Culling of Free-roaming Chickens at Sin Ming

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development (a) at which point does AVA decide to cull populations of wildlife in an area due to public complaints; (b) whether AVA consults and communicates with residents living with the wildlife in their midst, wildlife experts and other stakeholders in making the decision; and (c) how does AVA ensure that the culling does not affect similar but endangered or indigenous species of wildlife.

Madam, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) is the designated Government agency that responds to all public complaints about animals. While AVA responds to such public feedback, its actions are guided by a professional assessment of the risks that these animals might pose to public health and safety. In other words, when feedback is received, AVA conducts surveillance to determine the actual situation on the ground. If there are no significant public health or safety concerns, AVA will advise feedback providers on ways to mitigate the issues. These include removing food sources within properties, animal proofing homes, or even pruning vegetation in the vicinity of the area of complaint.

In the case of free-roaming chickens near Sin Ming Avenue, AVA found that the population had more than doubled to 50 birds. Studies have shown that chickens are more susceptible to the bird flu virus, compared to other birds like pigeons. In other words, there is a higher risk of free-roaming chickens being exposed and infected with bird flu from migratory wild birds, which are often reservoirs for the bird flu virus. There is also scientific evidence that chickens can, in turn, transmit the disease to humans, creating a zoonotic disease. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the majority of human cases of bird flu infection have been associated with contact with infected live or dead poultry, including chickens. That is why AVA felt that it had to take action to manage the chicken population in Sin Ming. Unfortunately, AVA's actions were perceived to be motivated solely by noise concerns, which is not the case. That said, AVA acknowledges that engagement and communications with residents and other stakeholders on this issue ought to have been better managed.

Some have suggested that the chickens could be relocated to the wild, for example, in places like in Pulau Ubin or other forested areas. But the chickens in Sin Ming and in most of our urban settings are highly unlikely to be of native stock and are, therefore, different from our indigenous breed of Red Junglefowl, which is an endangered species known to occur only in Pulau Ubin and the Western Catchment area. They were brought in by humans at some point, perhaps to be raised as pets. So, releasing the free-ranging chickens into the wild can adversely affect the stock of the native species genetically, especially if there is inter-breeding that takes place thereafter.

The community, I must say, also plays an important role in helping to achieve harmonious human-animal interactions. The reality is that there is often a lack of natural predators in any urban ecosystem, such as Singapore. So, the delicate balance of nature does not always function in a predominately urban setting. In this regard, we all need to act responsibly, by not feeding wildlife. Such a practice further disturbs the balance in the ecosystem and will invariably increase human-wildlife contact, and then, subsequently, lead to conflict. It will also potentially increase the risk of human-animal cross transmission of diseases. We should also refrain from abandoning our pets, as it is not only cruel and against the law, but also a cause of imbalance and has an adverse impact on our native wildlife population.

At the same time, AVA is continuing to undertake research with academics, wildlife experts and other public agencies to find the best ways to manage the population of free-ranging chickens and other birds. For example, in January 2016, AVA initiated a study with the National University of Singapore (NUS) to better understand the ecology and population of selected bird species in Singapore. One of the bird species that this study is focusing on is the free-ranging chickens.

Through these research studies and public engagement efforts, AVA aims to strengthen its capabilities and develop more effective science-based methods to manage the animal population in our midst. AVA will also involve different stakeholders including community and animal welfare groups, in exploring various approaches and solutions. Culling will only be done as the very last resort.

Ultimately, we want to thrive as a city in a garden, living in harmony with nature and enjoying the flora and fauna around us.

I thank the Minister of State for the response. But I think he did not reply to the point about how many people complained about the Sin Ming chickens that I have posed in the Parliamentary Question. Add-on clarifications from that, can the Minister of State clarify why AVA considered relocation as an option, if the concern was bird flu rather than noise?

Also, AVA cited the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) statement in 2014 about battling bird flu to justify the culling, but FAO actually stated that it does not support the culling of wild birds. I quote, "Attempts to control the spread of H5N1 by culling large numbers of wild birds are not recommended." It is not recommended as it is ineffective, according to FAO, and amongst many other reasons cited, and I quote, "because they require resources to be diverted from more effective ways of combating the virus, such as improving biosecurity and clamping down on the illegal or unregulated movement of poultry." Can the Minister of State clarify why then did AVA cull the birds which the experts advised against?

Third, why did AVA not vaccinate the birds instead which is, again, what the experts recommend, rather than culling them? Lastly, there are now more chickens in Sin Ming. Can the Minister of State clarify if AVA will be culling the remaining population of chickens there?

Madam, I thank the Member for his clarifications. Let me first state clearly that chickens, though free-roaming, are not wild birds. So, they are two different species altogether. That is an important fact to know because the risk profile in terms of transmitting avian influenza or bird flu is different. Let me just run through this whole thing again so that everybody can follow the sequence.

The Member asked how many complaints AVA received. In 2015 and 2016, AVA received more than 20 feedback from various residents living in the vicinity of Thomson View and Blocks 452 to 454 in Sin Ming Avenue. This is in contrast to the six feedback that have been received in the year before, in 2014. So, there is an increased number of feedback over this time period.

Feedback from residents highlighted that they have spotted more chickens in this area. So, there is an observation by the residents that the chicken population is increasing in this area. AVA conducted surveillance upon receiving the feedback, to determine the situation on the ground. The surveillance findings showed that the population of chickens in that area had indeed increased significantly over the last two years. The number of chickens had grown from about 20 in 2014, to more than 50 in 2016. So, it has more than doubled.

Chickens, as I said, are different from wild birds and are scientifically known to be more susceptible to the bird flu virus than other birds, and they can transmit the diseases to humans. Essentially, a low pathogenic strain of bird flu, once it goes into a host in a free-ranging chicken, has a higher chance of undergoing genetic mutation, genetic recombination and, subsequently, acquire a more virulent behaviour with a higher chance of transmission to humans, creating zoonotic diseases.

So, given the increase in chicken population in that area, the decision taken then was to remove some of the chickens − some, and not all. AVA, thus, removed over 20 free-roaming chickens, of which more than 60% are roosters which created some of the noise nuisance as well. So, in effect, AVA has removed the number of chickens to reduce the population of free-roaming chickens close to its baseline level.

The question then is: what is an acceptable number of chickens allowed to be free-ranging? The reality is that there is no magic number and there is no science to say that there is a sweet number to say that 10 is good, 50 is bad, 20 is even better.

The World Organisation for Animal Health's (OIE's) guidelines recommend culling poultry infected with highly pathogenic avian flu. For low pathogenic strains, more countries, like the United States, Canada, the European Union (EU) and Australia, will cull the infected poultry as well because the virus in chickens can evolve rapidly into a more virulent form as I said earlier. The EU actually has made a decision dated 14 February 2017, just recently, on the transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza from wild birds to poultry. During high-risk periods in high-risk areas, EU member states are prohibited from keeping poultry in the open air unless the poultry birds are protected against contact with wild birds, be it with nets or roofs, or by any other appropriate means. This effectively means, that as far as the EU is concerned, no free-roaming chickens are allowed because that increases the risk of disease transmission.

While there are no specific recommendations to cull free-roaming chickens when there is no infection existing in a country, there are recommendations to house them in a bio-secure environment, just like any other chicken farm with the intent to prevent bird flu transmission and infection. Hence, conceivably, one can surmise that any free-roaming chicken can be postulated to be at risk of acquiring bird flu and, subsequently, transmitting to humans.

The factors for determining the risk level in an area include detection of bird flu in the faeces of wild birds and location along migratory bird fly ways, and Singapore is located along a migratory bird fly way. So, if we were to reduce the bird flu risk to zero, then, technically, all chickens would have to be culled.

Therefore, in this instance, because of a lack of guidelines to say what the actual number should be, AVA takes a very calibrated and measured approach to reduce the risk posed to public health to what we hope is an acceptable level.

I thank the Minister of State. Whether rightly or wrongly, there will be residents who see the chickens, cats or dogs that are free roaming as part of the community. So, I am asking whether AVA will be consulting the residents in the future before any of this culling takes place and, if so, how AVA will conduct the consultation exercise.

Madam, as I said earlier, AVA takes a calibrated approach by first assessing the ground situation through surveillance and, in fact, does engage residents in much the same way as how residents feed back about what they observed. AVA takes a holistic approach to also assess the situations. In certain situations where there are suitable rehoming options, we will explore that as one approach. But having said that, rehoming chickens in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats is not possible. So, that is different from rehoming a dog or cat. In any case, the zoonotic risk between a cat, dog and a chicken is quite far apart. So, in this case, because the chicken does carry a risk of transmitting avian influenza, the approach has to be different from dealing with cats and dogs.

I thank the Minister of State for his explanation on an issue which has caused the public's imagination to take flight. I have two supplementary questions.

Firstly, will the Ministry continue to study the size of the congregation of birds that will be required to trigger an enforcement action, the reason being that, at some point, this number may change, depending on the epidemiological risk? It may be useful to study that, so that the public is reassured that this calibrated approach is ongoing.

The second supplementary question is that, from time to time, friends, people on social media may post pictures of having encountered a chicken near their home. I was wondering what the Ministry's advice would be to residents and other folks who encounter such chickens, free-ranging or otherwise, and whether they would need to report these animals to AVA.

Madam, I thank the Member for his questions. Yes, AVA does conduct scientific studies to enhance the effectiveness of their animal management strategies. So, for example, AVA conducts the annual bird survey that we do. For this survey, volunteers are engaged to conduct surveys of urban birds across Singapore to get a sense of the patterns of bird migration within Singapore itself. AVA is also working with NUS on a two-year urban bird research study which began in January last year. This study will provide a deeper understanding of the biology and ecology of selected urban birds, thereby enabling AVA to improve on management methods.

As to how we would want the public to respond, to say, an observation of a presence of a chicken that is free-ranging, I think the clear scientific data against contact with just one isolated free-roaming chicken is not strong. What the risk would be is not quantified. But in this present context where there is no active bird flu going on within our country or in a nearby region, I think the risk posed to the public from just one free-roaming chicken is probably not very high. But it would be a different scenario if there is an active disease outbreak. Then, the advice to the public will have to be different − to avoid contact when necessary and to flag it up to AVA so that we can take pre-emptive action to reduce further the population of free-ranging chickens. I hope that clarifies the question. It is more to calibrate against the current perceived risk.

Madam, just a few more clarifications. I would really like to know how many people actually complained rather than how many complaints were received. Second, so, we have culled 24 chickens, there are 26 remaining. It is a matter of time before the 26 will become 50 again. Will AVA then proceed to cull another 24 chickens? Lastly, I just want to mention that I have seen the photographs of the chickens or some of them at Sin Ming Avenue. They are, indeed, a Red Junglefowl. There are two birds there: the domestic chickens and the Red Junglefowl. Just to clarify because AVA had mentioned earlier that the free-ranging chickens seen on mainland Singapore are not the Red Junglefowl. That statement is inaccurate.

Madam, in answer to the Member's question about how many people did provide feedback, based on our records, in 2014, there were three feedback providers; in 2015 there were five. That is in the area of Sin Ming and Thomson View; and in 2016, there were 13. And clearly, this correlates with the increased sighting of birds and therefore, the number of feedback providers and the number of feedback have gone up accordingly.

As to whether the birds that were running around are the Red Junglefowl or just the foreign species, AVA will have to conduct genetic studies to determine or maybe get the experts to ascertain. So, this is a point that is difficult for us to ascertain the truth just by speaking like this in this House.