Endangered Species (Import and Export) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Illegal wildlife trade threatens the survival of endangered species and harms habitats and ecosystems around the world. Singapore is committed to the global fight against illegal wildlife trade. As an international trading hub, we take this issue very seriously.

We are a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES in short. CITES ensures that international trade in wildlife and plants does not threaten their survival in the wild. We have also put in place a whole-of-Government enforcement framework and we work closely with regional and international partners to stop illegal wildlife shipments from passing through our borders.

For example, through our close collaboration with our counterparts in China, we seized a record haul of elephant ivory passing through Singapore in 2019. The ivory was worth more than S$170 million and it came from more than 300 African elephants. Our efforts also helped the Chinese authorities to arrest 14 suspected criminals.

Last August, we opened our Centre for Wildlife Forensics, to enhance our science and research capabilities, in collaboration with international partners and local experts. Recently, our studies with Prof Samuel Wasser from the University of Washington found that most of the large ivory seizures made globally over the past decade, came from repeated poaching at the same location and even from the same families of elephants. Such insights help us better understand the patterns and networks of illegal wildlife trade and we share them with our international partners to facilitate cross-border enforcement. This will help source countries to focus on tackling elephant poaching hotspots and the illegal export of ivory, and destination countries to curb consumer demand for ivory products.

The Centre for Wildlife Forensics was also recognised as a CITES Reference Laboratory in June. This recognition is a testament to Singapore's capabilities in wildlife forensic science in supporting the implementation and enforcement of CITES. It also attests to the high standards of the Centre in conforming to ISO quality assurance standards for wildlife forensic testing.

With this, we can help other CITES member states carry out wildlife forensic analyses, on top of sharing our experiences and expertise with them. This will aid them in investigating and prosecuting illegal wildlife trade cases more easily. Together, we can strengthen our efforts against the criminal syndicates and networks that conduct illegal wildlife trade.

And within Singapore, we also continue to partner key stakeholders and the community to raise awareness on our roles in tackling illegal wildlife trade and protecting our planet's biodiversity. This includes regularly engaging industry stakeholders, such as the maritime industry, e-commerce companies and financial institutions. And reaching out to the wider public through outreach and education programmes, such as webinars and exhibitions, to better understand their roles in tackling the illegal wildlife trade.

For example, just this March, our volunteers under NParks' Youth Stewards for Nature Programme organised the World Wildlife Day Regional Youth Symposium, which brought youths around the ASEAN region together, to discuss ideas and solutions to tackle illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia.

These are some of the steps that we have taken to combat the threat of illegal wildlife trade. But this threat is constantly evolving and because illegal wildlife trade is so profitable, smugglers are constantly looking for loopholes to exploit. So, beyond strengthening our research capabilities, partnerships and engagements, we must ensure that our regulations and enforcement tools remain up-to-date and effective.

The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act or ESA for short, is the key legislation that supports Singapore's regulation of trade in the wildlife species protected under CITES. It gives us the powers to take enforcement action against illegal traders. For example, through ESA, we have established a domestic ban in ivory trade since last September, to support international efforts against the illegal trade in elephant ivory.

We are now proposing to amend ESA, to strengthen our regulations for the trade of CITES species, and to enhance our penalties and enforcement powers against such illegal trade. In drafting these amendments, we consulted a wide range of partners and stakeholders, including traders, shipping companies, industry associations, academics and non-profit organisations. I would like to thank all of them for their valuable suggestions.

Last November, we also embarked on a public consultation on the ESA amendments and on Singapore's approach to combating illegal wildlife trade. We have carefully studied the feedback received and incorporated relevant suggestions in our amendments in the Bill. This includes additional amendments to make the Act more effective and more closely aligned with relevant domestic and international laws on endangered species.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now take Members through the key features of this Bill.

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". 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Question proposed.

4.21 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, today's Bill aims to strengthen Singapore's efforts against the illegal wildlife trade. I have had the privilege to be involved since the first draft of this Bill. I know that MND has made many changes to reflect feedback from NGOs and other stakeholders. I thank both MND and NParks for their consultation and positive engagement. There is no doubt that today's Bill helps. As the public consultation found, there is consensus that harsher, broader penalties does deter the illegal wildlife trade. That said, this Bill does not do enough to tackle the problem. There is a need to rethink the broader policy approach towards tackling this illegal wildlife trade.

Let me start by clarifying what the illegal wildlife trade is all about. In its first undercover investigation conducted back in 2001, ACRES found that 73.5% of shops surveyed in Singapore were illegally selling bear bile and bear gall bladders. Some may say this is just the sale of goods to willing buyers. But I hope we will look closer. I have seen the suffering that fuels this market. The first bear I met lived her life in a cage not bigger than herself. She was stabbed into her gall bladder so that they could drain the bile from her every single day. The first bear I met in a bear farm is also the first bear that I watch passed away. She took her last breath before my very eyes.

Over the past 20 years, I’ve seen many other animals in similar conditions. I have seen monkeys restrained with chains so tight that it bit into the flesh of their neck, chains that were never loosened as the animals grew over the years.

Many people think Singapore has little to do with this suffering. The reality is they could not be more wrong. Singapore is a critical nexus in the illegal wildlife trade. In the past decade, we have seized illegal shipments of animal parts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Elephants, rhinoceroses, pangolins – these are just a few animals whose dead, dissected bodies are smuggled through Singapore's world-class port.

In April 2019, we broke the record by finding 12.9 tonnes of pangolin scales being smuggled in a shipment from Nigeria. This was worth over $50 million and cost the lives of over 17,000 pangolins. Just a week later, we seized another 12.7 tonnes of pangolin scales. Three months after that, we seized a shipment of 8.8 tonnes of ivory, estimated to come from nearly 300 African elephants. Just a few weeks ago, a man was arrested in South Africa for attempting to carry 26 kilogrammes of rhinoceros horns into Singapore in his hand luggage. Such seizures are just the tip of the iceberg. Smugglers have found ways to circumvent our border security and bring these animals and their body parts onto our soil.

Singapore can and needs to do much more. I would like to raise four specific proposals.

My first proposal is that we categorise wildlife trafficking as serious offences under the Organised Crime Act (or OCA). In practice, this means amending OCA so that it considers offences under sections 4, 5 and 19 of ESA and sections 8 and 9 of the Wildlife Act as serious offences. The impact of this would be massive. For so long, our policy framework on the illegal wildlife trade has targeted the runners, the low-level criminals carrying the goods. But my proposal attacks the heart of the problem: the syndicate leaders, the masterminds making everything happen. Including wildlife trade offences in OCA gives the authorities more tools to investigate and punish these kingpins, who today may evade punishment under the ESA framework. As we debated in this House previously, a lot of the people we prosecute under ESA are the runners, not the kingpins.

Just as important, it lets us follow and cut off the money. Under OCA, our officers can issue financial reporting orders to get information and then use civil confiscation regime to deprive syndicates of their financial gains.

The Minister for Home Affairs has said that to classify an offence under OCA, the offence must meet two criteria. It must pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore, and it must be associated with organised crime in Singapore.

Wildlife trafficking clearly meets the first requirement: it poses a significant threat to our public safety and security. The first threat is to public health. Wildlife traffickers operate outside the scrutiny of our health officials. This makes the animals they transport more likely to spread zoonotic diseases to humans. COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease and so is monkeypox. I do not think I need to dwell further on how dangerous zoonotic diseases are.

The second threat is to our ecology. Animals brought into Singapore in an unregulated way may become invasive species that threaten our native wildlife. The Javan myna we see every day is an excellent example. Brought in via the caged bird trade, they have been threatening the survival of native birds like the oriental magpie-robin and the common myna who is not so common anymore.

The third threat is to economic stability. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reports that wildlife crime cases have been connected with offences, such as corruption, drug trafficking and money laundering. Failing to effectively tackle illegal wildlife trade in Singapore may also increase our risk of our financial institutions and trade systems being abused to facilitate other serious crimes.

Does wildlife trafficking meet the second requirement of being associated with organised crime in Singapore? The answer has to be yes. When you look at the size and value of the animal-part seizures at our borders, we are talking about operations that must, by logic, involve financing, coordinating and operations on a large, organised scale. A $50 million shipment of pangolin scales is not the work of isolated individuals. Indeed, the FATF describes the illegal wildlife trade as a "major transnational organised crime", run by highly organised criminal syndicates that engage in complex fraud.

The Minister for Home Affairs has said that the 18 cases of wildlife crime we prosecuted have not been found to be associated with organised crime in Singapore or overseas. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The statistic merely points to the need for greater investigative powers, particularly those provided under OCA, which will help connect instances of wildlife trafficking to their kingpins.

Let us remember that OCA was enacted not only to combat existing threats of organised crime. As described by Minister Iswaran when passing OCA, it is meant to "prevent organised crime from taking root in Singapore."

Let us not wait until we prosecute a confirmed syndicate member and when illegal wildlife trade syndicates are deeply rooted in Singapore before we strengthen our laws.

Beyond the direct benefits of catching criminals, there is a reputational benefit for including the ESA offences under OCA.

Singapore has always prided itself as a global financial hub. But it has come under criticism by FATF, which has said Singapore is insufficiently focused on complex, transnational cases of money laundering. Separately, FATF has called for countries to provide their agencies with the mandate and tools to conduct financial investigations into the illegal wildlife trade. Including ESA under OCA would thus benefit us by addressing FATF's concerns, allowing us to meet international standards to combat money laundering and improving our reputation both as a financial hub and a key fighter against wildlife crime.

From the start of this month, FATF will have its first Singaporean President, Mr T Raja Kumar. With the first Singapore presidency of FATF, I hope we can build on FATF's focus on tackling the financial trails of illegal wildlife trade internationally.

On the national level, we can do better in strengthening our organised crime laws to tackle illegal wildlife trade.

Recently, Hong Kong also amended its "Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance" to include wildlife crime as an organised and serious crime. This move was widely reported and globally praised, with many organisations affirming the amendment as the "most appropriate route to effectively combat wildlife crime".

On behalf of NGOs and law professors in Singapore, I have submitted a position paper on including illegal wildlife trade offences under ESA and the Wildlife Act to the Organised Crime Act to Senior Minister of State Mr Tan Kiat How. The paper was prepared together with the NGOs, lawyers and law professors. I look forward to working together with Senior Minister Tan and MHA to see how we can move forward on this proposal.

Sir, my second proposal is to include a reward for informers under ESA.

I am glad the Bill recognises the importance of informers in policing wildlife crimes by granting them protection under the new section 22B. Wildlife crimes are difficult to detect. Smugglers use creative strategies, complicated trade routes and fraudulent documents to avoid detection. For example, one of the shipments of pangolin scales was caught and was packed and declared as frozen beef. I imagine it cannot be possible for us to fully scrutinise every single shipment of frozen beef passing through Singapore. Informers are thus an important asset to assist our enforcement agents in their work.

But providing protection is not enough. We need to incentivise informers to come forward and make reports. We can do this by allowing informers to be rewarded by our fines imposed under ESA. This is similar to what is done under section 13 of the Wildlife Act.

My third proposal is to increase the maximum aggregate fine for offences under ESA. This Bill does make a progressive step of increasing the limits of fine to the market value of the specimens involved. This is still not enough. The illegal wildlife trade is a hugely profitable enterprise. Successfully smuggling pangolin scales or elephant ivory earns these criminals millions of dollars. We need penalties that really hurt the profits of the syndicates or it would not be enough to deter them from using Singapore for their operations.

Instead, I propose that the fines be increased to three times the market value of the specimens involved. This would make the fines in a genuine penalty similar to the civil penalty for insider trading, tax evasion or illegal customs drawback claims.

My last proposal is that we make buying scheduled species an offence. As long as there is a domestic market, smugglers will always try to bring in animals illegally.

In 2019, when I asked about our efforts to deter the pangolin trade in Singapore, Minister of State Sun Xueling acknowledged that tackling the illegal wildlife trade requires buyers to reduce their demand. It is nice that she just stepped in. I wholeheartedly agree with her. I know buying is currently already an offence but it is not explicitly stated in the Bill. We should be explicit by stating clearly in the Bill that it is an offence to buy scheduled species. We would be following in the footsteps of many other countries. Legislation in the US, EU, Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam already include “purchasing” as an offence.

Sir, I will end with an extract from one of the most powerful speeches I have heard on fighting the illegal wildlife trade. This was a speech by HRH Prince William at the 2018 Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference in London which I had the privilege to attend. HRH shared how, on his visit to Africa, he saw rhinos under such threat that they had more bodyguards than him. He said, quote: “It is heart-breaking to think that by the time my children George, Charlotte and Louis are in their twenties, elephants, rhinos and tigers might well be extinct in the wild. I, for one, am not willing to look my children in the eye and say that we were the generation that let this happen on our watch. It is time to treat the illegal wildlife trade as the serious organised crime that it is. It is carried out by ruthless cross-border criminal networks. It is fueled by corruption. It damages economic growth and sustainable development. It undermines governance and the rule of law. It robs communities today of their future sources of income. And it exploits the poorest people in some of the most vulnerable countries on earth.

Organised criminal networks are adding to their profits through involvement in wildlife crime. They see it as a lucrative and relatively low-risk activity. They are the very same groups who move drugs, people and weapons. These networks are sophisticated, coordinated, adaptable and professional. They innovate faster than we can and they exploit weaknesses in our systems.

Let me be clear; I am not asking anyone in this room to prioritise efforts to fight the illegal wildlife trade above drug trafficking or violent crimes. I know very well that law enforcement resources and judicial systems are stretched.

But I am asking you to see the connections. To acknowledge that the steps you take to tackle illegal wildlife crime could make it easier to halt the shipments of guns and drugs passing through your borders. And to recognise that this is a transnational crime that you cannot leave to your passionate, but thinly stretched, wildlife crime officers to tackle alone.

You might find it easier to arrest a kingpin or a middleman for trafficking illegal wildlife products than to catch him red-handed smuggling heroin. Remember – "Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, not murder."

I hope we will remember this powerful speech by HRH Prince William as we increase our efforts in tackling this cruel and wasteful illegal wildlife trade. Sir, notwithstanding my suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.35 pm until 5.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Endangered Species (Import and Export) (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

5.00 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the illegal trade in wildlife and endangered species is a major driver of biodiversity loss and species extinction throughout the world. The depletion of biodiversity at commercial scales is contributing to the deterioration of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, posing a long-term threat to the well-being of humanity, as noted in the 2019 report of the Inter-governmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

There is broad international consensus about the widespread harm caused by the illegal wildlife trade. Governments must do what they can to deter such crimes. Developed nations like Singapore have an even greater responsibility in this regard. We owe it to the world to crack down hard on these criminal enterprises. Rightfully, Singapore has been a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 1986.

Sir, as an important trade hub and global middleman, Singapore, along with other cities, is one node in a vast network of illegal wildlife trade. This region is also an entryway into China, reportedly the world’s largest consumer market for illegal wildlife products. Our highly developed trade infrastructure and global connectivity are prone to exploitation to facilitate illicit activities.

The ESA Bill was read for the first time on 9 May this year and was initiated to amend the 2006 Act. I support this Bill as a step in the right direction, but in my speech I shall raise a number of suggestions on how the regulatory regime applicable to the wildlife trade can be further strengthened with a view to stamping out the trade in endangered species.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Bill before the House today has addressed several issues and loopholes inherent to the 2006 Act. The amendments acknowledge updates to CITES protocols and definitions and, concurrently, update the law. Definitions pertaining to import/export, the items being traded, as well as the documentation required to validate this trade, have been clarified.

In addition, the Bill grants improved powers of enforcement to the National Parks Board or NParks, the agency responsible for implementing CITES regulations. It closes loopholes by explicitly not recognising retrospective CITES trade permits, granted, with certain exceptions.

These are positive changes. Singapore’s import/export laws must adapt to ensure that the wildlife trade is regulated sustainably and that the illegal wildlife trade, which is driven by organised crime, be dealt a body blow.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although CITES offers an accredited framework to build our legislation on, it is not all-encapsulating. Sir, I hope to see the Endangered Species Act move beyond CITES. I offer the following suggestions for future changes that could be made via legislation or perhaps subsidiary legislation.

In line with CITES regulations, exceptions to the import/export rules have been made for naturally excreted urine, faeces and ambergris. Nevertheless, in a regional context, they represent exploitable loopholes that can allow unsustainable practices to persist.

For example, Kopi Luwak, or civet coffee, is typically sold as coffee beans excreted by civets from many Southeast Asian nations. In truth, this industry sometimes relies on inhumane wild-capture and forced feeding of civets, although I am not claiming that every Kopi Luwak producer engages in inhumane practices. It is often difficult to identify if the resultant product is “naturally excreted" or not. As a result of these exceptions, the amended law does not afford these animals the protection they need.

Before I move on from this example, let me note that I am using the example of Kopi Luwak as an illustration. The Asian palm civet is not currently an endangered species and the issue I alluded to is related to cruelty towards animals. Nevertheless, the example illustrates a problem that may arise with endangered animal-derived products.

Next, let me talk about hybrids. I will take the example of leopard cats and I believe Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How also referred to this example. Let me expand.

Sir, leopard cats are the last remaining wild cats in Singapore and there are fewer than 50 individuals left. They are classified under CITES Appendix II, which requires their trade to be controlled. Their hybrids, with domestic cats, are known as Bengal cats.

The Bill, as it stands, would allow a fifth-generation Bengal cat to be freely traded in Singapore, without requiring any documentation on when, where or how the original leopard cat was purveyed. My understanding of the comments made by Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How earlier is that, currently, traders do voluntarily submit such documentation but it is my understanding that the Bill does not require such documentation to be submitted. So, that is a loophole that can perhaps be plugged. Such exceptions can allow local demand to drive poaching and captive breeding in other parts of the world.

We should consider tweaks to the regulations that would require the spirit of CITES to be applied to hybrids in a reasonable manner, so as to deter such activities.

Next, Sir, in this Bill, penalties for infringements of the Bill have been increased. This will, laudably, increase the deterrence against infringements of the law.

Nevertheless, there is room for stiffer penalties. Singapore’s maximum jail term for wildlife trafficking is still, to my understanding, the lowest penalty in ASEAN. In order to position Singapore as a regional leader in the fight against illegal wildlife trade, a harsher jail term of seven years can be considered.

Next, one significant gap in the ESA Bill as it stands would appear to be the online wildlife trade. An overwhelming share of the illegal wildlife trade is now carried out online. A 2020 study found that more than a third of all reptile species were traded online. Almost 90% of those species were caught from the wild, with many being rare and endangered. There are recent reports of exotic wildlife being sold as pets on social media in Singapore.

These examples demonstrate the extent to which the Internet is used as a tool in conducting such deplorable trades.

I propose that advertising endangered wildlife or wildlife products on these online platforms should also be treated as an offence if those transactions would be illegal under the law. We should require online platforms to self-police the transactions they facilitate in this regard.

Sir, the CITES regulations operate under a blacklisting model. The trade of species which are listed in the various appendices are regulated. At present, almost 6,000 animal and 33,000 plant species are protected against over-exploitation. Nevertheless, this still represents a small fraction of animals and plants on earth. Larger, more charismatic animals are disproportionately represented in these appendices. Species that are identified by experts and NGOs as being threatened by trade take many years to make it into CITES listings. Without such a listing, unregulated trade in wildlife is the default.

Sir, I suggest that Singapore show leadership regionally and globally and move beyond CITES by considering a new approach to regulating the trade in wildlife – reverse listing.

The current model of direct listing relies on customs agents to verify shipments. It places the burden of proof of trade sustainability onto the Government and on NGO watchdogs, while businesses profit from the trade. Newly described species, those that have just been discovered and have just become known to science, newly discovered species which are usually unlisted, are left completely vulnerable to trade.

Why not, then, use a reverse-listing model which would make "no-trade" the default?

Such a system would require the traders themselves to produce proof of sustainable trade. Such a system could also incorporate a default ban on newly discovered species for a certain period of time, so as to allow time for that species to be listed, if the facts so warrant.

In conclusion, Sir, given the scale of biodiversity loss, unrestricted trade in wildlife is simply no longer acceptable. What some scientists have dubbed the Anthropocene era – the era in earth’s history when human actions drive change in global climate and biological conditions – must not become the era of another mass extinction.

Rare and endangered species have a key role to play in keeping ecosystems in balance. Their bodies may contain keys to biopharmaceutical and other scientific breakthroughs. And they form part of the earth’s magnificent diversity, of which we are stewards and which should not be denied to future generations of human beings – and when I say that, I look up at the Gallery and I see many young students – very heartening to see that.

In Asia, the problem is acute, as Asia is home to many endangered species while also being a major global centre of demand for endangered wildlife and wildlife products. While public awareness of the plight of iconic species, such as the African Elephant and the Black Rhino, for example, is relatively high, many other less high-profile species are also prey to illegal wildlife markets. In Southeast Asia, the Asian Elephant population has declined by 50% over the past century. The four species of Asian pangolins are now among most poached animals in the world, by some reports.

Sir, this Bill is a step in the right direction. But going forward, Singapore can go further and can do more to demonstrate forward thinking and leadership on this issue by going beyond CITES.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.10 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a major transhipment hub. Post-pandemic, we expect the volume of imports and exports to increase substantially. This will correspondingly apply to the illegal wildlife trade. Southeast Asia is a hotspot for illegal wildlife trade. As such, we must stay vigilant and come down hard on illegal wildlife traders. The Bill amendments are laudable improvements. However, I seek clarifications in several areas.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, illegal wildlife trade should be recognised as serious organised crime. Member Louis Ng raised this earlier as well. According to INTERPOL, wildlife crime is a part of serious organised crime, which feeds into money laundering, tax evasion and corruption. Many other countries, including Hong Kong and the European Union, have also treated illegal wildlife trade as such. In doing so, the relevant authorities are accorded greater enforcement powers to investigate the illegal wildlife trade. This enables them to effectively track down the heads of the syndicates through the money flows.

Following the amendments, persons prosecuted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would receive a maximum of four years' prison sentence and a fine of up to $500,000. This is paltry, compared to $66 million, the value of a single shipment of elephant ivory and pangolin scales intercepted in Singapore in 2019. I propose that the prison sentence should be raised to no less than five years for deterrence. The aggregate fine should be three times the market value of the goods, aligning it with the Customs Act.

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must do more to investigate and conduct enforcement of illegal wildlife trade happening in the digital realm. The problem is getting more widespread. Only a week ago, we read in the media of local Telegram groups being blatantly used to buy and sell exotic pets. Are our Police, NParks or Customs closely monitoring such groups? What is the possibility of identifying and arresting the perpetrators? Would the buyers be penalised, if they transacted with the seller but do not yet have the animal in possession? Would sellers be prosecuted as a business or commercial entity, even if they are not registered as a business? It would also be pertinent to find out how such traders could still bring in these exotic wildlife.

In recent years, INTERPOL updated its training syllabus to address ways to tackle digitally-enabled wildlife trafficking. With increasing amounts of digital evidence recovered during wildlife crime investigations, digital forensics is high on the training agenda.

The emphasis that INTERPOL places on such skills among their crime investigative professionals is a testament to how widespread and severe the online wildlife trade problem is. Besides social media platforms and messaging apps like Telegram, the dark web has also become an increasingly popular platform for wildlife trafficking syndicates to conduct their operations. Do our local NGOs and agencies have the capabilities, training and resources to effectively track down these criminals in the digital realm?

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to hold online technology companies accountable for exposing wildlife crime and thwarting the sale of exotic pets online. The Digital Services Act by the European Parliament was recently amended to introduce new transparency requirements for companies that will make the detection of illegal wildlife products and law enforcement easier. It makes explicit reference to the illegal trade of animals in the definition of "illegal content". In addition, it requires that service providers take quick and effective measures to remove illegal content from their services. This is to ensure that "what is illegal offline is illegal online". Would the Ministry look into adopting similar measures?

Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the legislative treatment with regards to wildlife management and relevant laws should be more holistic.

Presently, there are two acts covering wildlife, namely, the Wildlife Act and ESA. ESA only covers animals listed under the CITES Convention. I believe there is scope to combine the two acts to remove existing overlaps, if any, and to streamline the clauses. Moreover, can we have ESA expanded to cover more than just CITES animals?

Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must deter consumers from contributing to illegal wildlife trade. This should be done through public education and effective enforcement and heavier penalties for offenders. Government regulations prohibit the ownership of most species of wild animals as pets. Yet, as mentioned earlier, we have local Telegram channels with people selling and seeking out exotic pets. Even though NParks can enforce on buyers who have such wildlife in possession, we should perhaps consider indicating "buying or looking to buy" as an offence under the Act. This will deter consumption and widespread queries in these Telegram chat groups.

Last month, a video of a woman carrying an endangered African Crown Crane in Singapore went viral. It was thought to be a runaway pet. These make me question the severity of current penalties. Under the Wildlife Act, there is a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months for first time offenders keeping prohibited wildlife as pets. Can the Minister share more about the enforcement of this law? How many were convicted? What were the penalties? How were they caught? Are there routine checks conducted for signs of illegally kept wildlife in potential areas such as around landed estates? Are there people keeping certain exotic pets under a permit? If so, are routine visits conducted to ensure that the animal is still being responsibly housed and not used for breeding? Are vets required to make a report if they come across an exotic pet that is illegal or suspected to be procured through illegal means?

Public education is imperative. We need to educate people on why they should not keep wildlife as pets. There have been several cases of wildlife being discreetly abandoned and released into our nature reserves. To create an effective public education programme, we should obtain an understanding of the degree of public awareness about owning exotic pets in Singapore. Is it due to ignorance and assumption that they make easy pets? Are consumers aware that releasing non-native wildlife into our forests and nature reserves upset our biodiversity and have adverse consequences on our ecosystem?

The adverse consequences of wildlife trade on public health deserves more prominence. Illegal wildlife trade fuels the spread of zoonotic diseases and pandemics. Some of the most common and deadliest human diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses of animal origin, including COVID-19. We have experienced first-hand the terrible consequences of a pandemic on lives and livelihoods. We must do everything within our means to stop or at least slow down the next one.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore must take firm action to abide by our international commitments and do right by international laws. The illegal wildlife trade is the fourth largest trade behind drugs, human trafficking and counterfeiting. It also raises concerns about future pandemics. I am glad to know that we actively contributing to CITES and the INTERPOL Wildlife Crime Working Group. I am confident that we can do more to utilise our capabilities in this area.

Ultimately, exotic pets and their by-products are non-essential luxuries. Yet the market for such pointless indulgences is built at the expense of needless immense suffering of living creatures. As Singapore moves towards a more compassionate and kinder society, we should not only encourage mutual care and concern amongst the people but also speak up and do more for the voiceless. I support the amendments. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.

5.19 pm

Mr Tan Kiat How: 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Firstly, any clarifications? Yes, Mr Louis Ng.

5.40 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for a very detailed response. But could I just have two clarifications? One, on making buying an offence. I know that it is currently covered under ESA, but the call from the NGOs really is to make it specific. So, section 4 of ESA already states many words – import, export, re-export, sell, advertise. Why not just add that one word: buy? If we could understand what are the concerns from the Government of just adding that one word.

Second, on the reward for informers, I did it through a private Member's Bill to introduce section 13 into the Wildlife Act, which does provide reward to informers for people who are in possession or trading of less endangered species. So, it would be a bit strange now. We provide you a reward if you give us a tip-off for less protected animals, but we do not legislate it and give you a reward for if you give us tip-offs for more protected or endangered animals. I really hope we can close that loophole. Thank you.

Mr Tan Kiat How: 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. So, to Mr Louis Ng's second clarification, just to assure him, we are looking into this area.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Kiat How].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.