Louis Ng Kok Kwang
Singapore
“It does not matter whether the report was made to the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether an individual who reports an offence under the Bill to the Police will be similarly protected by the whistle-blowing protections under section 53?”
“In my Adjournment Motion six years ago, I shared the story of Emma, a single unwed parent who came to see me at my Meet-the-People Sessions, together with her two-month-old daughter. They were both living in a shelter. As I shared previously, when I asked why Emma did not shed a tear, she told me that she no longer had any tears left.”
“It is not just Nee Soon East cleaners who pay kickbacks. This, again, is a widespread problem that we have not done enough to detect and tackle. To tackle this more effectively, we need to treat kickbacks as seriously as corruption. We need our laws to have a more deterrent effect to have any chance of wiping out kickbacks.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for answering my cut on second-hand smoke. And I am sure he expects me to clarify further. But I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there is no current technology to catch someone smoking at home and, so, because of that we cannot legislate a ban.”
“Madam, for years, I have spoken up repeatedly in this House, calling for the Government to take action to protect the lives of fellow Singaporeans from second-hand smoke. I have spoken up so much that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor once said that she is immune to me already. But on a more serious note, this is a serious issue.”
“We should end the discrimination and allow them to qualify for the PPHS. Mandate Sterilisation of Pet Cats I have spent a good part of my life calling for HDB to allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats. Many have called for this and I am glad the Government has finally changed our policies and allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,801 lines we hold for Louis Ng Kok Kwang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 37.
“One last supplementary question. Can I also just confirm that they are allowed to breastfeed their babies without a cover on?”
“Thank you, Sir, and this is the last question on breastfeeding. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for saying that it is not prohibited on our trains and buses. But as I shared with him, the SMRT website still says this today to an FAQ, "Can I breastfeed or feed my children?" And the reply is, "For the comfort of other passengers, it is best to feed your children before entering our stations." So, if it is not prohibited, then, could we not send the message to say that it is best not to do it?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply but I am a bit confused. She said they are generally not going to be prosecuted, if I am right to say that. So, could I just ask specifically, whether a mother who is breastfeeding her baby in the public without a cover – would that be liable to prosecution?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Can I just check whether these are specifically lactation rooms? So, it is only for the mothers to use and not just a spare room where the mothers can go in to express the milk. Secondly, can I also just check whether there is a fridge in all of these rooms so that they can store their milk after that?”
“The fourth issue I would like to raise is a proposal on post-release support programmes for abducted seafarers. A study titled "The Long-term Impact of Maritime Piracy on Seafarers' Behavioral Health and Work Decisions" found that one in four former hostages showed symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Given that victims of other types of trauma, such as assault and sexual harassment, can tap on numerous avenues for counselling and support, the same should be made available for abducted seafarers, even if such victims are rarer. Will the Senior Minister of State consider introducing post-release support programmes for abducted seafarers? My fifth and final point is on protections for Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that various parts of the Act will cover Singapore ships wherever they may be and non-Singapore flagged ships in Singapore. The Act does not seem to apply to Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if the protections accorded by these amendments will be extended to Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships if they are abducted in a piracy incident outside of Singapore's territorial waters? If not, what protections and recourse are available to them? Sir, with more than 1,000 ships passing through the Singapore Strait every day and more than 4,400 Singapore-flagged ships on our registry, this amendment will ensure that abducted seafarers and their families will be adequately compensated. This Bill will align Singapore with the 2018 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention or MLC. As such, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Further, the effect of the new section 12A is that the seafarer's employment agreement continues to have effect during the captivity period regardless of the date of expiry of the agreement or any termination notice. It is possible that a seafarer's life, safety and whereabouts will be unknown while in captivity. It appears from the Bill that in the instance that a seafarer is held captive for an extended period and it cannot be confirmed if he or she is dead, the shipowners will be required to continue paying wages and other entitlements indefinitely. While I am supportive of the protective rationale of these amendments, shipowners have a strong incentive to avoid making these payments for an abducted seafarer. How will the MPA ensure that shipowners will continue to make these payments? In the event that shipowners are unable to make payment, what funds are available to cover the shortfall in wages and entitlements to be paid to the abducted seafarer? My third point is on terrorism-linked kidnappings. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill seek to protect the seafarer in the event of an abduction related to an armed robbery or piracy incident. We have seen kidnap-for-ransom incidents perpetrated by terrorist organisations in the region. Notably, the Philippines-based Abu Sayyaf terrorist group has carried out a number of kidnappings of seafarers in regional waters. Most recently, in June 2019, 10 gunmen from Abu Sayyaf kidnapped 10 fishermen off the coast of Sabah, Malaysia. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if these amendments will cover abductions linked to terrorism? In other words, will the abducted seafarer be remitted his due wages and entitlements in the case of terrorism?”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. In 2016, we amended our laws in accordance with the Maritime Labour Convention or MLC, to improve protections for crew abandoned by their shipowners by mandating shipowners' procuring of financial security. This ensures that seafarers are fairly compensated in the event of death or long-term disability due to occupational injury, illness or hazard. In view of last year's spate of sea robberies in our waters, which has reached a four-year high, it is commendable that we are seeking amendments to this Act to duly compensate seafarers in the event of an abduction in an armed robbery or piracy incident. I am supportive of this move to bolster the labour protection for seafarers, a vulnerable group of workers who are exceptionally excluded from the Employment Act. To the proposed amendments, I would like to raise five clarifications. My first clarification is on the reporting of abductions. Given that captive seafarers must continue to be paid wages and other entitlements during their captivity, errant shipowners may make false claims of the whereabouts of the abducted seafarer in the event of an armed robbery or piracy incident. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what measures will the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore or MPA put in place to ensure all cases of crew abductions are truthfully and accurately reported? What punitive measures does the MPA intend to take against errant shipowners? My second clarification is on the period of salary payment. The new section 20(7A) provides that the seafarer's wages and other entitlements must continue to be paid during the seafarer's period of captivity until the seafarer's release and repatriation, or the date of the seafarer's death.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Sir, for the past two years, Subaraj has been helping me with drafting the proposed amendments to this law. At the wake, Shamla told me that whatever Subaraj was helping me with, she will now take over to ensure that his work continues, to ensure that his magic continues. This is how amazing and selfless Subaraj and his family are. Even as they grief the loss of a loved one, they never stop thinking about helping others, about their efforts and mission to save the remaining forest and wildlife. Subaraj had actually suffered a heart attack about a year ago but that never stopped him. He continued being on the ground in our nature reserves, he continued passionately fighting and championing our cause and he continued to speak up. Sir, Subaraj once said that, "When I see youngsters talking about nature, studying it and fighting for it, it gives me great pride that we were able to hang on to the nature spots we have. It's their time now, time to pass the baton." I thank Members for your support for this Bill and on behalf of Subaraj, I thank everyone for speaking up and for fighting for our wildlife and for our nature spots. Rest in Peace, Subaraj. Thank you for all that you have done for Singapore and rest assured that your work and magic will continue. This Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill is dedicated to you. Sir, this 14-year journey is finally at its last few chapters. It has been a beautiful journey made possible by passionate, selfless individuals who make this world a better place for all. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“He might not be the real Santa Claus but as the media puts it, "he looks a little like Santa Claus, one bearing gifts of knowledge of the wild". In the words of Minister Desmond Lee, "Subaraj was a true giant and pioneer in our local conservation scene. He was larger than life with his long beard and hair and his trademark bandana. Although he towered over many in his achievements, his demeanour was gentle and his smile always welcoming and reassuring. Before googling became an easy source of finding information, Subaraj was the Guru who could identify birds by their calls and knew where they could be found. If you happened to bump into Subaraj in the forest, where he was often found, he would point out a bird that was hidden from view from everyone else, except him. That was his magic, his intimate understanding and his beautiful connection with nature. With his passing, we will greatly miss that magic." Subaraj contributed immensely to nature conservation in Singapore. He was undoubtedly one of the most vocal activists, fighting passionately to protect our forests and wildlife. Sir, when I landed back in Singapore, I went straight to Subaraj's wake to pay my last respects. I met Subaraj's wife, Shamla, who is sitting in the gallery today. The first thing she told me at the wake was about how Subaraj and she were recently talking about the proposed amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act. In fact, the last time I met Subaraj was at the final face-to-face public consultation for the Wild Animals and Birds Act. She told me how excited Subaraj was about the amendments. I have no doubt that Subaraj would have been here today to see all of us debating about something so close to his heart, something he has been fighting for and something he devoted his life towards.”
“Finally, some have cautioned that measures in this Bill could alienate citizens from nature by discouraging feeding and release, amongst other matters. I can understand these concerns, but any appreciation for nature and wildlife amongst our people must be built on a foundation of safety and respect. That comes with keeping a distance and maintaining certain basic boundaries. As NParks has shared in a Forum letter, there is a huge amount of effort to encourage this responsible interaction. They said, "NParks also organises activities and programmes that allow the public to interact responsibly with nature and help foster a love for our environment. Some examples include guided walks, bird-watching and citizen science programmes. To grow our city in a garden, we will continue to encourage more Singaporeans to be stewards and custodians of our natural heritage, and to coexist harmoniously with wildlife. We advise the public not to approach, disturb, feed or try to catch wildlife. It is best to leave them to forage in their natural eco-systems." Sir, allow me to conclude. The last chapter of this story in amending the Wild Animals and Birds Act is about one important individual – One Giant. On 22 October last year, I was about to board my flight back to Singapore when I received the devastating news that Subaraj had passed away that morning. I have known Subaraj for many years. He is a friend, a fatherly figure whom I looked up to and a fellow activist. My daughter loves him as well. I just told him recently that my little ones were looking forward to seeing him at Christmas. With his long white beard and big belly, Ella thinks he is a Santa Claus.”
“A plethora of garden birds from tiny sunbirds to larger orioles can always be seen throughout the year feeding on naturally-occurring food like nectar, seeds and insects." Someone also emailed me to ask why there is a disparity between the penalties in the Bill and the penalties currently imposed for the feeding of wildlife in our parks and nature reserves. He felt that there was no difference whether the person is feeding inside or outside our parks and nature reserves, as both are equally damaging to our natural biodiversity and eco-system. With regard to the feeding of wildlife, the higher penalties in the Parks and Trees Act apply to nature reserves and national parks, as those contain our most sensitive eco-systems. For parks and gardens, the lower penalties in the Parks and Trees Regulations apply. The Bill proposes to align the penalty framework in the new Wildlife Act with that in the Parks and Trees Regulations and other animal-related Acts, in order to rationalise the penalties across the various pieces of legislation. Next, I am aware that some feel that since I am mooting this Bill, NGOs will get "special treatment" to do things like provide wildlife removal services. Let me clarify that there will be no special treatment for NGOs. Like anyone else, NGOs will have to get approval from the DG to release or trap wildlife. These provisions are important as they will allow the DG to approve those involved in wildlife rescue efforts, for example, to trap, rescue and subsequently release wildlife in proper places. These groups could include NGOs such as ACRES, wildlife management companies and also pest control companies.”
“I cannot put it better than this reply in another Forum letter, "The feeding of nuisance species such as monkeys" – which the original letter writer agreed with – "should be banned, ironically became a nuisance only because people started feeding them." Further, wildlife feeding creates broader problems with the eco-system. The letter continued, "I have seen many uninitiated 'nature lovers' feeding birds and fish with cooked rice, white bread or even leftover food. These may not only make the wildlife ill but also wreak havoc on the eco-system." This Bill, and its proposed ban on wildlife feeding, will reduce human-wildlife conflict, address public safety concerns and safeguard the welfare of wildlife and our eco-system. Others have also suggested that wildlife feeding could be banned in or near HDB flats, but not in private residential properties. To quote, "Why should people living in landed properties face restrictions if they want to attract other desirable wildlife species to their homes?" But the impact of wildlife feeding is not so isolated. When residents in private properties feed animals, it affects not only themselves but also their neighbours, the animals and the broader eco-system. For this reason, it is not practical or reasonable to exclude residents of private properties from the ban on wildlife feeding. There is a solution for those in private residential estates who want to see more wildlife. As another letter writer wrote, "We can 'feed' butterflies and birds by planting flowering trees." I agree with that. She further states: "In all my decades of observing nature in my backyard or a nearby park, I have never had to provide a single morsel of food to 'attract' wildlife.”
“Let me address one of the biggest misconceptions with regard to the scope of the Act. Even just a few days ago, people were asking on my Facebook post whether the proposed amendments applied to cats and dogs and asked if it would become illegal to feed community cats and dogs if this Bill is passed. The current Wild Animals and Birds Act and the proposed amendments do not penalise the feeding of stray cats or dogs. Domestic species of cats and dogs are not covered under this Act. However, it is important to feed responsibly, as leftover food could attract pests and other wildlife. Others felt that feeding wildlife will cultivate a love for nature and we should not ban it. For example, one Forum letter read that "People, especially children, develop an interest in the environment through opportunities to interact with animals and birds. One of the best ways of doing this is by feeding them. Singaporeans should not be forced to appreciate animals only at a distance." I have provided several reasons for prohibiting the feeding of wildlife in my opening speech. I agree that we should find ways to help the public appreciate wildlife. But the research is very clear: the feeding of wildlife causes an unnatural rise in wildlife population. This is why, for example, we see so many more birds in areas where there is rampant feeding. Indeed, the letter writer acknowledges this trend. It shared that, "Cute squirrels are more common now because more and more people provide them with food". The result of such feeding is increased human-wildlife conflict.”
“Section 12C(1)(a) also indicates that the Court may not forfeit conveyances if the person is not convicted of the offence, for example, if NParks chose to compound the offence. Conveyances also cannot be forfeited if they were not proved to have been used in the commission of an offence. Section 12C(4) also adds that conveyances may not be forfeited if the conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of another person without the consent of the owner. Ultimately, the Court's exercise of discretion will still act as a safeguard. Thus, I do not feel that additional statutory limits are required at this point. Sir, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the possibility of community-based sentencing for recalcitrant feeders, especially those who may have underlying psychiatric issues. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has spoken about sentencing policies and NParks' engagement approach. I would like to make an additional appeal to fellow Members to activate the community, such as neighbours and grassroots leaders, when you engage such residents, instead of only leaving it to enforcement agencies. These residents may have complex needs, like social isolation or unaddressed mental health issues. We should be all hands on deck to help them. Sir, I am glad that Members in this House and members of the public have been very supportive of the Bill. Of course, there are people who are not supportive and their voices should be heard as well. I respect their differing viewpoints and I thank them for taking their time to share their concerns with everyone. Sir, I thus turn to address other points that have been raised by members of the public both in support of and against the Act. To start, the proposed controls on feeding attracted the most attention.”
“These provisions are not overly prescriptive and only set out the general parameters within which seizure should be effected. With regard to forfeiture, while the Courts ultimately make the decision to forfeit a vehicle, NParks must first decide to seize the vehicle. If the vehicle is not seized, the forfeiture provision does not apply. Even if NParks seizes a vehicle to facilitate investigations, I understand that it can still consider whether or not to recommend its forfeiture to the Court. I trust that NParks will be reasonable in its enforcement and will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. For example, in the case of someone who drives somewhere to feed or release wildlife, the use of the vehicle may be ancillary and not entirely necessary for the commission of an offence. Feeding and release are generally less severe offences in the Wildlife Act. So, seizing a vehicle may not be warranted except in exceptional circumstances. Compare this to smuggling, which Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised, where the goods or animals have to be hidden within the conveyances and transported, and where offenders may be dealing with high-value wildlife. In such cases, the conveyance may need to be seized for a thorough investigation and recommending forfeiture as a punishment would be more proportionate to the crime. In the case of a private boat operator transporting wildlife for release into the sea, a possible pertinent factor to consider when considering whether forfeiture is warranted would be whether the operator was knowingly abetting illegal activities. That said, I reiterate that this would depend on the details of the case. To clarify, there are also more safeguards other than those under section 12C(2).”
“I do agree with Mr Yee that we need higher penalties to serve as a stronger deterrent. As such, the Bill proposes to increase the penalties significantly for offences related to the killing, trapping, taking, keeping, offering for sale, sale, export and import of wildlife without approval. As I have shared earlier, we are also strengthening NParks' enforcement powers and proposing a new power for the Court to be able to forfeit conveyances used in the commission of a convicted offence. Taken together, these proposed amendments will strengthen our fight against the illegal wildlife trade in Singapore. Ms Anthea Ong asked if ordinary citizens could be authorised and given the power to remove and dismantle traps under the new section 10A. The answer this time is no. Under the existing section 4(2), the Director-General, subject to the directions of the Board, may only appoint the following persons as "authorised officers": (a) an NParks officer, (b) an employee of another statutory authority, (c) a public officer, or (d) an auxiliary police officer appointed under the Police Force Act. As I have mentioned earlier, the WALRC had considered empowering citizens with certain enforcement powers under the Act. However, we had to balance this against the potential risks, such as to their safety, as enforcement is a challenging business. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised some concerns about the new section 11B on seizure and section 12C on forfeiture, particularly as they relate to conveyances. This new provision on seizure is similar to other seizure provisions in existing legislation, such as section 51 of the Animals and Birds Act and section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
“He is right that once we stop the feeding of wild birds, there will likely be a reduction in the number of birds. The root of the problem here is the availability of food. NParks has said, "We have instead focused on methods like managing food waste better and habitat modification, such as the planting of trees that mynahs are less attracted to. When food sources are reduced, birds spend more time looking for food and less time mating. It affects their entire cycle." NParks further added that, "Short-term culling actually reduces competition, so the remaining birds have less competition to eat and mate. We often see an increase in the number of birds after periods of culling." The new section 5A will make it illegal to feed all wild birds and also introduces a higher penalty for repeat offenders. This will serve as a stronger deterrent. Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted that there may be a "loophole" in that someone could claim to be feeding a domestic animal to avoid being prosecuted under section 5A. I understand this, but I think we must recognise that most feeders, again, are not malicious. They want to do good. For many cases, instead of finding ways to punish them under the law, we should be creating more awareness about why they should not be feeding wildlife in the first place. Both measures have to work hand-in-hand and, together with the other measures NParks is taking, I am confident that we will address the root of the problem and resolve this longstanding issue. Sir, Mr Yee Chia Hsing raised concerns about the illegal smuggling of pet birds. Again, I am extremely happy that the person sitting on the seat I used to sit on is now asking and now repeatedly asking animal-related questions.”
“Assoc Prof Theseira also asked whether the proposed penalties for the feeding and release of wildlife are appropriate. We took reference from similar offences in other legislation to decide what the appropriate penalty levels would be. For example, under the existing Parks and Trees Regulations, feeding and release of wildlife in parks are already punishable with a fine of up to $5,000. Under the Environmental Public Health Act, repeat littering offenders can be fined up to $10,000. These maximum penalties for Court convictions are different from the smaller composition fines that agencies have the discretion to decide on. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has elaborated on NParks' proposed enforcement approach for feeding and release. If the matter goes to the Courts, the Court will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances in deciding the appropriate penalty. Assoc Prof Theseira also asked under what circumstances would the Director-General (DG) need to grant written approval for feeding wildlife. Sir, in the proposed amendments, we did not ban the feeding of wildlife completely. When we rescue injured wild animals, there may be a need to feed them to lure them into traps. Similarly, during the rehabilitation and release of these rescued wild animals, there might be a need to feed them temporarily after they are released back into the wild. These will be carried out by trained professionals and, under the proposed amendments, would require approvals from the Director-General. Sir, Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the need to clamp down on the feeding of birds and described how he has too many wild birds in his constituency. Both issues are interlinked.”
“But as Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has explained, NParks also has other existing Acts regulating different aspects of wildlife trade. For the amended Wildlife Act, it will be used for regulating wildlife that may cause harm to the public and our local eco-systems. For instance, NParks may not want to allow the import of a poisonous jellyfish, without imposing strict conditions to ensure it is not inadvertently released into the wild. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether there was an overlap between the prohibition against feeding in the Wildlife Act and the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules. Mr Murali is right that the intent is to consolidate the legislation against feeding of wildlife, including wild birds, under the Wildlife Act with higher penalties. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has shared that MND intends to repeal the relevant rules in the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules in due course. This will provide more clarity to the public and help us when we engage our residents to tackle the problem of feeding in our neighbourhoods. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked how the Bill will address wildlife release in religious practices. I will take it that he is referring to the practice of mercy release in particular. The WALRC is aware of this practice and that is why we consulted extensively with religious groups. Mercy release has fallen out of favour with many of them. Captive-bred wildlife, such as those bred for consumption, die quickly in the wild, and those that survive negatively affect our environment and eco-system. As I have shared in my opening speech, to complement the legislative amendments, the WALRC will continue to work with the community on education and outreach efforts surrounding wildlife release.”
“It would not be reasonable for people to have to call in professionals to handle minor pest issues in their own homes. Further, as shared earlier, there will be safeguards to protect threatened species and our eco-systems. I agree with Miss Cheng that we should work towards having clear boundaries on what should and should not be done. The strong public response on this issue has shown me that legislative changes must be complemented with efforts to educate and engage the public. The law must also be applied sensibly, with the overall objective of creating a set of norms and behaviours around how we interact with wildlife, to more sustainably protect wildlife and ourselves. This brings me to Mr Murali Pillai's question on whether there should be blanket approval for those who seek to help wildlife out of kindness. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has shared that NParks will consider the intent and impact of someone's actions, including whether they were trying to prevent further harm, before deciding to prosecute. But let me start with some "norm-changing" now. If you see an injured wild animal, especially something like an eagle, please call NParks or ACRES instead of attempting to rescue the eagle yourself. While we know that many have the best of intentions, untrained human intervention could cause significantly more harm than good. I understand that NParks is actively building up the capacity and capabilities of the wildlife management industry, so rest assured that there will be trained people ready to provide these necessary services. Ms Anthea Ong asked if the definition of "wildlife" extends to all wild marine animals. The answer is yes. She also asked if the Act covers the trade of marine wildlife. The answer is also yes.”
“However, this was the least supported proposal in our public consultations. Members of the public were concerned about the potential abuses of power, as well as the risks faced by volunteers themselves if they were to attempt to confront offenders. Hence, the WALRC will instead rely on a softer approach. We will galvanise volunteers to educate the public on responsible wildlife practices and discourage the feeding and release of wildlife. If volunteers come across offences being committed, they can inform NParks. Sir, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has talked about the downstream implementation of the Bill. I will now address the other points raised by Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yee Chia Hsing, Miss Cheng Li Hui and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. Mr Christopher de Souza asked if the Act would prevent the extermination of pests. As I have mentioned in my opening speech, the intent is not to criminalise the killing and trapping of pests and non-threatened invertebrates, as such activities do not undermine the overall aim of wildlife protection. On the other hand, Miss Cheng Li Hui suggested to remove the burden of proof of intent when it comes to killing, trapping, taking or keeping of wildlife. She raised the example of someone who intended to trap a rat but inadvertently caught a Southeast Asian shrew. I believe the Member thinks that rather than having to consider the intent of a person, we should just prohibit all killing, keeping or taking of wildlife without a permit and leave it only to the professionals. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] I share her concerns. But the implementation of the law has to be practical, balancing wildlife protection with other needs.”
“Specifically, section 43 of the ABA already empowers the Director-General, Animal Health and Welfare, to specify training and qualification requirements for those engaging in prescribed animal-related businesses. I understand that NParks intends to implement this proposal in time and that it will take a phased approach to ensure that the industry has time to adjust, by first focusing on training and capacity building before imposing any formal regulatory requirements. Third, the WALRC proposed having codes of conduct for general activities in nature areas, such as wildlife photography, hiking and camping. There was also strong public support for this but many felt that, for now, these need not be made into laws to be enforced by the authorities. In this regard, the WALRC will work with the community to improve public education on wildlife-related measures. Fourth, the WALRC had initially proposed to remove the Schedule of Specified Wild Animals and Birds, which currently exempts six bird species from protection against killing, trapping and keeping. These are the house crow, feral pigeon, common myna, white-vented myna, purple-backed starling and the Philippine glossy starling. There were public concerns about this and we decided that we will review this again at a later stage. For now, the Schedule will be moved into subsidiary legislation and MND will review the list of birds within it. After discussions with MND and NParks, I understand that the purple-backed starling and the Philippine glossy starling will be removed from the Schedule, as these species are no longer common. Finally, the WALRC considered empowering citizen volunteers to enforce certain offences under the Act, such as the feeding and release of wildlife.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and given their support for this Bill. Sir, allow me to start by briefly outlining five of the WALR's recommendations that are not contained in this Bill before us today. I will then address the points made by Members in this House and members of the public. I will also share the concerns raised by people who do not support this Bill. First, the WALRC recommended repealing the Wild Animals (Licensing) Order. This is an outdated piece of legislation that permitted individuals to keep certain wildlife as pets, so long as they obtained a licence. These animals include kangaroos, bears and pandas. But these animals clearly should not be privately owned. As the Licensing Order is a subsidiary legislation, no Act-level amendment is required, but I am glad to share that MND has agreed to repeal it. Commercial animal establishments, such as zoos, will continue to be regulated under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA). Second, the WALRC proposed ensuring that only trained and qualified individuals can kill and trap wildlife. There was strong public support for this in our consultations. Wildlife management can be risky, such as when workers need to handle snakes in a crowded area. We felt that these workers should be trained to protect wildlife, the public and themselves. The WALRC also consulted the Singapore Pest Management Association and its members, who were supportive of this opportunity to upskill their workers and improve the professionalism of the industry. However, the proposal to regulate wildlife management companies would not require Act-level amendments, as it can already be done under the existing ABA.”
“[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Just in January this year, Minister Chan Chun Sing said “The real competition is Team Singapore, comprising Singaporeans, PRs and foreign workers here, competing with the rest of the world to give our fellow Singaporeans the best chance possible to win, not just in Singapore but across the entire globe." How can we say that we are Team Singapore if we discriminate against certain team members? How will a team work together well if we do not reward the same effort and merit with the same pay? Lastly, the Lift and Escalator Sectoral Tripartite Committee has recommended reviewing the Singapore Standard SS 550, the Code of Practice for lifts, to specify higher lighting levels within the lift shaft to facilitate maintenance work. The Ministry has accepted the recommendations in late 2018. I understand that BCA is also studying the feasibility of improving ventilation within the lift shaft and motor room to create a cooler work environment for the maintenance personnel. Can the Minister share its progress in implementing these recommendations to improve working conditions for lift technicians? Can the Minister also share details on how it intends to implement these other recommendations? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. 2.45 pm”
“What plans does the Ministry have to encourage building owners to include PWD-friendly facilities? Next, the amendments will legislate the PWM for the lift industry. I applaud the efforts to raise the wages of lift maintenance personnel who have to do a very difficult but an essential one. However, the PWM will only apply to Singaporeans and PRs. The reality is that lift companies have a large number of foreigners because of a severe shortage of lift technicians, given the difficult working conditions. Lift technicians who are foreigners are doing jobs that are equally as difficult and equally as dangerous as the jobs Singaporeans and PRs are doing. This is not just an issue of fairness, but one of safety and incentives. Do we want lift technicians who have to ensure the safety of lifts that we all take multiple times a day to feel disgruntled and that their colleague doing the exact same job is paid much higher than he or she is? In October 2018, during the debate on the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill, I spoke about the need to ensure that the PWM will apply to cleaners who are hired directly by an F&B establishment and for foreign cleaners. I highlighted that PWM is about increasing productivity and standards and if we leave out our foreign cleaners from the PWM, bear in mind again that foreign cleaners likely form a bulk of the cleaning sector. This similarly applies to the lift technicians industry. MEWR has encouraged employers to incorporate the principles of progressive wages into the wage structure of their foreign cleaners. Will MND take similar steps to encourage the incorporation of PWM principles into the contracts for foreign lift technicians? Or will the Ministry also consider eventually extending the PWM to cover foreign lift technicians?”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Professionals from the lift industry have shared with me that lift maintenance is known as a "3D" industry – it is dark, dirty and dangerous. I would like to express my appreciation for the lift technicians who work tirelessly in dark, warm lift shafts to ensure that we can enjoy smooth and safe lift rides in our vertical city. I have three clarifications on the Bill relating to: (a) facilities for persons with disabilities (PWDs); (b) the progressive wage model (PWM) framework; and (c) working conditions for lift technicians. The new section 22DA allows the Commissioner of Building Control to require building owners to erect features to facilitate the access to and use of a building by PWDs. I have two concerns here. First, buildings that are used solely for residential purposes or as a factory are excluded from this section 22DA. Can the Minister share the rationale for excluding residential and factory buildings which are premises that PWDs will need to access? If residential and factory buildings are excluded from section 22DA, can the Minister share how it intends to ensure that building owners of residential and factory buildings will install features for access by PWDs? Second, the Commissioner can only require building owners to include features for PWDs if it receives an application from the building owner for approval of plans for the alternation, addition or repair of a relevant building. This will mean that the progress of ensuring that our buildings are PWD-friendly is dependent on the building owners deciding to undertake building works. Can the Minister share whether it has a target for ensuring that most, if not all, buildings in Singapore are PWD-friendly?”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act (Chapter 351 of the 2000 Revised Edition)." [(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]”
“In particular, it seeks to: (a) control the feeding and release of wildlife in Singapore; (b) enable the Director-General, Wildlife Management of NParks to require wildlife-related measures to be implemented to address the impact of developments or works in relation to wildlife; (c) introduce new offences and enhance criminal penalties in the Act; and (d) enhance enforcement powers in the Act. Mr Speaker, this Bill is drafted by the people with feedback and suggestions from the people. As such, I am happy to introduce this Bill on behalf of the people and animals. I have waited a long time to say this. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill intituled An Act to amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act (Chapter 351 of the 2000 Revised Edition)." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Miss Cheng Li Hui. (proc text)] Sir, after more than two years of work by the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee (WALRC), I am proud to say that we are now ready to move the Bill. The WALRC comprises of representatives from the nature community, animal welfare community, the Singapore Pest Management Association, the Pet Enterprise and Traders Association of Singapore, the Buddhist Federation, academic and legal community and the Nee Soon East Youth Network. It has been a privilege chairing this committee and having meetings where we argue passionately, agree to disagree and work together so that we can have a stronger piece of legislation. We conducted extensive public consultations over the past two years. We started with a face-to-face public consultation, followed by an online consultation on REACH where we received over 1,000 responses. This was followed by another round of face-to-face public consultation. We also held closed-door consultations with the pest management companies and separately with religious leaders and also obtained feedback from the MND Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members. Later this month, we will publish a post-consultation summary online and on REACH. I thank the WALRC for their hard work, and also thankful for the strong support and help from MND and NParks. Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to strengthen the protection, preservation and management of wildlife for the purpose of maintaining a healthy eco-system and safeguarding of public safety and health.”
“Thank you, Sir. This feedback actually came from a visually-impaired person who came to a dialogue session. He was sharing how at the Yishun Integrated Transport Hub, it really is very good. And I tried it. If you close your eyes, you can walk there, following the tactile paving. But his question was, it is very hard for him to get to there, to use the tactile paving because at the Northpoint City, there is no tactile paving. I understand we are encouraging the building owners to provide these for the visually-impaired but I am just wondering whether we can perhaps make it compulsory so that the visually-impaired can find it easier to get around.”
“Sir, the follow-up question to my second point – what is MOH doing to help the inmates who have been released? We are saying that a year from their release date, they have very high potential of being infected with Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV, surely, MOH should have a programme to help these inmates following their release.”
“I do understand we are following WHO guidelines. But WHO says prisons are extremely high-risk environments for transmission of HIV due to over-crowding, poor nutrition, limited access to healthcare, continued drug use, unsafe injecting practices, unprotected sex and tattooing. This might be representative of other prisons, but can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether this is representative of the Singapore prisons? And having myself visited the prisons, I am quite sure that this is not. If it is not, then why do we follow the WHO guidelines when our prisons are not the same as other prisons? The second clarification is, if we really do believe that the Singapore Prison is an area where there is high infections, then, surely, MOH should be doing something to protect our inmates against HIV, Hepatitis B which we can vaccinate against, and Hepatitis C, rather than the stigma of the ex-offender coming out and then, going to try and donate blood, and the doctor says, "No, you can't because you are an ex-offender." And that is a real-life example because it was an ex-offender who emailed me after coming to my blood donation drive in Nee Soon East and being turned away.”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I understand that we teach the students at SAP schools about other cultures, other languages and that there is social mixing between the schools. But could I ask what would be MOE's efforts to ensure that there is social mixing within the school?”
“Sir, last year I asked the Ministry to consider requiring divorce rulings to specify which parent can list their child as an essential occupier in HDB flat applications. The reply was that parents with shared care and control arrangements have equal rights to list their child as an essential occupier and they should come to a mutually agreeable decision themselves. That is ideal but the reality is that a divorcing couple might find it hard to cooperate on an issue as contentious as housing. Divorce rulings already decide on custody, care and control and division of matrimonial assets, which are equally contentious. Why not housing? Can MSF clarify what each parent awarded care and control is expected to provide in terms of housing for the child? Is a parent's ability to provide housing a factor in awarding care and control to that parent? For the welfare of the child, can MSF require divorce rulings that award shared care and control to also state which party is allowed to list the child as an essential occupier in their application to buy a subsidised HDB flat? Providing Single Unweds Full Baby Bonus Next, the parent who needs the cash component of the Baby Bonus the most is the one who does not qualify for it. Why? With a median salary of only $600 a month, single unwed parents under 35 years old clearly need the cash. They can get the cash if they marry the father or mother of their child and then file for a divorce. But why do we want fellow citizens to marry someone they do not want to marry and jump through so many hoops to get something they should get? They already receive the CDA component of the Baby Bonus, so why not the cash component? Let us end the discrimination and provide single unwed parents with a cash component of the Baby Bonus.”