Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.36 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, my journey in amending the Wild Animals and Birds Act or WABA, started more than 14 years ago, before I became a Member of this House. On 13 March 2006, the media published my letter in which I said, "It would seem that there is much ambiguity in the Wild Animals and Birds Act and perhaps, it is time to improve and amend the law to make it a more effective tool in the protection of wild animals."

In the past 14 years, we have focused on strengthening other animal-related legislation, including the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act or ESA, the Animals and Birds Act or ABA, and the Parks and Trees Act or PTA.

The WABA has not been substantially amended since 1965. I am glad that it is now time to amend this Act and align it with other animal-related legislation that we have already strengthened.

Sir, I am happy to introduce this Bill on behalf of the people and the animals. This Bill drafted by people, and based on feedback and suggestions from the people. This journey and this Bill has been made possible by the work of the Wild Animal Legislation Review Committee or WALRC. I am proud to chair this committee of passionate individuals. It feels like it was just yesterday, but we held our first meeting in February 2018, more than two years ago.

In the process of developing our recommendations, we recognised that different segments of society hold different views about wildlife protection and human-wildlife co-existence. Interest in animal welfare and nature conservation is growing and many regard the preservation of wildlife as a matter of critical importance. But there are others who are less comfortable with wildlife or who are primarily concerned about wildlife matters only as they relate to public health and safety. We tried our best to capture as many of these views as possible.

We started with the composition of the committee itself, which comprises a wide cross-section of society. We not only have representatives from the nature and animal welfare community, but also from the Singapore Pest Management Association, the Pet Enterprise and Traders Association of Singapore, the Singapore Buddhist Federation, the academic and legal community, and the Nee Soon East Youth Network.

To supplement the committee's passion and expertise, we also conducted extensive public consultation. Our goal was to hear from the people themselves and to gauge the level of support for our proposed amendments. The first public consultation was a face-to-face session in May 2018. It was then followed by an online session on REACH from June to July 2018.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): A point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps, we should give some time for more Members to come in, because I do not believe we have a quorum.

Mr Speaker: I have sent a message out for them. I understand.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: The first public consultation was a face-to-face session in May 2018. It was then followed by an online session on REACH from June to July 2018. We received over a thousand responses in our online consultation. We took extra time to consult groups that had particular interests in some of the proposals. We held consultations with pest control companies in June 2018 and with religious organisations in June 2019. Our final face-to-face public consultation was held in August 2019. There, we shared the proposed amendments and also explained why we did not proceed with some of the earlier proposed amendments.

In January 2020, we met with the MND Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members to obtain their feedback on the proposed amendments. Finally, this month, we published a post-consultation summary on REACH and on my Facebook page.

This two-year journey of public consultations has taught me and the other committee members a great deal. Through sharing and, most importantly, listening, we have reached a set of proposed amendments that, I believe, strengthen the protection, preservation and management of wildlife for the purposes of maintaining a healthy eco-system and safeguarding our public safety and health.

The Bill will amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act by, first, renaming it Wildlife Act, from WABA to WA. I think we now have a piece of law with the coolest name.

With that, I will now outline the key features of WA.

Sir, let me first declare my interest as the Chief Executive of ACRES. In the past 19 years, I have worked closely with NParks and previously, the AVA. We have worked hand-in-hand to protect animals in Singapore and safeguard their welfare and public safety.

I saw first-hand the gaps and how it was affecting our wildlife, public safety, the work of NParks and AVA officers, and NGOs.

The feeding and release of wildlife is a good example. Sir, some years ago, we received reports of a person feeding a monkey in our park. Feeding wild animals in our parks is illegal and we advised her to stop, especially as the monkey had turned aggressive and started attacking other park users. NParks issued her with a warning letter. However, instead of stopping, she started feeding the monkey at the apartments beside the park, where it was not illegal to feed wild animals. The Parks and Trees Act does not cover areas outside the parks and nature reserves.

There was little NParks or ACRES could do to stop the feeding. She continued feeding the monkey and soon, residents started to complain, and eventually, we had to remove this wild monkey.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case and the feeding of wildlife happens regularly. Too regularly. It is also not just monkeys but a wide range of other animals, including wild boars and birds.

Sir, feeding wildlife causes at least three types of problems.

First, it can alter wildlife behaviour, thus affecting public safety. Again, for example, macaques who are used to being fed by humans can get aggressive if they think you are holding their next meal. Second, it can increase wildlife populations and cause disamenities. Anthropogenic food provisioning is a key driver of pigeon growth in urban areas. Third, it can cause ecological issues. Wild animals can get addicted to sugary human food. This is not only bad for their health but also leads them to neglect vital ecological roles like seed dispersion.

For birds in particular, outside of parks and nature reserves, our law prohibits only the feeding of pigeons, and not other birds. This gap makes it harder for us to address the root of the problem when it comes to human-wildlife conflicts.

Let me now turn to the release of wildlife. Sir, over the years, I have personally seen the problems that arise when animals are released back into the wild without proper safeguards. We have rescued so many animals who had been released. I cannot count the number of pig-nosed turtles that have turned up dead on our shores. Many think they are marine turtles who live in the sea but they are actually freshwater turtles. They go through a very painful death when released into the sea.

While we do our best to rescue these animals, many do not survive. The animals pay with their lives.

In my speech on the Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill, I shared my concerns about the current legislation and proposed to prohibit the release of animals anywhere, on land or in water, in Singapore. I proposed that we should not restrict these prohibitions to only certain areas. Specifically, I said, "Animals are not stationary and have the freedom to travel from unrestricted areas to nature reserves. Hence, I see little rationale in creating demarcations when prohibiting the release of animals."

Sir, the release of animals poses many concerns as well.

First, it is harmful to animal welfare as released animals who are not properly rehabilitated often do not survive in the wild. Second, it can create health issues for both humans and the animals as released animals could introduce diseases into the environment. Third, it can pose a problem to public safety, in the case where dangerous animals like stingrays are released. And fourth, it can imbalance and threaten eco-systems as invasive species can harm our native populations.

Today, there are existing controls in the PTA on the feeding and release of wildlife in our parks and nature reserves. The new sections 5(a) and 5(b) in the Wildlife Act extend these by prohibiting the release and feeding of wildlife throughout Singapore, unless approved by the Director-General, Wildlife Management.

We acknowledge that the majority of people who feed or release animals do not do so for malicious reasons. In fact, it is often the opposite. They do so out of compassion and a genuine desire to help animals. Thus, the solution cannot only be to rely on the law to regulate behaviour, but to first help them understand that the feeding and release of wildlife causes more harm than good, so they are internally motivated to change.

We consulted the relevant stakeholders, particularly religious groups, on how to achieve this. For instance, we discussed alternatives to mercy release with local Buddhist organisations. We can build on and scale up what a Buddhist temple has practised by inviting pet owners to get their animals blessed and animal welfare charities to stage an adoption drive for strays.

The temple's spiritual director said, "Buying and releasing animals is actually not good for the environment, so it's much better if we can feed and re-home strays."

Other ideas raised were volunteering at animal shelters or tree-planting. I thank the local Buddhist community for their inputs. The WALRC will continue to work with the community on education and outreach efforts surrounding feeding and release of wild animals.

Next amendment, wildlife traps. One of the most common questions I have been asked over the past two decades is, "Singapore got wildlife meh". We do. Plenty of wildlife and our biodiversity in Singapore is amazing.

Our wildlife lives in our parks and nature reserves where they receive protection under the PTA. But those who live outside parks and nature reserves also need similar protection as they can be targeted by poachers.

The WALRC contemplated the need for stronger controls on nets and traps outside parks and nature reserves. We were concerned about both the deliberate poaching of wildlife as well as incidental harm inflicted on wildlife caused by the inappropriate use of nets and traps. In recent years, we have seen cases of our beloved otters being killed in traps near Changi Sailing Club and along Marina Promenade.

Currently, NParks can prosecute poachers for taking, or attempting to take, wildlife. But it is still challenging for NParks to enforce against poachers as traps are often left unattended, or may simply be abandoned.

So, instead of only focusing on how to catch and prosecute people, we asked ourselves: what more can we do to mitigate the harm to the public and wildlife caused by nets and traps?

One solution to this is the new section 10A, which empowers NParks to dismantle and dispose of unattended or unauthorised traps in any place. If the place is owned or occupied, NParks will need to give reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier before conducting its checks. This is meant for more routine inspections.

However, if an offence is suspected, such as if NParks receives a specific tip-off that poaching activities are being carried out on a private property, NParks will be empowered, under the new section 11A and 11B, to enter without notice to search for and seize the trap.

We also wanted to more strongly deter the use of snare traps. Snare traps use trigger-activated nooses to trap wildlife, often maiming or killing them in the process. These are dangerous not only to wildlife but also to humans, especially young children.

The existing section 9 of WABA sets out higher penalties for wildlife traps that may also harm humans, such as spring guns or pitfalls. We have updated this provision, which is now in the new section 7, to include snare traps, so that those who use them will also be liable to higher penalties.

Another issue that the WALRC grappled with was whether all wildlife species should be equally protected under the Act. This debate got quite interesting.

One day, I received a call informing me that the people keeping ants were very angry with me. To be honest, I never knew people kept ants as pets. But actually and technically, I, too, keep ants as pets. My three little angels at home drop crumbs and food everywhere and we now have a fair number of ants living with us and lovingly fed by my daughters. I do tell my daughters ants are our friends.

I was told the people were angry as I was proposing amendments to the law that will make the keeping of ants illegal. That is not true.

Ants are invertebrates and we had a huge discussion on how invertebrates should be treated under the Act.

On one hand, there are threatened invertebrates like horseshoe crabs that should be protected. But on the other hand, it seems excessive to disallow people from killing animals like cockroaches, or trapping and keeping insects for leisure or educational purposes, such as ant-keeping or teaching kids about animal life cycles.

Let me assure everyone that we will not make the above practices illegal.

The Bill provides for a calibrated approach to be taken in cases like this. The new section 20 empowers the Minister to exempt any person, place or wildlife, or any class of persons, places or wildlife, from any or all provisions of the Act by order in the Gazette. This means that some activities that do not undermine the overall aim of wildlife protection could be carved out.

Using section 20, I understand that MND will exempt pests and non-threatened invertebrates from protection against killing and trapping.

However, we should not exclude invertebrates from the Act altogether. For example, we should not allow the unregulated import or release of dangerous or invasive invertebrates, such as the venomous bulldog ant or invasive fire ants, which could wreak havoc on our eco-system and cause harm to the public.

There will be additional safeguards to ensure that threatened invertebrates are adequately protected. Most of these threatened invertebrates are already living in our parks and nature reserves, and today, it is already an offence to kill or trap them under the current PTA.

The Bill additionally empowers the Minister to prescribe a new list of "protected wildlife species". Selected threatened species, including invertebrates, can be put on this list, such that they can be protected beyond our parks and nature reserves. I will elaborate more on this later.

In summary, you can keep ants as pets and you can trap them outside of parks and nature reserves. But if you plan to import, trap them within nature reserves or trap selected threatened invertebrates, you will need NParks' approval.

Ninety percent of respondents on the REACH consultation agreed with this broad approach and felt that at least threatened invertebrates should be protected from killing, keeping or capturing without a permit throughout Singapore.

That said, we are aware that some may accidentally or unknowingly violate the rules, especially if they are less familiar with wildlife. The WALRC and NParks will work with stakeholders on public awareness campaigns, and I trust that NParks will enforce the law fairly and reasonably.

We move on now to the question of penalties. The penalties under the current Act are far too low to deter would-be poachers and traffickers. Illegally trading in exotic pets is only punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 under the existing Act. Some of these animals fetch much more on the black market.

Clauses 7, 9, 10 and 12 thus introduce higher penalties for all offences to bring the Wildlife Act on par with more updated animal-related legislation, namely the ABA, ESA and PTA.

Clause 7 also introduces heavier penalties for animal-related businesses that kill, trap, take or keep wildlife. This is necessary because first, these businesses are capable of causing much more harm than individual offenders, as in the case of a wildlife management company illegally killing or trapping wildlife.

Second, these businesses have a stronger duty of care towards animals.

Third, businesses are generally more financially capable of paying fines, so a higher fine quantum is needed as a stronger deterrent.

The definition of "animal-related business" is the same as the one in ABA, which also includes animal welfare groups like ACRES. There will also be higher penalties for repeat and recalcitrant offenders. The proposed penalty structure has two tiers, with one tier for first convictions, and another tier for second and subsequent convictions.

We saw a further need to more strongly protect certain native threatened wildlife species, similar to how the ESA more strongly protects globally threatened species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Take the Sunda pangolin, for example, which is both CITES-listed and native to Singapore. Poaching and selling it locally would only be liable to a fine of up to $1,000 under the existing Act, whereas illegally importing a pangolin which was poached elsewhere could be penalised by up to $50,000 and/or two years' imprisonment under the ESA.

Clause 2 thus introduces "protected wildlife species" to be prescribed by the Minister. I understand that MND intends to take reference from the CITES Appendices and the Singapore Red Data Book in putting together this list of protected species.

But this is not to say that every species found in those lists will automatically be prescribed on the protected wildlife species list. I understand that MND and NParks will develop a robust selection criteria. The general principle will be that the protected wildlife species list will contain native species that are domestically threatened.

I hope that the list will be progressively refined and amended in consultation with experts and the nature community.

Clauses 7 and 9 set out that killing, trapping, taking, keeping, selling or exporting these protected species will be punishable by the highest penalties under the Act – up to $50,000 in fines and/or two years' imprisonment, on par now with the ESA.

Sir, beyond the WALRC’s recommendations, in 2018, I raised in Parliament that there was a gap in the enforcement of certain conditions imposed under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework.

Take, for example, a development project that is near a known wildlife habitat. If the developer had deliberately killed a wild animal to make way for works, it would be an offence under the existing WABA. If the animal was killed in a nature reserve, it would be an offence also under the PTA.

In addition, as part of the EIA requirements, NParks might have required the developer to install hoardings to prevent wildlife from venturing out onto the roads. However, if the developer failed to do so and the wild animal walked onto a road straight into the path of an unwitting motorist, there is currently limited recourse under the law.

I am glad to share that after discussions with MND and NParks, we will have a new section 10 that will empower the Director-General, Wildlife Management to issue directions to developers to carry out wildlife-related measures to safeguard wildlife, public health or safety, or the health of the eco-system.

The relevant wildlife-related EIA conditions can thus be formally issued as directions, and contravention of these directions would constitute an offence punishable by up to $50,000 in fines and/or six months' imprisonment. This would give the EIA process additional "teeth" and serve as a stronger incentive for developers to comply with EIA conditions.

Finally, Sir, to ensure that the WALRC's recommendations can be effectively implemented, we saw a need to strengthen NParks' enforcement powers.

Clauses 10 to 15 would largely align NParks' powers under the Wildlife Act with those under the ABA and ESA. This includes allowing NParks to direct people to pay the costs of repatriating smuggled wildlife in a way that ensures that the wildlife is properly cared for. This is so the Government does not have to bear the costs of repairing the damage caused by smugglers, and is similar to the existing powers in the ESA, for dealing with smuggled wildlife species.

We also propose a new power for the Court to be able to forfeit conveyances used in the commission of a convicted offence. The risk of losing their vehicles would serve as a stronger deterrent to would-be smugglers.

Nonetheless, we recognise that there must be safeguards to expanded powers. The Court may not order the forfeiture of very large conveyances or aircrafts or trains used for regular passenger service to and from Singapore, as well as conveyances that were used unlawfully without the owner's knowledge or consent.

Sir, let me end by once again thanking members of the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee for all their hard work, for helping to draft all the proposed amendments in this Bill and for their unwavering commitment towards protecting our wildlife and nature spots in Singapore.

My heartfelt thanks to: Karen Sim, the Secretary of the committee; Kalai Vanan from ACRES; Daryl Yeo from the Nature Photographic Society; Kerry Pereira from the Nature Society Singapore; Wong Jin Feng from the Nee Soon East Youth Network; Joseph Chun from the Faculty of Law at NUS; N Sivasothi from the Department of Biological Sciences at NUS; Matthew Lim from the Pet Enterprise Traders Association of Singapore; Venerable Shi You Guang from the Singapore Buddhist Federation; Ng Say Kiat from the Singapore Pest Management Association; Jaipal Singh from the SPCA; the late Subaraj Rajathurai from Strix Wildlife Consultancy; Jessica Lee from the Wildlife Reserves Singapore; Ria Tan from WildSingapore and my team of Legislative Assistants.

I would also like to thank NParks and MND for their views and suggestions. NParks served as a resource panel to the WALRC. This helped us better plan out which wildlife protection outcomes would be better achieved via legislation and which should be done via other means.

We worked to ensure that the proposals were practical and could be implemented on the ground by NParks later on. MND and NParks also made some suggestions for additional amendments, some of which are contained in this Bill.

I also want to specially thank Minister Desmond, Minister Lawrence and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Xueling for all their guidance and support for this Bill.

Last but certainly not least, a big thank you to members of the public for speaking up, for your thoughtful suggestions and constructive criticisms. Thank you for joining us on this journey together.

Mr Speaker, we all hope that the Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill will be an important step in strengthening wildlife protection legislation in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.

4.59 pm

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. In the recent Netflix documentary series "Night on Earth", actress Samira Wiley narrates the episode on the impact of urban development on wildlife. In episode 5, she describes Singapore as "one of the most wildlife-friendly cities on Earth".

Wildlife is the beloved otter families in Bishan and the Marina Bay It is the long-tailed macaque that call our nature reserves home, and even the hornbills that have recently be seen perched on balconies in our homes.

Some have great affection for these wildlife creatures. Others find them to be a nuisance or have a sense of suspicion and fear. This can lead to great conflict as we have seen in the cases of bird feeders against their neighbours.

Other times, our affection for wildlife may lead to greater harm and nuisance to both animals and humans when our affection is expressed in uninformed ways. This happens, for instance, when individuals feed wildlife inappropriately or capture animals for amusement and enjoyment without concern for what is natural for the animal. Sugar gliders, pangolins and hedgehogs come to mind.

Wildlife should be integrated into our society and be part of what makes us uniquely Singapore, and not create conflict.

The new Wildlife Act is not just about telling us what to do or not to do in relation to wildlife. More than that, it is about learning how to interact with and enjoy our natural environment in a respectful and humane way.

I support the Bill and I have just a few comments.

First, I have two clarifications relating to the new sections 5A and 5C which set out the offences of feeding, releasing, killing, trapping, taking or keeping of wildlife. In relation to the new section 5A which makes intentional feeding of any wildlife without approval an offence, I find that the use of the word “intentional” may be a challenging one to enforce, as it puts the burden on the state to prove intent. I could imagine people using excuses of feeding "domestic" animals as a means to excuse themselves from this ruling. It might be a small loophole, but a loophole nonetheless.

The new section 5C makes it an offence to intentionally kill, trap, take or keep wildlife. Currently, section 5(1) of WABA makes it an offence for any person to kill, take or keep wildlife without a permit. The new offence requires the additional element of intention which, as before, the state has to prove. This is a high bar, as one could be trying to trap a pesky rat but, inadvertently, catch a Southeast Asian Shrew, a rare forest native.

The intent of the matter is hard to prove and we should consider removing that requirement. Instead, we should educate our people to not trap, hunt or kill wildlife, and instead call upon professionals to get it done. As we inevitably encroach into the spaces of wildlife, they, too, will move into ours. How we structure our laws will help to protect one from the other.

The intent of the two points above is not to nitpick at language but, rather, to find a specific set of actions we want to discourage, as we learn to share our common spaces with wildlife and put clear boundaries on what should and should not be done.

My second clarification relates to the offence of importing living wildlife without approval under the new section 9(1). Currently, section 10(1) provides that "[n]o person shall import into Singapore any wild animal or bird whether alive or dead, or any part thereof" except with written authorisation. This, too, is a loophole. In the past, illegal wildlife parts like bearclaws, pangolins and other wildlife were part of folk remedies and traditional supplements and cures. It is my strong belief that we should retain that as a deterrent to anyone who might want to reignite such practices. We should adopt the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and regulate not just the trade of live animals but also that of animal parts and animal-based products in order to ensure that wildlife species are not threatened to extinction by trade.

It is vital that we continue to find new ways to interact with our environment. As we build up new housing estates, new places of leisure, we need to learn to share these spaces with wildlife that was indigenous to that space. A strong set of laws and regulations will help to clarify the boundaries in which we can interact and share experiences with our rich and diverse wildlife. These clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.

5.03 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, Singapore is home to many rare species. It is also a popular transit point for migratory birds. Even to this day, scientists and naturalists are finding out more and more about the treasure we have living among nature in Singapore. I wish to commend Mr Louis Ng for tabling this Bill in Parliament.

In the Southern Islands, there are sandy white beaches; there is an eco-system of coral reefs. There are fascinating sea creatures, such as sea sponges and sea horses. On land, rare birds and animals have been spotted in places like the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Some examples are the great slaty woodpecker and the mousedeer.

This piece of legislation shines a spotlight on the importance of wildlife to humanity, here in Singapore.

Firstly, the Bill makes the Wild Animals and Birds Act more comprehensive. One of the ways it does this is by regulating, not just vertebrates, but also invertebrates, through clause 4. That clause amends the definition of “animal” to include, among many others, invertebrates. But there is a risk that the law becomes over-inclusive. For example, would it hamper or prevent the extermination of pests, such as termites, cockroaches and silver fish? I certainly hope Singaporeans will not be prevented from exterminating pests and rodents.

Having said this, this change has also provided for the important inclusion of invertebrates, such as star fish, sea cucumbers, horseshoe crabs and sea sponges – all creatures that inhabit Chek Jawa on Pulau Ubin. I understand from news reports that the Singapore Pest Association has been consulted in the process of drafting this Bill. My question to Mr Louis Ng is, has the Director-General also been consulted? I hope that in and amongst these changes, Singaporeans will still, indeed, be permitted to exterminate pests, such as termites.

Another way in which the Bill makes the Wild Animals and Birds Act more comprehensive is by including trapping under the law. This is good. It is to be commended. Currently, under section 5, the Act includes taking, killing and keeping, but not trapping. It is good that this gap is being plugged.

Additionally, this Bill makes the enforcement of the Act more robust. Not only are there enhanced penalties across the board, there are also enhanced penalties for subsequent offenders. There are also enhanced penalties for animal-related business owners if they were to kill, trap, take or keep wildlife without written approval. It is good that, along with the increase in potential punishments under the offences of the Act that directly impact wildlife, the Bill also increases the punishment for certain offences that hinder certain investigations. Under the current section 12(3), failing to comply with a request for a name and address or for giving a false name or incomplete address to the officer could lead to a fine of up to $1,000 upon conviction. The Bill increases this 10-fold to $10,000 and even adds on a possible custodial sentence of up to six months. This is to be commended.

If I may, Sir, I wish to seek clarification that the authorised officer in the new section 12K in clause 13 is intended to refer to an authorised officer who is authorised by the Director-General to compound offences and is not referring to authorised officers generally. The reason why I am asking this is because there is an argument to be made that enforcement officers interacting with and arresting the accused and investigating the crime should not be the same ones with the power to compound.

In conclusion, Sir, I thank my colleague Mr Louis Ng for tabling this Private Member's Bill. My congratulations to him.

5.08 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): I join the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza in congratulating the hon Member for Nee Soon, Mr Louis Ng, for leading the efforts to review the Wild Animals and Birds Act and moving this amendment Bill. Mr Louis Ng highlighted a 14-year journey in his speech delivered in his characteristic passionate style. I applaud the fact that he and his members of the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee had conducted extensive consultation over two years before tabling this Bill. This is a phenomenal ground-up initiative. I support the Bill in principle and would like to raise three points for clarification.

The first point is on a possible overlap between the Animals and Birds Act and the amendment Bill. Under Rules 10 and 17 of the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules enacted under the Animals and Birds Act, it is an offence to feed stray pigeons. The punishment upon conviction is a fine not exceeding $500. The proposed section 3(1)(a) in this Bill preserves the operation of the Animals and Birds Act. "Pigeons", it appears, may satisfy the definition of "wildlife", too, under this amendment Bill, in which case, the feeding of pigeons will be an offence under the proposed section 5A in this Bill. The punishment is a fine not exceeding $5,000 for a first offender and $10,000 for a subsequent offender. If my understanding is correct, may I please ask: what are the circumstances in which the different provisions would be invoked? I can see the attraction of using the powers under this amendment Bill because there would be no need to distinguish between the birds which will satisfy the definition of "wildlife" and there will be less enforcement issues on the ground as well.

Second, the possibility of imposing community-based sentencing. I note from the amendment Bill, as currently worded, that the feeding and releasing of wildlife is punishable by sentences or fine. I do appreciate, as Mr Louis Ng mentioned, that the proposed fine quantums are higher. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, community-based sentencing orders, such as Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTOs), may not be made in respect of fine-only offences.

There is a carve-out for Community Work Orders (CWOs) though. This may be a good sentencing option in some cases, particularly for those who caused disamenities, such as making public places dirty. Some feeders may have underlying psychiatric conditions. Unfortunately, it does not appear that they can be imposed with MTOs such that the underlying causes of the offending behaviour may be treated so as to reduce the risk of them re-offending. I will be grateful for clarification on the sentencing policies for such offenders.

Lastly, acts of kindness. I support the criminalisation of feeding and releasing of wildlife. Mr Louis Ng again eloquently explained the raison d'etre for this. There are occasions, however, where a person's feeding or releasing of wildlife is an act of kindness. Take the case of a person who comes across a wounded eagle which crashed into a glass door. The person, out of concern for the eagle, may feed it and then release it thereafter. This is a real life example.

Such acts would not change wildlife behaviour, nor would it cause disamenities or ecological degradation. That is the mischief that Mr Louis Ng highlighted in relation to criminalising acts of feeding and releasing wildlife. But, technically, these persons may have committed such offences, granted the prosecution may exercise discretion not to prosecute. But such people may eventually not take a risk of offending. So, this may not be consonant with the aims of this Bill.

I note that under the proposed section 5(1) of the amendment Bill, the Director-General will have powers to give written approval generally to a class of persons. May I please ask if the Director-General will consider issuing general written approval to such classes of persons intervening to help wildlife so that they do not run the risk of committing offences? And, if so, what would be the conditions? Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.

5.13 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I want to commend Mr Louis Ng for moving this Bill. He spent the last two years working with the Wild Animal Legislation Review Committee on the Bill. The Bill is actually highly relevant to the current COVID-19 crisis because novel coronaviruses are known to be endemic to many wildlife populations. We know there are real risks of disease transmission between wildlife and humans. So, maintaining the right balance between wildlife and human activity is not only good for the environment, it is also good for ourselves.

I have two broad concerns about the Bill. The first concerns the practices that harm wildlife or the eco-system, such as the feeding and release of wildlife and trafficking. For this, my questions are on whether the penalties proposed in the Bill are appropriate and how will enforcement be carried out. The second concerns the Bill's granting of powers to the Director-General to direct development or works to implement measures to safeguard wildlife. My questions are on how we can achieve the right balance between the protection of wildlife and eco-systems and the need to develop land and natural resources for the benefit of society. I will direct questions on the principles behind the Bill to Mr Louis Ng, and questions on policy implementation to the Ministry.

I will start with the feeding and release of wildlife. The proposed section 5A addresses feeding wildlife. Today, I think the public is generally aware that feeding wildlife threatens the eco-system. It also poses a risk to public health and safety if wildlife is encouraged to interact with humans through feeding. The question is whether the penalties in the Bill and the enforcement framework are proportionate. The maximum fine is $5,000 for the first offence. Could Mr Louis Ng explain his thinking about whether the offence should be compoundable and what he thinks should guide sentencing if a case happens to be prosecuted in Court? In what circumstances does Mr Louis Ng think the Director-General should grant written approval for feeding wildlife?

For the Ministry, I wish to ask to what extent feeding wildlife will be regulated in practice. Will issuing summons for feeding wildlife be part of regular enforcement activity, or is it more a measure of last resort against people who cannot be convinced to stop feeding wildlife?

Next, the proposed section 5B governs the release of wildlife. This is a sensitive issue because some people release wildlife as part of celebrations or religious practices. Mr Ng has shared his many discussions with religious groups on this matter. The potential harm that such releases cause also depends on what wildlife people are releasing and where they do it. Could Mr Ng share his thinking on how we can use this Bill to sensitively address this issue of wildlife release in religious practices? There may yet be other groups out there whom he has not been able to reach out to yet.

For the Ministry, I wish to ask what we have learnt from existing enforcement efforts on wildlife released in nature reserves and how this will be extended to wildlife released in other areas after this Bill is passed.

Next, the proposed sections 11B and 12C grant powers of seizure and forfeiture over articles and conveyances connected to offences under the Act. These powers are not strongly limited. Only very large vehicles are exempt from forfeiture, as Mr Ng pointed out. What I am concerned about is that this puts operators of vehicles for hire at risk of having their livelihood seized. For example, a private boat operator who transports wildlife for unauthorised release in the sea could face a risk of having his boat seized and forfeited.

I wish to ask Mr Ng how he thinks these powers should be limited for the seizure of conveyances. The seizure of vehicles involved in smuggling – I think that is a widely accepted principle. But does Mr Ng intend that if someone were to drive their car to feed or release wildlife, should their car be seizeable under the Act?

In addition, how should vehicles hired out for passengers or cargo be treated? In particular, would Mr Ng agree that passenger or cargo hire vehicles should not be seizeable or forfeitable unless the owner or operator was reckless or abetted offences under the Act? If he agrees on this, then does he think that the Bill, as currently written, really limits the powers of seizure and forfeiture sufficiently? I know Mr Ng has noted that owners of vehicles are not at risk if the offences were committed without their consent. But the question is: what is the burden of proof here? It may be impractical for many vehicle owners to thoroughly investigate the intention of their hirers. So, I believe that providers of small-scale passenger or cargo services are actually in need of statutory protection from seizure or forfeiture under this Bill. To me, it is actually somewhat odd that protection is to be given to the large vehicles, which I do not think would be in our public interest to seize, but not to the smaller vehicles at all.

Next, the proposed section 10 of the Act will grant the Director-General power to issue directions to require development works to implement measures to safeguard wildlife, public safety or the eco-system.

Sir, my first concern here is on whether section 10 applies to the Government or grants any private rights of action. Government development projects, such as the Cross-Island Line, could significantly affect the eco-system and wildlife if measures are not taken. Does Mr Ng think that section 10 grants private parties the right to sue the Government to issue directions on development works, whether carried out by other private parties or by the Government itself?

Second, I am concerned there is no proportionality in section 10. There is no requirement in the Bill that the Director-General consider the actual costs of remediation, the likely benefits to the eco-system and wildlife, and the relative social and ecological value of the wildlife. Should we actually put in the same effort to protect common pigeons as we do pangolins?

So, I wish to ask Mr Ng why there is no proportionality clause and on what principles he thinks the Director-General should proceed in issuing directions under the Act. Section 10(4) does allow a person to refuse to comply with a Direction if they have a reasonable excuse. Does Mr Ng think that this is sufficient protection against an unreasonable direction and what principles determine whether an excuse is or is not reasonable?

Sir, in other countries, private suits against development works have been brought using similar wildlife protection laws and these suits have even halted Government development works in those countries. I do not know if the amended Act is capable of being used as such. But, to me, this seems a bit too important to leave to judicial interpretation alone.

Let me also ask the Ministry how, in practice, the Director-General will exercise section 10 powers. Does the Director-General have a staff that is capable of conducting environmental cost-benefit analysis? If not, will that staff be created and trained to exercise these powers? How will the Director-General engage stakeholders, such as environmental interest groups as well as developers, to ensure that any directions issued respect both environmental concerns and development matters?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the intent behind the Bill. However, we must ensure that the public agrees this Bill's measures, when enforced, are fair, reasonable and proportionate. We must also acknowledge that with limited resources, we have to balance protecting wildlife and the eco-system with human development. It is very fashionable to say that we can have both, but that is actually a fantasy unless we can change how we define human development to mean that we should reduce our footprint and our impact on the natural world. That could mean halting or reversing our population and consumption growth. I do not think we have a consensus on that yet as a society.

The concerns I have raised are in some areas quite substantive, particularly on the section 10 powers of the Director-General to issue directions on development works, and on sections 11B and 12C powers of seizure and forfeiture of conveyances. I look forward to Mr Ng's clarifications. But, with respect, I am not sure they can all be addressed without altering the legislation. My preference is that we should send the Bill to a Select Committee rather than pass it immediately. However, I remain open to hearing Mr Ng and the Ministry's replies to my concerns.

5.22 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments made in the Bill as it seeks to strengthen the protection, preservation and management of wildlife.

I have previously filed a Parliamentary Question about the illegal smuggling of pet birds and also spoke at length about the caged birds trade during MND's Committee of Supply last month. I have asked MND to consider adopting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List to regulate the caged bird trade as well as touched on stiffening the penalties in the illegal wildlife trade. I am glad that the proposed amendments include enhancing the fines for offenders as well as closing some technical loopholes.

Sir, while most animals, such as cats and dogs, sold as pets are bred, pet birds are caught from the wild. Moreover, cats and dogs are domesticated species and are perfectly happy living alongside humans.

On the other hand, most birds are caught from the wild by poachers deploying very inhumane methods. One of the destructive techniques they engage involves applying tar glue on tree branches, which ends up trapping other birds or female specimens of target species.

So, while MND has introduced micro-chipping for dogs to improve traceability and in order to prevent illegal puppy mills, so far, these measures have not been introduced for birds sold as pets. The lack of measures encourages the illegal import and smuggling of birds as the culprit knows that once placed into a bird shop, it is impossible to differentiate a bird imported legally versus another imported illegally. I would like to urge MND to introduce micro-chipping or other similar measures to improve traceability for birds sold as pets.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the typical Singapore consumer has a much higher purchasing power than those in our regional countries. As Uncle Ben said to Spiderman, "With great power, comes great responsibility." What we allow our consumers to buy affects the wildlife in our region. Our demand for wildlife fuels the supply.

Sir, another area which I think we can help wildlife through regulating our consumer demand is to curb the import and sale of juvenile fish. I go to the wet market regularly and am shocked to see baby pomfrets, which are smaller than the size of my palm, being sold – and I do not have big palms. Without giving the chance for juvenile fish to grow, it can only result in the eventual depletion and extinction of many fish species.

Sir, I know that this is not a problem which Singapore can unilaterally solve. A longer term solution will require us to engage our regional neighbours and they would need to get the necessary buy-in from fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihoods. But, Sir, we can harness our relatively higher purchasing power and turn it into a force for good. By disallowing the sale of juvenile fish, we are sending a strong signal and reducing the incentive for the catching of such juvenile fish.

Sir, unfortunately, human beings have become the most destructive species on earth. As a nation, we can set an example of how we can make the world a better place for all species.

5.26 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill, which will help to better balance how we and the many species of birds and animals in Singapore will coexist. We can certainly do more to protect wildlife here, preserve our natural heritage and ensure their survival. This is necessary for a healthy, flourishing eco-system. I have been most assured by the involvement of the public and various stakeholders, including concerned nature- and pet-lovers and even pest control companies, who provided their valuable feedback and suggestions for this Bill. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome the amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act, particularly the new section 5A. This part stipulates that unless permission was given by the authorities, no person will be permitted to intentionally feed any wildlife in any place. Otherwise, he will be deemed guilty of an offence. If it is a first offence, the fine will not exceed $5,000. As for a second or subsequent offence, the fine will not exceed $10,000. I would like to ask the Minister to share the details of how the relevant department will enforce this legislation.

In our garden city, it is natural to have birdsong and the fragrance of flowers. But there are many wild birds in my constituency. I have received complaints from many residents that they are faced with the problems of noise and bird droppings caused by large flocks of wild birds. Stopping the feeding of wild birds should reduce the food supply for them and hence, reduce their numbers. But how effective this provision will be is still unknown. May I ask if the Minister can do more to solve this problem?

In addition to punishing those who deliberately feed birds, serious penalties should also be given to residents and businesses who litter and treat food waste carelessly, as these foods are an important source of survival for wild birds and pests. I call on the Minister to curb the over-feeding of wild birds in residential areas, to address their pollution problems and to reduce the risk of possible transmission of diseases.

5.29 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act have been a long time coming for more stringent measures needed to give more protection to wildlife beyond nature parks and reserves, and for more severe enforcement to deter offenders of abuse, exploitation and killing of wildlife.

Urban wildlife continues to face challenges with unabated development in Singapore. But I am heartened that we have become more considered in promoting nature-based solutions and increasing ecological connectivity within urban spaces in recent years. The recent Budget announcement by Minister Desmond Lee that Singapore will evolve from a City in a Garden to a City in Nature with another 200 hectares of nature parks added to act as complementary habitats and to buffer nature reserves from urbanisation is to be rejoiced. This Bill is, therefore, timely and welcomed in back-boning this City in Nature vision with appropriate legislative interventions. I would like to seek clarifications in three areas.

The first relates to the definition of "wildlife" in relation to marine species. I note clause 4 of the Bill amends the definition of "wildlife" in section 2 of the principal Act which also "includes any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish or invertebrate, whether of wild nature or otherwise". Can the Member confirm that the definition of "wildlife" does, indeed, extend to all wild marine animals?

I understand that wild marine animals are traded and exchanged freely by SEA Aquarium Singapore. The re-enacted sections 8 and 9 of the Bill prohibits the sale, including offer for sale, or export of any living or dead wildlife or import of any living wildlife respectively without the Director-General's written approval. Can the Minister clarify if sections 8 and 9 will be imposed on the trading of wild marine animals by commercial aquariums when enacted? Under what circumstances will the Director-General give the approval for importation and trade, and will this approval come only after a board is consulted or will it come about through absolute veto power?

Whilst we are on the prohibition on trading of marine wildlife, dead or alive, Mr Speaker, I would like to also take this opportunity to raise the issue of importation of shark species.

Our existing Harmonised System (HS) classification of goods does not include enough differentiation on shark species being imported. A 2017 report on sharks and ray trade in Singapore by Traffic, a leading NGO working globally on trade in wild animals and plants in the context of both biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, found that the shark commodity categories that are reported to the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) do not completely match with the Singapore Trade Classification, Customs and Excise Duties (STCCED) codes for shark products.

In the spirit of our progressive stance on wildlife protection, will the Ministry align with relevant Ministries to ensure collection and reporting of accurate sharks and ray trade information by Singapore as a key importer/exporter be made transparent and traceable, and will the Ministry recommend a review of the existing HS codes to MEWR?

Mr Speaker, my second point relates to greater clarity on the extent of citizen empowerment which I believe is also the intent of the Bill and is captured in the re-enacted section 10 which empowers the Director-General to direct a person known as "the authorised officer" to implement wildlife-related measures to manage or mitigate the impact of the person's developments or works in relation to wildlife.

For avoidance of doubt, can the Member confirm that the "authorised officer" referred to in section 10A could also include any ordinary citizen so authorised and given power to remove and dismantle traps that they find in keeping with the spirit of citizen empowerment?

In addition, it is not clear if offenders will be subsequently prosecuted if they are confronted at the scene by the authorised officer. Can the Member and Minister please clarify?

Last but not least, Mr Speaker, my third point relates to the alignment of this Bill with the Parks and Trees Act. Section 10(1) of the Bill states that the Director-General may direct a person to take wildlife-related measures to safeguard the health and safety of any wildlife, public health or safety in relation to wildlife or the health of the eco-system. Given the proposed provisions, in the event that a nature reserve is de-gazetted in order for the land to be used for development, can the Minister clarify if section 10(1) will come into effect to halt the development?

In a 2019 study on the protection of nature reserves under the Parks and Trees Act, the question on the depth to which nature reserves are protected was raised. Given that the building of the Cross Island Line runs 70 m deep under the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR), would section 10(1) be able to safeguard the CCNR and other nature reserves should the interpretation of the Parks and Trees Act come into contention?

Mr Speaker, I think there has never been a better opportunity than with this Bill to remind this House of the alarming report released by the UN just last year of the rapidly declining wildlife and plant populations around the world. The report said, I quote, "Humans are transforming Earth's natural landscapes so dramatically that as many as one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction."

This Bill is a great green leap forward in the right direction for wildlife protection and legislation in Singapore. Wildlife belongs to no one; any exploitation and abuse by anyone should not be tolerated.

For the last few weeks, a mummy yellow vented bulbul built her nest on my tall cordy plant in the little garden outside my HDB flat and laid two eggs which I hope have birthed into two healthy little hatchlings. I have left them alone and have, in fact, tiptoed around them so they feel safe! This might be a glimpse of living in our City in Nature that Minister Desmond Lee envisioned.

Mr Speaker, we have a diverse trove of wildlife species that are so precious to our biodiversity, one that we must safeguard with as much zeal and commitment as our human diversity. Because the wildlife and its habitat cannot speak, so we must. I look forward to the clarifications from the Member and the Minister.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ms Sun Xueling.

5.36 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Louis Ng and the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee (WALRC) for their work in reviewing and proposing enhancements to our wildlife legislation. NParks served as a resource panel to the WALRC, and we are glad for the opportunity to also engage with the community.

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

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

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

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

MND notes that many members of the public expressed broad support for the WALRC's proposals, but there were also differing views. For example, how best to rationalise the need for strong legislation, while avoiding being excessively harsh to people who may be unaware or well-meaning? This means that we must take a balanced approach and build awareness among Singaporeans on how to co-exist harmoniously with animals, including wildlife. I am happy that Mr Ng has taken this on board in developing his Bill.

Let me now address some of the points that Members have raised on the operationalisation of the Wildlife Act and other animal-related policies.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how NParks will enforce the prohibition against intentional feeding of wildlife and curb the over-breeding of wild birds in residential areas. NParks will monitor feeding hotspots and take strong action against recalcitrant feeders who remain unresponsive to engagement, advisories as well as warnings. I believe this also addresses Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question on the enforcement of section 5A of the Wildlife Act. To further clarify, NParks can already enforce against the feeding of wildlife in parks and nature reserves under the Parks and Trees Act. The Wildlife Act extends these powers beyond these areas. This allows NParks to address the disamenities and ecological impact brought about from wildlife feeding in a more comprehensive manner across Singapore.

As for wild birds that cause disamenities, we agree with Mr Gan's observation that reducing anthropogenic food supply, whether from intentional feeding, littering or food waste, will help prevent these birds from being attracted to residential areas and moderate their population.

In this regard, NParks has already been working closely with other Government agencies and Town Councils on measures to reduce feeding of birds. We will continue to take a balanced approach, involving a range of measures spanning from education and outreach to enforcement action, to address these issues comprehensively. NParks conducts public outreach events and puts up advisories and notices, in order to raise public awareness of the issue. NEA works with food centres and coffee shops in HDB estates to enforce against littering and to ensure proper management of food waste.

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

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

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

Let me address Assoc Prof Theseira's question on the lessons learnt from existing efforts to prevent wildlife release in the nature reserves and how these can be applied to regulating wildlife release in other areas.

From NParks' experience, strong engagement of stakeholders is an important means of effecting behavioural change. For instance, it has been working with PUB on the annual Operation No Release to discourage people from releasing animals into ecologically sensitive areas like nature parks, nature reserves and reservoirs. Moving forward, NParks also plans to work with religious communities to explore alternatives to mercy release, such as tree planting and volunteering at animal shelters. So, NParks intends to continue with this approach of engagement and education as a key complement to legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, the Act does not bind the Government. The amendments introduced by the Bill do not change this existing position under the Act.

Second, the Director-General may issue directions to both private entities and public agencies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.57 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and given their support for this Bill.

Sir, allow me to start by briefly outlining five of the WALR's recommendations that are not contained in this Bill before us today. I will then address the points made by Members in this House and members of the public. I will also share the concerns raised by people who do not support this Bill.

First, the WALRC recommended repealing the Wild Animals (Licensing) Order. This is an outdated piece of legislation that permitted individuals to keep certain wildlife as pets, so long as they obtained a licence. These animals include kangaroos, bears and pandas. But these animals clearly should not be privately owned. As the Licensing Order is a subsidiary legislation, no Act-level amendment is required, but I am glad to share that MND has agreed to repeal it. Commercial animal establishments, such as zoos, will continue to be regulated under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA).

Second, the WALRC proposed ensuring that only trained and qualified individuals can kill and trap wildlife. There was strong public support for this in our consultations. Wildlife management can be risky, such as when workers need to handle snakes in a crowded area. We felt that these workers should be trained to protect wildlife, the public and themselves. The WALRC also consulted the Singapore Pest Management Association and its members, who were supportive of this opportunity to upskill their workers and improve the professionalism of the industry. However, the proposal to regulate wildlife management companies would not require Act-level amendments, as it can already be done under the existing ABA. Specifically, section 43 of the ABA already empowers the Director-General, Animal Health and Welfare, to specify training and qualification requirements for those engaging in prescribed animal-related businesses. I understand that NParks intends to implement this proposal in time and that it will take a phased approach to ensure that the industry has time to adjust, by first focusing on training and capacity building before imposing any formal regulatory requirements.

Third, the WALRC proposed having codes of conduct for general activities in nature areas, such as wildlife photography, hiking and camping. There was also strong public support for this but many felt that, for now, these need not be made into laws to be enforced by the authorities. In this regard, the WALRC will work with the community to improve public education on wildlife-related measures.

Fourth, the WALRC had initially proposed to remove the Schedule of Specified Wild Animals and Birds, which currently exempts six bird species from protection against killing, trapping and keeping. These are the house crow, feral pigeon, common myna, white-vented myna, purple-backed starling and the Philippine glossy starling. There were public concerns about this and we decided that we will review this again at a later stage. For now, the Schedule will be moved into subsidiary legislation and MND will review the list of birds within it. After discussions with MND and NParks, I understand that the purple-backed starling and the Philippine glossy starling will be removed from the Schedule, as these species are no longer common.

Finally, the WALRC considered empowering citizen volunteers to enforce certain offences under the Act, such as the feeding and release of wildlife. However, this was the least supported proposal in our public consultations. Members of the public were concerned about the potential abuses of power, as well as the risks faced by volunteers themselves if they were to attempt to confront offenders. Hence, the WALRC will instead rely on a softer approach. We will galvanise volunteers to educate the public on responsible wildlife practices and discourage the feeding and release of wildlife. If volunteers come across offences being committed, they can inform NParks.

Sir, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has talked about the downstream implementation of the Bill. I will now address the other points raised by Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yee Chia Hsing, Miss Cheng Li Hui and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked if the Act would prevent the extermination of pests. As I have mentioned in my opening speech, the intent is not to criminalise the killing and trapping of pests and non-threatened invertebrates, as such activities do not undermine the overall aim of wildlife protection.

On the other hand, Miss Cheng Li Hui suggested to remove the burden of proof of intent when it comes to killing, trapping, taking or keeping of wildlife. She raised the example of someone who intended to trap a rat but inadvertently caught a Southeast Asian shrew. I believe the Member thinks that rather than having to consider the intent of a person, we should just prohibit all killing, keeping or taking of wildlife without a permit and leave it only to the professionals.

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

I share her concerns. But the implementation of the law has to be practical, balancing wildlife protection with other needs. It would not be reasonable for people to have to call in professionals to handle minor pest issues in their own homes. Further, as shared earlier, there will be safeguards to protect threatened species and our eco-systems.

I agree with Miss Cheng that we should work towards having clear boundaries on what should and should not be done. The strong public response on this issue has shown me that legislative changes must be complemented with efforts to educate and engage the public.

The law must also be applied sensibly, with the overall objective of creating a set of norms and behaviours around how we interact with wildlife, to more sustainably protect wildlife and ourselves.

This brings me to Mr Murali Pillai's question on whether there should be blanket approval for those who seek to help wildlife out of kindness. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has shared that NParks will consider the intent and impact of someone's actions, including whether they were trying to prevent further harm, before deciding to prosecute.

But let me start with some "norm-changing" now. If you see an injured wild animal, especially something like an eagle, please call NParks or ACRES instead of attempting to rescue the eagle yourself. While we know that many have the best of intentions, untrained human intervention could cause significantly more harm than good. I understand that NParks is actively building up the capacity and capabilities of the wildlife management industry, so rest assured that there will be trained people ready to provide these necessary services.

Ms Anthea Ong asked if the definition of "wildlife" extends to all wild marine animals. The answer is yes. She also asked if the Act covers the trade of marine wildlife. The answer is also yes.

But as Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has explained, NParks also has other existing Acts regulating different aspects of wildlife trade. For the amended Wildlife Act, it will be used for regulating wildlife that may cause harm to the public and our local eco-systems. For instance, NParks may not want to allow the import of a poisonous jellyfish, without imposing strict conditions to ensure it is not inadvertently released into the wild.

Mr Murali Pillai asked whether there was an overlap between the prohibition against feeding in the Wildlife Act and the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules. Mr Murali is right that the intent is to consolidate the legislation against feeding of wildlife, including wild birds, under the Wildlife Act with higher penalties. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has shared that MND intends to repeal the relevant rules in the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules in due course. This will provide more clarity to the public and help us when we engage our residents to tackle the problem of feeding in our neighbourhoods.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked how the Bill will address wildlife release in religious practices. I will take it that he is referring to the practice of mercy release in particular. The WALRC is aware of this practice and that is why we consulted extensively with religious groups. Mercy release has fallen out of favour with many of them. Captive-bred wildlife, such as those bred for consumption, die quickly in the wild, and those that survive negatively affect our environment and eco-system. As I have shared in my opening speech, to complement the legislative amendments, the WALRC will continue to work with the community on education and outreach efforts surrounding wildlife release.

Assoc Prof Theseira also asked whether the proposed penalties for the feeding and release of wildlife are appropriate. We took reference from similar offences in other legislation to decide what the appropriate penalty levels would be. For example, under the existing Parks and Trees Regulations, feeding and release of wildlife in parks are already punishable with a fine of up to $5,000. Under the Environmental Public Health Act, repeat littering offenders can be fined up to $10,000. These maximum penalties for Court convictions are different from the smaller composition fines that agencies have the discretion to decide on.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has elaborated on NParks' proposed enforcement approach for feeding and release. If the matter goes to the Courts, the Court will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances in deciding the appropriate penalty.

Assoc Prof Theseira also asked under what circumstances would the Director-General (DG) need to grant written approval for feeding wildlife.

Sir, in the proposed amendments, we did not ban the feeding of wildlife completely. When we rescue injured wild animals, there may be a need to feed them to lure them into traps. Similarly, during the rehabilitation and release of these rescued wild animals, there might be a need to feed them temporarily after they are released back into the wild. These will be carried out by trained professionals and, under the proposed amendments, would require approvals from the Director-General.

Sir, Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the need to clamp down on the feeding of birds and described how he has too many wild birds in his constituency. Both issues are interlinked. He is right that once we stop the feeding of wild birds, there will likely be a reduction in the number of birds. The root of the problem here is the availability of food.

NParks has said, "We have instead focused on methods like managing food waste better and habitat modification, such as the planting of trees that mynahs are less attracted to. When food sources are reduced, birds spend more time looking for food and less time mating. It affects their entire cycle." NParks further added that, "Short-term culling actually reduces competition, so the remaining birds have less competition to eat and mate. We often see an increase in the number of birds after periods of culling." The new section 5A will make it illegal to feed all wild birds and also introduces a higher penalty for repeat offenders. This will serve as a stronger deterrent.

Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted that there may be a "loophole" in that someone could claim to be feeding a domestic animal to avoid being prosecuted under section 5A. I understand this, but I think we must recognise that most feeders, again, are not malicious. They want to do good. For many cases, instead of finding ways to punish them under the law, we should be creating more awareness about why they should not be feeding wildlife in the first place. Both measures have to work hand-in-hand and, together with the other measures NParks is taking, I am confident that we will address the root of the problem and resolve this longstanding issue.

Sir, Mr Yee Chia Hsing raised concerns about the illegal smuggling of pet birds. Again, I am extremely happy that the person sitting on the seat I used to sit on is now asking and now repeatedly asking animal-related questions. I do agree with Mr Yee that we need higher penalties to serve as a stronger deterrent. As such, the Bill proposes to increase the penalties significantly for offences related to the killing, trapping, taking, keeping, offering for sale, sale, export and import of wildlife without approval.

As I have shared earlier, we are also strengthening NParks' enforcement powers and proposing a new power for the Court to be able to forfeit conveyances used in the commission of a convicted offence. Taken together, these proposed amendments will strengthen our fight against the illegal wildlife trade in Singapore.

Ms Anthea Ong asked if ordinary citizens could be authorised and given the power to remove and dismantle traps under the new section 10A. The answer this time is no. Under the existing section 4(2), the Director-General, subject to the directions of the Board, may only appoint the following persons as "authorised officers": (a) an NParks officer, (b) an employee of another statutory authority, (c) a public officer, or (d) an auxiliary police officer appointed under the Police Force Act. As I have mentioned earlier, the WALRC had considered empowering citizens with certain enforcement powers under the Act. However, we had to balance this against the potential risks, such as to their safety, as enforcement is a challenging business.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised some concerns about the new section 11B on seizure and section 12C on forfeiture, particularly as they relate to conveyances. This new provision on seizure is similar to other seizure provisions in existing legislation, such as section 51 of the Animals and Birds Act and section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These provisions are not overly prescriptive and only set out the general parameters within which seizure should be effected.

With regard to forfeiture, while the Courts ultimately make the decision to forfeit a vehicle, NParks must first decide to seize the vehicle. If the vehicle is not seized, the forfeiture provision does not apply. Even if NParks seizes a vehicle to facilitate investigations, I understand that it can still consider whether or not to recommend its forfeiture to the Court.

I trust that NParks will be reasonable in its enforcement and will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. For example, in the case of someone who drives somewhere to feed or release wildlife, the use of the vehicle may be ancillary and not entirely necessary for the commission of an offence. Feeding and release are generally less severe offences in the Wildlife Act. So, seizing a vehicle may not be warranted except in exceptional circumstances.

Compare this to smuggling, which Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised, where the goods or animals have to be hidden within the conveyances and transported, and where offenders may be dealing with high-value wildlife. In such cases, the conveyance may need to be seized for a thorough investigation and recommending forfeiture as a punishment would be more proportionate to the crime.

In the case of a private boat operator transporting wildlife for release into the sea, a possible pertinent factor to consider when considering whether forfeiture is warranted would be whether the operator was knowingly abetting illegal activities. That said, I reiterate that this would depend on the details of the case.

To clarify, there are also more safeguards other than those under section 12C(2). Section 12C(1)(a) also indicates that the Court may not forfeit conveyances if the person is not convicted of the offence, for example, if NParks chose to compound the offence.

Conveyances also cannot be forfeited if they were not proved to have been used in the commission of an offence. Section 12C(4) also adds that conveyances may not be forfeited if the conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of another person without the consent of the owner.

Ultimately, the Court's exercise of discretion will still act as a safeguard. Thus, I do not feel that additional statutory limits are required at this point.

Sir, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the possibility of community-based sentencing for recalcitrant feeders, especially those who may have underlying psychiatric issues. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has spoken about sentencing policies and NParks' engagement approach.

I would like to make an additional appeal to fellow Members to activate the community, such as neighbours and grassroots leaders, when you engage such residents, instead of only leaving it to enforcement agencies. These residents may have complex needs, like social isolation or unaddressed mental health issues. We should be all hands on deck to help them.

Sir, I am glad that Members in this House and members of the public have been very supportive of the Bill. Of course, there are people who are not supportive and their voices should be heard as well. I respect their differing viewpoints and I thank them for taking their time to share their concerns with everyone.

Sir, I thus turn to address other points that have been raised by members of the public both in support of and against the Act.

To start, the proposed controls on feeding attracted the most attention. Let me address one of the biggest misconceptions with regard to the scope of the Act.

Even just a few days ago, people were asking on my Facebook post whether the proposed amendments applied to cats and dogs and asked if it would become illegal to feed community cats and dogs if this Bill is passed.

The current Wild Animals and Birds Act and the proposed amendments do not penalise the feeding of stray cats or dogs. Domestic species of cats and dogs are not covered under this Act. However, it is important to feed responsibly, as leftover food could attract pests and other wildlife.

Others felt that feeding wildlife will cultivate a love for nature and we should not ban it. For example, one Forum letter read that "People, especially children, develop an interest in the environment through opportunities to interact with animals and birds. One of the best ways of doing this is by feeding them. Singaporeans should not be forced to appreciate animals only at a distance."

I have provided several reasons for prohibiting the feeding of wildlife in my opening speech. I agree that we should find ways to help the public appreciate wildlife. But the research is very clear: the feeding of wildlife causes an unnatural rise in wildlife population. This is why, for example, we see so many more birds in areas where there is rampant feeding.

Indeed, the letter writer acknowledges this trend. It shared that, "Cute squirrels are more common now because more and more people provide them with food". The result of such feeding is increased human-wildlife conflict. I cannot put it better than this reply in another Forum letter, "The feeding of nuisance species such as monkeys" – which the original letter writer agreed with – "should be banned, ironically became a nuisance only because people started feeding them." Further, wildlife feeding creates broader problems with the eco-system. The letter continued, "I have seen many uninitiated 'nature lovers' feeding birds and fish with cooked rice, white bread or even leftover food. These may not only make the wildlife ill but also wreak havoc on the eco-system."

This Bill, and its proposed ban on wildlife feeding, will reduce human-wildlife conflict, address public safety concerns and safeguard the welfare of wildlife and our eco-system.

Others have also suggested that wildlife feeding could be banned in or near HDB flats, but not in private residential properties. To quote, "Why should people living in landed properties face restrictions if they want to attract other desirable wildlife species to their homes?" But the impact of wildlife feeding is not so isolated. When residents in private properties feed animals, it affects not only themselves but also their neighbours, the animals and the broader eco-system.

For this reason, it is not practical or reasonable to exclude residents of private properties from the ban on wildlife feeding. There is a solution for those in private residential estates who want to see more wildlife. As another letter writer wrote, "We can 'feed' butterflies and birds by planting flowering trees." I agree with that. She further states: "In all my decades of observing nature in my backyard or a nearby park, I have never had to provide a single morsel of food to 'attract' wildlife. A plethora of garden birds from tiny sunbirds to larger orioles can always be seen throughout the year feeding on naturally-occurring food like nectar, seeds and insects."

Someone also emailed me to ask why there is a disparity between the penalties in the Bill and the penalties currently imposed for the feeding of wildlife in our parks and nature reserves. He felt that there was no difference whether the person is feeding inside or outside our parks and nature reserves, as both are equally damaging to our natural biodiversity and eco-system. With regard to the feeding of wildlife, the higher penalties in the Parks and Trees Act apply to nature reserves and national parks, as those contain our most sensitive eco-systems.

For parks and gardens, the lower penalties in the Parks and Trees Regulations apply. The Bill proposes to align the penalty framework in the new Wildlife Act with that in the Parks and Trees Regulations and other animal-related Acts, in order to rationalise the penalties across the various pieces of legislation.

Next, I am aware that some feel that since I am mooting this Bill, NGOs will get "special treatment" to do things like provide wildlife removal services. Let me clarify that there will be no special treatment for NGOs. Like anyone else, NGOs will have to get approval from the DG to release or trap wildlife. These provisions are important as they will allow the DG to approve those involved in wildlife rescue efforts, for example, to trap, rescue and subsequently release wildlife in proper places. These groups could include NGOs such as ACRES, wildlife management companies and also pest control companies.

Finally, some have cautioned that measures in this Bill could alienate citizens from nature by discouraging feeding and release, amongst other matters. I can understand these concerns, but any appreciation for nature and wildlife amongst our people must be built on a foundation of safety and respect. That comes with keeping a distance and maintaining certain basic boundaries.

As NParks has shared in a Forum letter, there is a huge amount of effort to encourage this responsible interaction. They said, "NParks also organises activities and programmes that allow the public to interact responsibly with nature and help foster a love for our environment. Some examples include guided walks, bird-watching and citizen science programmes. To grow our city in a garden, we will continue to encourage more Singaporeans to be stewards and custodians of our natural heritage, and to coexist harmoniously with wildlife.

We advise the public not to approach, disturb, feed or try to catch wildlife. It is best to leave them to forage in their natural eco-systems."

Sir, allow me to conclude. The last chapter of this story in amending the Wild Animals and Birds Act is about one important individual – One Giant.

On 22 October last year, I was about to board my flight back to Singapore when I received the devastating news that Subaraj had passed away that morning. I have known Subaraj for many years. He is a friend, a fatherly figure whom I looked up to and a fellow activist. My daughter loves him as well. I just told him recently that my little ones were looking forward to seeing him at Christmas. With his long white beard and big belly, Ella thinks he is a Santa Claus.

He might not be the real Santa Claus but as the media puts it, "he looks a little like Santa Claus, one bearing gifts of knowledge of the wild". In the words of Minister Desmond Lee, "Subaraj was a true giant and pioneer in our local conservation scene. He was larger than life with his long beard and hair and his trademark bandana. Although he towered over many in his achievements, his demeanour was gentle and his smile always welcoming and reassuring. Before googling became an easy source of finding information, Subaraj was the Guru who could identify birds by their calls and knew where they could be found.

If you happened to bump into Subaraj in the forest, where he was often found, he would point out a bird that was hidden from view from everyone else, except him. That was his magic, his intimate understanding and his beautiful connection with nature. With his passing, we will greatly miss that magic."

Subaraj contributed immensely to nature conservation in Singapore. He was undoubtedly one of the most vocal activists, fighting passionately to protect our forests and wildlife.

Sir, when I landed back in Singapore, I went straight to Subaraj's wake to pay my last respects. I met Subaraj's wife, Shamla, who is sitting in the gallery today.

The first thing she told me at the wake was about how Subaraj and she were recently talking about the proposed amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act. In fact, the last time I met Subaraj was at the final face-to-face public consultation for the Wild Animals and Birds Act. She told me how excited Subaraj was about the amendments. I have no doubt that Subaraj would have been here today to see all of us debating about something so close to his heart, something he has been fighting for and something he devoted his life towards.

Sir, for the past two years, Subaraj has been helping me with drafting the proposed amendments to this law. At the wake, Shamla told me that whatever Subaraj was helping me with, she will now take over to ensure that his work continues, to ensure that his magic continues. This is how amazing and selfless Subaraj and his family are. Even as they grief the loss of a loved one, they never stop thinking about helping others, about their efforts and mission to save the remaining forest and wildlife.

Subaraj had actually suffered a heart attack about a year ago but that never stopped him. He continued being on the ground in our nature reserves, he continued passionately fighting and championing our cause and he continued to speak up.

Sir, Subaraj once said that, "When I see youngsters talking about nature, studying it and fighting for it, it gives me great pride that we were able to hang on to the nature spots we have. It's their time now, time to pass the baton."

I thank Members for your support for this Bill and on behalf of Subaraj, I thank everyone for speaking up and for fighting for our wildlife and for our nature spots. Rest in Peace, Subaraj. Thank you for all that you have done for Singapore and rest assured that your work and magic will continue. This Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill is dedicated to you.

Sir, this 14-year journey is finally at its last few chapters. It has been a beautiful journey made possible by passionate, selfless individuals who make this world a better place for all. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

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 Louis Ng Kok Kwang].

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