PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.18 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of this Bill is to provide powers in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance to make regulations, among other things, for the control, licensing, keeping, and destruction of dogs. Until the coming into force of the Local Government Integration Ordinance (No. 18 of 1963) on 1st December, 1963, dog licences were levied under the provisions of section 83 of the Municipal Ordinance and the by-laws made thereunder by the local authority, viz, the City Council, in respect of the city area, and the Rural Board in respect of areas outside the city.

The Municipal Ordinance was repealed upon the coming into force of the Local Government Integration Ordinance, and as the provisions of section 83 of the Municipal Ordinance have not been repeated in the Local Government Integration Ordinance the statutory powers of licensing cease to exist. The deletion of this provision in the new Ordinance was, however, intentional.

As it was considered to be much more appropriate to include dog licensing and kindred matters in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance than in the Local Government Integration Ordinance, accordingly when the Local Government Integration Bill was in the draft stage a draft amendment was also prepared to transfer the provisions to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. At the same time, steps were taken to draft a comprehensive Animals Ordinance based on the lines of the Federation Animals Ordinance which would embrace related animal matters like meat inspection, slaughter-houses, control of drugs and vaccines and biological products, artificial insemination, etc, including the licensing of dogs, hatcheries, poultry and bird shops, and the like.

It has been hoped to introduce this comprehensive Animal Bill simultaneously with the Local Government Integration Bill. But this was not possible as material and information on such legislation had to be gathered from overseas, and it would still take some time to prepare and adopt a comprehensive Ordinance to meet local conditions. It is, therefore, necessary to amend as a temporary measure the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance to seek powers to make regulations for the licensing and control of dogs among other things until such time as the comprehensive Animals Ordinance is ready for introduction to this House.

The opportunity has also been taken in this Bill to include poultry within the definition of "animal", as well as providing a definition for hatcheries. Increased penalties were also prescribed in the Bill to bring the scale into line with penalties for other offences of a similar nature.

Since the Bill will substantially re-enact the previous provisions contained in the repealed Municipal Ordinance to enable the making of regulations for the licensing and control of dogs, hatcheries, poultry and bird shops, and the like, it will be necessary for the Bill to have retrospective effect from the 1st of September, 1963, which is the day the Municipal Ordinance ceased to have effect with the coming into force of the Local Government Integration Ordinance, in order to preserve the continuity of licensing.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.24 p.m.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this House should be very glad that even pigs, poultry and dogs in Singapore are receiving more and more attention from the hierarchy of the society. So the Party in power is now introducing this amendment Bill to prevent cruelty, to animals, so that animals will be happy to die when they are slaughtered, instead of dying with dissatisfaction. But, unfortunately, the lower strata of society in Singapore are now being treated cruelly and are not receiving any attention from any quarter. It is also regrettable that in introducing this amendment Bill, the Government have, as we have suspected, certain ulterior motives behind the Bill. What we are afraid is that the Government, in the name of prevention of cruelty to animals, levy more taxes on the people because there is provision in this Bill saying that if hawkers sell poultry and other animals they must possess a licence, otherwise they are liable to a fine. So with this provision I do not know whether those hawkers in the rural areas who sell meat are required to be licensed or not.

There is another provision in this amendment Bill giving powers to the Minister to regulate rules and fees in connection with licences. So the Minister can regulate rules and decide on the fees according to his own wish. I hope the Government will not try to extract heavy fees from the poor hawkers because the hawkers are unemployed people in the true sense of the word. That is why they have to resort to hawking to earn a livelihood. I hope the Government will not increase the fees for licences in order to get more money from the people.

4.26 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fong Kim Heng) in the Chair]

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleague has already said that our honourable Ministers are paying more attention to poultry and domestic animals. Their interest in this respect is increasing so that they can take further steps to prevent cruelty to animals. But what intrigues me is that there is no provision for the prevention of cruelty to another kind of animal, i.e. human beings. I believe that you will not forget the fact that there are many high-class animals - homo sapiens - who are being ill-treated by the P.A.P.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: On a point of order, Sir. We are discussing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, and not a "Human Beings Bill". If the hon. Member wishes to move an amendment to the Bill, he may do so and speak on the amendment. But he is not. So he should be discussing this Bill and not human beings.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member should include homo sapiens in this Bill. Could he just speak on the principle of this Bill pertaining to animals alone?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, human beings are also animals. I think you cannot deny that.

Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park) rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Rajoo: Yes, Sir, Is the Member saying that he is an animal?

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr Koo Young, please continue.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think if you will allow me to speak slowly, I will show you the relation between human beings and animals. The Members on the other side seem to be afraid of what I have to say, and so they try to interrupt.

I say that human beings are also animals, except that we are high-class animals. The P.A.P. Government arrested a lot of political leaders, and they were ill-treated. The detainees were put in solitary confinement and were not allowed to read books. They were not even allowed to go out of their cells for fresh air. They were only allowed to leave their cells for half an hour a day for baths. So I do not know whether the Minister for National Development is going to extend the scope of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill to include human beings, such as the political detainees. We cannot just shed crocodile tears and pretend to be merciful. It would be like preventing cruelty to cats and dogs and forget about cruelty to human beings who are high-class animals. It is the Government that are ill-treating human beings.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that human beings do not come under the definition of "animals" in this Bill. The definition here in this Ordinance is that "animals mean any birds, fish, reptiles or insects, whether wild or tame", and does not include human beings. Will the Member please proceed and do as I have ruled?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want the Minister to expand on the definition.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): The Members opposite want to debate with us on the foreign stooges now in detention. If they really want to do so, they can do it at the proper time, instead of making use of this opportunity to mention irrelevant matters.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled. Will the Minister for National Development proceed?

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know why they are so suspicious. I have already explained that this Bill is introduced in order to provide for powers which were provided under section 83 of the Municipal Ordinance which lapsed in 1963 when the Local Government Integration Ordinance came into being. This is for us to control licensing of dogs; licensing control, keeping and destruction of dogs. It is not something new. If the Member for Jurong is so concerned about the higher species of human kind, I would welcome his introducing a Bill here for the prevention of cruelty to human beings. I will take it up. We will probably introduce a Bill here to his satisfaction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Lim Kim San].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.