Bird Menace at Hawker Centres

Madam, in the past three years, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) has received around 21,000 cases of bird-related feedback. The vast majority pertain to pigeons, especially the feeding of pigeons, by the public and pigeon nuisance in general.

The birds are attracted to hawker centres due to the availability of food. Food scraps left behind will also create public health issues if they attract pests, such as cockroaches and rats. To minimise this, the National Environment Agency (NEA) works with Town Councils and table-cleaning contractors to clear leftover food in hawker centres as quickly as possible. NEA has also been encouraging patrons to return their trays and crockery to the tray-return stations. These measures help to reduce the pet problem of birds feeding on leftover food in hawker centres.

Besides removing leftover food, NEA and Town Councils have been progressively adopting designs that deter birds for hawker centres, such as bird spikes and bird wires on ceiling beams, to prevent birds from perching in these areas.

For residential estates, AVA has been working with Town Councils on measures to manage the bird population. These include the use of bird deterrent gels, oral contraceptives for the pigeons, and fogging trees to deter mynahs. For example, AVA worked with Choa Chu Kang Town Council on a bird deterrent gel trial from February 2015. The gel was found to be effective in the block where it was tested, and AVA has shared the solution with other interested stakeholders who may be keen to adopt such a measure.

Most importantly, the public has a role to play in curbing the bird population by maintaining the cleanliness of the overall environment and to not feed the birds. To this end, AVA, NEA and Town Councils are working together to educate residents not to litter or to feed the birds, through advisories, posters and even through grassroots events. NEA will take enforcement action against any offenders who do not comply.

I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first question is on pigeons. We have given feedback many times that there are a lot of pigeons along Mass Rapid Transit lines. Despite that, the population of pigeons is still a lot. I would like to ask the Minister of State: is there any other action that can be taken because I have just seen it yesterday; it is a lot.

And the second question is about mynahs. Early last year, there was a new fogging method that was used for the mynahs in Nee Soon South. However, it did not work out and, after that, it just stopped there. I would like to ask the Minister of State: is there any new way or method that we can do because, by trimming the trees, it is just chasing the mynahs from one tree to the next tree.

Madam, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. First of all, on the issue of pigeons, there is no one-size-fits-all method and it is going to be multifactorial in terms of why the birds come back. Part of the key reason is that they are attracted by leftover food. The approach has to be through multi-faceted engagement with multiple stakeholders, chief of all, our residents, to make sure they do not throw food out of the window from the kitchen, and also to make sure that we cut down on littering. Food centres are another source of attraction. Close the bins, this is a simple measure, but it is easier said than done. We have all experienced difficulties with these in our own estates as well. So, public education is important and that is the only way to reduce the source that will attract the birds to come. Otherwise, no degree of culling, no degree of using gels or contraceptives, will stop the birds from coming back.

As for other methods to deal with the mynah issue, other than the gel that I illustrated before, the other trial that AVA has done in 2016 was to use the fogging method that was tried out in the Member's area before. The result of that is still ongoing; the effectiveness is probably patchy. So, it also has to depend on how the fogging is done and the frequency as well. The trial is still ongoing to figure out what is the most optimal way to apply it, what is the most optimal frequency of using that method.

The other alternative, for example, will be to use oral contraceptives. In October 2015, AVA embarked on a year-long trial at Palmer Road to test the effectiveness of a corn-based feed that contains nicarbazin, which is an oral contraceptive. This was used in the context of managing the pigeon population. Such a trial has been shown to work in, for example, Italy. However, the efficacy is only observed after a period of five years on a trial involving about 100 pigeons. As you can imagine, oral contraceptive takes a longer lead time to work, because you are trying to prevent multiplication of the population, but the current population will still be around for some time. So, you do not see an observable effect in the near term.

For mynahs or crows, for example, if they are more aggressive and they attack humans, one of the other options that has been applied before is to actually use arms to cull them because they can pose an immediate threat to humans by attacking humans. For the pigeons, they are usually more mild and they do not attack humans directly. So, we can try other avenues before we take culling as the final option.

Madam, I agree with the Member that when feeding is the key issue that attracts the birds, then, at some point, enforcement has to take place because a deterrent signal has to be sent to the recalcitrant people who are continuously feeding the birds and attracting them to come.

For the trial results, we will continue to review the efficacy and, at some point, we will make adjustments, if need be, and we will communicate to the Member accordingly.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I was wondering, in light of his earlier reply to the Parliamentary Question, saying that chickens carry a higher risk of transmitting bird flu compared to other birds like mynahs, surely the number of birds would matter as well. I was wondering from the Ministry of National Development's (MND's) viewpoint, is there a threshold for the size of the flock at which this risk would increase to the public? If so, would MND consider taking additional measures and a more active approach to managing the bird pest issue in estates, such as Clementi, where I serve?

Madam, I thank the Member for his question. Let me make a correction on what he said. Chickens have a higher risk of transmission compared to pigeons, not the other way round.

For the bird population, as opposed to free-ranging chickens, the difference is this: birds do fly around, they can shift from one place to another quite quickly. So, it is not so easy as catching chickens which can only run around on the ground. So, in terms of managing the bird population, the challenge is much more difficult compared to managing a few chickens running around in one fixed locality.

At this point in time, we are conducting background surveillance on the types of birds and whether they are migratory, and what is the migratory pattern of birds that go through the Singapore flyway. If we perceive that the risk is high and there are actually monitored instances of more bird flu occurring around the region, close to home, for example, or if the migratory pattern of birds that come to our shore carries some strains of the bird flu virus, then, yes, we may have to step up even more aggressively in culling, whether it is pigeons, mynahs or crows, to reduce the risk of birds within this area that carry the viruses. But today, if we were to take a one-size-fits-all approach, then we will be unnecessarily culling pigeons and mynahs when the risk of bird flu infection may not be high at this point in time.

Clearly, there is no perfect answer. If you want a perfectly safe environment, then, yes, we should go all out, all guns blazing, and remove every single bird from the sky of Singapore. But Members know that that is not a practical approach and it is not always going to be as easily achieved. You can cull a thousand birds today, tomorrow another thousand will fly in from somewhere else. We are just chasing a tail. So, it is something that we have to take a very practical view and escalate when necessary.

I have two questions for the Minister of State. The first one is that I understand we do not have enough enforcement on the ground to catch the recalcitrants or the offenders. So, are there better methods to work around this because maybe the penalties are not stiff enough and we should review the penalties in place?

The second one is with regard to the population of the birds. In certain locations, we have seen that the birds actually only nest or tend to frequent around certain types of trees. Have there been any co-relationship studies done to see whether the type of trees planted results in the kind of population of birds that come around?

Madam, I agree with the Member that, at some point, we need to strengthen the enforcement. Some of the measures that can be employed, other than using actual human beings walking around to catch people feeding, could be to use the deployment of technology, such as surveillance cameras. That has been used in some estates as well. I know – I use it in my estate to catch people who are feeding or throwing rubbish out of their windows. That has sometimes produced a good deterrent effect on the rest of the blocks from doing the same thing. I urge the Member to work with NEA and see if deployment of such surveillance cameras to catch the culprit in the act would be useful to send a deterrent signal.

For the population of birds in correlation to the types of trees, I do not have information on that. But I can surmise that, actually, birds can find any place to just rest. So, regardless of the tree type, if there is something that attracts them like a source of food, for example, they will still go there and they can actually rest on the tree, no matter what type of tree that is.