Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Animal welfare is undeniably an emerging interest in our society today and it is also often a sensitive and emotive topic.

In setting up the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee (AWLRC), we recognised the importance to take into consideration the views of the Singapore society on cruelty and the expectations for animal welfare. The 11-member AWLRC includes representation from different stakeholder groups – our members come from the animal welfare groups, the vet profession, the pet industry, as well as the community and grassroots leaders. During the AWLRC's consultation process, we also held consultation sessions with all these different stakeholder groups, as well as public e-consultation to seek views.

Sir, the multi-stakeholder representation of the AWLRC reflects our belief that animal welfare should be seen as a shared responsibility amongst all stakeholders, and that we need to go beyond relying on imposing stricter laws and regulations to improve animal welfare standards. Thus, the scope of the AWLRC was not only to recommend ways to strengthen the legislation, but also to enhance stakeholders' collaboration on animal welfare. The 24 recommendations put forth by the Committee in March 2013 included legislative recommendations, and other recommendations that seek to strengthen and improve animal welfare through collaborative efforts by all stakeholders.

We sought to strike a balance between recommending stricter laws and regulations where warranted and also taking a more graded approach to encourage stakeholder-led initiatives to improve animal welfare standards where appropriate. In this way, the AWLRC tried to avoid over-regulation, but rather to promote co-ownership of solutions and hence a sense of shared responsibility in upholding the animal welfare.

Sir, this Private Member's Bill is to give effect to the AWLRC's recommendations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow AWLRC members for their valuable contributions, as some of them are here in the Speaker's Gallery with us today, and my fellow Members of Parliament Vikram Nair and Edwin Tong who lent their legal expertise on this Bill. I would also like to put on record a big thank you to all the members of the public for

Page: 108

their support and suggestions that have made this Bill possible and our very dedicated Secretariat who supported us all this while.

Sir, there were suggestions from the AWLRC consultations for a separate Animal Welfare Bill, but we considered that the scope of the current Animals and Birds Act (ABA) is broad enough to actually allow more sections and provisions on safeguarding animal welfare and prevention of animal cruelty provisions to be parked there. As such, we did not think there was a need to enact a standalone Act for animal welfare. The current provisions for prevention of cruelty to animals are found in Part IV of the Act and were last revised 12 years ago.

Today, we see the need for strengthening the legislation once again, as our society becomes increasingly aware and concerned about animal welfare issues. The number of animal welfare cases is rising, with a total of over 1,000 cases of animal welfare and cruelty feedback received by Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) and Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) annually. I would caution that, however, we should not extrapolate this to mean that our society as a whole is becoming less compassionate towards animals, as there could be many reasons for this increase, including increasing interest in animal welfare and a greater willingness to report incidents. However, it does cause us to think about how our society treats animals and the changes that we should aim towards in order to become a more gracious and compassionate society. Cases are also growing in complexity, and shifting away from the black and white of clear-cut acts of cruelty to increasingly grey areas of neglect or infringements of animal welfare. Challenges in enforcement also have emerged, as it is currently difficult to actually take action – be it punishment or prevention – without strong evidence of cruelty and witnesses who are willing to come forward to testify in Court. To strengthen the legislation in line with a socially gracious and harmonious society, we need to move the regulatory controls upstream.

Sir, the existing Animals and Birds Act focuses on preventing cruelty to animals. However, punishment is usually meted out only after cruelty has been done and there is little the authorities can do beyond advising better care or warning potential offenders – before such acts are committed. Much emphasis is also placed on the Government to be the sole protector of animal welfare, when it really should be a shared social responsibility. The key guiding principles in our legislative review were therefore to make the legislation more responsive and preventive, in addressing the welfare of the animals in the way that they are cared for, as well as to instil responsible and appropriate behaviour in all stakeholders who play a part in an animal's life cycle.

Sir, allow me to now turn to the details of the proposed amendments.

Page: 109

The AWLRC believes that the fundamental intent of the legislation should be preserved as looking at actions that result or may result in unnecessary pain and suffering of the animal. However, we should be cautious not to veer to the extreme that even actions generally deemed to be socially normal or acceptable, such as a child chasing after an animal in the intent of play, or the meeting of greater public objectives, such as mosquito and rodent control using proper pest control methods for public health reasons, can be also perceived out of context as an animal welfare concern.

While the AWLRC concurs that acts causing unnecessary pain and suffering to any animal should be appropriately addressed under the legislation, it notes that the majority of animal cruelty and welfare complaints currently pertain to pet animals, as reflected in the current statistics of animal welfare feedback and the findings from the consultation exercise. The AWLRC also notes that there are existing regulations and guidelines for specific animal groups, for example, animals used for scientific purposes. As such, we proposed to focus our recommendations on pet animals and raising the standards of animal welfare only in this area.

The Bill involves the AWLRC's recommendations on:

(a) mandating a duty of care by owners and persons in charge of animals;

(b) requiring employees of animal-related businesses to be properly trained;

(c) raising the penalties to increase deterrence and distinguishing the penalties between individuals and animal-related businesses; and

(d) improving the operational powers of AVA in administering the provisions of the Act.

I shall now go through and explain the rationale of the main features of the Bill.

A new section 41C is proposed to place legal responsibility on owners and persons in charge of animals to provide proper care for them so that the welfare of animals is attended to in a way that they are cared for and not just limited to punishing acts of cruelty after such acts had taken place. Existing clauses in the current section 42 associated with providing care are shifted to the new section 41C.

Sir, the Codes of Animal Welfare have been formulated by the Multi-stakeholder Collaboration Committee (MSCC), which includes most of the AWLRC members, and chaired by Member Alex Yam. The Codes stipulate what constitutes proper care. There are specific codes for pet owners and pet businesses. The Codes have undergone stakeholder and public

Page: 110

consultations before being finalised, and had been presented by the MSCC to AVA in July 2014. Upon acceptance and issuance of the Codes by AVA, should the Bill be passed by Parliament and gazetted into law, these Codes can be used for enforcement by AVA against failure to provide duty of care. While the Codes are not legislated, failure to meet the Codes can be used as evidence to support prosecution. However, AVA will not prosecute a person purely because of a breach of the Codes. The new sections 41A and 41B set out the legal provisions for the issuance, adoption and amendment of the Codes, as well as the use of the Codes in proceedings.

Sir, the proposed definition of "person in charge" will include a person who has the animal in the person's possession, custody or control, or under that person's care or supervision, whether permanently or on a temporary basis and the definition of owner would include persons in charge. This includes pet owners as well as those working with animals and handling animals in the course of their work, for instance, pet industry workers. The duty of care would also extend to include those who do not own the animals but care for them in a shelter or in their homes, including fosterers, hoarders and those looking after the pets of the family members or friends.

Under the existing Act, it is an offence for an owner to abandon any animal in circumstances that is likely to cause suffering or distress to it. The clause on abandonment being an offence has been shifted to the new section 41C under duty of care for better alignment, as it should be a duty of care of an owner to look after the animal properly and not abandon it. This is also in line with our intent of addressing the issues upstream, by encouraging responsible pet ownership. The clause has also been amended to make the act of abandonment an offence without having to consider whether the animal is suffering or in distress.

The AWLRC found from the consultation sessions that a common comment made was that potential and existing operators of all pet-related businesses should be required to undergo some form of training and not just only the pet shops. Requiring animal related businesses to train their staff will foster greater responsibility within the pet industry to ensure better animal welfare. Furthermore, it is equitable to expect handlers of animals in the industry to have a certain level of training on animal care and handling.

Currently, operators and staff of pet shops and pet farms that have been employed for six months or more are already required through licensing conditions to attend training on animal care and handling. However, we have also heard of acts of negligence or unfortunate accidents happening in other sectors of the pet industry. There was also a news report last year of a dog that died as a result of a groomer's handling fault. It is therefore timely and necessary for such a requirement to be extended to other areas of the industry.

Page: 111

Under the new section 43, the Bill proposes that those engaging in animal-related businesses – as prescribed under the relevant subsidiary legislation – must employ individuals who are qualified and trained to be in charge of its animals, in such manner as the Director-General may specify. The Bill proposes penalties of $5,000 and up to six months' jail term for failure to comply with this requirement. Section 80(2)(q) is proposed to be inserted to provide power for the Minister to make rules on such training requirements for animal-related businesses. However, to ease the new areas of the industry into the training requirement, downstream implementation will follow later. We have received a lot of feedback from the SMEs and definitely will ensure that the implementation will be phased, to give the businesses more time to adapt and fulfil the training requirement.

On penalty structure, Madam, there was strong consensus from the AWLRC's stakeholder consultation sessions to increase the maximum penalty. Over 80% of e-consultation respondents also supported increasing the maximum penalty, with the majority calling for the maximum fine to be increased to $20,000-$50,000 and maximum jail term to be increased to two-three years. The Committee also noted that penalties in animal welfare legislation of other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, Europe and Hong Kong, are higher than those in Singapore, with fines ranging from $1,000 to as high as $500,000, depending on the nature of the offence and the type of offender, and imprisonment ranging from days up to five years.

However, in determining the revisions to the maximum penalty, my fellow Members of Parliament and I held the view that the magnitude of penalty should provide sufficient deterrent as well as punish those who are convicted of committing acts of animal cruelty, but should not be overboard that it would cause unnecessary or unintended consequences, such as causing people to abandon their pet out of fear of non-compliance. We also felt that it is important to maintain proportionality of the proposed penalties for animal welfare and cruelty offences to other existing legislation for human abuse offences in Singapore.

Taking all these into consideration, the maximum penalties of $20,000 for non-cruelty offences and $30,000 for cruelty offences, with a possible jail term of up to two or three years is proposed in this Bill. The maximum fine of $50,000 proposed by the AWLRC for individual offenders has been reduced to maintain proportionality to other existing legislation for human offences.

We also saw the need to propose higher penalties for repeat and recalcitrant offenders. The proposed penalty structure has two-tiers, with one tier for the first convictions, and another tier for the second and subsequent offences. First-time offenders who may be ignorant of how to care for animals may also be ordered by the Court to perform community work order with animal welfare groups to increase their awareness and ability to care for animals. This is provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code, as an additional sentencing

Page: 112

option in lieu of fine and imprisonment.

The Bill also proposes to establish separate and higher penalties for animal-related businesses. This is in recognition that businesses are much more financially capable of paying the fine and a higher fine quantum would be a greater deterrent. My fellow Members of Parliament and I also rationalised that the penalties for offences committed by animal-related business should be higher, not only to target the profit motives of animal-related businesses, but also to underscore the greater responsibility that they should bear, seeing as they should have a greater obligation to care or provide for the welfare of animals and cannot claim ignorance of what constitutes proper care for animals. Moreover, under the law they will be required to undergo proper training to handle and care for animals. We also felt that the jail terms should apply to convicted individuals engaged in animal-related businesses, similar to other individual offenders. In this regard, the Bill proposes the maximum fine for businesses to be $100,000 for all offences and, in addition, a possible jail term of up to two or three years, depending on first or subsequent conviction.

My fellow Members of Parliament and I felt that it is necessary to scope the animal-related businesses by especially including a definition under the expanded section 41, to include: first, places or establishments which operate for reward such as pet shops, pet cafes, commercial breeders, boarding premises, vet centres, horse riding clubs and zoos; second, providers of services for reward such as pet groomers, pet boarders, animal trainers, dog walkers, pet transporters, vets, businesses providing special treatments to animals and animal control companies; and, third, animal welfare groups, for example, animal rescue, or welfare organisations, or facilities.

Animal welfare groups were not included in the AWLRC's original recommendation for higher penalties, which was targeted at pet-related businesses. However, in the course of our discussion, it became clear that animal welfare groups should not be exempted as the law should be fair and consistent to all. Neither is it our intent to cause animal welfare groups to be over-penalised, but rather to ensure that these groups have the proper processes and systems in place similar to any other businesses which handle animals.

The Bill also proposes to empower the Court to disallow offenders, where warranted, from owning or being in charge of any animal while working or being employed in any animal-related business, or from engaging in or carrying on an animal-related business, for a set period of up to one year. While it may not be easy to enforce such disqualification orders, such a penalty need only be meted out in specific cases in line with the intent and severity of the abuse, and would be able to serve as a social deterrent to offenders. We also decided against having lifetime disqualification orders, as we believe that people should be given a second chance.

Page: 113

The revised penalties are proposed to apply to sections 41C and 42 on duty of care and acts of cruelty to animals. Disqualification orders and related penalties for non-compliance with other orders are set out in section 43B.

Sir, beyond the AWLRC's recommendations, my fellow Members of Parliament and I also noted that AVA has experienced gaps in its enforcement powers in the investigation of cruelty cases. Welfare compromises and failure to provide duty of care may be even less straightforward to investigate. Therefore, we felt that it would be useful for the Bill to also enhance the enforcement powers.

The new section 43A is to provide powers for the Government to issue directives to require the person to improve the care of an animal. The Committee recommends that failure to comply with a directive be a punishable offence, liable to a maximum penalty of $20,000 and up to one year jail term for animal-related businesses, and $10,000 and up to one year jail term for other offenders.

Sir, some of the challenges that enforcement officers face in investigating animal welfare complaints include lack of evidence, tampering of evidence by the public, no witnesses, witnesses not willing to testify, and lack of cooperation from witnesses and suspect. There have been cases where a lack of cooperation by suspected offenders have resulted in cases being dragged on for months or cases closed due to insufficient evidence. For example, there was a case in 2011 where officers investigated an animal welfare complaint concerning a dog being left on the balcony and exposed to the elements for long hours. The investigation was protracted and prolonged as the owner did not cooperate to come and give his statement in person.

Enhanced powers have been proposed to give enforcement officers greater powers in conducting investigation and gathering evidence as well as remove longstanding obstacles to enforcement. For example, the existing provision only allows an arrest to be made if the animal cruelty offence is committed in the presence of the enforcement officer, which is unlikely to happen in reality. As it would be useful for these enhanced powers to also apply to the entire Act for more effective enforcement by AVA, the scope of the enhanced enforcement powers have been expanded to be applied to the whole Act and not just animal welfare/cruelty offences and consolidated in Part VI.

Sir, as we enhance the powers of enforcement officers, we also propose necessary safeguards to be put in place. These safeguards, such as on how offenders may be apprehended and how long they can be detained in custody, are similar to those in other existing legislation in Singapore.

Page: 114

I would like to highlight that, even with greater enforcement powers provided and proposed by this Bill, AVA may not be able to bring an offender to justice unless they have strong leads to investigate and sufficient evidence to take action. Public involvement to report cases and step forward as witnesses is needed. For example, Members may recall a case at end 2012 where a dismembered kitten was found at a HDB block in Yishun town. Police and AVA investigated the case but could not solve it because there were neither eyewitnesses nor any other credible leads. I thus urge again the public to come forward to report cases of animal welfare and abuse to AVA, and to testify as witnesses in court, if necessary.

Sir, in line with the Committee's aim to make the legislation more responsive and preventive, and underline the emphasis of ensuring animal welfare beyond preventing cruelty to animals, we propose to include "Animal Welfare" in the title of Part IV, to become "Animal Welfare and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals".

In reviewing the legislation, we also took the opportunity to review the existing definition to exclude insects, as it is within reasonable social norms for people to spray insecticides to remove insects, and such a definition may be too draconian and irrelevant for us in our times.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, we hope that the Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill will be an important first step in strengthening the animal welfare legislation in Singapore. The law is but a tool to set some standards and cannot be relied on solely to solve all animal welfare and cruelty issues.

As I stressed at the start of my speech, safeguarding the welfare of animals must be seen as a shared responsibility by all stakeholders, including the pet industry, owners, vet profession and the community. We should also be mindful that there are certainly many diverse views on animal welfare. It is important to balance the diverse interests of the community at large and consider a harmonious living environment for animals, animal lovers and those who may not be comfortable with animals.

Sir, as we continue to work on the stakeholder-driven initiatives of the AWLRC's recommendations, I ask again for the support and contribution from all parties to raise animal welfare standards in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Page: 115