

In the process of developing our recommendations, we recognised that different segments of society hold different views about wildlife protection and human-wildlife co-existence. Interest in animal welfare and nature conservation is growing and many regard the preservation of wildlife as a matter of critical importance. But there are others who are less comfortable with wildlife or who are primarily concerned about wildlife matters only as they relate to public health and safety. We tried our best to capture as many of these views as possible.

We started with the composition of the committee itself, which comprises a wide cross-section of society. We not only have representatives from the nature and animal welfare community, but also from the Singapore Pest Management Association, the Pet Enterprise and Traders Association of Singapore, the Singapore Buddhist Federation, the academic and legal community, and the Nee Soon East Youth Network.

To supplement the committee's passion and expertise, we also conducted extensive public consultation. Our goal was to hear from the people themselves and to gauge the level of support for our proposed amendments. The first public consultation was a face-to-face session in May 2018. It was then followed by an online session on REACH from June to July 2018.

The first public consultation was a face-to-face session in May 2018. It was then followed by an online session on REACH from June to July 2018. We received over a thousand responses in our online consultation. We took extra time to consult groups that had particular interests in some of the proposals. We held consultations with pest control companies in June 2018 and with religious organisations in June 2019. Our final face-to-face public consultation was held in August 2019. There, we shared the proposed amendments and also explained why we did not proceed with some of the earlier proposed amendments. 

In January 2020, we met with the MND Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members to obtain their feedback on the proposed amendments. Finally, this month, we published a post-consultation summary on REACH and on my Facebook page.

This two-year journey of public consultations has taught me and the other committee members a great deal. Through sharing and, most importantly, listening, we have reached a set of proposed amendments that, I believe, strengthen the protection, preservation and management of wildlife for the purposes of maintaining a healthy eco-system and safeguarding our public safety and health.

The Bill will amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act by, first, renaming it Wildlife Act, from WABA to WA. I think we now have a piece of law with the coolest name.

With that, I will now outline the key features of WA.

Sir, let me first declare my interest as the Chief Executive of ACRES. In the past 19 years, I have worked closely with NParks and previously, the AVA. We have worked hand-in-hand to protect animals in Singapore and safeguard their welfare and public safety.

I saw first-hand the gaps and how it was affecting our wildlife, public safety, the work of NParks and AVA officers, and NGOs. 

The feeding and release of wildlife is a good example. Sir, some years ago, we received reports of a person feeding a monkey in our park. Feeding wild animals in our parks is illegal and we advised her to stop, especially as the monkey had turned aggressive and started attacking other park users. NParks issued her with a warning letter. However, instead of stopping, she started feeding the monkey at the apartments beside the park, where it was not illegal to feed wild animals. The Parks and Trees Act does not cover areas outside the parks and nature reserves.

There was little NParks or ACRES could do to stop the feeding. She continued feeding the monkey and soon, residents started to complain, and eventually, we had to remove this wild monkey.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case and the feeding of wildlife happens regularly. Too regularly. It is also not just monkeys but a wide range of other animals, including wild boars and birds. 

Sir, feeding wildlife causes at least three types of problems.

First, it can alter wildlife behaviour, thus affecting public safety. Again, for example, macaques who are used to being fed by humans can get aggressive if they think you are holding their next meal. Second, it can increase wildlife populations and cause disamenities. Anthropogenic food provisioning is a key driver of pigeon growth in urban areas. Third, it can cause ecological issues. Wild animals can get addicted to sugary human food. This is not only bad for their health but also leads them to neglect vital ecological roles like seed dispersion.

For birds in particular, outside of parks and nature reserves, our law prohibits only the feeding of pigeons, and not other birds. This gap makes it harder for us to address the root of the problem when it comes to human-wildlife conflicts.

Let me now turn to the release of wildlife. Sir, over the years, I have personally seen the problems that arise when animals are released back into the wild without proper safeguards. We have rescued so many animals who had been released. I cannot count the number of pig-nosed turtles that have turned up dead on our shores. Many think they are marine turtles who live in the sea but they are actually freshwater turtles. They go through a very painful death when released into the sea. 

While we do our best to rescue these animals, many do not survive. The animals pay with their lives.

In my speech on the Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill, I shared my concerns about the current legislation and proposed to prohibit the release of animals anywhere, on land or in water, in Singapore. I proposed that we should not restrict these prohibitions to only certain areas. Specifically, I said, "Animals are not stationary and have the freedom to travel from unrestricted areas to nature reserves. Hence, I see little rationale in creating demarcations when prohibiting the release of animals."

Sir, the release of animals poses many concerns as well.

First, it is harmful to animal welfare as released animals who are not properly rehabilitated often do not survive in the wild. Second, it can create health issues for both humans and the animals as released animals could introduce diseases into the environment. Third, it can pose a problem to public safety, in the case where dangerous animals like stingrays are released. And fourth, it can imbalance and threaten eco-systems as invasive species can harm our native populations.

Today, there are existing controls in the PTA on the feeding and release of wildlife in our parks and nature reserves. The new sections 5(a) and 5(b) in the Wildlife Act extend these by prohibiting the release and feeding of wildlife throughout Singapore, unless approved by the Director-General, Wildlife Management. 

We acknowledge that the majority of people who feed or release animals do not do so for malicious reasons. In fact, it is often the opposite. They do so out of compassion and a genuine desire to help animals. Thus, the solution cannot only be to rely on the law to regulate behaviour, but to first help them understand that the feeding and release of wildlife causes more harm than good, so they are internally motivated to change.

We consulted the relevant stakeholders, particularly religious groups, on how to achieve this. For instance, we discussed alternatives to mercy release with local Buddhist organisations. We can build on and scale up what a Buddhist temple has practised by inviting pet owners to get their animals blessed and animal welfare charities to stage an adoption drive for strays.

The temple's spiritual director said, "Buying and releasing animals is actually not good for the environment, so it's much better if we can feed and re-home strays."

Other ideas raised were volunteering at animal shelters or tree-planting. I thank the local Buddhist community for their inputs. The WALRC will continue to work with the community on education and outreach efforts surrounding feeding and release of wild animals.

Next amendment, wildlife traps. One of the most common questions I have been asked over the past two decades is, "Singapore got wildlife meh". We do. Plenty of wildlife and our biodiversity in Singapore is amazing. 

Our wildlife lives in our parks and nature reserves where they receive protection under the PTA. But those who live outside parks and nature reserves also need similar protection as they can be targeted by poachers. 

The WALRC contemplated the need for stronger controls on nets and traps outside parks and nature reserves. We were concerned about both the deliberate poaching of wildlife as well as incidental harm inflicted on wildlife caused by the inappropriate use of nets and traps. In recent years, we have seen cases of our beloved otters being killed in traps near Changi Sailing Club and along Marina Promenade.

Currently, NParks can prosecute poachers for taking, or attempting to take, wildlife. But it is still challenging for NParks to enforce against poachers as traps are often left unattended, or may simply be abandoned. 

So, instead of only focusing on how to catch and prosecute people, we asked ourselves: what more can we do to mitigate the harm to the public and wildlife caused by nets and traps?

One solution to this is the new section 10A, which empowers NParks to dismantle and dispose of unattended or unauthorised traps in any place. If the place is owned or occupied, NParks will need to give reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier before conducting its checks. This is meant for more routine inspections.

However, if an offence is suspected, such as if NParks receives a specific tip-off that poaching activities are being carried out on a private property, NParks will be empowered, under the new section 11A and 11B, to enter without notice to search for and seize the trap.

We also wanted to more strongly deter the use of snare traps. Snare traps use trigger-activated nooses to trap wildlife, often maiming or killing them in the process. These are dangerous not only to wildlife but also to humans, especially young children. 

The existing section 9 of WABA sets out higher penalties for wildlife traps that may also harm humans, such as spring guns or pitfalls. We have updated this provision, which is now in the new section 7, to include snare traps, so that those who use them will also be liable to higher penalties.

Another issue that the WALRC grappled with was whether all wildlife species should be equally protected under the Act. This debate got quite interesting. 

One day, I received a call informing me that the people keeping ants were very angry with me. To be honest, I never knew people kept ants as pets. But actually and technically, I, too, keep ants as pets. My three little angels at home drop crumbs and food everywhere and we now have a fair number of ants living with us and lovingly fed by my daughters. I do tell my daughters ants are our friends.

I was told the people were angry as I was proposing amendments to the law that will make the keeping of ants illegal. That is not true. 

Ants are invertebrates and we had a huge discussion on how invertebrates should be treated under the Act. 

On one hand, there are threatened invertebrates like horseshoe crabs that should be protected. But on the other hand, it seems excessive to disallow people from killing animals like cockroaches, or trapping and keeping insects for leisure or educational purposes, such as ant-keeping or teaching kids about animal life cycles. 

Let me assure everyone that we will not make the above practices illegal. 

The Bill provides for a calibrated approach to be taken in cases like this. The new section 20 empowers the Minister to exempt any person, place or wildlife, or any class of persons, places or wildlife, from any or all provisions of the Act by order in the Gazette. This means that some activities that do not undermine the overall aim of wildlife protection could be carved out. 

Using section 20, I understand that MND will exempt pests and non-threatened invertebrates from protection against killing and trapping. 

However, we should not exclude invertebrates from the Act altogether. For example, we should not allow the unregulated import or release of dangerous or invasive invertebrates, such as the venomous bulldog ant or invasive fire ants, which could wreak havoc on our eco-system and cause harm to the public.

 There will be additional safeguards to ensure that threatened invertebrates are adequately protected. Most of these threatened invertebrates are already living in our parks and nature reserves, and today, it is already an offence to kill or trap them under the current PTA. 

 The Bill additionally empowers the Minister to prescribe a new list of "protected wildlife species". Selected threatened species, including invertebrates, can be put on this list, such that they can be protected beyond our parks and nature reserves. I will elaborate more on this later.

In summary, you can keep ants as pets and you can trap them outside of parks and nature reserves. But if you plan to import, trap them within nature reserves or trap selected threatened invertebrates, you will need NParks' approval. 

Ninety percent of respondents on the REACH consultation agreed with this broad approach and felt that at least threatened invertebrates should be protected from killing, keeping or capturing without a permit throughout Singapore. 

That said, we are aware that some may accidentally or unknowingly violate the rules, especially if they are less familiar with wildlife. The WALRC and NParks will work with stakeholders on public awareness campaigns, and I trust that NParks will enforce the law fairly and reasonably.

We move on now to the question of penalties. The penalties under the current Act are far too low to deter would-be poachers and traffickers. Illegally trading in exotic pets is only punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 under the existing Act. Some of these animals fetch much more on the black market. 

Clauses 7, 9, 10 and 12 thus introduce higher penalties for all offences to bring the Wildlife Act on par with more updated animal-related legislation, namely the ABA, ESA and PTA.

Clause 7 also introduces heavier penalties for animal-related businesses that kill, trap, take or keep wildlife. This is necessary because first, these businesses are capable of causing much more harm than individual offenders, as in the case of a wildlife management company illegally killing or trapping wildlife. 

Second, these businesses have a stronger duty of care towards animals. 

Third, businesses are generally more financially capable of paying fines, so a higher fine quantum is needed as a stronger deterrent. 

The definition of "animal-related business" is the same as the one in ABA, which also includes animal welfare groups like ACRES. There will also be higher penalties for repeat and recalcitrant offenders. The proposed penalty structure has two tiers, with one tier for first convictions, and another tier for second and subsequent convictions.

We saw a further need to more strongly protect certain native threatened wildlife species, similar to how the ESA more strongly protects globally threatened species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 

Take the Sunda pangolin, for example, which is both CITES-listed and native to Singapore. Poaching and selling it locally would only be liable to a fine of up to $1,000 under the existing Act, whereas illegally importing a pangolin which was poached elsewhere could be penalised by up to $50,000 and/or two years' imprisonment under the ESA.

Clause 2 thus introduces "protected wildlife species" to be prescribed by the Minister. I understand that MND intends to take reference from the CITES Appendices and the Singapore Red Data Book in putting together this list of protected species. 

But this is not to say that every species found in those lists will automatically be prescribed on the protected wildlife species list. I understand that MND and NParks will develop a robust selection criteria. The general principle will be that the protected wildlife species list will contain native species that are domestically threatened.

I hope that the list will be progressively refined and amended in consultation with experts and the nature community.

Clauses 7 and 9 set out that killing, trapping, taking, keeping, selling or exporting these protected species will be punishable by the highest penalties under the Act – up to $50,000 in fines and/or two years' imprisonment, on par now with the ESA. 

Sir, beyond the WALRC’s recommendations, in 2018, I raised in Parliament that there was a gap in the enforcement of certain conditions imposed under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework. 

Take, for example, a development project that is near a known wildlife habitat. If the developer had deliberately killed a wild animal to make way for works, it would be an offence under the existing WABA. If the animal was killed in a nature reserve, it would be an offence also under the PTA. 

In addition, as part of the EIA requirements, NParks might have required the developer to install hoardings to prevent wildlife from venturing out onto the roads. However, if the developer failed to do so and the wild animal walked onto a road straight into the path of an unwitting motorist, there is currently limited recourse under the law. 

 I am glad to share that after discussions with MND and NParks, we will have a new section 10 that will empower the Director-General, Wildlife Management to issue directions to developers to carry out wildlife-related measures to safeguard wildlife, public health or safety, or the health of the eco-system.

The relevant wildlife-related EIA conditions can thus be formally issued as directions, and contravention of these directions would constitute an offence punishable by up to $50,000 in fines and/or six months' imprisonment. This would give the EIA process additional "teeth" and serve as a stronger incentive for developers to comply with EIA conditions.

Finally, Sir, to ensure that the WALRC's recommendations can be effectively implemented, we saw a need to strengthen NParks' enforcement powers.

Clauses 10 to 15 would largely align NParks' powers under the Wildlife Act with those under the ABA and ESA. This includes allowing NParks to direct people to pay the costs of repatriating smuggled wildlife in a way that ensures that the wildlife is properly cared for. This is so the Government does not have to bear the costs of repairing the damage caused by smugglers, and is similar to the existing powers in the ESA, for dealing with smuggled wildlife species. 

We also propose a new power for the Court to be able to forfeit conveyances used in the commission of a convicted offence. The risk of losing their vehicles would serve as a stronger deterrent to would-be smugglers. 

Nonetheless, we recognise that there must be safeguards to expanded powers. The Court may not order the forfeiture of very large conveyances or aircrafts or trains used for regular passenger service to and from Singapore, as well as conveyances that were used unlawfully without the owner's knowledge or consent. 

Sir, let me end by once again thanking members of the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee for all their hard work, for helping to draft all the proposed amendments in this Bill and for their unwavering commitment towards protecting our wildlife and nature spots in Singapore.

My heartfelt thanks to: Karen Sim, the Secretary of the committee; Kalai Vanan from ACRES; Daryl Yeo from the Nature Photographic Society; Kerry Pereira from the Nature Society Singapore; Wong Jin Feng from the Nee Soon East Youth Network; Joseph Chun from the Faculty of Law at NUS; N Sivasothi from the Department of Biological Sciences at NUS; Matthew Lim from the Pet Enterprise Traders Association of Singapore; Venerable Shi You Guang from the Singapore Buddhist Federation; Ng Say Kiat from the Singapore Pest Management Association; Jaipal Singh from the SPCA; the late Subaraj Rajathurai from Strix Wildlife Consultancy; Jessica Lee from the Wildlife Reserves Singapore; Ria Tan from WildSingapore and my team of Legislative Assistants.

I would also like to thank NParks and MND for their views and suggestions. NParks served as a resource panel to the WALRC. This helped us better plan out which wildlife protection outcomes would be better achieved via legislation and which should be done via other means.

We worked to ensure that the proposals were practical and could be implemented on the ground by NParks later on. MND and NParks also made some suggestions for additional amendments, some of which are contained in this Bill. 

I also want to specially thank Minister Desmond, Minister Lawrence and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Xueling for all their guidance and support for this Bill. 

Last but certainly not least, a big thank you to members of the public for speaking up, for your thoughtful suggestions and constructive criticisms. Thank you for joining us on this journey together. 

Mr Speaker, we all hope that the Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill will be an important step in strengthening wildlife protection legislation in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) since the Wildlife Act came into force, how many warning letters and compound fines have been issued for the feeding of wildlife respectively; (b) how many NParks staff are solely focused on enforcing the law against the feeding of wildlife under the Wildlife Act; and (c) how many NParks staff focus on enforcing the law against the feeding of wildlife under the Wildlife Act as one part of their entire job scope.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): Since the Wildlife Act came into force in June 2020, NParks has issued 38 warning letters and one composition notice for the feeding of wildlife. NParks officers from various divisions work together to operationalise the various Acts under NParks' administration. This includes enforcing the law against the feeding of wildlife under the Wildlife Act.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks will be taking any follow-up actions following an NParks-funded study titled “Restricted human activities shift the foraging strategies of feral pigeons (Columba livia) and three other commensal bird species”; and (b) if so, what are these actions.

Mr Tan Kiat How (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, NParks’ study has affirmed that food made available by humans is a key driver of wild bird population growth. These findings have highlighted the importance of food source reduction, which are part of NParks’ population management measures for wild birds. This is multi-pronged, including habitat modification and population control.

To reduce the availability of food sources, NParks has been working closely with Singapore Food Agency (SFA), NEA and Town Councils to encourage proper food waste management at food establishments and to enforce against littering and illegal bird-feeding. NParks also partners agencies and Town Councils to educate the community on proper refuse management. As part of its outreach and education efforts, NParks launched the islandwide “Say No to Feeding Wildlife” campaign in January 2021 to raise awareness on the negative impact of feeding wildlife, including birds.

We would like to remind the public to be socially responsible by not feeding wild birds, and by keeping public areas clean and free of food waste, to help manage wildlife population.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether more species of marine invertebrates such as horseshoe crabs can be included as protected wildlife species under the Wildlife Act.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): The Wildlife Act aims to protect, preserve and manage our wildlife. Under the Act, additional protections are given to more vulnerable species by designating them as protected wildlife species. To determine these species, NParks considers whether a species is locally and globally threatened, by taking reference from sources such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendices and the Singapore Red Data Book. Currently, the list of protected wildlife species includes threatened native wildlife species, such as pangolins, sea turtles, and selected species of marine invertebrates like giant clams and stony corals. NParks regularly reviews, and will update the list, in consultation with academic experts and the nature community.

NParks also works with stakeholders such as nature groups and the community to raise public awareness on caring for marine wildlife in their natural habitats. Beyond developing educational videos and outreach programmes, NParks deploys officers and installs signs around intertidal and subtidal areas to educate visitors on how to interact responsibly with the marine wildlife species. NParks will continue to step up its engagement and outreach efforts to promote responsible human-wildlife interactions.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will develop an action plan for urban wildlife management in consultation with nature groups and with a stronger focus on co-existence measures rather than removal of wildlife which reinforces the mindset that native wildlife are pests.

Ms Sim Ann (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, NParks adopts a holistic, science-based approach to wildlife management and works closely with the community to promote harmonious human-wildlife co-existence.

NParks works with various stakeholders, such as nature groups, academics, agencies and the community in its public education and outreach efforts. This is one of the key thrusts of NParks’ wildlife management approach. For example, NParks partners these stakeholders to develop educational resources and outreach initiatives to advise the community on how to respond to wildlife sightings and to raise public awareness on the negative impact of feeding wildlife. In addition, NParks works with stakeholders to host its monthly human-wildlife encounters webinar series, to promote responsible behaviour during such encounters. NParks also works with nature groups as part of various working groups to manage wildlife, including co-creating plans to address issues, such as wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and release.

As part of NParks’ science-based approach to wildlife management, NParks also conducts population surveys and research studies to better understand the distribution of wildlife in Singapore. For example, by identifying wildlife hotspots, NParks is able to implement mitigation measures against roadkill, such as putting in place vehicle speed reduction measures. Notwithstanding this, NParks may have to carry out measures, such as the removal of wildlife, to safeguard public safety, where needed.

NParks will continue to work closely with the community to promote harmonious human-wildlife co-existence as part of our efforts to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. All of us can also play our part by not feeding wildlife, keeping our residential areas clean and appreciating wildlife from a safe distance.

Louis: Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Could I ask specifically whether we can stop the poisoning of wild animals? I know we are doing that currently. The problem here is that it is not just the target species that dies but there is a huge knock-on effect.

Just recently, ACRES rescued a white-bellied sea eagle which had consumed a poisoned wildlife. Thankfully, it recovered and was released back into the wild but there were many cases where cats, dogs, other animals consume the poisoned animal and they subsequently die.

So, could I ask whether we can stop this practice – not have measures in place during the poisoning exercise but stop this practice altogether?

Ms Sim Ann: I thank Mr Louis Ng for the question. Our approach towards wildlife management, as I have mentioned, is such that we would have to be very much based on the science of animal management. We would need to study the ecology and, where possible, to work on the upstream measures. The upstream measures are very key and include food source reduction. So, this is where we place a lot of our efforts.

Where necessary, we would also consider animal control measures, but these would have to be done in a humane and safe manner.

With regard to the use of poison, specifically, NParks does not use poison in the control of pest birds. NParks is also working with the Town Councils to encourage them to move away from the use of toxins and to adopt animal control measures and practices that are humane and safe.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister of State for the reply as well. Could I ask two clarifications? One, I understand we are reviewing the penalties for animal cruelty and abuse. Could I just check what is the timeframe for this review and when we could expect amendments to the Animals and Birds Act? And two, whether MND is also considering including mandatory treatment orders as part of the penalties under the review?

Mr Tan Kiat How (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Indeed, we are reviewing the Animals and Birds Act. We are consulting internally and will consult stakeholders when ready. We assure Members we are working on it, including the penalty framework.

The second question is around the mandatory treatment order. This is something that if the Member has views on, he can write in to us as part of the consultation.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)