Round-Up Speech by SPS Sun Xueling on the Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill

Mar 25, 2020

Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Louis Ng and the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee (WALRC) for their work in reviewing and proposing enhancements to our wildlife legislation. NParks served as a resource panel to the WALRC, and was glad for the opportunity to also engage with the community.

Despite our small size, Singapore is home to a wide range of flora and fauna. Our efforts to nurture a City in a Garden have allowed biodiversity to thrive. Many Singaporeans delight in seeing once-rare wildlife such as otters in Singapore’s rivers and canals. 

As Minister Desmond Lee shared during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this month, we will enhance and extend our natural capital across the island to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. Besides intensifying nature and greenery in our parks and gardens, this will also include efforts to conserve important plant and wildlife species in Singapore. 

We will implement these plans together with Singaporeans. I am heartened to see that Singaporeans of all ages and walks of life are becoming more passionate about nature conservation. Many have stepped forward to volunteer with NParks. 

Mr Ng’s Private Member’s Bill, to amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act, complements MND’s plans for the next bound of greening Singapore and conserving our biodiversity. I hope that those who responded to the WALRC’s public consultation exercise will also similarly lend their support to our City in Nature initiatives.

MND notes that many members of the public expressed broad support for the WALRC’s proposals, but there were also differing views. For example, how best to rationalise the need for strong legislation, while avoiding being excessively harsh to people who may be unaware or well-meaning. 

This means that we must take a balanced approach and build awareness among Singaporeans on how to co-exist harmoniously with animals, including wildlife. I am happy that Mr Ng has taken this on board in developing his Bill. 

Management of birds

Let me now address some of the points that Members have raised on the operationalisation of the Wildlife Act, and other animal-related policies. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how NParks will enforce the prohibition against intentional feeding of wildlife, and curb the over-breeding of wild birds in residential areas. NParks will monitor feeding hotspots and take strong action against recalcitrant feeders who remain unresponsive to engagement, advisories, as well as warnings. I believe this also addresses Associate Professor Walter Theseira’s question on the enforcement of section 5A of the Wildlife Act. To further clarify, NParks can already enforce against the feeding of wildlife in parks and nature reserves under the Parks and Trees Act. The Wildlife Act extends these powers beyond these areas. This allows NParks to address the dis-amenities and ecological impact brought about from wildlife feeding in a more comprehensive manner across Singapore.  

As for wild birds that cause dis-amenities, we agree with Mr Gan’s observation that reducing anthropogenic food supply – whether from intentional feeding, littering, or food waste – will help prevent these birds from being attracted to residential areas, and moderate their population. In this regard, NParks has already been working closely with other Government agencies and Town Councils on measures to reduce feeding of birds. We will continue to take a balanced approach, involving a range of measures spanning from education and outreach to enforcement action, to address these issues comprehensively. NParks conducts public outreach events and puts up advisories and notices, in order to raise public awareness of the issue. NEA works with food centres and coffee shops in HDB estates to enforce against littering, and to ensure proper management of food waste.

On a related note, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the possible overlap between the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules and the Wildlife Act. MND will be repealing the feeding and release rules of the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules. The feeding of wildlife, including wild birds, will be regulated under the Wildlife Act.

In addition, Mr Murali asked about the sentencing options for feeding and releasing wildlife. As he noted, this comes under the Criminal Procedure Code, and we will need to study this together with the Ministry of Law. Nonetheless, NParks is already aware that some feeders may have underlying conditions or face certain circumstances. I would like to assure the Member that today NParks adopts a community-based approach to directly engage pigeon feeders to encourage them to cease feeding. This is done in collaboration with partners such as Town Councils, grassroots leaders, and social service organisations. We agree that beyond the legislative lever, there are various solutions to managing dis-amenities due to feeding, such as identifying and addressing underlying conditions. We will continue to take a reasonable, multi-pronged approach to manage such issues. 

Mr Murali also asked whether the Director-General (Wildlife Management) could issue a general written approval to people who feed and release wildlife as an act of kindness. Instead of issuing a blanket approval, let me again assure the Member that NParks will take a reasonable approach to assess each situation. I would also encourage members of the public to call NParks’ wildlife hotline when they come across wildlife in distress. While we appreciate the kindness behind trying to help wildlife, sometimes feeding or releasing them may cause even more harm to the animal. 

Let me address A/P Theseira’s question on the lessons learnt from existing efforts to prevent wildlife release in the nature reserves and how these can be applied to regulating wildlife release in other areas. From NParks’ experience, strong engagement of stakeholders is an important means of effecting behavioural change. For instance, it has been working with PUB on the annual Operation No Release to discourage people from releasing animals into ecologically sensitive areas like nature parks, nature reserves, and reservoirs. Moving forward, NParks also plans to work with religious communities to explore alternatives to mercy release, such as tree planting and volunteering at animal shelters.  NParks intends to continue with this approach of engagement and education as a key complement to legislation.

A/P Theseira also asked when the Director-General may grant written approval to feed wildlife. As mentioned, each situation will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For instance, based on his assessment, the Director-General may grant approval to feed wildlife in situations such as research and professional wildlife rehabilitation. 

Wildlife trade

Mr Yee Chia Hsing spoke about the pet bird trade and how NParks ensures traceability of these birds. I agree with Mr Yee that stopping the illegal import and smuggling of pet birds is important. This is why NParks has a suite of measures to detect and enforce against the illegal import and smuggling of birds today. For example, NParks works closely with Singapore Customs, ICA, and international partners to prevent instances of illegal bird imports at our borders. NParks’ measures do not stop at ensuring that pet birds are not smuggled into Singapore illegally. Pet bird shops are licensed by NParks, and are required to comply with licensing conditions. As part of these licensing conditions, pet shops are required to ensure that each bird in the shop is accounted for. The source, date of arrival, and date of purchase of each bird must be available. Furthermore, the pet shop must also have CITES permits for any CITES-related species, which is regulated by the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA). Finally, NParks also conducts checks on the shops to check for compliance.

Mr Yee also spoke about curbing the import and sale of juvenile fish. As Mr Yee has noted, this is not something Singapore can address on our own. While Singaporeans can be persuaded not to buy juvenile fish through public education, it is really up to individual countries to manage their own fish stocks sustainably. In addition, we should also be conscious about the trade-offs in imposing additional regulations on our food supply. This is something that the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and the Singapore Food Agency would be better placed to address.

Ms Anthea Ong asked about how the Wildlife Act relates to the trade of wild marine animals. To clarify, commercial aquariums, including the SEA Aquarium, are currently regulated under the Animal and Birds Act and Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA). NParks will continue to use these Acts to regulate trade in a manner that ensures animal health and as required by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Wildlife Act will complement the existing regime, especially with regard to non-CITES wildlife. The Director-General will consider factors like public safety and potential impact to our domestic ecosystems when making decisions on restricted activities pertaining to trade. 

Ms Ong asked for a review of shark and ray trade information that is collected by agencies. As mentioned, our approach is to regulate wildlife trade in line with CITES requirements. Singapore is a signatory to CITES, which is the main international agreement that aims to ensure that trade in wildlife does not threaten their survival. Thus, when species are listed for protection under CITES, we create product codes accordingly. Species-specific product codes are used for tracking the import and export of those species to ensure that there is sustainable trade. Product codes for all the 41 species of CITES-listed sharks and rays, that are permitted for commercial trade, have been created. As for the FAO’s shark commodity reporting categories, we understand that CITES already takes them into consideration in formulating its lists. As such, we will continue to review the collection and reporting of wildlife trade information in line with CITES requirements. To Ms Cheng Li Hui’s query, I hope that this also clarifies that we are already abiding by CITES requirements in the regulation of wildlife trade – both imports and exports, and not just of live animals but also of parts and derivatives of animals.

Wildlife-related directions

A/P Theseira and Ms Ong asked a number of questions about the proposal to empower NParks’ Director-General (Wildlife Management) to issue wildlife-related directions to developers.  MND and NParks were involved extensively in the development of this proposal.

A/P Theseira asked if the amended Act grants private parties the right to sue the Director-General to issue directions on development works, perhaps with the aim of derailing large-scale Government development works. Let me clarify a few matters.

First, the Act does not bind the Government. The amendments introduced by the Bill do not change this existing position under the Act. Second, the Director-General may issue directions to both private entities and public agencies.

The Wildlife Act does not mandate that the Director-General must take action under section 10(1). The power may be exercised by the Director-General “from time to time” and “as the occasion requires” as is stated in the explanatory statement of the Bill. Thus, the Act does not confer private parties the right to sue the Director-General to issue directions to any party.

To address A/P Theseira’s concerns, allow me to further put this provision in context. Today, we already have a robust planning evaluation process in place for new developments. Regulatory agencies assess issues such as public needs, economic and social considerations, and the impact on environment, traffic, maritime navigation, and so on. We consider a wide range of factors, including the impact on the environment, in weighing the costs and benefits of any development project.

Development projects near sensitive nature areas are subject to additional scrutiny through an in-depth consultation process with relevant technical agencies, including NParks. Through this, we may require developers to undertake thorough environmental studies, and implement monitoring and mitigation plans. 

All environmental impact assessments include an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), which comprises recommendations for specific measures that developers should undertake to manage potential impacts. Developers are required to implement the EMMP, the specifics of which, including the costs and benefits of the measures, are discussed between the developers and the technical agencies. This Bill closes a gap in the enforceability of some of these mitigation measures. Currently, NParks is unable to enforce against developers that fail to comply with certain wildlife-related mitigation measures. Under the amended Act, NParks would be able to issue these requirements as formal directions, and there would be penalties for non-compliance.

A/P Theseira asked about the element of proportionality. We will take a sensible approach to imposing conditions under the EIA process. The Director-General will not unilaterally jeopardise development projects by imposing costly pigeon protection measures, for instance. Some more realistic examples of common wildlife-related conditions include requiring developers to install hoarding or limit works to daytime hours in certain areas to minimise impact to nocturnal wildlife.

We recognise that developers may have reasonable excuses to not comply with the Director-General’s directions, and have provided for this in the Bill. For example, certain measures may turn out to not be technically feasible due to unforeseen changes in the ground situation. NParks will work with developers to ensure that the wildlife-related measures under the EMMPs remain relevant and implementable.

A/P Theseira asked how the Director-General will exercise this power, and if the relevant stakeholders will be engaged to ensure that the directions balance environmental concerns and developmental measures. NParks has staff that are trained to assess developers’ EMMPs and advise developers further on how to implement them. This will ensure that the measures implemented on the ground are sensible and effective for the particular site context. In the process, relevant stakeholders such as nature groups are consulted. 

Ms Ong also asked whether Section 10(1) of the Wildlife Act could halt a development. The Bill does not deal with the stopping of developments. Instead, it allows the Director-General to direct a developer to implement wildlife-related measures that the Director-General considers to be necessary to protect wildlife, public safety, etc. Non-compliance with such wildlife-related measures is an offence and Section 10 provides for penalties such as a fine or imprisonment. The proposed penalties serve as a strong deterrent against non-compliance. Furthermore, this new power under the Wildlife Act does not stand alone; it is part of a broader framework that ensures that the environmental impact of development works is minimised.

As to Ms Ong’s question on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, it is protected under the Parks and Trees Act (PTA) and its accompanying regulations. The PTA applies to underground activities, regardless of depth, which adversely affect the biodiversity and enjoyment of the Nature Reserve. However, if the underground activities are carried out at a depth that does not affect the biodiversity and enjoyment of the Nature Reserve, the PTA does not prevent such activities from being carried out. 

As the administrator of both the PTA and the Wildlife Act, NParks will take a holistic approach in applying the Acts to developments that may impact wildlife, both within and outside the nature reserves. 
Other matters

Members asked about how NParks would operationalise the enforcement of the Wildlife Act’s provisions. Ms Ong asked whether offenders under the Wildlife Act would be prosecuted if they are confronted at the scene of the offence. As with all cases of suspected offences, NParks will first carry out investigations to ascertain the facts of the case. Based on these facts, the appropriate enforcement actions, which could include prosecution, will be considered.  

A/P Theseira asked about the composition of offences. Compoundable offences will be prescribed by MND in the subsidiary legislation to the Wildlife Act, and MND intends to allow for the composition of offences related to feeding and release. 

Mr Christopher de Souza asked for clarification on the term ‘authorised officers’. This term has the same meaning throughout the Act, whether referring to officers authorised to compound offences, or to those who interact with, investigate, and arrest accused persons. That said, operationally, the Director-General will authorise different groups of officers for different functions.

Let me conclude by thanking MP Ng and the WALRC once again. This Bill is an important step towards improving wildlife protection, in partnership with key stakeholders and the community. 

Legislation is but one lever to do so. We should continue to ramp up public education and outreach efforts so that there is a sustained change in mindset which will allow us to live harmoniously with wildlife in our City in Nature. I look forward to Mr Ng and the WALRC’s continued commitment to work with the wider nature community to spearhead such efforts. 

Mr Speaker, my Ministry and I support the Bill.