National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.11 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to effect the transfer of the non-food plant and animal-related functions from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) to the National Parks Board (NParks).

AVA was established in 2000 to address the increasingly challenging task of maintaining Singapore's high standards of food safety as well as animal and plant health. Minister Masagos Zulkifli B M M earlier spoke about AVA's efforts in ensuring our food safety and food security. AVA has also steadfastly done its job to safeguard our animal and plant health. In particular, AVA has done well to keep Singapore and Singaporeans well-protected against zoonotic diseases such as the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, or bird flu, and rabies.

Over the years, there has been more interest in animal welfare issues. Many Singaporeans are showing greater empathy and compassion towards stray animals. The number of pet owners is growing, and many see pets as family members. At the same time, there are those who are afraid of animals, while others may consider them as a threat or nuisance. So there have been instances where residents want to remove wildlife they deem dangerous or causing a nuisance, but animal welfare groups and animal lovers may have a different view.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

In this regard, AVA has worked with animal welfare groups, or AWGs, other Government agencies, industry partners, and residents to address issues arising from our co-existence with animals in a dense urban setting, while bearing in mind animal welfare. For example, AVA has worked with AWGs and veterinarians to develop the nationwide Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage (TNRM) programme where stray dogs are sterilised to humanely manage their population and rehomed where possible.

We want to ensure that we continue to co-exist harmoniously with wildlife and other animals. NParks has done well over the years to make Singapore a biophilic city in a garden. It has built up deep expertise in terms of our flora and fauna, as well as strong relationships with a wide range of stakeholder groups. To enhance our approach for animal welfare and management, and plant health control, AVA's non-food plant and animal-related functions will be transferred to NParks to reap synergies with NParks' current work in wildlife conservation and horticultural science. NParks will become the lead agency for animal and wildlife management, as well as animal and plant health.

The transfer will bring about several benefits for Singapore and Singaporeans. First, NParks will provide a one-stop service on animal management and animal welfare issues. A new Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) will be formed under NParks, as the main touch-point for animal-related issues whether they occur in parks, nature reserves, or other parts of our city. Accordingly, AVS will take on AVA's current role as the first responder for animal-related feedback. AVS will also deepen existing partnerships with veterinarians and animal-related industries to enhance animal health and welfare.

Second, we will be better positioned to manage human-animal issues, as they become increasingly complex. NParks will have a comprehensive overview of urban and natural ecologies. Combining NParks’ expertise in wildlife conservation and horticultural science, and AVA’s in animal and plant health, and animal management, this will ensure that efforts to conserve Singapore’s natural heritage are holistic and science-based.

NParks currently works closely with its 45,000 volunteers in its greening efforts. With the transfer, stakeholders who have an interest in animal issues, such as pet owners, community animal care-givers and AWGs, will now become be part of the National Parks’ family. They will be able to work with NParks’ existing stakeholders to come up with new and innovative solutions for animal issues.

Third, we can improve our detection of, and response to, zoonotic diseases, and put in place better safeguards for public health. NParks will now oversee disease detection at all potential points of incursion, for instance at the point of import, from migratory wildlife, and between wildlife and urban animals. Disease response can also be enhanced with the consolidation of NParks’ existing expertise in ecology and animal population studies, with AVA’s expertise in veterinary science and diagnostic testing.

Let me now outline the key clauses in the Bill, which will effect the transfer of the non-food plant and animal-related functions from AVA to NParks. Clause 3 sets out NParks’ new functions, which include: the protection of animal welfare and animal and plant health, the management of animal population, the prevention of threats and risks, arising from animals and plants, to public health and safety, the regulation of trade in endangered animals and plants, and the regulation and promotion of the veterinary industry.

Clause 7 inserts a new Part VII in the National Parks Board Act to transfer to NParks, number one, the relevant assets and liabilities of AVA; and number two, the relevant employees of and seconded officers in AVA, with general preservation of the employment terms.

Clauses 9 to 16 contain amendments to the Animals and Birds Act, Control of Plants Act, Endangered Species (Import & Export) Act, and Wild Animals and Birds Act for the purpose of transferring from the Director‑General, Agri‑Food and Veterinary Services of the AVA, the responsibility of administering those Acts to NParks, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts with cross-references to AVA. There are also other amendments to the Animals and Birds Act and the Control of Plants Act to require importers of key food items to adopt plans, including preventive strategies, to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions. These provisions are to support the Singapore Food Agency in safeguarding our food security.

The transfer of AVA’s non-food plant and animal-related functions will take effect on 1 April 2019. AVA and NParks have been working together to ensure that the transition is as seamless as possible for all relevant stakeholders. NParks will continue to engage and work with all stakeholders to develop holistic and science-based strategies, and more effective responses to animal health, welfare and management, as well as plant health. I believe that this transfer of functions will leverage NParks’ strengths to amplify the effectiveness of AVA’s approach on animal issues thus far. I look forward to Members’ and Singaporeans’ support for NParks’ expanded role. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.19 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by applauding the decision to re-organise the functions and structures of the AVA and NParks. With food issues as well as wildlife management and animal welfare issues are becoming more significant these days. It is important that they be managed under specific bodies with the relevant resources and expertise. The newly created Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and the expanded NParks will certainly have their work cut out for them, but this re-organisation is a step in the right direction for sure. With better defined responsibilities, they will be able to act on them more efficiently and effectively.

I think there is no question we must co-exist with wildlife. But there are many cases of people feeling threatened by animals.

Indeed, there seems to be an increasing number of cases of snakes appearing in residential areas and causing alarm. One woman was even bitten by a python outside her house on the second storey of an HDB flat. Wild boars, too, are a cause for concern, as there have been several cases of wild boars attacking people. And let us also not forget about the monkeys harassing residents, first in the condominiums, and now in densely populated HDB estates too. And, recently, I received several feedback from my residents monkeys are found at the bus stops and overhead bridge near Yishun Stadium. They were so worried when they have children with them. So, there would be a lot on the plate of NParks to manage as I can foresee.

What should we do in such situations? I have always found it perplexing that the police are called in to handle snakes. I urge the AVS to train a group of experts who can handle wildlife and attending to residents who need help.

I give you an example: recently, a resident saw a snake in the drain in front of her unit which is on the ground floor. And she is so worried because her grandchild was sleeping in the house. So, she called ACRES. ACRES told her that the drain is a habitat for snake. Therefore, they will not come and catch. Furthermore, she was told that that snake is a python, it is non-poisonous. It is correct but can you just imagine this poor grandmother in front is a snake but behind is her grandchild. By the time I came to know about it, I quickly called Town Council to send a pest controller down and catch the snake but by the time it is too late, the snake has disappeared. So, can you imagine how much stress it is causing to the resident living in that ground floor unit, not just her unit but all the neighbours on the ground floor because they do not know when will the snake appear again.

So, I hope in cases like this, AVS and NParks can come in to help. And following several snake sightings in the landed properties in Springleaf Estate, Springleaf Neighbourhood invited speakers from Singapore Nature Society to give a talk and I attended the talk as well and I found that it is very informative, very useful.

So, I hope with more streamlined functions, NParks will now be able to do more to increase its outreach. NParks could work with MOE and schools to educate students about dealing with wild life. Start them young so they develop a positive interest and knowledge from a young age.

On the flip side, there are cases of humans hurting animals too. Although fishing is illegal along certain river banks, it is not uncommon to see people fishing illegally. On weekends, especially, along the Sungei Seletar in Springleaf Estate, one can see fishermen decked out in hats and fishing rods, sitting or standing on the river banks to fish. This, despite signages clearly stating "No Fishing" in that area. Over-fishing will result in an upset in the biodiversity of the river. And not only that, some of the fishing rods get hooked on other river animals like otters. These animals will not survive from such man-inflicted injuries without the intervention of wildlife welfare groups.

My residents often feedback that some of these fishermen simply throw away the fishes, especially, if the fishes caught are too small for them to eat. So, they just throw along the river bank and, very often, residents also found fishing hooks along the river bank and all these can be very dangerous when someone steps on it.

I would like to ask what can be done to improve enforcement of penalties against illegal fishing?

Before I conclude, I would like to reiterate that it is good to have harmonious co-existence with animals, but we need to strike a balance. We need to consider the safety of our residents first.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the problem that some cat feeders caused to our community. In Nee Soon South Zone A, many residents complaining about sighting of big, big rats and I went down at night to take a look. True enough, I can see many rats dancing about, running about and I activated NEA, AVA and Town Council. We formed a Rat Task Force. We found that the root cause actually is the food left behind by cat feeders, several cat feeders, not just one and when they walked away, the rats come and eat, the big cockroaches come and eat and I asked NEA to act, they said cannot, there was an agreement by AVA and Cat Society to leave food there for two hours. So, many cat feeders mean many two hours – how to solve the rat issue. Rats multiplied very fast well. Town Council and NEA have been working very hard. They have been treating the burrows, sealing the burrows, catch the rats at least twice a week but we do not seem to be able to solve the problem.

I would like to take this opportunity to plead to the relevant agency to remove the two hours feeding for areas that have rat issues. Residents' health is much more important.

To conclude, the Government's decision to create a lead organisation for the management of animals is evident that it recognises the importance of this issue to the environment and to the hearts of Singaporeans. It is good to take care of animals, but, please do not forget to take care of our residents' safety and hygienic living environment. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: To have peaceful co-existence with the animals is good for everybody. Nature can bring about positive effects to tourism, eco-balance and our mental health. But there are potential conflicts between animals and people in two areas. First, the animals can bring fear. We must educate our people not to panic when they see animals. Under this circumstance, you do not have to report to the Police but to look for the relevant organisation. Hopefully, the new agency can step up the education and offer help to the residents when necessary.

On the other hand, some humans may hurt animals. In Singapore, we often see people fishing illegally. This will harm otters and other animals, and disturb eco-balance. Can the Government step up enforcement efforts?

In conclusion, it is a good move to separate the functions of overseeing food from nature, so that the Government can better manage these two important areas. While it is good to take care of wildlife, we should also think more of our residents’ safety and the hygiene of their living environment.

(In English): Notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Er Dr Lee. I assume rats are not animals. Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

6.30 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Among other things, this Bill seeks to transfer certain functions currently undertaken by the AVA to NParks, which would improve the coordination and implementation of matters relating to animals.

Sir, there is currently a rule that cats are not allowed in HDB flats. However, in practice, most of us adopt a live-and-let-live approach. HDB, generally, does not take too much enforcement action as long as the keeping of cats does not affect anyone adversely and the neighbours do not complain.

Unfortunately, there are also cases of irresponsible cat owners who keep their cats in an unhygienic condition. I have a resident who keeps many cats in her flat and does not exercise good hygiene or proper cat litter box practice. This case has been going on for more than four years and the stench from the cat faeces is unbearable for the neighbours. And, every few months, the surrounding neighbours of up to 10 different households would come to see me to ask how much longer they have to suffer the stench. There are also complaints of unusual insects spotted in their flats by the neighbours, possibly attracted by the unhygienic environment.

It must be surprising that the various agencies are not able to solve this problem after four years. First, HDB does not have the power of forced entry to enter the particular flat to document the facts of the case. The owner is uncooperative and refuse to open the door. So, HDB is unable to enter the flat to confirm the existence of the cats and to serve a summons in person to the flat owner.

NParks’ new role covers protecting the welfare, safety and health of animals, as well as preventing and managing threats to public health and safety from animals or plants.

Sir, I believe this is not sufficient. For the case I have highlighted, on the one occasion that HDB and AVA were able to enter the flat, AVA was unable to remove the cats because although the cats were staying in an unhygienic condition, they were generally in good health and the current rules only allows the removal of the animals if they are found to be mistreated or in poor health.

As such, I would like to propose broadening NPark’s responsibility to include removing animals where they cause severe public disamenities which would presumably include stench suffered by neighbours. I am not sure if AVA has the power of forced entry. If this is indeed the case, then another suggestion is for NParks to be given the power of forced entry to carry out its duties.

To be fair to pet owners, I believe this rule of allowing NParks to enter private property and to remove pets causing severe public disamenities should only be used when all other avenues of solving the case have been exhausted. But nonetheless, I think it is a useful tool to have in cases where pet owners are uncooperative and recalcitrant.

Sir, I hope the relevant authorities can take into account the suggestions I have made today. Thank you.

6.33 pm

Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important Bill. It sets the fundamentals based on our principle of “Let's Make Singapore Our Garden” – Our Garden, referring to both flora and fauna – a vision we have set since the 1960s when we commenced our nation building. It also aligns with Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s vision for us in transforming Singapore into a Garden City.

With this Bill, there is a revamp of the statutory board and the agencies' organisations. Can I find out how this is going to affect the staffing arrangements and reporting structure? What about the secondment of staff, with the AVA now being subsumed and transferred under the NParks Board as well?

The transfer is appropriate, in terms of AVA coming under the same umbrella, as NParks manages our greenery and our parks, which is also the basis of our ecosystem for many animal species and types. Coming together does make sense and helps streamline work processes and flow. The oversight and planning of our ecosystems will also be more wholesome and aligned.

Can the Minister advise us also on how the new entity will be working together with other agencies, such as HPB for health-related issues, infectious diseases and also health and medicinal products concerned? How about NEA, especially pertaining to public health issues?

Can we also get an update on how much, on average, do we spend on animal management annually? I anticipate this amount is going to increase, with the new developments and changes we have planned for the next several years.

The National Biodiversity Centre has been in existence since 2006. With this renewal of the management and plans, are there going to be changes to the focus and thrust of this Centre? Can we get an update on this as well?

With the transfer and merger effected, I assume there will be a review of our national plans. So, will there be any changes to our National Conservation strategy and action plans?

Finally, Sir, will there be a single access number or hotline number with the reorganisation? This will help publicise to the public information and also a single point of contact which makes it a lot easier for all forms of feedback as well. With that, I support the Bill.

6.35 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive of ACRES, an animal protection charity, the same ACRES that my GRC colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah was talking about. Perhaps, I should start by thanking her for sharing the extensive list of animals we have in Yishun and the amazing biodiversity we have. I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary will reply to some of the concerns she has raised, but I would like to add that, perhaps, we have so many rats also because we have removed all the pythons which eat the rats.

But, Sir, I have spent more than half of my life, over 20 years, speaking up for animals and giving them a voice. I have to say that this merger of AVA and NParks is good news for the animal protection community. It addresses a significant problem we face on the ground.

Many times, we respond to feedback related to monkeys, for example. If that particular monkey is in a nature reserve, we would inform NParks. As we wait for NParks officers to arrive, the monkey moves, sometimes just by a few metres, and ends up outside the nature reserve. We then have to inform AVA. There was once the monkey was at a bus stop, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has said, and we were told to inform LTA instead. As these animals are quite mobile, things can get quite complicated with multiple agencies involved.

Thus, the move to combine all non-food plant and animal related functions is very much a welcomed one. This will enable a more unified and coherent approach. I stand in support of this Bill but would like to seek a few clarifications.

First, I would like to seek clarifications for the rationale for limiting the definition of “animal”. The definition of “animal” under the current Act, which references the Parks and Trees Act, includes “any other living creature, vertebrate or invertebrate”. Basically, it includes everything.

The proposed new definition is more restricted. The word "invertebrate" is no longer there. Anthropods are now included in the definition of animals but there are invertebrates that are not anthropods. This includes cnidarians, such as jellyfishes and annelids such as earthworms and leeches.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify the rationale for limiting the definition of "animal" in this way? What prompted this change?

Next, the positive aspect of this merger is that it will create synergy. We are merging so that, instead of two organisations, we have one organisation focused on animal and plant issues.

I thus find it strange that after this merger, we then split the Director-General’s duties. Instead of one DG, we will have 4 DG positions. A DG for Animal Health and Welfare, a DG for Wildlife Management, a DG for Wildlife Trade Control, and a DG for Plant Health. While I understand that the DG for Animal Health and Welfare and the DG for Wildlife Management will be the same person, the DG for Wildlife Trade Control will be a different person.

Why are we merging and then splitting? I find this will complicate things on the ground. For example, many wildlife trafficking cases involve both species protected under CITES and under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and also species not protected by CITES that fall under the Wild Animals and Birds Act. There is often animal cruelty involved as well and that offence will fall under the Animals and Birds Act.

Prior to all the changes, this case would have been covered by one DG. Now, it will involve three DGs. Would this not be a waste of resources? Do officers handling the case have to send reports to the different DGs and the DGs will then have to meet to discuss the case? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how the DGs will work together now, and whether there will be separate lines of reporting for enforcement officers?

Lastly, I would like to focus on the issue that I have raised many times in this House – culling. Whenever we have animal-related nuisance complaints or feedback, culling seems to be the solution. Be it chickens or monkeys or birds or wild boars, we have culled them. We have made progress on this front, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned, and now have good TNRM programmes for dogs and cats, which focus on more humane, scientific and long-term solutions. These programmes address both residents’ concerns and animal welfare concerns. I hope that with this merger, with NParks’ strong background in science, we will start to develop more holistic, science-based management approaches towards managing animal populations in Singapore.

Sir, we have been culling animals for decades. I ask that we look at this not just from an animal welfare perspective but also look at it from an effectiveness perspective. Culling has clearly not worked. If culling worked, we would not have the same animal-related problems in the same areas year after year. We spend tons of resources, including financial resources, on a solution that does not seem to produce results. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also confirm whether there are any scientific studies that show that our current culling measures work?

As a biologist by training and having done a literature review, I have found no scientific studies that support our current culling measures. Certainly, there are no scientific studies that suggest culling based on public complaints is effective. In fact, there is scientific research that shows the contrary, that is, that culling not only fails to reduce the population, it actually leads to an increase.

We have to understand that with our current measures, while there is a clear reduction in numbers following a cull, at times within a few weeks, with pigeon, for example, the pigeon numbers may be back to the pre-cull numbers and, at times, exceed it. Why? Because we usually kill the adult birds who may be the non-breeding birds. The younger, healthier and stronger breeding birds survive the cull. According to the Pigeon Control Advisory Service, “pigeons control their own numbers very effectively according to the volume of food available to them. An adult pair of pigeons will usually breed four to six times a year but can breed more frequently in optimum conditions, producing two young each time. If, however, the food supply reduces and there is only sufficient food available to support the existing flock, adult birds may only breed once or twice a year or possibly not at all.

Pigeons will not breed if there is insufficient food to service the needs of their young. If the food supply increases for any reason, following a cull, for example, pigeons will breed continuously until the flock reaches the point where it is fully exploiting the food available to it. In other words, there is a minor population explosion each time a cull takes place. The end result is an estimated 15%-30% increment in flock size over and above the pre-cull figure.”

Sir, many others have used culling as a solution and have found as well that it does not work. In the City of Basel, for example, they had 20,000 pigeons in 1963. Over a period of 24 years of intensive culling, they killed 100,000 pigeons. In 1988, they did a count. Instead of having 20,000 pigeons, they now have 30,000 pigeons. Despite the culling, the population increased by 33%.

Clearly, culling did not work. The City of Basel then focused on a public awareness campaign to address the public feeding of pigeons. It installed pigeon lofts, removed the pigeon eggs and controlled the availability of food. Within four and a half years, the city’s pigeon population decreased to 10,000 birds. Some culling continued during this period but that was to prevent the birds from starving to death due to the lack of food. This is very different from the culling that takes place in Singapore, which takes place in response to public complaints.

The culling of monkeys is similarly ineffective as it is usually the young ones who get trapped. The mother monkey which lost her young goes into heat again, the male monkey mates with her and another baby is born, replacing the monkey which was killed. If we somehow manage to kill an entire troop, the neighbouring troop will then take over the territory of the troop who were killed, with more resources, they breed more and, sooner than later, we will have the same number of monkeys again.

Sir, I can go on and on about this. Culling ignores the science and puts a burden on valuable Government resources. I sincerely hope that we can move forward on this issue and that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share more about how NParks intends to manage the animal populations in Singapore.

Sir, this Bill is much needed and opens a new and exciting chapter in the animal protection movement in Singapore. When this merger was first announced, there were some concerns as to whether it was really true. Is it really happening? Was this fake news?

The problem is that it was announced that the merger would take place on 1 April, on April Fools' Day. I hope that the public is now assured that this is not a joke and perhaps that it is really happening, and maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can also provide some assurances on that. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in full support of this Bill.

6.45 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. We can expect greater synergy and efficiency after the consolidation of all non-food-related plant and animal functions to NParks under MND. I am sure there will be many benefits to be reaped from the optimisation of resources and leveraging of expertise.

I would like to take this opportunity to raise a couple of issues on behalf of my residents regarding the population of wild birds and pets.

Firstly, about the wild birds. I think we would all agree that most of us want to live and work in environments which integrate nature with man-made structures. Very few people would choose to live in a sterile estate with only concrete buildings. The challenge we face is in striking a balance between the management of wildlife and human populations.

Having birds and other creatures around us is good and necessary for our well-being. However, they can also be the sources of disamenity, such as noise pollution and animal waste. Some residents have shared their concerns over the population of wild birds with me, particularly species which are growing in numbers. Does NParks have plans to manage such wild bird populations in our estates? How would NParks tackle big populations of certain birds which appear seasonally? Would the choice of particular trees or plants help to resolve the problems of certain wild birds in our HDB estates?

Secondly, about keeping pets in HDB flats. In recent years, I have been receiving many feedback relating to problems created by increasing pet ownership in our HDB estates. Some residents complain about incessant barking; others are dismayed by the foul smell of pets’ urine along common corridors and void decks; irresponsible owners who leave pets’ faeces on the ground are also a big problem. Personally, I am quite worried about pets which are mistreated by owners who have lost interest in them, such as by confining them in small cages. I would like to ask how NParks will proceed in tackling these problems, including how it will work with other agencies and Ministries.

Debate resumed.

6.48 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their very animated speeches and for their suggestions and views.

Let me start by addressing Members’ comments on the Bill. Mr Louis Ng expressed concerns about the limiting effect of the new definition of “animal” which replaces the present one in the National Parks Board Act. The new definition is non-exhaustive, as signified by the use of the word “includes”. The new definition in the Bill therefore allows for the inclusion of invertebrates as an animal.

Mr Ng also asked why we split the duties of AVA’s Director-General of Agri-Food and Veterinary Services among four newly-created Director-Generals in the Animals and Birds Act, the Wild Animals and Birds Act, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, and the Control of Plants Act. The administration of each of these four Acts will be transferred under the Bill from AVA to NParks. Each Act has a significant different and distinct purpose and scope from the other. Hence, the Bill provides the flexibility to appoint separate technical experts for each role. But notwithstanding this, as Mr Ng has pointed out, the same person could be appointed as the Director-General for more than one role, if he or she has the right expertise. Regardless of the number of officers performing these roles, they will report to the same CEO who will ensure that there continues to be close coordination across the different teams.

Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the staffing arrangements. The senior management of AVA and NParks have engaged their staff through several townhalls and engagement sessions to ensure that they are aware of their roles and reporting structure after the reorganisation. All AVA staff in its present food-related and non-food undertakings, including secondees, will be transferred to the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and NParks respectively. The Member may wish to refer to the new section 25(6) which is inserted by clause 7 of the Bill for AVA’s non-food undertakings. Persons on secondment in AVA’s food-related undertakings will have been transferred to the SFA under the Singapore Food Agency Bill 2019 which this House has just passed.

Members also spoke about animal management. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the need for us to co-exist harmoniously with animals, birds, and other types of wildlife. Indeed, in our biophilic City in a Garden, we live in close proximity to nature and should continue to try to minimise friction in human-animal interactions. The transfer of animal-related functions from AVA to NParks will put us in a better position to do so in several ways.

First, as Er Dr Lee suggested, we will continue to heighten public awareness regarding wildlife. Should members of the public encounter wildlife such as snakes or wild boars, they can call the existing Animal Response Centre at 1800-476-1600, which NParks will take over from AVA. This is also the hotline that Prof Fatimah enquired about. We have also put up advisories in parks where there have been previous sightings of wild boars so members of the public know how to react if they come across them. NParks will also continue to work with nature groups, town councils, as well as schools on public education and engagement programmes. For instance, AVA and NParks are members of the Long-tailed Macaque Working Group alongside volunteers from animal interest groups, such as the Jane Goodall Institute. The Working Group’s flagship community education project, the Monkey Guards Programme, teaches people how to respond to monkeys and to guide them away from residential areas.

Er Dr Lee has raised the issue about stray cat feeding. Many community cats are taken care of by regular, responsible feeders. In this regard, agencies have worked with the Cat Welfare Society to adopt a calibrated approach to allow such feeding whilst taking action to prevent disamenities. When NEA officers encountered cat feeders, they take down their particulars. If the officers return and find that the site is not cleared after a reasonable amount of time, they will be able to carry out enforcement using the particulars collected earlier. But we take the point that Er Dr Lee has raised. At locations where cat feeding has exacerbated rat problems, NEA and AVA will work with the CWS to tighten the processes. For instance, feeders may be asked to clear up immediately to mitigate the problem.

Next, NParks will build on AVA’s existing partnerships with animal interest groups, animal-related businesses and other stakeholders, as it continues to refine and implement our animal and wildlife management strategy. NParks will also work closely with other public agencies in carrying out its functions. Er Dr Lee raised the issue of illegal fishing at Sungei Seletar. NParks and PUB will continue to monitor the situation and step up enforcement where necessary. To address Dr Fatimah’s question on how NParks will partner other agencies to safeguard public health, NParks will join MOH and NEA, as well as SFA, which currently work closely together to address public health issues. This is made an express new function of NParks in clause 3(a) of the Bill. In particular, NParks will be contributing its expertise in veterinary health and zoonotic diseases to the group.

NParks will also undertake a holistic review of the regulatory approach for animal-related businesses such as pet boarders, pet breeders, and veterinary centres. As part of this review, NParks will engage industry players and animal interest groups, to find the right balance across their various needs and interests.

Third, we will continue to take a holistic science-based approach to animal management This entails understanding the underlying drivers, putting in place appropriate public education programmes, and applying the appropriate animal-management measures for each specific case. A sustainable animal management strategy requires a holistic suite of measures. This can include removal of food sources, use of contraceptives, habitat modification and population control.

For instance, Mr Gan and Mr Ng spoke about the management of wild birds in HDB estates. AVA has worked closely with grassroots organisations, Town Councils and NEA to educate the public about proper food waste management, as well as stepped up enforcement in problem areas where the presence of improperly disposed food waste exacerbates the situation. AVA has repeatedly highlighted in its public communications that such food sources attract birds and increases their population. This point has been carried by various media outlets, such as The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Today in their coverage of such issues.

Apart from controlling food sources, AVA has trialled various measures to move the birds away from trees near residential areas such as the use of lasers, natural bird repellent and passing low electrical currents through roost trees. A variety of measures are used and there is no reliance on any one single method for a quick-fix. Taking on board the lessons that AVA has learnt in dealing with wild birds, NParks will monitor the population, occurrence, diet and movement of wild birds, so as to develop effective long-term strategies to mitigate the disamenities caused by them. For example, NParks is replacing roost trees with other trees that still provide shade but are less attractive to the birds, to reduce the number of roosting sites. We have also found recently that with the pruning of potential roost trees, we are able to direct birds away from roosting closely to residential areas.

I would like to assure Members that NParks will undertake a holistic and scientific approach, and also learn appropriate lessons from experiences overseas to support our efforts in wildlife and animal management. For example, by applying population studies, active tracking and modelling techniques, NParks was able to identify the various troops of macaques in the Upper Thomson area. NParks then worked with the grassroots leaders and residents to stem habits like feeding and poor handling of household trash, and to actively drive the macaques away from residential areas. Only when a macaque has acted aggressively, will NParks step in to relocate it, or if necessary, put it down for public safety reasons.

To address Prof Fatimah’s question about NParks’ budget for animal management, we are currently focusing on ensuring a smooth transition for all stakeholders and continuity for all existing programmes. Thereafter, NParks will undertake a comprehensive review of our animal management measures, including the appropriate budget required.

Prof Fatimah also asked if there would be changes to the National Biodiversity Centre, which is currently under NParks. With the reorganisation, NParks will be able to integrate its existing expertise in biodiversity, conservation and ecology with AVA’s capabilities in animal and plant health, as well as veterinary science. This will enable NParks to add new dimensions to its Nature Conservation Master Plan, which is coordinated by National Biodiversity Centre. For example, NParks will be able to better incorporate the monitoring and management of zoonotic diseases into its wildlife management and species recovery programmes.

Next, let me address Members’ comments on pets. I fully agree with Mr Gan that pet owners need to be responsible for the welfare of their pets. The Animals and Birds Act has mandated that pet owners show a duty of care to their pets. NParks will continue AVA’s good work to remind pet owners that “A Pet is for Life”. Through the Responsible Pet Ownership programme, we hope to equip potential pet owners with knowledge on the care and responsibility that comes with owning a pet. With the Bill, NParks will take over the administration of the Animals and Birds Act, and its officers will be suitably empowered to take enforcement action against anyone who commits an act of animal cruelty or fails to provide adequate care for their pets.

Mr Gan and Mr Yee Chia Hsing highlighted the issue of irresponsible pet owners in HDB flats causing disamenities to their neighbours. In such cases, AVA, and in future, NParks and HDB will work with the flat owners, grassroots leaders and Animal Welfare Groups to resolve the issues, and to re-home the animals if necessary.

Under the Housing and Development (Animals) Rules, recalcitrant owners who refuse to allow HDB officers to enter and inspect their premises may be brought to court where they can be fined up to $4,000 upon conviction. In cases where there is reasonable cause to believe that the welfare of the pets is compromised, or there is mistreatment, AVA today has powers under the Animals and Birds Act to enter the premises for investigation. The owners, if convicted in court for failing to provide adequate care for their pets, may be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. AVA can also seize the animals if there are concerns about their welfare. To answer Mr Gan, NParks officers will have these same powers even after the Bill is passed.

Mr Yee further suggested that agencies be given powers to forcibly remove pets from private homes due to disamenities arising from the pets, but added a caveat that this should only be used when all other avenues have been exhausted. Indeed, we would need to consider very carefully whether to put in place such powers for NParks officers, as the powers are very intrusive.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support and suggestions. NParks will continue to engage and work with stakeholders on holistic and science-based strategies to enhance animal health and welfare, as well as ensure that we co-exist harmoniously with wildlife and other animals. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

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. – [Ms Sun Xueling].

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