Louis delivered his budget cut on Increase Funding to Tackle Animal Crime:

Louis: Sir, in the past five years, the number of alleged animal cruelty cases investigated by the AVA rose from 410 cases to 606 cases. With increased awareness on animal welfare, we can expect more reports from members of the public who are now more vigilant and more concerned about this issue. This will result in an increased workload for AVA. Can the Ministry clarify whether it has sufficient resources and manpower to respond in a timely manner and rapidly to such cases?

In addition, wildlife trafficking has been added into the list of transnational organised crimes in ASEAN. Wildlife trafficking pushes species towards extinction and also destroys the habitat these animals live in. There are now also reports of how wildlife trafficking funds the activities of some terrorist groups.

In the past decade, there have already been several high-profile cases of wildlife trafficking in Singapore. Can the Ministry elaborate on its plans to tackle wildlife trafficking and similarly, clarify whether it has sufficient resources and manpower to respond in a timely manner and rapidly to such cases.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (The Minister of State for National Development): Besides AWGs, AVA also works with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Singapore Customs (SC) to clamp down on illegal wildlife trade. AVA also works closely with international partners, such as wildlife authorities in ASEAN countries and Interpol, to deter such illegal animal trade. Through these efforts, the number of wildlife trafficking cases has decreased from 23 in 2011 to 12 in 2015.

With the support of these partners, I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that AVA will remain vigilant and continue to optimise resources to tackle animal issues and animal crimes.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year in the past three years, how many cases of illegal wildlife trade have been detected at our border checkpoints and within Singapore (past the border checkpoints) respectively; (b) from these cases, how many live animals have been confiscated annually at our border checkpoints and within Singapore (past the border checkpoints) respectively; and (c) how many of these animals currently remain under our care.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): In the last three years, AVA detected 10 cases of illegal wildlife trade at our border checkpoints. During the same period, 58 cases were detected within Singapore. Arising from these cases, AVA confiscated 660 live animals. While the vast majority were given to the Singapore Zoo or repatriated to the source country, 77 animals are still in AVA’s custody pending further investigations and court trials.

AVA works closely with Singapore Customs and ICA on the detection of illegal wildlife trade cases. Information is also shared among our enforcement agencies to facilitate enforcement. While the authorities at all our border checkpoints remain vigilant, we also urge the public to do their part to refrain from such trade and to report any suspicious cases. By working together, we can help stop the illegal trade in wildlife.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will implement a ban on the domestic trade in ivory; (b) if so, what is the time frame for implementing the ban; and (c) if not, what factors does the Ministry take into account in not banning the domestic trade.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, the Government is looking into implementing a domestic ban on the sale of ivory. This is part of Singapore's broader commitment to tackle the illegal ivory trade and to support elephant conservation. The implementation details, including an engagement process with relevant stakeholders, are currently being worked out.

Louis: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Can I check if there is a time frame for implementing this ban? Secondly, if we do implement the ban, can I check with the Minister of State what will they do with the ivory that is currently on sale in our shops? Would we be requiring the shop owners to surrender them or will we allow them to keep it? My fear of allowing them to keep it is that it may enter into the black market.  

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, we will announce the time frame when we have sufficient time to engage with the local stakeholders, and we will notify the public accordingly. In terms of local ivory trade, the commercial import and export of ivory has been prohibited since 1990. Non-commercial import and export of ivory, for example, for museum display and for research, is still permitted with AVA's approval and documentation. Within Singapore, buying and selling of ivory is permitted until such a ban is in place.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis presented the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2017:

Introducing a Sniffer Dog Programme

Louis: Next, Singapore is frequently under the spotlight as a hub for illegal wildlife trade, but Singapore detected only 10 cases of illegal wildlife trade in the last three years at our border checkpoints, which suggests that wildlife trade continues to pass through our borders without our knowledge. To strengthen enforcement at our checkpoints, several NGOs have suggested the establishment of a sniffer dog programme, used effectively by many countries. Sniffer dogs are highly efficient at detecting contraband, and also serve a deterrent function.

In South Korea, a dog named Simba detected major finds almost every month, totalling 142 separate animal parts and some "live" animals. In Hong Kong, sniffer dogs can detect ivory concealed in packages in just under five seconds. From 2008 to 2015, the dogs assisted in over 40 cases of smuggled animals or products and can identify 15 endangered species. In Thailand, the training and maintenance of the entire sniffer dog unit functions on merely S$58,000 annually. AVA stated that the sniffer dog programme was "less cost-effective than other measures". Can AVA clarify what the other measures are, and whether they are already in place? Would AVA reconsider the decision to implement a wildlife sniffer dog programme in Singapore?

Increasing the Number of Inspectors

Louis: There are currently only three inspectors at the wildlife section at the AVA. While other AVA, ICA and custom officers assist in detecting wildlife crime, it is clearly insufficient to have only three inspectors solely dedicated towards tackling wildlife crime in Singapore, considering as well that this is a 24/7 job. Can the Ministry increase resources and manpower for this section, considering again that Singapore continues to remain in the spotlight with regard to wildlife crime.

Engaging Animal Welfare Groups to Help with Enforcement

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.

Louis: Fifth, will AVA be considering the Wildlife Save a Dog programme. Previously, it was a "no". Are they considering now and keeping it open?

Lastly, will we be increasing the number of wildlife inspectors? I do not think you have addressed that point. 

Dr Koh Poh Koon: For wildlife inspectors, today, in this day and age where technology is available, I think we should not just talk about more body counts, more people on the ground. We should consider how we can leverage on technologies to multiply the effects of people and perhaps also work closely with the animal welfare groups to be our eyes and ears on the ground as well, to help in nabbing offenders. So, I think we should take a broader approach rather than just look at employing more wildlife inspectors.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are in place at our border checkpoints to deter wildlife trafficking; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a wildlife sniffer dog programme to detect cases of wildlife trafficking at our border checkpoints.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) works closely with Singapore Customs, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, and local and international partners to combat wildlife trafficking.

First, we subject all passengers and cargoes as well as shipments to risk assessment. Our risk assessment framework helps agencies flag out which passengers and shipments require more detailed checks. Agencies ensure that these risk profiles and indicators are up-to-date by continually reviewing wildlife trafficking trends and exchanging information with international partners like INTERPOL and the World Customs Organisation.

Second, agencies carry out multiple layers of checks at Singapore’s border checkpoints. For example, radiographic scanners and x-rays are used to screen passengers and cargo. The officers performing these tasks are trained to pick out suspicious items and behaviours.

Third, agencies adopt a coordinated enforcement approach. This enables them to take quick action after receiving credible and actionable intelligence or tip-offs from the public and from our international partners.

Taken together, these measures have led to several successful seizures of illegal wildlife in Singapore. Traffickers face heavy penalties like fines of up to $500,000, or imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

AVA is continually studying the efficacy of different tools and techniques to detect illegal wildlife at our border checkpoints. To the Member’s specific question about sniffer dogs, we understand that they are used in some countries to detect wildlife products. In Singapore, we use other effective scanning technologies for this purpose. More studies are needed to determine if sniffer dogs can be more effective than our current methods. 

Louis: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. The issue really is that the officers who are scanning the bags have so much to look out for that it is really difficult for them to also look out for wildlife products I hope that MND would seriously consider the proposal to set up a wildlife sniffer dog programme.

Secondly, the sniffer dogs are already deployed in our fight against drugs, so why not also use them in our fight against wildlife trafficking?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, as I said earlier in my answer, we employ a multi-pronged approach and not just depend on one modality. It starts with good intelligence and then, employing technology and techniques that have been proven to work in many other cases. So, we will continue to look at options including sniffer dogs if there can be objective data to show that they are more effective than our currently deployed methods.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on the timeline of the Ministry's plans to implement a ban on domestic trade in ivory.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, as indicated in our previous reply to Mr Ng, the Government is presently studying the implementation of a domestic ban on the sale of ivory in Singapore. There are many stakeholders to engage, as well as operational details that need to be worked out as part of this study. The AVA will provide further updates and make an announcement on this matter when ready.

Louis: Sir, I appreciate I have asked this before, but it has actually been a year since I last asked this question. Can I also ask the Senior Minister of State whether Singapore is studying how Hong Kong has implemented their domestic ivory ban, considering that Hong Kong has a far larger ivory market and has given three years for the full stock disposal? 

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think different countries have got different domestic concerns and different market structures. So, it will not be so easy to transpose what is practicable in another jurisdiction to Singapore. But if the Member is concerned about the proliferation of the ivory trade, be assured that, actually, since the prohibition and international ban in 1990, there are no commercial import and export of ivory in Singapore unless there are explicit permits given by AVA. So, this current review pertains to how we want to even tackle any pre-Convention stocks that are in Singapore to be managed by domestic businesses. And I think as we engage the local businesses, we hope to be able to make the announcements soon. 

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, can I just ask how soon, so I would not keep asking the same question again? 

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Soon – when all the details for operationalising this have been finalised and our stakeholder engagement has been completed.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) whether sharks fin is still being served at events organised by or for the public service; and (b) whether sharks fin will be served at future events organised by or for the public service.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Public agencies abide by the procurement principles of fairness, transparency and value-for-money. Agencies decide on their respective menus based on what is prudent and appropriate for the occasion. We do not have policies specific to the serving of shark’s fin.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what percentage of shark's fin shipments undergo sampling and DNA analysis to ensure that the species declarations are accurate; (b) for each year in the past five years, how many cases of false declarations were detected; and (c) whether there are plans to introduce a mandatory labelling scheme for all shark products specifying the species of shark.

Ms Sun Xueling (for the Minister for National Development): Singapore is a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), which is an international agreement to ensure that trade does not threaten wildlife species with extinction. Trade in CITES-listed species, including some shark species, is regulated through a system of CITES permits, which are issued by both importing and exporting countries in accordance with CITES rules and regulations.

AVA acts based on credible information, tip-offs from other regulatory agencies and market surveillance to identify shark’s fin consignments that may not have the necessary CITES permits or may have been wrongly declared. In the past five years, AVA has found one consignment of shark’s fin to be wrongly declared.

AVA will continue to review and update its enforcement and regulatory regime to ensure that it is effective.

Louis: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think the part (a) and part (c) was not replied. Part (a) on what percentage of the shark's fin shipments undergo sampling and DNA analysis and part (c) on whether we will establish a mandatory labelling scheme so that consumers will actually know what species of sharks they are consuming, whether it is protected or not protected.

Ms Sun Xueling: In accordance with the CITES regulations, AVA requires all imports of CITES-listed shark species to be accompanied with permits, I think I mentioned this before. So, this is the first layer of checks. As I have also mentioned earlier in my reply, the AVA then adopts a targeted approach to act on shark's fin consignments that may have been brought in without the necessary permits or to have been wrongly declared. These consignments then undergo DNA testing to verify if the species declarations are accurate. So, when a shark's fin consignment has been flagged, based on tip-offs or surveillance, AVA samples different fins within the same consignment for further testing and DNA analysis.

Louis: Sorry. The question is what percentage is actually sampled. So, out of all the shipments that come into Singapore, how many percent do we take the samples out for DNA sampling? Sir, again, the part (c) of the question, which is the mandatory labelling scheme. 

Ms Sun Xueling: As I have mentioned, the way we have been supervising this is that we are looking at it on a risk-based assessment. So, as I have shared, it is based on tip-offs or surveillance, and when that happens, then AVA samples different fins within the consignment for further testing and DNA analysis. On whether or not there should be a mandatory labelling scheme, currently AVA regulates food labelling primarily for the purposes of food safety and public health. AVA would need to carefully study the effectiveness, the regulatory impact and resource implications of a food labelling scheme based on environmental considerations. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Results of Public Consultation on Ban on Elephant Ivory Sale and Display & Review of Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on the results of the public consultation on the ban of elephant ivory sale and display in Singapore.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): The public consultation on the proposed domestic ivory ban was completed in December 2018. 99% of respondents supported the ban. NParks is evaluating the feedback and will announce the details of the ban soon.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Review of Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will be reviewing and strengthening the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act following the recent acquittal by the Court of Appeal of a businessman who brought Malagasy rosewood into Singapore; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that the rosewood will not enter the black market after it is returned to the owner.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): NParks is studying the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the acquittal of Kong Hoo Pte Ltd and its director Mr Wong Wee Keong, and will review its policies under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) as appropriate.

The Court of Appeal had directed that the rosewood be released to the owners as soon as practicable. NParks will do so in accordance with Singapore’s obligation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna or Flora (CITES). As the rosewood is in transit, local sales of the rosewood will not be allowed and it must be kept under the control of authorised officers under the ESA for the duration of its transit. The international community, particularly countries that are signatories to CITES, will also play a key role in ensuring that the rosewood does not enter their markets illegally.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) apart from relying on tip-offs and the risk assessment framework, what are the current efforts to deter and detect the international trade of pangolins in Singapore; (b) whether the Ministry can use the Multi-Mode Passive Detection System Generation 3 to detect wildlife products in shipments; and (c) whether the Ministry is exploring the use of other technologies to detect shipments of pangolins.

Ms Sun Xueling (for the Minister for National Development): Singapore adopts a whole-of-Government and multi-pronged approach to combat illegal wildlife trade, including the trade of pangolins. First, NParks works closely with Singapore Customs (SC) and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to identify cargo for further inspection via tip-offs and a risk assessment framework. Risk profiles and indicators are reviewed regularly to ensure that the framework remains robust. This approach has led to two successful seizures of nearly 26 tonnes of pangolin scales in April 2019.

Second, our enforcement agencies use technology to screen and check travellers and goods at our checkpoints. For example, ICA uses radiographic scanners and hand-held screening devices to ensure that goods that enter Singapore are lawful and legitimate. The Member mentioned the Multi-Mode Passive Detection System, or MMPDS. MHA and ICA are currently testing a prototype of the MMPDS. Depending on the outcome of this testing, ICA can work with NParks to use this technology to detect the smuggling of illegal wildlife products. We will continually review our enforcement measures to adopt more effective technology and methods where feasible.

Third, we cooperate closely with our regional and international counterparts to combat illegal wildlife trade. For instance, our agencies assess intelligence reports from our partners and work with them to act upon credible and actionable information. Our officers also attend international conferences and workshops to keep up with developments in the field as well as to share best practices.

Finally, while the Government will continue to enforce to reduce supply, tackling illegal wildlife trade requires the concerted efforts of all stakeholders, including buyers reducing demand for such products. NParks conducts public awareness campaigns to discourage people from buying illegal wildlife and wildlife products, including pangolins. Members of the public can do their part to reduce demand by rejecting these products and encouraging others to do the same.

Louis: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think one of the problems may be that the chances of detecting this shipment may be too low. So, the first clarification is: how are we stepping up our detection capabilities at our checkpoints? Beyond the technologies that she mentioned, are we looking into further technologies? Two, whether MND can work with the local tech companies to develop this kind of new technologies that will help to increase our detection capabilities. And three and the last clarification is, whether we can increase manpower in the enforcement team at NParks that is tackling wildlife crime issues here in Singapore.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. On the point he made about further use of technology, all cargo currently passing through our checkpoints are subject to risk assessment. In my earlier reply, I had responded as to how our enforcement agencies currently use radiographic scanners and handheld screening devices to ensure that the goods that enter are lawful are legitimate. And we are continually reviewing our enforcement measures and the types of technologies that are available in the market to further improve our efficiency and efficacy at it.

In his second, the Member has asked about whether or not we can work with local tech companies. Indeed, we are open to doing so. So, if he is aware of the local tech companies and the products that they have, please feel free to let me know of these contacts and our agencies will follow up with them.

Lastly, about increasing manpower at NParks, that is something I think the NParks management will look at. And I think annually, they will make their revisions or updates as and when necessary.

Louis: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply again. I think one of the concerns is whether we are able to use this technology for all the cargo that is coming in at our port. It is a little bit easier at the airport and the land checkpoints but at the port, I think there is difficulty using some of these scanners when the containers are on-board the ship. So, is MND looking into this?

The point about the manpower, I think, is a very real one. I worked with the officers on Saturday or Sunday over the last weekend and they really are constrained in terms of manpower and responding to these cases in Singapore. So, I hope MND can consider increasing their manpower so that we can be able to tackle this trade more effectively.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his two points. On the first point, for our air and land checkpoints, all incoming cargo is scanned. And indeed, for our seaports, there is a large volume that we have. So, selected cargo that is identified during upstream risk assessment will be scanned. I would like to provide maybe more details on how that is done.

We have a risk assessment framework that I mentioned earlier. It allows us to target high-risk entities that may be involved in illegal wildlife trade. So, when the Singapore National Single Window for trade declaration, known as TradeNet, receives and processes information declared by traders prior to the arrival or departure of cargo, our risk profiles are applied to this information to identify shipments for further inspection. To ensure that our risk profiles remain current and effective, our enforcement agencies regularly review and update these risk profiles, with information from seizure cases, international reports on illegal wildlife tracking and in-house seizure analysis. 

But I take the point that the Member made that if there is better technology available that allows us to scan greater volume of cargo, more effectively, more efficiently, we will definitely do so. And that is why we are conducting the pilot on the MMPDS that he had mentioned. But as it is a pilot, we will have to work with the vendor to see how we can improve the information set, the details and the data that we gather and see if it is effective. Then, we will look at using it in future.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

NParks announced that a ban on the domestic trade in elephant ivory, which will come into effect on 1 September 2021. The ban will mean that the sale of elephant ivory and ivory products, and public display of elephant ivory and ivory products for the purpose of sale will be prohibited in Singapore. This nationwide ban highlights Singapore’s resolve in the fight against illegal trade in species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Source: NParks

There were massive seizures of elephant ivory and pangolin scales, worth S$52.3 million, in Singapore in 2019 and 14 suspected criminals have been arrested by Chinese authorities.

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many individuals and how many organisations have been prosecuted in relation to the shipments of elephant ivory and pangolin scales seized at our border checkpoints in 2019; and (b) if there are none, whether an update on the investigations can be provided.

Ms Sun Xueling (for the Minister for National Development): In 2019, three shipments of pangolin scales, two of which also contained elephant ivory, were seized in Singapore en route from Africa to Vietnam. As the cases involve entities outside of Singapore, NParks has been working closely with the source and destination countries, as well as sharing information with international organisations such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as INTERPOL. 

China was established to be the intended final destination country for these shipments. Our collaboration with China in relation to these cases has led to the arrests of 14 suspected criminals by Chinese authorities. NParks will continue to assist with international investigations into these cases.

Louis: Mr Speaker, two clarifications. One, whether NParks is also following the money; so, not just follow where the products are coming from or going to, but really follow the money trail. Only then, we can get to the kingpins rather than always catching the runners involved in the wildlife smuggling network. The second clarification is whether we can follow the British and work with our banks and financial institutions so that we can track these suspicious transactions that are linked to the wildlife smuggling network and halt the transactions in the first place. I think only then can we effectively address and wipe out this trade.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. As I had mentioned, NParks is helping with the international investigations into these cases. As and when they pick up any clues – the Member mentioned money trails – if they come across any evidence that would help the Chinese authorities, in this case, get better inputs into who the criminals behind this are, they will surface it to the Chinese authorities. So, yes, there is collaboration and when we come across evidence, we will surface to the relevant international authority that is looking into it.

Louis: What about the second part of the question, so that we can be more pre-emptive? We can get our banks and financial institutions to track all these suspicious transactions. Somebody paid for the shipments to be sent through Singapore. Can we audit and go to the money trail and find out who actually has been paying? And then, finally, we can get the kingpin. Otherwise, we are always arresting the runners who are already the low-level criminals. Let us go high up the food chain.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. If there are monies that are related, be it money laundering or trafficking, this indeed would be surfaced by our financial institutions to aid investigations. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider banning the display, slaughter and sale of wild-caught live soft-shelled turtles at the wet markets due to zoonotic disease transmission risks.

Dr Amy Khor (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): NEA has stopped tendering out wet market stalls for the sale of live turtles since 2012. Existing wet market stalls that are currently allowed to slaughter and sell live turtles can, however, carry on with their trade if they comply with food safety and hygiene requirements under the Environmental Public Health Act. This includes ensuring stall cleanliness and proper storage practices. Enforcement actions will be taken by SFA against vendors for food safety and hygiene infringements. SFA has not detected such infringements during its regular inspections. 

SFA, in consultation with NParks and NEA, has evaluated the risk of zoonotic disease transmission by reptiles associated with the slaughter and sale of live turtles. Transmission risks are found to be low, as long as food safety and hygiene standards are maintained. There have been no cases of zoonotic disease transmission from these animals at the wet market stalls.

In general, food-borne bacteria such as Salmonella can be found in all live animals and raw meat, and these can be transmitted to people through direct contact or ingestion. To prevent food-borne illnesses, both stall vendors and patrons should observe good food safety and hygiene practices, such as the washing of hands with soap and water before and after handling raw meat, and by thoroughly cooking the meat, which helps to kill any harmful bacteria in food.

Nonetheless, agencies are reviewing the sale and slaughter of live animals in wet markets taking into consideration international benchmarking and scientific evidence, and will continue with efforts to improve public health and environmental hygiene standards in Singapore, including our wet markets. Members of the public can also report non-compliant wet market stall vendors to SFA or NEA via the agencies’ online feedback forms.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply but the point that I am trying to make here is that there is a risk. The risk is very similar to what might have led to this whole COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. These animals are also wild-caught, which means they came from another country and we do not know what diseases they might be carrying. From the point of capture to transport, to where they are starved in Singapore, they are terribly stressed, which would weaken their immunity, increase the chance of disease again.

The most important point is, this is not a staple food. So, why are we as a Government taking this risk? Again, bearing in mind what we have gone through with the COVID-19 pandemic. So, from a human health standpoint, can the Senior Minister of State clarify why we want to take such risks?

Dr Amy Khor: First, let me say that, currently, there are four stallholders in wet markets managed by NEA, who are selling live turtles. As I have said earlier, we have stopped tendering out wet market stalls for the sale of live turtles since 2012.

SFA, in consultation with NParks and NEA, has evaluated the risk of zoonotic disease transmission by reptiles associated with the slaughter and sale of live wild-caught turtles. The risk of transmission, as I have said earlier, of pathogens or disease by reptiles such as through the sale and slaughter of live turtles is assessed to be low as long as food safety and hygiene standards are maintained. And there have been no cases of zoonotic disease transmission from these animals from our wet market stalls.

Also, when we look at the potential human health risks associated with the trade of wildlife, the vast majority of zoonotic pathogens, especially the emerging ones, are associated with mammals and birds rather than reptiles. So, in 1992, we stopped the slaughtering of poultry at our wet markets and centralised this at the slaughterhouses. 

SFA's regular inspections have also not detected any food safety and hygiene infringements at these wet market stalls. But, as I had also earlier said, the agencies are reviewing the sale and slaughter of live animals at our wet market stalls, taking into consideration international benchmarking and scientific evidence, and also as part of our efforts to improve food safety and environmental hygiene standards in Singapore, including at the wet markets. As part of this review, we will consult the relevant stakeholders and we will share of the outcome of this review when ready.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. A last question. Why is it that we have one agency, NParks, that says that actually, we cannot keep these turtles as pets because of a disease transmission concern; and all of a sudden, that disease transmission concern disappears when it comes to the wet market? So, can we align the views of the two agencies and to synchronise them?

Second, I just want to share that the Salmonella infections can actually be fatal. So, it is not a thing that we can just brush aside. But if you get the Salmonella infection from the turtles, it can actually kill you. 

Dr Amy Khor: Yes, so as I had said, risk is assessed to be low but just like in crime, low risk does not mean no risk. And indeed, Salmonella is common in live animals and raw meat and can be transmitted through, like the Member has said, touching and through ingestion. So, both the vendor as well as the patrons will have to ensure that they maintain good food safety and hygiene practices, which will include washing your hands with soap after touching the raw meat, as well as cooking it well to kill the harmful bacteria. As I have noted, so far, we have not detected any cases of zoonotic disease transmission from the sale of this; but as I have said again, we are reviewing this currently. 

The other point about SFA and NParks, even for the sale of live turtles, both SFA and NParks are involved. NParks would be involved in making sure that there is no CITES violation, for instance, for the import of such turtles. And SFA is involved in ensuring that the stalls in the wet markets comply with food safety and hygiene standards. So, they do work together.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources with regard to the import of wild-caught soft-shelled turtle for consumption (a) what diseases are the animals tested for; (b) for each disease, how many tests have been carried out in each year for the past five years; (c) for each disease, what are the number and percentage of test results that have been positive in each year for the past five years; and (d) whether the Ministry will start collecting this data if it is not already doing so.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) takes a science-based risk assessment approach to manage food safety from farm to fork. For imports of food, SFA imposes control measures that are calibrated based on the assessed food safety risks. Importers must be licensed, and apply for import permits for each consignment of food imported into Singapore, which facilitates food traceability and recalls if any food safety infringements are found. SFA also conducts regular food safety inspections and testing of the end product to ensure that food sold in Singapore complies with our food safety standards and requirements.

Such control measures are applied to the import and slaughter of turtle for food in Singapore. Approximately 95% of all the turtles, including wild-caught soft shell turtles, which are imported for food are slaughtered and processed into meat products at a SFA-licensed local slaughterhouse, with the remaining live turtles being distributed to the four wet market stallholders within one market for sale. Given that the food safety and disease transmission risk associated with the import, slaughter and sale of turtles is low, SFA does not test for diseases in imported turtles which are sold live. Nevertheless, as part of SFA’s inspection regime, SFA conducts random sampling and testing of turtle meat products, including those from the SFA-licensed slaughterhouse, for foodborne pathogens such as Shigella species and Vibrio cholerae (pronounced as vee-brio collar-rae).

Over the past five years, SFA has collected a total of 63 samples of turtle meat products and conducted 129 laboratory tests on these samples. All test results showed that the samples met SFA's food safety and hygiene requirements with no foodborne pathogens detected. Thus far, there have not been any foodborne outbreaks associated with the consumption of turtles.

In line with ongoing efforts to improve public health and environmental hygiene standards in Singapore, SFA will continue to be vigilant in its inspection regime and tighten requirements for food safety when necessary. However, the assurance of food safety is a joint responsibility across the industry, consumers and the Government. To prevent foodborne illnesses, food handlers and consumers should also observe good food safety and hygiene practices, such as the washing of hands with soap and water before and after handling any raw meat, and by thoroughly cooking the meat, which helps to kill any harmful bacteria.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the past five years, what is the number of prosecutions that have been brought in relation to instances of illegal wildlife trade; (b) of these prosecutions, how many also involved charges of corruption, money-laundering or fraud; and (c) whether the Ministry will start collecting this data if it is not available.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): The number of prosecutions that have been brought in relation to instances of illegal wildlife trade since 2015 is provided in Table 1 below. No association with corruption, money-laundering or fraud was established during the investigation of these cases.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the Government's response to the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) report on Money Laundering and the Illegal Wildlife Trade; and (b) what steps does the Government intend to take to address the findings in the report.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Illegal wildlife trade (IWT) is a transnational crime. As IWT generates criminal proceeds for their perpetrators, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report that Mr Louis Ng refers to does focus on combatting money laundering (ML) linked to IWT.

Singapore was in fact a member of the project team for the report and supports its recommendations. We contributed case studies to support the FATF deliberations. 

Our whole of government approach is consistent with the recommendations in the FATF report. Several agencies, including the Commercial Affairs Department, National Parks Board and the Monetary Authority of Singapore work together to combat ML linked to IWT. Let me elaborate.

We have enacted laws and regulations that target IWT and associated ML.

1. Under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) and the Wildlife Act (WA), it is an offence to trade wildlife without the requisite permits.

2. The laundering of proceeds for ESA and WA offences is an ML offence under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.

Singapore enforces these laws robustly. The relevant agencies regularly exchange information, typologies and intelligence, and coordinate on joint operations and training. They have also formed close working relationships with foreign counterparts. Through this close collaboration, Singapore has intercepted shipments and achieved several successful seizures of illegal wildlife cargo. These actions have disrupted criminal syndicates and prevented them from benefitting from the proceeds of IWT.

Public-private partnerships also play an important role in our efforts to combat IWT and ML. We have enhanced the collective understanding of IWT risks by sharing case studies and red flag indicators with banks, traders, and agents that apply for trade permits. This has helped them to better detect and report suspicious fund flows linked to IWT.

While we have made a number of prosecutions for IWT over the years, there has been no indication that there are major IWT syndicates operating out of Singapore. In the investigations, we have also not found ML linked to IWT occurring in or connected to Singapore.

Notwithstanding, we will continue to be vigilant to the threat posed by IWT and related ML.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted its study on the possibility of introducing a mandatory labelling scheme for all shark products specifying the species of the shark; (b) if so, what are the results of this study; and (c) if the study has not been conducted, what is the Ministry's timeline for conducting the study.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): International trade in wildlife species threatened with extinction, including shark species, is regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, scheduled species brought into Singapore are to be accompanied by CITES permits issued by exporting countries in accordance with CITES rules and regulations.

This helps us to regulate the import of shark products upstream and provides assurance that the import of scheduled shark species into Singapore is legal, sustainable and traceable. NParks also has a robust risk management framework to target the illicit trade in scheduled shark species. Hence, our approach is to regulate upstream at the point of import, while targeting illicit trade, rather than imposing labelling requirements at the consumer-level. This approach is also in line with that adopted by most of the Parties to CITES.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider amending the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act to increase penalties for wildlife trafficking, trade and possession offences and to tighten the regulation for shipments in transit; (b) whether the Ministry will put any such proposed amendments through a public consultation; and (c) if so, what is the timeline for the introduction of such a Bill.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): MND and NParks have been reviewing the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) to ensure that it remains effective in supporting Singapore’s regulation of the trade in wildlife species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We intend to strengthen our regulation of the trade in CITES species, enhance penalties, and augment NParks’ investigatory and enforcement powers for wildlife trade offences.

 As part of the review, MND and NParks have consulted several stakeholders on the proposed amendments to the ESA. These stakeholders include traders, shipping companies, industry associations, academics and non-profit organisations such as the Animal Concerns Research & Education Society (ACRES), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Singapore, and TRAFFIC. We will carry out a public consultation exercise on the proposed amendments soon. When ready, we will introduce a Bill in Parliament to amend the ESA. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to sections 4, 5 and 19 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and sections 8 and 9 of the Wildlife Act, whether the Ministry will consider classifying contraventions of these sections as serious offences in the Schedule of the Organised Crime Act 2015. 

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): For an offence to be considered a serious offence listed in the Schedule of the Organised Crime Act (OCA), the offence must pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore. The offence must also be one that is associated with organised crime in Singapore. Examples of crimes in the Schedule to the OCA include murder, drug-trafficking and unlicensed moneylending.

The offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) and sections 8 and 9 of the Wildlife Act relate to the international and domestic trade of wildlife without the requisite permits, and the offence under section 19 of the ESA is for the abetment of offences under the ESA. We take these offences seriously. However, the question is whether they will qualify under the OCA – do they pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore and are they related to organised crime? Over the years, NParks has investigated and made a number of prosecutions for illegal wildlife trade. These cases have so far not been found to be associated with organised crime in Singapore. That said, MHA and MND will monitor the developments. We do not rule out including these offences under OCA if the specific criteria set out are met. We will emphasise: even if they are not within the ambit of the OCA, nevertheless, they are considered serious offences. 

MND and NParks will continue to maintain Singapore’s vigilance against illegal wildlife trade. Where illegal wildlife trade seizures involve entities outside of Singapore, our enforcement agencies work closely with the source and destination countries and share information with international organisations, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and INTERPOL, to assist in investigation and enforcement efforts. Where other countries have uncovered links to organised crime in their jurisdictions, NParks has extended assistance to them in their investigations. 

The illegal wildlife trade offences mentioned by Mr Louis Ng are listed as Serious Offences under the Second Schedule to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. This allows Singapore to provide mutual legal assistance for the aforementioned offences, whether or not they involve organised criminal groups, and, consequently, to cooperate with other countries in combatting wildlife trafficking.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development of the cases prosecuted for the illegal import and export of endangered species in the past five years, in how many cases were (i) the runners prosecuted and (ii) the syndicate leaders prosecuted.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): Between 2017 and 2021, 18 cases were prosecuted for the illegal trade of endangered species under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. None of the persons prosecuted have been found to be associated with organised crime in Singapore or overseas at this point in time. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Cases Prosecuted for Illegal Import and Export of Endangered Species in Last Five Years

Louis asked the Minister for National Development of the cases prosecuted for the illegal import and export of endangered species in the past five years, in how many of the cases prosecuted (i) were the endangered species in transit in Singapore for a different country and (ii) was Singapore the final destination for the endangered species.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): Between 2017 and 2021, 18 cases were prosecuted for the illegal trade of endangered species under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. Of these, one case was prosecuted for illegal transit through Singapore. The remainder were prosecuted for illegal import into Singapore.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Rationale for Requirement in Organised Crime Act 2015 for At Least Three Individuals to Form A Group

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the rationale for the requirement of at least three individuals to form a group under section 2 of the Organised Crime Act 2015.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): The Organised Crime Act (OCA) was enacted to strengthen the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with criminal syndicates.

Criminal syndicates often operate across borders. Therefore, our approach towards organised syndicates has also taken into account international practices.

Under the OCA, it is an offence to be a member of an Organised Criminal Group, which is defined as a group that comprises at least three persons, and has as one of its objectives, the obtaining of material financial benefits from the facilitation or commission of any serious offence listed in the Schedule to the OCA. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, to which Singapore is a signatory, also defines an organised criminal group as three persons or more. Other jurisdictions, such as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom also define an organised criminal group as one which comprises three or more persons.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will conduct a review of the sentencing framework for (i) animal cruelty and abuse and (ii) wildlife trafficking and possession cases; (b) if so, what is the timeline for such review; and (c) if not, why not.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): MND and NParks are reviewing the penalties for trafficking and illegal possession of wildlife under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA). The intent is to ensure that there is effective deterrence against the illegal trade of wildlife species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We have consulted the public and plan to introduce a Bill in Parliament to amend the ESA in the first half of 2022. 

We are also reviewing the penalties under the Animals and Birds Act, to ensure that they remain effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse. We will consult relevant stakeholders and the public as part of this review when ready. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development of the cases prosecuted for the illegal import and export of endangered species in the past five years, how many involved (i) the person prosecuted only delivering the endangered species and is not the seller and (ii) the person prosecuted is the seller of the endangered species.

Mr Tan Kiat How (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, from 2017 to 2021, 18 cases were prosecuted for the illegal trade of endangered species under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act or ESA for short. In seven of these cases, the persons prosecuted were involved only in transporting the endangered species. There was no evidence they were selling the species or keeping the species for their personal use.

Of the remaining 11 cases, the persons prosecuted in four cases were found to be transporting the endangered species to sell the species. The persons prosecuted in the other seven cases were found to be transporting the endangered species for their personal use.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. Two quick clarifications. I think that is the worry on the ground, that we are only catching the runners and not putting an effective dent into the illegal wildlife trade. So, could I ask the Minister of State whether NParks is looking into the money trail, doing financial audits for each wildlife crime cases that we are handling?

And two, whether NParks is working with the financial institutions to ensure that they are filing suspicious transaction reports related to wildlife crime?

Mr Tan Kiat How: On the first question, Mr Speaker, NParks and foreign enforcement agencies have not found any associations with illegal wildlife trade syndicates or organised crimes in Singapore or overseas, in the 18 cases at this point in time.

Specifically, to the seven cases where the persons prosecuted were involved only in transporting the endangered species, NParks did not find any evidence that other persons in Singapore were involved. The investigation findings were also shared with INTERPOL, and the source and destination countries, if we know them, for further investigations. We have not received any information from INTERPOL or our foreign enforcement agency counterparts that these persons were acting as part of a larger organised crime syndicate or network.

In response to the Member's second question, I would also like to refer the Member to the reply to his oral Question in the 2 November Sitting in 2020, where Mr Ong Ye Kung replied on behalf of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister and Minister in-charge of MAS. In the reply, Minister Ong gave a fuller reply around the various rules and the regulations in place to look at illegal wildlife trade and money laundering and organised crimes.

But I would just also direct the Member's attention to the part of the reply, which I think addresses his question, about having public-private partnerships playing an important role in our effort to combat illegal wildlife trade and money laundering.

The Government has enhanced the collective understanding of illegal wildlife trade risks, by sharing case studies and red-flag indicators with banks, traders, agents who apply for trade permits and this has helped them to better detect and report suspicious fund flows, linked to illegal wildlife trade.

Notwithstanding that, we will continue to be vigilant to the threat posed by illegal wildlife trade and related money laundering. NParks will work closely with other agencies, like MAS and the other enforcement agencies in this regard.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) for each year in the past five years, how many suspicious financial transaction reports related to wildlife crime have been filed; (b) how does the Government determine whether there is underreporting of suspicious transactions relating to wildlife crime; and (c) what is the Government doing to ensure that financial institutions keep a lookout and file such reports.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Financial institutions (FIs) and other relevant business entities such as traders or agents are required by law to report suspicious transactions related to illegal wildlife trafficking (IWT). The Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) does not publicly release detailed statistics relating to suspicious transaction reports (STRs).

Enforcement action can be taken against FIs for non-compliance. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) also assesses FIs' ability to detect and report suspicious transactions in a timely manner through ongoing supervision of their anti-money laundering controls. MAS has drawn FIs' attention to relevant reports published by the Financial Action Task Force on the modus operandi used to launder proceeds from IWT. In addition, STRO proactively shares red flag indicators of IWT with banks, traders and their agents. The Association of Banks in Singapore also holds seminars and workshops to share best practices on managing the money laundering risks from IWT.

Mr Ng has highlighted an area of growing concern in the international community. As criminals become more sophisticated in concealing their illegal activities, combating money laundering related to IWT will require constant vigilance and close collaboration between the Government and the private sector.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)