Tan Kiat How
Singapore
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier I spoke about the policy objective of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, and we have remained consistent and united on this objective over the years. The question is our measures – how might we show some flexibility when it comes to movie screenings?”
“Sir, I can take the Member's question first, about the institutional arrangement. IMDA works very closely with different Government agencies including the NHB. In fact, we work closely on films, the classification of films. So, there is no need for an explicit institution arrangement as they are already doing so.”
“These are the primary objectives, but we will continue to see how we can think about meaningful information for family members. I know family members when they put their loved ones in nursing homes, there is a range of factors they consider.”
“These are lessons we have learned and we will make sure that those lessons would be incorporated in our standard operating procedures in our approach next time. Lastly, I just want to thank the Member for coming by at least a few times to my constituency to speak to my merchants, the hawkers, the residents.”
“For example, there are no dialect restrictions for arts performances or content available on the Internet and online streaming services. On free-to-air television and radio, we believe that Mandarin should continue to be the mainstay.”
“If there is more demand, we will discuss it with the film distributor and see how we can provide additional flexibility. But we will take a review as it comes along and it is certainly something for which we will speak to all members, industry partners, community partners about, and take their views on board.”
The complete record
Every one of 514 lines we hold for Tan Kiat How, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 11.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take the next two questions, Question Nos 18 and 19, together please?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for the clarification. I think he reflects the tensions that we all face as advisors and as Members of Parliament on the ground. Different segments of the community, different segments of our residents, have different desires and preferences. And, oftentimes, as Government agencies, we do want to work with the local advisors and, in this case, the Town Council, to see how we can amicably resolve it. Removing the rooster may be one option but there are many other ways of finding ways of accommodating. For example, if it is about rooster crowing – some roosters crow even when the sun is not rising, thinking that the sun rises because of it – we can consider managing the noise by relocating the rooster or, in the case of private estate homes, to encourage owners to cover the pen with a cloth, so that the roosters do not crow or fight with one another. There are many ways to tackle the issue. Ultimately, the assurance that we give to members of the public and our residents is that we want to work together with them, different segments of the community. At the end of the day, it is about our home, our neighbourhood, and we want to see how we can work together.”
“Just to clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker. Was the rooster removed by NParks? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I believe it was by the Town Council, in collaboration with NParks.”
“Yes, I am surprised there is a fair bit of interest around chickens today. On Assoc Prof Lim's first supplementary question, indeed, we do not resort to fines and enforcement penalties as a first resort. Often, if it is a community case, we do want to bring the different parties together, especially the advisors with the grassroots volunteers, the community leaders and the neighbours, to come together to talk about it and see how we can come to an accommodation, especially about chickens in private residential properties. There is no intent to go after any students or anyone who hatch chickens at home. That is not the intent. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate that from NParks' point of view, it is really about public health, safeguarding all of our health, especially when it comes to zoonotic diseases. And secondly, whether the animal is treated well or if there is abuse or cruelty – the issue of animal welfare. On Assoc Prof Lim's second supplementary question around the community rooster, perhaps I could seek a clarification from Assoc Prof Lim, just to understand a bit more about where he is coming from and the specific case he cited in Sengkang, because I am not familiar with it. Is it something the Member is supportive of – to have the community rooster, but for it to be better taken care of, or is he asking NParks to come and do something about the rooster? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just to clarify, in the end, as you can imagine, in the community situation, there are those that are pro-rooster and anti-rooster. As it turns out, in the end, the rooster was removed. But I am wondering whether NParks has standard advice for this kind of situations.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I think there are a few parts to that question that I think is useful for me to clarify. One is the role of NParks, which looks at this from the point of view of public health concerns. We know there are diseases that can jump from animal hosts to humans – zoonotic diseases – and this is something we pay a lot of attention to. The other concern, from NParks' point of view, is really about the welfare of the animals – whether there are abuses or cruelty to animals. Those are the things that NParks looks after. In terms of HDB, it is more specific to HDB's Memorandum of Lease. Flat owners are not allowed to keep any animal and not allowed to keep chickens under the Memorandum of Lease in the flat, or any part of the common area of the building, unless approved by HDB. And to add on to the point that Mr Ng is also alluding to, instances of HDB residents keeping chickens in the flats are actually rare. If there are such cases, please let us know, we will work with the agencies to advise the owners to make alternative arrangements to home the chickens.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not track the number of chickens in houses. Just to clarify the point in the Member's question, I said that over the last five years, as asked by the Member, a total of 2,400 pieces of feedback were about chickens in HDB estates and 1,700 pieces of feedback in the last five years were for private residential estates. Just to clarify the point. Whether we will see more chickens, I do not know. Personally, I have not come across many of such cases. NParks, HDB and MND do not track the number of chickens we have in residential properties in Singapore. As for the Member's question on whether most of these issues have been resolved, I think many of them are between neighbours, especially when you are talking about the feedback around chickens in private residential estates. We do not track how many have gone to the Community Mediation Centre and how many have been resolved through that process, but we understand that many of the complaints are between neighbours and, together with the local advisors, they come together and talk through the issues as a community.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, from 2017 to 2021, agencies and Town Councils received a total of about 2,400 and 1,700 pieces of feedback about chickens in HDB and private residential estates respectively. To mitigate the risk of avian disease and to safeguard human and animal health, we, generally, limit the number of poultry that can be reared on any premises on a non-commercial basis to 10. But for HDB flats, the rule is stricter and the keeping of poultry is not allowed for public health reasons and to manage disamenities. When HDB gets complaints about chicken rearing in HDB flats, we work closely with agencies to engage the flat owners to make alternative arrangements to rehome their chickens where necessary. Private residential owners who keep chickens on their property are also urged to do their part to minimise any inconveniences to their neighbours, such as noise and smell. Under the Community Dispute Management Framework, disputing parties can seek mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or, in more intractable cases, refer the matter to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal. NParks will continue to work with our partners to raise public awareness on responsible pet ownership. NParks and HDB review pet ownership policies regularly to safeguard public health, while balancing the needs of different segments of the community.”
“In terms of the hackers, I presume Mr Lim is asking in relation to the Computer Misuse Act – rather than the Personal Data Protection Act. Sorry, I thought he was referring to the PDPA and the PDPC. The Computer Misuse Act was last amended in 2018 and we are consistently making sure it remains effective. It was already amended in 2017 to allow the authorities to handle the increasing scale and complexity of cybercrimes, which include hacking, as Mr Lim alluded to, as well as the evolving tactics of cybercriminals. One of the notable amendments was the criminalised act of dealing in hacked personal information. On the specifics of the hackers being caught and some of the penalties that have been meted out, I do not have the specific information now because it is under the Computer Misuse Act. If Mr Lim is interested, do file a separate Parliamentary Question and we will take it up.”
“It is a fundamental principle of the PDPA – the organisations have to take responsibility for personal data under their possession or control. They have to be answerable to not just the regulatory authorities, their business partners, but, importantly, to the individuals and their clients and customers whose data is being entrusted to be kept under the control or possession of the organisation or business. So, to Mr Lim's point on whether we are satisfied, I think this is something we have to continue working on. I call on all businesses and organisations – and I encourage them – to take this seriously. There are many resources and toolkits available on the website, including many different schemes, to help businesses start on their journey or enhance their cybersecurity or personal data protection. In terms of transparency, as Mr Lim alluded to, we have the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) that publishes all the different decisions on the data breaches investigations on their website. This is not just to have a salutary impact on other businesses and organisations to take this seriously, but also for other businesses and organisations to understand the good practices of where other organisations have come short and to incorporate some of these good practices into their operations and business environment. I encourage all businesses to take a look at what has been published on PDPC's website on the breaches around the PDPC regulatory regime.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for raising pertinent points and it is an appreciation of the context that we are operating in. More businesses, more industries and individuals are spending more time online; we are putting our personal data in different systems; we are transacting more online in terms of B2B transactions, B2B2C and across P2P as well. So, it is the nature of our times that we get more digital and more online. That is why we see an increased focus on the need for good cybersecurity and data protection measures. In fact, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) was updated and amended in 2020, a couple of years ago, to reflect this growing trend that we see. And one important update to the PDPA was the enhancement of the penalty framework, which took effect from 1 October 2022. Previously, the financial penalty cap which may be imposed on organisations for breaches under the PDPA was up to $1 million. With the amendment and update, which came into effect on 1 October 2022, it is up to 10% of an organisation's annual turnover in Singapore or organisations with annual local turnover exceeding $10 million, whichever is higher. This signals the Government's and I think our economy and society's focus on good data protection. Having said that, I think going after the organisations after the data breach is almost like catching the horse after the barn door has opened and the horse has dashed out. What is more important is ex ante practices to even prevent the data from being exfiltrated or taken out of the organisation. That is where the important philosophy and the fundamental principle of the amendment of the PDPA in 2020 put emphasis on that, which is about accountability.”
“Minister Desmond Lee will be launching our Forward Singapore engagements later this month and we hope that everyone will participate actively, giving us ideas, suggestions and co-develop these solutions together but, importantly, co-create solutions that bring Singapore together and bring Singapore forward, while balancing the needs of various groups of people for housing aspirations.”
“And to Mr Louis Chua's point about lowering the age eligibility from 35 today to 28 for the housing market for singles, this is an issue that we have discussed before. We are looking at it and, certainly, many Singaporeans have also suggested this idea of lowering the age limit and eligibility criterion as part of our long-term plan review conversations. We will, certainly, engage these issues as part of our Forward Singapore discussions. But there are considerations that still remain – there are binding constraints in terms of land resources as well as implications on the housing market with enhanced demand. We have to bear in mind that supply is inelastic while demand can change very quickly. That might lead to high prices and those at the margins – especially those vulnerable singles like the elderly singles, single parents and those in need of housing urgently – might be squeezed out. So, these are considerations that we have to bear in mind. In conclusion, let me sum up by just thanking Mr Louis Chua for recognising many of the moves and efforts that we have made as the Government to accommodate the needs, aspirations and wants of Singaporeans. This is certainly something that we will continue to work towards as part of the Forward Singapore exercise. We will engage Singaporeans on their housing needs and aspirations and discuss how we can each play our part to build an inclusive home for our families and loved ones. Singaporeans' housing needs will become more diverse as our society becomes more diverse. And housing is so much a core part of families, society and the social compact between the Government and our citizens, between each of us in society and across generations.”
“I think this shows that the market is functioning and responding agilely to consumer demand and preferences. This is an important part of the entire housing market. It is not just public housing and private housing, but also commercial providers with rental options. We will continue to review developments holistically and comprehensively and assess if there would be ways to work with the private actors to meet the demand from youths and singles.”
“In 2013, we opened access for singles to purchase new 2-room flats from HDB under the Single Singapore Citizen (SSC) scheme. We have also raised the allocation quota for these 2-room flats in 2015, from 30% to 50% of the non-senior quota in the non-mature estates. And because we still see a fairly strong broad-based increase in housing demand across all groups, including singles, which Mr Louis Chua spoke about, we have further increased the quotas to better support all first-timers, including singles. Specifically, we raised the non-senior quota from 50% to 65% with effect from the August 2022 BTO exercise. And eligible first-timer singles can also qualify for various housing grants – up to $40,000 for a new flat purchase and $80,000 for a resale flat purchase. We have taken steps to adjust, to finetune our policies, trying to meet the needs and aspirations of all Singaporeans within the constraints of the land and resources that we have. There is also another trend that we have observed where more singles and young couples are renting. There is a vibrant rental market, with a wide variety of both public and private options. Some of these are provided by seniors or families who are renting out their rooms or flats to supplement their income and retirement adequacy. An increasingly popular housing trend, especially amongst the youths, is in the form of co-living or shared housing arrangements with common facilities. These spaces are attractive as they provide the flexibility of shorter-term rental contracts. Some even provide housekeeping services and fully furnished rooms. We see many commercial providers stepping up with innovative offerings that cater to the diverse range of needs for singles and youths.”
“On young couples, which Mr Louis Chua talked about, I am glad that Mr Louis Chua has recognised the many moves and steps that we have taken in terms of giving first-time couples priority, including in this recent August BTO launch as well as stepping up and enhancing the various grants and support that we give to first-time couples. We are also taking steps to raise the housing supply. We are working hard, working with the construction industry that has been severely impacted because of the COVID-19 pandemic to ramp up BTO supply to 100,000 flats till 2025, if demand and circumstances warrant it. Mr Louis Chua spoke about the demand for BTO flats. We monitor this situation very carefully. Although the application numbers have risen and increased, four in 10 of the applicants did not choose a flat when invited to do so. We are monitoring the supply situation, application rates and the locations where application rates are elevated. In terms of affordability, I would like to assure Singaporeans that this is an important consideration for HDB and the Government. We have looked at the statistics. Most first-timers only need to use less than a quarter of their monthly income to pay for their loan instalments. In fact, most of them can service their housing loans using their monthly CPF contributions, with little or no cash outlay. I would like to address a second group of people that Mr Louis Chua spoke about. He talked about singles and the need to cater to their needs, aspirations and wants. I am glad that Mr Louis Chua has also recognised that, over the years, the Government has been trying to accommodate and support their needs. More recently, we have also made changes to the BTO allocation quota.”
“Younger Singaporeans have also shared with us that they value their own personal space and would like to stay by themselves, even if it is rental, on a temporary basis. Many of them still wish to own their homes eventually. We hear these views, aspirations and needs. We take them seriously and feed them into our Long-Term Plan Review, which was recently launched and exhibited at the URA Centre. We have received many valuable feedback and suggestions, some of which are quite similar to what Mr Louis Chua has raised today. We are studying those suggestions carefully and we are engaging Singaporeans as part of the Forward Singapore exercise. We would want to meet the needs of all Singaporeans, their aspirations and their wants if we can. But we have limited land and resources and would have to prioritise and allocate within these constraints. So, I thank Mr Louis Chua for recognising these constraints and recognising the very difficult stresses and strains the Government has to deal with. That is why we need to prioritise public housing for those who have more urgent housing needs, for example, implementing income eligibility criteria for BTO for married couples as well as for singles. I would like to address a couple of points that Mr Louis Chua has raised. Before that, I would like to assure Singaporeans that even as we engage all of you as part of the Forward Singapore exercise, we have already taken steps to address the concerns raised by various demographic groups and various segments of Singaporeans. We are closely monitoring the situation, to assess if other measures are needed.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, firstly, let me thank Mr Louis Chua for raising his perspectives on the housing issue. I would like to assure Singaporeans that ensuring affordable and accessible housing for Singaporeans has always been an important priority for this Government. Today, almost nine in 10 Singaporeans own a flat – one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. At the same time, we are keenly aware that housing preferences and aspirations change over time and across different life stages of families and individuals. Therefore, MND and HDB have been actively engaging Singaporeans to understand their needs and aspirations, as also reflected in Mr Louis Chua's theme for the Adjournment Motion – "housing needs for Singaporeans". And we have been listening to Singaporeans, hearing their views and taking in their suggestions. Most recently, as part of the year-long Long-Term Plan Review (LTPR), we have heard from over 15,000 people from all walks of life. Seniors shared with us that they would like to age-in-place in the neighbourhood that they are familiar with. Working adults shared with us that they would like to have workplaces closer to home to minimise commute and to have the flexibility to reconfigure their flats to provide more space as more of them work from home. Couples with young children told with us they would like to live near their family so that grandchildren can be taken care of by their grandparents. Young couples wanting to get married and settle down shared with us their anxieties of getting a flat at an affordable price, especially in a bullish property market. Singles, especially those older singles, shared with us that they would like to get a place of their own near their ageing parents so that they can better care for their elderly parents.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the short answer to the Member Ms He Ting Ru's question is yes. Mitigating UHI effect, both in our residential areas, community spaces and industrial areas, is something that the MND family is looking at very carefully and part of our design considerations. And to add on to a point – Ms He Ting Ru mentioned the research of the Cooling Singapore project. Just to share with Ms He that it is not just about the covered spaces, but we are also looking at the outdoor thermal comfort and outdoor shading for Singaporeans as they go about their different activities outdoors. For example, NParks is collaborating with researchers from the NRF-funded project, "Cooling Singapore 2.0", to study the impact of greenery on urban heat mitigation, specifically on tree shapes, planting configurations and size of green spaces. I am actually very heartened that the recent modelling study of trees in HDB residential precincts preliminarily shows that trees with large canopies, such as umbrella- and oblong-shaped trees, are more effective in improving outdoor thermal comfort. In addition, increasing the tree planting densities, which we are doing under our OneMillionTrees movement, will lead to further improvements in outdoor thermal comfort. And studies by other researchers have also shown that our structured multi-tiered planting – managed trees over shrubs, multi-layers of canopy – can reduce mid-day temperatures by up to 0.9 degrees Celsius. So, holistically, we are not just looking at the design of indoor spaces, community spaces, facades of buildings, windows, ventilation, wind flow, but we are also looking at using greenery, which are nature-based solutions, to achieve outdoor and indoor cooling.”
“I thank the Member Ms Hany Soh for her questions. I fully agree that windows are a very important part of the HDB living residential unit. As earlier mentioned, the flow of the wind and the natural ventilation are important strategies to keep the thermal temperature within units comfortable for the residents. We will certainly look into the suggestions by Ms Hany Soh – about the use of double-glazed windows to minimise heat transfers. These are some of the areas that we are always studying with the research institutes, as well as our partners. Perhaps, just to give a little bit more assurance to Ms Hany Soh, I will explain how we design windows. Today, windows are provided with canopies, which provide sun shading and shielding from rain. The windows are also designed with larger, openable panels, as well as smaller top hung windows, such that the large panels are closed during heavy rain, while the top hung windows can still be opened slightly to provide natural ventilation within the flat. So, windows and how they are designed and the ventilation flows arising from that, are important design considerations for HDB.”
“A specific example includes orienting the HDB buildings in the North-South direction and requiring 45% to 60% green cover in new estates to ensure sufficient greenery to create a comfortable living environment for all Singaporeans.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member Dr Tan Wu Meng for his question. At the heart of it, I think he is asking whether HDB plans for the thermal comfort of residents as a priority. I would like to assure Dr Tan that it is indeed so. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that we look at the environmental modelling and wind flow, and we consider how the occupants of an HDB building can be comfortable, even during the day. We do not take the assumption that everybody switches on their air-conditioning. And perhaps, an additional assurance to Dr Tan, that the HDB Green Towns Programme looks at a 10-year plan to make HDB towns more sustainable and liveable. To his question about the energy consumption of HDB towns, it is something that we are concerned about. The HDB Green Towns Programme, which I mentioned, focuses on reducing energy consumption, recycling rainwater and cooling HDB towns. We aim to reduce the energy consumption in HDB towns by 15% from 2020's level, by 2030. I would like to add on about thermal comfort. We look at passive strategies in the design of these buildings to optimise thermal comfort. Like I mentioned, we do not make the assumption that everybody switches on the air-conditioning. Thus far, wind flow is the main focus of HDB's effort in thermal comfort design. For new towns and estates, HDB conducts environmental modelling to site the new flats – I mentioned about the North-South facing earlier – but also, we look at the building design facades and in refining the building layouts, the room layouts, to maximise the wind corridors and optimise wind flow.”
“We will continue planting more trees across Singapore under the OneMillionTrees movement, to mitigate the effects of climate change and provide Singaporeans with a more liveable and sustainable environment. We are also working with Institutes of Higher Learning to examine the cooling effects of various tree typologies and planting configurations. We will also deploy an island-wide network of sensors to monitor the cooling effects of our tree planting efforts. The data collected will support microclimatic research in Singapore and help NParks develop better greening strategies to cool Singapore. In summary, the Government takes a broad-based holistic approach that will help all segments of the population cope with rising temperatures. Dealing with the impacts of climate change requires collective action and community resilience. Together, we will ensure that as a nation, we can adapt, adjust and remain resilient in the face of climate change.”
“For existing towns, HDB is conducting a pilot study on cool paint which could absorb less heat and reduce the ambient temperature of HDB blocks. Past trials have shown a reduction of ambient temperatures by up to 2 degrees Celsius. The pilot is expected to be completed in 2024. Based on the study's outcomes, HDB will consider extending the use of cool paint to more estates. Under the HDB Green Towns Programme, which covers all existing HDB towns, HDB is introducing greenery to the top decks of selected multi-storey carparks (MSCPs) in the form of urban farms, community gardens, or rooftop greenery using the Prefabricated Extensive Green (PEG) Roof Tray System based on the suitability of the carparks. These efforts also aim to reduce ambient temperature. We are also intensifying greenery in our industrial estates, which are amongst the hotter areas in Singapore. To date, nearly 90,000 trees have been planted in our industrial estates under the OneMillionTrees movement, with the help of our partners and the community. These trees are planted to resemble the look and feel of natural forests, to provide pedestrians with shade and respite from the heat. These efforts have helped to beautify and cool industrial estates, such as Jurong Island, Seletar Aerospace Park and Tuas Industrial Estate, to create greener and more conducive workplaces. We aim to increase the total number of trees across our industrial estates from 180,000 trees today, to about 260,000 trees by 2030. Studies have shown that intensified tree planting in Singapore can reduce mid-day temperatures in the surrounding areas by up to 0.9 degrees Celsius.”
“Let me elaborate on the specific measures we have put in place to cool the environment and address the urban heat island, or UHI, effect in our neighbourhoods, community spaces and industrial estates. Prof Koh Lian Pin asked about the progress and impact of our initiatives to reduce ambient temperatures, such as the introduction of greenery on the top decks of our multi-storey carparks, the use of cool paint on HDB blocks, and the planting of trees in our industrial estates. He also asked whether we select specific tree species or vegetation to provide the most optimal cooling benefits. Dr Tan Wu Meng asked if studies have been conducted on ambient interior temperatures of HDB flats across different times of the day and weather conditions, and if we consider temperature trends in designing new HDB projects. As Minister Grace Fu earlier highlighted, the Government adopts a science-based and proactive approach to various aspects of climate adaptation, including the rise in temperatures. BCA requires buildings to be designed to limit heat gain from the exterior, which helps to improve thermal comfort for building occupants. BCA's Green Mark scheme also recognises buildings that implement UHI mitigation measures, such as applying cool paints and providing greenery. In the design of HDB projects, HDB currently deploys various strategies to optimise thermal comfort. For example, our HDB buildings are predominantly oriented in the North-South direction to reduce heat gain. For new towns and estates, HDB conducts environmental modelling to site new flats, design building facades and refine building layouts to harness existing wind corridors and optimise wind flow.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 5 to 7 together, please?”
“So, to Mr Louis Ng's second clarification, just to assure him, we are looking into this area. [(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. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Kiat How]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Louis Ng raised two points, one about the insertion of the explicit mention of buying as an offence under the Act. As I explained earlier, it is an offence to possess or facilitate the sale of illegally-traded CITES species. And we have actually enforced these levers, previously under the existing Act, even today. On the other hand, I think we are also mindful of sending a signal that actually there are many people in the general public who may not be able to recognise what is a CITES listed species, what is a non-CITES listed species, what was illegally traded or not, and we do not want to send the wrong signal to those members of the public as well. So, I just want to assure the Member that we have considered this carefully, as part of the public consultation feedback that I personally had with many of the NGOs and many of the focus groups. I understand the concerns and I think if there is an issue about signalling to consumers and buyers that they have to be careful and be mindful of what they purchase and where they purchase from, that I agree. And we continue do public education and awareness and consumer awareness campaigns. We will continue to work on those issues. The second point that he raised was around the reward for the informers. I mentioned in my clarification that we are exploring and reviewing this framework and we are not closed to this idea. So, give us some time, we are looking into this. It is an important area and that is why we have moved in this Act, in this amendment, to protect the identity of such informers because we rely on tip-offs and many of these informants to give us the tip-offs and the information for us to do our operations and enforcement.”
“Overall, the amendments will help to strengthen our regulations for the trade of CITES species and to enhance our penalties and enforcement powers against such illegal trade. Weeding out illegal trade in CITES-listed species requires the concerted effort of all stakeholders. The fight also goes beyond Singapore and requires strong cooperation at the bilateral, regional and international levels. We will continue to partner with the international community and with local stakeholders and the community, to combat illegal wildlife trade and safeguard our planet's natural heritage. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have answered and addressed all the questions and suggestions from Members. I beg to move.”
“I also thank Mr Louis Ng for sharing with us your position paper that you have put together with academics and NGOs and I have shared that with my fellow colleagues. We will review and assess these with the relevant agencies. Beyond legislation and enforcement, we agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that public education and outreach is key in combating illegal wildlife trade and in safeguarding animal health and welfare in Singapore. We will continue to engage the community to raise awareness on Singapore's role on this front, and in turn, reduce demand for illegally sourced wildlife products in Singapore, including those sold on virtual platforms. For example, we have embarked on webinars and exhibitions to educate the public on the best practices as consumers, such as how they can identify and purchase legal CITES products. NParks and the World Wide Fund for Nature-Singapore have jointly organised roundtable discussions with the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online, which includes digital platforms such as Facebook, or Meta, TikTok, Lazada and Carousell, to raise awareness on the illegal sale of exotic pets online. In January this year, they also jointly engaged over 80 representatives from the shipping industry, to share best practices for tackling the illegal trade in wildlife. Last but not least, NParks involves youths in efforts to tackle illegal wildlife trade as part of its Youth Stewards for Nature programme, which I mentioned earlier. Mr Deputy Speaker sir, let me conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support and suggestions, and our partners and stakeholders for their feedback and support in our review of ESA.”
“Today, NParks oversees various Acts which deal with different aspects of animal-related policies. ESA regulates the trade of animal and plant species listed under the CITES in Singapore. This primarily tackles the international trade in the species and affirms our international commitment as a Party to CITES. The Wildlife Act, on the other hand, ensures the protection, preservation and management of Singapore's wildlife. So, these pieces of legislation have different but complementary functions and they come together to support our efforts to safeguard animal health and welfare. It is important that we have a strong and robust legislative framework underpinning our efforts to tackle wildlife crime. This is why we continue to review and update our legislation. The Wildlife Act, previously named the Wild Animals and Birds Act, was amended and came into force in June 2020. And now, we are also amending ESA, to keep pace with the times and ensure that we can continue to effectively combat all forms of illegal wildlife trade in Singapore. Let me now move on to other issues that were raised on tackling illegal wildlife trade beyond ESA's scope. To enhance our levers to combat illegal wildlife trade, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Ng asked for illegal wildlife trade to be recognised as a serious organised crime in Singapore. I thank the Members for their suggestions. The Organised Crime Act provides law enforcement agencies powers to act against organised crime and is focused on criminalising activities that are of greatest concern to Singapore. I note Mr Louis Ng's points on the potential threats of illegal wildlife trade to public health, wildlife ecology and its use in international money laundering. These are valid considerations.”
“Allow me just to clarify with Mr Leon Perera, that CITES currently, in the world, is the only international agreement under the United Nations framework that regulates the trade of endangered species. It is the international body, to which almost all countries have signed up, to enforce regulations for sustainable trade in these endangered species. So, CITES is the main vehicle in which these rules and regulations are enforced and implemented across the world. The intent of ESA is to give effect to Singapore's obligations as a CITES Party, and to enforce these rules as a responsible member of CITES. On his point about taking leadership in ASEAN, I am very glad to share with Mr Leon Perera, that indeed, we are taking leadership as far as we can within the region. For example, earlier in my speech, I said that we set up the Centre for Wildlife Forensics, which became a CITES reference laboratory. In March earlier this year, NParks' youth stewards, under the Youth Stewards for Nature programme, also organised a World Wildlife Day Regional Youth Symposium, bringing youths from across the region, come together to discuss these issues, think about solutions and work together as one community. So, indeed, we are playing our part in the region and taking our leadership role as well as we can with our members in our region and I welcome all the young people sitting up there too to join our programmes. Let me just touch on the last part of the questions that were raised by the various Members, which were on the overall scope of ESA. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the scope of ESA could be expanded to include non-CITES species, or streamlined with the Wildlife Act, to regulate all wildlife matters in Singapore.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked if we could include a reward to incentivise informers to make reports, drawn from fines imposed under ESA. I thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. Indeed, NParks will receive tip-offs from time to time to enforce against illegal wildlife trafficking and that is why we have made amendments to protect the identity of these informers, which may encourage more persons to provide information about such illegal activities. We are in the midst of exploring the feasibility of a reward programme, to further encourage informers to step forward. We are reviewing the approaches taken by other agencies, such as the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore. We will continue to explore the implementation of such a programme administratively. Let me also take the chance to clarify a few points that were raised by Mr Leon Perera, one of which regarding the Bengal Cat. Mr Leon Perera, I think, may have misinterpreted or heard my earlier speech wrongly. The Bengal Cat is a cross between the wild Asian Leopard Cat, a CITES-listed species, and a domestic cat. Today, traders are not required to produce a permit in the ESA when trading Bengal Cats, but traders have been cooperative and are doing so. Moving forward, when the amendments to the Act come into force, it will be a requirement in the ESA for traders to provide these permits for the trade of such Bengal Cats. So, just to clarify the point that Mr Leon Perera raised just now. The second point that Mr Leon Perera also raised was about going beyond the CITES agreement to have, for example, reverse listings, and to include different species that are not currently listed in the CITES appendices.”
“Today, NParks works closely with the industry, such as e-commerce platforms and online auction houses, to combat the illegal trade of CITES species online. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested we hold the digital platforms accountable for removing content advertising and facilitating the sale of illegally traded CITES species. We regularly engage these platforms to raise awareness on the impacts of illegal wildlife trade and educate these stakeholders on how they can contribute to our efforts to prevent the online trade of these products. Thus far, the industry has been cooperative and committed to prevent the illegal sale of these products on their platforms. Mr Yip referenced the Digital Services Act. The European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on this set of new rules only earlier this year and from what we understand, it has not been formally approved. We will continue to monitor this space. NParks also works closely with enforcement agencies and international organisations, tapping on their expertise and experience, to complement its capabilities and resources in tracking down illegal wildlife traders online. For example, NParks works with the Singapore Police Force to extract information from digital devices that may be helpful in our investigations. NParks also has a group of well-trained enforcement officers to tackle illegal wildlife trade. These officers are trained in the implementation of CITES provisions, the identification of CITES species, investigative methods and the use of technology to aid enforcement. Their officers also attend international conferences and workshops, including those organised by INTERPOL on combatting cyber-enabled wildlife crime, to keep up with developments in this field, as well as to share best practices with one another.”
“Whether CITES species can be kept as pets is based on several factors, including the potential impact to animal and public health, animal welfare, environmental impact and public safety. NParks regularly reviews the suitability of these wildlife species as pets. So, apart from regulating the wildlife trade in Singapore, we also regulate the keeping of wildlife as pets to safeguard animal health and welfare. We also aim to maintain a balanced ecosystem, which can be disrupted when non-native wildlife is illegally abandoned or released into our green and blue spaces. NParks receives tip-offs and monitors online and social media platforms for cases of illegally kept wildlife and will not hesitate to take strict action. For example, in 2020, NParks charged an individual for the illegal possession and sale of a boa constrictor, which is listed in CITES Appendix II, on the online messaging service, Telegram. The individual was later fined $1,000. With the amendments proposed in this Bill, such offenders will be subject to stiffer penalties, including a monetary fine of up to $100,000 and a maximum imprisonment term of up to six years for the sale and advertisement of illegally traded CITES species. This is in addition to our work with enforcement agencies and the industry to ensure that all CITES species are legally traded in Singapore. Our partnerships also play an important role to enhance our measures to combat illegal wildlife trade, including to bolster our capabilities to effectively tackle new forms of illegal wildlife trade, such as the recent shift of the trade on to online platforms, as Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted. Let me just touch on this item as part of our investigation and enforcement regime under ESA.”
“I would like to assure Members that NParks will continue to be vigilant on this front and exercise these levers to tackle this issue. At the same time, we are mindful that there may also be persons who are unsuspecting purchasers of illegally traded CITES species. Most of the general public might not be able to differentiate between CITES species and non-CITES species, much less be able to verify if the species was traded legally. Hence, we aim to tackle this issue upstream. NParks conducts regular checks on businesses and individuals who sell CITES species to ensure that they have the relevant permits for the species. Just last year, NParks carried out two island-wide operations and seized more than 90 wildlife specimens, including some CITES species, from sellers who had listed them on social media and e-commerce platforms. These online sellers did not have the relevant permits for the CITES species. So, I would like to assure Members that we are paying close attention to such illegally traded CITES species on online platforms, including e-commerce platforms. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if online sellers would be prosecuted as a business or commercial entity even if they did not have a business registration. In the case that I just mentioned, based on NParks' investigations, the online sellers were persons who were keeping the wildlife as pets or breeding them at home for sale. They are individuals with no registered businesses and will be dealt with accordingly under ESA. Also, in response to Mr Yip's comments, I would like to clarify that there are CITES species that can be kept as pets in Singapore but only with permission and the relevant permits from NParks.”
“At the same time, we are mindful that the penalties need to be proportionate to the offence and are broadly consistent with other domestic legislation as well as comparable with our neighbours. I would like to assure Members that we will continue to review our penalty framework to ensure that they serve as a sufficient deterrent against illegal wildlife trade. Members have also pointed out that it would be important to reduce consumer demand for illegally traded CITES species by targeting buyers. Although buyers of illegally traded CITES species can already be penalised under the Act, Members such as Mr Louis Ng suggested to explicitly include the act of buying as an offence in the Act. This was also a suggestion raised during our public consultation exercise, which we have considered carefully. Although "buying" is not explicitly set out as an offence in our legislation, Mr Yip Hon Weng has also pointed out there are other levers that penalise buyers of illegally traded CITES species. And NParks has taken enforcement action using these levers. For example, under section 4 of ESA, any person in possession of a CITES species that has been illegally imported is guilty of an offence. This includes possession of such a species purchased from a seller. Under section 19 of ESA, any persons who abets the commission of any offence under ESA is also guilty of an offence. This means that buyers can be penalised for facilitating the sale of illegally traded CITES species, including CITES species that cannot be sold, such as elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns. Over the last five years, NParks has used these provisions to charge eight persons for the possession of illegally traded CITES species and three persons for facilitating the sale of such species.”
“Moreover, it is not just about consistency with our domestic legislation. Importantly, ESA gives effect to our commitment as a CITES party. It touches on Singapore's obligation as a CITES party to combat illegal wildlife trade. As cited by Mr Leon Perera, we have indeed benchmarked our proposed penalty framework against neighbouring jurisdictions in the region. I would like to clarify with Mr Perera that we are not the lowest in the region in terms of penalty. Our penalties will be roughly on par with our neighbours. For example, the proposed range of four to eight years for the maximum imprisonment terms for illegal wildlife trade offences is comparable to Malaysia, whose maximum imprisonment is up to seven years. It also places Singapore on the middle end of the spectrum regionally. The Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar impose a maximum imprisonment term of up to 10 to 15 years, albeit with a significantly much lower monetary fine compared to our framework. Meanwhile, in Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia, the maximum imprisonment terms are up to five years. So, we are not the lowest – compared with our neighbouring jurisdictions. We have introduced differentiated heavier penalties for offences involving CITES Appendix I species, which is also aligned to jurisdictions such as Brunei, the Philippines and Hong Kong. In addition, the Bill will introduce provisions to allow for the seizure or forfeiture of items used to conceal CITES species as well as their conveyances. This will serve to further deter illegal wildlife trade as would-be smugglers would face the prospect of losing their vehicles as well as any additional cargo that was used to commit the offence. In a nutshell, we are taking steps to significantly raise the penalties.”
“In addition, the maximum aggregate fine will be raised across the board to match the market value of all illegally traded CITES species comprised in the offence, where the market value is higher than the maximum aggregate fine of $500,000 or $1,000,000 for individual and corporate offenders respectively. So, you can see that we are taking significant steps in raising the penalties from the current Act, while also providing greater clarity to existing penalties such as specifying that the offender will be fined on the basis of each specimen of the CITES species comprised in the offence. At the same time, we need to strike the right balance, by ensuring that the penalties meted out are proportionate to the offence and consistent with our domestic legislation. For example, we have proposed higher penalties in this Act as compared to the Wildlife Act that Mr Yip Hon Weng mentioned which covers common wildlife. This is in view that illegal trade in CITES species has a significantly higher impact on the survival of these endangered species in the wild. In addition to pegging the maximum aggregate fine to the market value of the goods, we have also proposed a maximum aggregate fine of $1,000,000 for corporate offenders. This allows the Courts the flexibility to consider other aggravating factors and to impose much heavier penalties in cases where the market value of the goods is low. This cap for the maximum aggregate fine for corporate offenders is proportionate to other serious offences in our domestic legislation, for example, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, where corporate offenders may be subject to a fine of $1,000,000 or twice the value of the benefits reaped from offences such as drug dealing.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken for their views and support of this Bill. Let me first address the points they have raised on ESA, followed by briefly addressing the other suggestions they have made to tackle illegal wildlife trade that go beyond the Act. First, on the proposed penalties for illegal wildlife trade in ESA. Members, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng all have observed that that the illegal wildlife trade can make for very lucrative business and asked if the penalties for illegal wildlife trade could therefore be further enhanced to increase deterrence. For example, by raising the proposed imprisonment term for individuals who illegally trade Appendix II or III species from four to five years, as suggested by Mr Yip Hong Weng, and increasing the maximum aggregate fine further across the board to three times the market value of the goods. First, I agree with Members on the need for adequate penalties. That is why we have further enhanced our penalty framework, following feedback from the public consultation exercise we went through earlier. We will increase the fines and jail terms that can be meted out for individuals who illegally trade in CITES species as well as penalties for the domestic trade in CITES species to align with that for international trade. We will also introduce stiffer penalties for corporate offenders who illegally trade CITES species. These are corporations, unincorporated associations or partnerships.”
“Do also refrain from buying items which may contain endangered animal or plant parts, or illegal wildlife products, such as elephant ivory. Together, we can reduce the demand for endangered wildlife and contribute towards stopping illegal wildlife trade. Let me round up by emphasising again that Singapore is resolved in our fight against illegal wildlife trade. This is a continuous effort. And in partnership with the international community, we will continue to play our part to safeguard earth's natural heritage – not just for ourselves, but also for our future generations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 4.21 pm”
“In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is important as it strengthens Singapore's regulatory and enforcement regime for the trade in endangered species. It reflects our firm commitment to tackle the global issue of illegal wildlife trade, as a Party to CITES. The amendments will enable us to continue taking effective action against illegal wildlife trade, as it evolves over time, for example, from brick-and-mortar to virtual markets. In 2021, NParks seized more than 90 animals that were being sold online as exotic pets, in an island-wide raid. This included several CITES species, such as the Burmese Python and tarantulas that had been illegally imported. Thirteen individuals are currently under investigation for the sale of these animals. We will continue to monitor and enforce against the sale of illegally imported CITES species, which will in future be subject to heavier penalties under the Bill. The amendments are also largely aimed at strengthening NParks' enforcement against illegal wildlife trade – the smugglers and errant traders. And, any offence made out under the Act will depend on the investigation findings of each case. For the large majority of the industry, who have been responsibly following the requirements in the trade of CITES species, the amendments will have minimal impact on the existing processes or business operations. And, we thank you for your cooperation and for doing your part to safeguard our earth's natural heritage and environment. Everyone can play a part in combating illegal trade in wildlife and in protecting our planet's biodiversity. For example, when buying a pet, do patronise licensed pet shops, ask the sellers for a CITES permit if you are buying a CITES species, such as dragonfish or sulphur-crested cockatoo.”
“Currently, ESA allows the mandatory forfeiture of CITES species and other items upon conviction for illegal wildlife trade offences under sections 4 or 5 of the Act today. Clause 9 replaces such mandatory forfeiture with Court ordered forfeiture in criminal proceedings. This will also apply to any offence under the Act. The Bill also updates provisions to align the Act with other recent legislation, including the Wildlife Act, which came into force in 2020. For example, clause 12 will introduce protections against liability for NParks' authorised officers, if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care in the execution of any power or performance of any function, under the Act. At the same time, the amendments will enhance NParks' operational efficiency and investigative capabilities, as well as facilitate its prosecutions. For example, clause 8 will allow NParks' authorised officers to be accompanied or assisted by persons, such as Auxiliary Police Officers, in their inspections, searches and seizures of premises or shipments of goods. NParks' authorised officers will also be allowed to dispose of perishable seized items, such as turtle eggs, under clause 6, to avoid incurring unnecessary storage and maintenance costs. Relatedly, clause 12 allows for documents produced by authorised NParks officers, to be admissible as evidence and taken as factual unless proven otherwise. Lastly, clause 12 will insert new protection for informers by allowing for non-disclosure of information during the Court proceedings that might lead to the identification of an informer. This is to encourage persons to provide information regarding illegal wildlife trade, given that NParks often relies on tip-offs to enforce against illegal wildlife trade and smuggling.”
“Taken together, these revisions to the penalties will serve as a strong deterrent and enforcement against illegal trade in wildlife. Lastly, the Bill will also make other changes to clarify and strengthen NParks' enforcement powers, and facilitate investigations on illegal wildlife trade offences. First, the amendments will enhance NParks' powers to seize items under the Act. For example, if NParks seizes a shipment of non-CITES timber planks, with illegally traded elephant ivory concealed beneath those planks, the current ESA only allows NParks to seize the elephant ivory. Clause 6 makes clear that NParks may also seize items that are used to conceal CITES species, in this case, the timber planks. In addition, under clause 9, conveyances, such as cars and vans, that were used to commit a wildlife trade offence may also be seized. These changes will further deter against illegal wildlife trade as would-be smugglers would stand to lose their vehicles, as well as any additional cargo that was used to commit the offence. Nonetheless, we recognise that there must be safeguards to the expanded powers in respect of conveyances. Under clause 9, large conveyances of more than 200 tonnes net and aircraft and trains used for regular passenger service to and from Singapore, as well as conveyances that were used unlawfully without the owner's consent, may not be forfeited. In addition, the Courts may only order the forfeiture of other conveyances, if a person was convicted of an offence under the Act and the conveyance was used in the commission of the offence. Clause 9 also introduces amendments to the forfeiture framework in ESA.”
“The maximum aggregate fines for individual offenders will be set at $500,000 or $1,000,000 for individual and corporate offenders respectively, or the market value of the CITES species at the material time of the offence, whichever is higher. For example, in 2020, a South African trader was sentenced to 17 months of jail for transiting through Singapore, from South Africa to Vietnam, with 22 kilograms of rhinoceros horns without a valid CITES permit. As rhinoceros horns are worth over $30,000 per kilogramme, the offender could face a maximum aggregate fine of $760,000, if he had been subject to the stiffer penalties in the Bill, instead of the $500,000 today. At the same time, clause 10 will amend section 17 to penalise any person who misleads the authorities. Today, ESA only penalises false, but not misleading statements or documents. For example, a trader applying for an import permit may deliberately mislead NParks officers by providing once-legitimate supporting documents that have since been revoked by the document issuer. These changes will enhance our ability to take enforcement action under the Act against individuals or entities who mislead the authorities. Apart from these enhancements, the Bill also provides greater clarity to existing penalties in the Act. Currently, the Act provides for fines for illegal trade offences to be issued for each CITES species. This is currently defined to mean any animal or plant specified in the Schedule of the Act. Clause 4 does not change the current position, but makes it clear that that the fines are levied on a per specimen basis. In other words, the offender would be fined on the basis of each specimen of the CITES species, such as each piece of rhinoceros horn or elephant ivory, comprised in the offence.”
“We will also increase our penalties for the domestic trade in CITES species to align with that for international trade. This means that individuals who illegally sell CITES species, such as rhino horns, tiger parts and elephant ivory in Singapore, will be subject to the same higher penalties. This is to enhance deterrence and reflect a similarly strict stance against the illegal domestic trade of endangered species. Offenders that are corporations, unincorporated associations or partnerships who illegally trade CITES species will also be subject to higher penalties than individual offenders. This is because such entities generally have more resources and the means to move larger quantities of illegally traded CITES species, compared to individuals. Clause 4 will also amend ESA to increase the maximum fine for corporate offenders who illegally trade in CITES species, up to $200,000 for each specimen of an Appendix I species and up to $100,000 for each specimen of an Appendix II or III species. We will also introduce higher maximum imprisonment terms of eight years for Appendix I species and six years for Appendix II or III species, to penalise individuals within corporate offenders, such as directors or managers, more strictly. We will also raise the maximum aggregate fine further across the board, for both individual and corporate offenders, to match the market value of all illegally traded CITES species comprised in the offence. This ensures that the penalties are proportionate to the potential gains from the illegal trade of such CITES species, which have risen over time.”
“Retrospectively issued documents can only be accepted if the documents are for trade in CITES Appendix II or III species and the circumstances that led to the retrospective issuance were not caused or contributed to by the trader. This amendment will strengthen enforcement against those who trade in CITES species without valid permits or other documents. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on the third key area of the Bill, which is to introduce stiffer penalties for endangered wildlife trade offences under the Act. We last enhanced the penalties under the Act in 2006. However, the value of smuggled endangered wildlife has continued to rise over the years. For example, in 2019, we seized a shipment of around 12 tonnes of pangolin scales that were worth over $48 million, as well as around nine tonnes of elephant ivory worth over $17 million. Thus, after careful review and consultation with stakeholders and the public, and considering the latest domestic and international laws on endangered species, we will enhance our penalties further to keep pace with the times and to increase deterrence against illegal wildlife trade. We will increase the fines and jail terms that can be meted out for individuals who illegally trade in CITES species. Clause 4 increases the maximum fine for illegal trade in Appendix I species, from $50,000 to $100,000, and the maximum imprisonment term, from two years to six years. Clause 4 also increases the maximum imprisonment term for the illegal trade in Appendix II and III species, from two years to four years. Wildlife trade offences in relation to Appendix I species have stiffer penalties as these species are threatened with extinction and the impact of illegal trade on their survival is much more severe.”
“This ensures that our permits are recognised and accepted by other CITES authorities. We are now amending ESA to ensure that our laws are even more closely aligned with these CITES Resolutions. Clause 2 amends ESA to make clear that our regulations apply to hybrid animals of CITES species, as though they are full species. These are animals whose recent lineage include species listed in CITES Appendices I or II, including species that are either threatened with extinction and species for which trade is regulated for their continued survival. Taking the Bengal cat as an example, the Bengal cat is a cross between the wild Asian Leopard Cat, a CITES-listed species, and the domestic cat. CITES permits are required for the trade in Bengal cats, which have a wild Asian Leopard Cat ancestor in their lineages, up to four generations that precede it. Although ESA does not currently explicitly require this, our traders have been producing such permits when trading Bengal cats. Clause 2 also makes clear that urine, faeces or ambergris are not regulated under ESA. As these are waste products that are naturally excreted, their collection does not threaten the survival of any CITES species in the wild. That brings our regulations on the trade in animal parts or derivatives more in line with CITES's recommendations in this area. Lastly, clauses 4 and 5 make clear that permits, certificates or any other similar documents issued retrospectively after the date of the export or re-export of the CITES species, or that contain unauthorised alterations, are not accepted for the trade of CITES species in Singapore.”
“Where these countries are not CITES Parties, traders will be required to present valid permits, certificates or any other similar document containing the prescribed information to NParks. The prescribed information will include details of the competent authorities approving the export, re-export or import of the CITES species, as well as the scientific names, source and quantity of the specimens traded. With these amendments, we aim to provide greater clarity on the requirements for the transit of CITES species in Singapore. Traders will not have to make significant changes to their existing business operations. But following these amendments, we will be better able to differentiate between CITES species which are meant for import into Singapore and species which are meant for transit. NParks can then take appropriate enforcement action against those who illegally import or transit these CITES species. Let me now move on to the second area of the Bill, on how our amendments will align ESA more closely with CITES Resolutions. The amendments will strengthen Singapore's existing strict stance against illegal trade in CITES species. CITES Resolutions provide guidance and recommendations on how CITES Parties should interpret and implement CITES rules and regulations on wildlife trade. As a responsible CITES Party, we follow the CITES Resolutions closely, where they apply to us. At the same time, we continue to ensure that trade can flow freely and easily, so that we maintain our status as a global trade hub. For example, NParks issues CITES permits for CITES species exported, re-exported or imported in Singapore in accordance with the permit requirements set out in the relevant CITES Resolution.”
“Clause 3 therefore replaces this requirement with a stipulation that traders who bring CITES species in transit through Singapore must among other things, provide NParks with a document that specifies a port, airport or any other place outside Singapore as the destination for the CITES species. This document must also be issued on or before, or within 14 days after the date on which the CITES species is brought into Singapore. Traders can provide a Bill of Lading, air waybill or sea waybill, which state the final destination of the CITES species transported. These are among standard transport documents used in international shipping today. A list of the accepted documents will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. Second, we will make clear the permits that traders need to obtain from the countries of export, re-export or import, for CITES species in transit in Singapore. Today, traders are required to produce CITES permits for CITES species transiting in Singapore. Where the countries of export, re-export or import are not CITES Parties, "written permission", which is not defined in the Act, can be produced instead. This is for NParks to verify that the species have been legally exported and will be accepted by the country of import. To ensure that NParks receives the information it needs for such verification, clause 4 makes it clear that the permits, certificates, or any other similar documents submitted must contain information that will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. Where the countries of export, re-export or import are CITES Parties, traders should continue to present valid CITES permits or certificates containing the prescribed information to NParks.”
“This Bill seeks to amend ESA in four key areas. First, to strengthen Singapore's regulatory regime for trade in CITES species; second, to align ESA more closely with CITES Resolutions; third, to introduce stiffer penalties for illegal trade for CITES species; and fourth, to strengthen NParks' enforcement powers so that it can tackle illegal wildlife trade more effectively. Let me now go through each of these areas in turn. First, on our requirements for CITES species traded in Singapore. Currently, traders are required to produce a CITES permit or certificate when importing, transiting, exporting, or re-exporting CITES species in Singapore. This allows NParks to verify that the trade in these species is legal, sustainable, traceable and in line with CITES requirements. We are making amendments to ESA to provide greater clarity for all stakeholders. In particular, on the requirements for the transit of CITES species through Singapore and the documents required for such trade. First, we will amend the definition of "transit" in ESA to make clear when CITES species are considered to be in transit in Singapore. Today, ESA states that for a CITES species to be considered "in transit" in Singapore, the species, must among other things, be brought into Singapore solely for the purpose of taking it out of Singapore. We recognise that ESA could be clearer on how this "sole purpose" requirement is to be satisfied, such that there is no ambiguity on when species are considered "in transit".”