Complaints of Noise and Smell from Live Chickens in HDB and Private Residential Estates

8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) for the past five years, what is the number of complaints received pertaining to the noise and smell generated from live chickens located in HDB estates and private residential estates respectively; and (b) whether there will be a review of chicken rearing policy in HDB flats, private residential apartments and private landed residential properties.

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, from 2017 to 2021, agencies and Town Councils received a total of about 2,400 and 1,700 pieces of feedback about chickens in HDB and private residential estates respectively.

To mitigate the risk of avian disease and to safeguard human and animal health, we, generally, limit the number of poultry that can be reared on any premises on a non-commercial basis to 10.

But for HDB flats, the rule is stricter and the keeping of poultry is not allowed for public health reasons and to manage disamenities. When HDB gets complaints about chicken rearing in HDB flats, we work closely with agencies to engage the flat owners to make alternative arrangements to rehome their chickens where necessary.

Private residential owners who keep chickens on their property are also urged to do their part to minimise any inconveniences to their neighbours, such as noise and smell. Under the Community Dispute Management Framework, disputing parties can seek mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or, in more intractable cases, refer the matter to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal.

NParks will continue to work with our partners to raise public awareness on responsible pet ownership. NParks and HDB review pet ownership policies regularly to safeguard public health, while balancing the needs of different segments of the community.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I hope that the ban on chicken or live chicken imports from Malaysia have not prompted more Singaporeans to rear more chickens in their homes, especially private homes. But during my home visits to a private estate in Nanyang, I definitely experienced an increase in the number of complaints. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State so that I can understand correctly. The Senior Minister of State said that there were 2,100 complaints about chickens in private estates, compared to 1,700 in HDB estates. Which means that – okay, so we have more. Sorry, we have 1,700 in private estates.

I understand that, currently, we allow private estate home owners to have up to 10 chickens in the household. I wonder whether the Government is prepared to review the number so as to reduce the number of complaints about chickens.

My second supplementary question is, how many of the complaints have ended up being resolved and how many complaints have ended up going to the mediation centre, as explained by the Senior Minister of State?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not track the number of chickens in houses. Just to clarify the point in the Member's question, I said that over the last five years, as asked by the Member, a total of 2,400 pieces of feedback were about chickens in HDB estates and 1,700 pieces of feedback in the last five years were for private residential estates. Just to clarify the point.

Whether we will see more chickens, I do not know. Personally, I have not come across many of such cases. NParks, HDB and MND do not track the number of chickens we have in residential properties in Singapore.

As for the Member's question on whether most of these issues have been resolved, I think many of them are between neighbours, especially when you are talking about the feedback around chickens in private residential estates. We do not track how many have gone to the Community Mediation Centre and how many have been resolved through that process, but we understand that many of the complaints are between neighbours and, together with the local advisors, they come together and talk through the issues as a community.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I will take Mr Louis Ng and then Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I feel I should join this debate. Could I just ask, on a serious note, specifically, under what legislation do we ban the keeping of chickens in HDB flats? Because I do believe we have been challenged before and maybe it is under the Memorandum of Lease that the people who buy HDB flats signed. But could I just ask, specifically, which legislation prevents this?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think there are a few parts to that question that I think is useful for me to clarify. One is the role of NParks, which looks at this from the point of view of public health concerns. We know there are diseases that can jump from animal hosts to humans – zoonotic diseases – and this is something we pay a lot of attention to. The other concern, from NParks' point of view, is really about the welfare of the animals – whether there are abuses or cruelty to animals. Those are the things that NParks looks after.

In terms of HDB, it is more specific to HDB's Memorandum of Lease. Flat owners are not allowed to keep any animal and not allowed to keep chickens under the Memorandum of Lease in the flat, or any part of the common area of the building, unless approved by HDB.

And to add on to the point that Mr Ng is also alluding to, instances of HDB residents keeping chickens in the flats are actually rare. If there are such cases, please let us know, we will work with the agencies to advise the owners to make alternative arrangements to home the chickens.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The last supplementary question on this, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, please.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you. I have two quick supplementary questions. The first is to obtain the assurance from the Senior Minister of State that the standard operating procedure is that the first resort is for mediation, rather than slapping the violators with any kind of fine. And I mention this because, I recall, as a child, going through experiments where you would hatch chickens from eggs and you would keep them in the flat while they grew. We do not want to penalise young children and students who are conducting little experiments in this fashion.

The second question has to do with whether the Ministry has thought about what happens when there are community chickens and in particular, roosters. And I mention this because, in Sengkang, we had incidences of reports of community roosters and, as you can imagine, no one necessarily lays claim to these roosters. Does NParks then intervene to assist the Town Council in managing early rooster crowing?

Mr Deputy Speaker: A last word on the matter, Senior Minister of State.

Mr Tan Kiat How: Yes, I am surprised there is a fair bit of interest around chickens today. On Assoc Prof Lim's first supplementary question, indeed, we do not resort to fines and enforcement penalties as a first resort. Often, if it is a community case, we do want to bring the different parties together, especially the advisors with the grassroots volunteers, the community leaders and the neighbours, to come together to talk about it and see how we can come to an accommodation, especially about chickens in private residential properties.

There is no intent to go after any students or anyone who hatch chickens at home. That is not the intent. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate that from NParks' point of view, it is really about public health, safeguarding all of our health, especially when it comes to zoonotic diseases. And secondly, whether the animal is treated well or if there is abuse or cruelty – the issue of animal welfare.

On Assoc Prof Lim's second supplementary question around the community rooster, perhaps I could seek a clarification from Assoc Prof Lim, just to understand a bit more about where he is coming from and the specific case he cited in Sengkang, because I am not familiar with it. Is it something the Member is supportive of – to have the community rooster, but for it to be better taken care of, or is he asking NParks to come and do something about the rooster?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just to clarify, in the end, as you can imagine, in the community situation, there are those that are pro-rooster and anti-rooster. As it turns out, in the end, the rooster was removed. But I am wondering whether NParks has standard advice for this kind of situations.

Mr Tan Kiat How: Just to clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker. Was the rooster removed by NParks?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I believe it was by the Town Council, in collaboration with NParks.

Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for the clarification. I think he reflects the tensions that we all face as advisors and as Members of Parliament on the ground. Different segments of the community, different segments of our residents, have different desires and preferences. And, oftentimes, as Government agencies, we do want to work with the local advisors and, in this case, the Town Council, to see how we can amicably resolve it.

Removing the rooster may be one option but there are many other ways of finding ways of accommodating. For example, if it is about rooster crowing – some roosters crow even when the sun is not rising, thinking that the sun rises because of it – we can consider managing the noise by relocating the rooster or, in the case of private estate homes, to encourage owners to cover the pen with a cloth, so that the roosters do not crow or fight with one another.

There are many ways to tackle the issue. Ultimately, the assurance that we give to members of the public and our residents is that we want to work together with them, different segments of the community. At the end of the day, it is about our home, our neighbourhood, and we want to see how we can work together.