National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill

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

There is no question we must co-exist with wildlife. But there are many cases of people feeling threatened by animals. Indeed, there seems to be an increasing number of cases of snakes appearing in residential areas and causing alarm. One woman was even bitten by a python outside her house on the second storey of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat. Wild boars, too, are a cause for concern, as there have been several cases of wild boars attacking people. And let us also not forget about the monkeys harassing residents, first in the condominiums, and now in densely populated HDB estates, too. And, recently, I received several feedback from my residents that monkeys are found at the bus stops and overhead bridge near Yishun Stadium. They were so worried when they have children with them. So, there would be a lot on the plate for NParks to manage as I can foresee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: To have peaceful co-existence with the animals is good for everybody. Nature can bring about positive effects to tourism, eco-balance and our mental health. But there are potential conflicts between animals and people in two areas.

First, the animals can bring fear. We must educate our people not to panic when they see animals. Under this circumstance, you do not have to report to the Police but to look for the relevant organisation. Hopefully, the new agency can step up the education and offer help to the residents when necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. We can expect greater synergy and efficiency after the consolidation of all non-food-related plant and animal functions to NParks under the Ministry of National Development. I am sure there will be many benefits to be reaped from the optimisation of resources and leveraging of expertise.

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

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

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

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