ANIMALS AND BIRDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.00 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Animals and Birds Act was enacted in 1965 to consolidate the various legislation relating to animals. It contains legislation to prevent the introduction and spreading of animal and bird diseases, to control the import and export of animals and birds, to prevent cruelty to animals, control livestock products, and to regulate the use of veterinary biologics. This Act has not undergone any major review since its enactment. My Ministry has proposed this Bill for the purposes of, firstly, to enhance the prevention and control of animal, bird and fish diseases; secondly, the strengthening of the provisions for the prevention of animal cruelty; and thirdly, improving the operational efficiency of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority in administering the provisions of this Act. I shall now go through and explain the rationale of the main features of the Bill.

Enhance the prevention and control of animal and bird diseases

Sir, there is always a potential risk, although generally remote, for a disease agent present in animals, birds and fishes, to develop an ability to infect humans. In recent years, there have been reports world-wide of outbreaks of animal diseases that can be passed to humans, such as the Mad Cow Disease, the Avian Bird Flu and the Nipah Virus Disease found in pigs. These diseases pose a threat to public health. Also, there have been outbreaks of other animal diseases, such as Foot and Mouth Disease, which do not affect humans, but could nevertheless have a significant impact on trade in animals, birds and their products. Singapore is currently free from such diseases, but we need to be vigilant and alert to keep these and other emerging threats at bay. This Bill strengthens the provisions for disease prevention, control and detection, so as to enable the AVA to deal with animal-related diseases more effectively and promptly. Let me elaborate on these amendments.

Singapore is a major international trading hub for aquatic animals, such as ornamental fish, with its trade valued at about $75 million annually. Currently, the Act does not cover fish diseases. Clause 3 of this Bill proposes to include fish into the definition of "Animal" in this Act. The definition of "fish" covers fishes, crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic animals. This amendment will provide the necessary protection for the health of fish in Singapore and the regulation of trade in aquatic animals in accordance with international requirements. Clause 3 also allows for the Minister to expand the definitions of "animal" and "disease" through an order and a notification in the Gazette respectively, should diseases transmitted by other organisms currently not covered in this Act subsequently become significant.

Currently, the AVA can deny diseased animals or birds being imported into Singapore. The amendment in clause 8 of the Bill will further enhance the AVA's powers by allowing the AVA to prevent the entry into Singapore of any vehicle, ship or aircraft, suspected of carrying diseased animals or birds, without the need for the animals or birds to be inspected and found to be diseased. For instance, the animals or birds may not be showing signs of a disease when they left the source country, but it is later known that they have been exposed to the disease and therefore pose a risk. This proposed power would be exercised only if the AVA is satisfied that the suspected diseased animals or birds on board the vehicle, ship or aircraft, can pose a significant risk to the health of our population, or our animals or birds.

Section 11 of the Act currently requires imported dogs and cats to be confined on board a ship, unless the AVA authorises their landing. This is to prevent the introduction into Singapore of any diseases that these dogs and cats may carry. Any animals and birds imported or transhipped by sea via Singapore could potentially introduce diseases into Singapore. Clause 9 of the Bill therefore expands the scope of section 11 to enable the AVA to confine to the ship, any animal and bird being imported or transhipped by sea.

Clauses 6, 13 and 14 of the Bill enhance AVA's powers to examine and deal with animals and birds that are diseased or suspected of being diseased. Animals and birds to be imported or exported out of Singapore can be detained at a quarantine station for examination to ensure that they are free from disease. They can also be destroyed if they are found to be a disease risk. AVA can also examine animals or birds suspected of being diseased to make a disease diagnosis. This can include taking environmental samples, such as their feed or bedding materials, or destroying the animals and birds, if indeed that is necessary to diagnose the disease. Animals or birds which have been in contact with, or exposed to, diseased animals or birds, or which may perpetuate the disease, can also be destroyed to prevent further spread of the disease.

If there is an animal or bird disease outbreak, the movement of people and vehicles into and out of a diseased area may become the means for spreading the disease around Singapore. By virtue of the amendments under clause 16 of the Bill, the Minister may order the restriction of movement of people and vehicles in diseased areas in order to contain the problem. I would like to assure the House, however, that the Minister would exercise this power only in serious cases of diseases that can affect humans.

Clause 29 of the Bill updates the provisions for establishing quarantine stations for animals and birds in veterinary centres. It provides for the AVA to establish or designate more quarantine stations if the AVA assesses that this is necessary for disease control. The AVA can also license veterinary centres to ensure that they are properly managed and equipped for the treatment of animals and birds.

Technology has progressed globally to a level where there are genetically modified organisms and GMO derived products which have been commercialised or are in the process of being commercialised. Clause 30 of the Bill provides for the regulation of the import and the possession of animal-related GMOs in order to ensure that there is no inadvertent introduction of undesirable animal-related GMOs or GMO-derived products that can compromise the health of our population, or of our animals and birds.

Strengthen provisions for animal welfare and prevention of animal cruelty

Sir, the abandonment of animals, besides being a cruel act, also contributes to the proliferation of stray animals. Over the years, the AVA, unfortunately, has not seen any reduction in the rate of abandonment of animals by owners. Each year, the AVA and SPCA have to put down about 9,000 dogs and 12,000 cats. The AVA and SPCA also impound around 200 and 1,000 pure breed dogs each year respectively. Clauses 20-22 of the Bill strengthen the AVA's power to deal with cruelty to animals. The abandonment of animals without reasonable cause is made an offence. This is to serve as a deterrent against irresponsible pet owners. In addition, the Bill increases the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences from the current $500 fine and/or a jail term of six months to a proposed $10,000 fine or a jail term of twelve months. The Bill also provides AVA with the power to enter and search any premises with suspected cruelty cases. Animals subjected to cruelty can be taken away from their owners and can be medically treated by a licenced veterinarian.

Clause 25 of the Bill provides for a new section to regulate the keeping and breeding of animals and birds to ensure public health and safety, and to prevent animal cruelty. It also regulates the feeding of animals and birds to keep in check the proliferation of stray animals, which in turn can help in preventing and controlling the spread of animal and bird diseases.

Improve AVA's operational efficiency

Clauses 4, 6, 8, 13-15, 25 and 28 of the Bill include amendments to give AVA the flexibility to outsource some of its functions to augment its own services. The Director-General of the AVA, subject to any general or special directions of the Minister, can designate suitably qualified persons from the private sector, such as authorised examiners in order to carry out inspections, examinations, tests, treatment and certification of animals and birds for import and export, and for the diagnosis of disease. The impoundment of strays and identification of animals and birds, eg, through micro-chipping, can similarly be outsourced to private entities. The AVA will direct these authorised examiners on the functions to perform and specify the procedures and conditions for these authorised examiners to comply with. The authorised examiners will not be given enforcement powers. The AVA will still retain overall control and accountability in the final judgment on disease control based on the findings and recommendations of these authorised examiners.

Clause 26 of the Bill re-enacts the existing section 57 to make clearer the procedure for the forfeiture of items. The revised provisions are similar to those in the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act. Clauses 24 and 31 of the Bill enhance the AVA's powers of investigation and enforcement and facilitate the AVA to carry out the functions of this Act more effectively. This includes powers to suspend or revoke licences and permits, require the production of documents, remove obstructions to entering a premise or vehicle, to facilitate the examination of any animal or bird, and compound minor offences. These provisions will allow for more effective enforcement of the Act.

The maximum penalties for offences committed under the Act are also increased under clause 34 of the Bill. This is to maintain the level of deterrence as these penalties have not been revised since the Act was enacted in 1965. Offences that present a lower risk of disease spread will incur penalties not more than $5,000 in fine and/or jail term of up to six months. Offences that have a higher risk of disease spread and a greater impact on animal and public health will incur higher maximum penalties of a $10,000 fine and/or a jail term of up to twelve months.

In conclusion, Sir, the Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill will strengthen the existing provisions to prevent the introduction into, and control the spread of diseases of animals and birds, including fish diseases, in Singapore. It will better enable the AVA to deal with the animals, birds and fish diseases more effectively and promptly in order to protect the health of Singaporeans from transmissible animal-related diseases. It will also strengthen provisions for the prevention of animal cruelty.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The Bill will address concerns on the spread of animal and bird diseases and provide better protection for consumers in Singapore. With the growing awareness on animal welfare, it is also timely to revise the provisions of the Animals and Birds Act to prevent cruelty to animals.

In a civilised society, acts of cruelty should be prevented, not only to humans, but also to animals. The recent incidents on cruelty to animals have raised concerns on how we can address cruel acts on animals. But, Sir, we must be careful to achieve a fair balance between protecting animals and protecting human rights. Although stringent penalties will serve as a deterrent, it may impose unfair punishment to some who infringe the Act, especially first-time offenders, or those who were provoked by animals to act recklessly.

Sir, I shall now highlight the following specific provisions in the Bill to seek the Minister's clarifications. One, inconsistent provisions in the Bill. There seems to be inconsistencies in the proposed Bill with regard to the mode of transportation for animals and birds into Singapore. Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 9 of the principal Act by empowering an authorised officer to board any ship, aircraft, or train, for the purpose of examining any animal or bird. But it has not empowered the authorised officer to board any vehicle transporting animals or birds into Singapore. This provides a loophole for the importation of animals or birds by land. I hope the Minister can explain why the authorised officer is not empowered to examine animals or birds on board any vehicle.

In clause 8 of the Bill, section 10 provides the power for the Director-General to deal with diseased animals and birds being imported into Singapore. However, section 10(1) only specifies animals and birds on board vehicle, aircraft or ship. There is no mention of train. Thus, the Director-General is also not empowered to deal with animals and birds imported by trains. This provision is also inconsistent with clause 7, as the mode of transportation is not comprehensively spelt out. Similarly, clause 16 of the Bill has not empowered the Minister to restrict the movement of animals and birds by train into, within or out of any disease infected area.

Sir, the inconsistent provisions in the Bill will not provide a watertight system to prevent and control the spread of animal and bird diseases into Singapore. I hope the Minister can address these concerns.

Furthermore, clause 3 of the Bill adopts a different definition for animals as compared to section 42 of the Animals and Birds Act. The definition in clause 3 does not include reptiles and insects. May I clarify with the Minister whether the proposed Bill will cover the importation of reptiles and insects? Reptiles and insects can also be potential disease carriers into Singapore.

Balance between protecting animals and protecting human rights

Sir, while I agree that more should be done to protect the welfare of animals, we must also consider the rights of human beings. Clause 20 amends section 43 which deals with cruelty to animals. It has increased the maximum penalty for a fine not exceeding $500 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or both, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or both. We need to address a fundamental question. Is cruelty to animals such a serious criminal offence that warrants a 12-month imprisonment term for the offenders? This is especially so for first-time offenders. According to section 42 of the Animals and Birds Act, the definition of "animal" includes any beast, bird, fish, reptile or insect, whether wild or tame. Therefore, technically speaking, if a mosquito, which is an insect, bites you, and you kill the mosquito by cruelly beating it, you may be imprisoned for such an act.

Sir, I do not think this is the intention of the proposed Bill. We need a clearer definition on cruelty to animals, as spelt out in section 42. By enhancing the powers of the court, we may send a wrong signal that offenders of cruelty to animals should be severely punished. I am concerned about the recent imprisonment sentences served on animal abusers. To achieve a fair balance between protecting human rights and protecting animals, I propose that we should adopt a graduated punishment system whereby first-time offenders will be fined, and repeat offenders may be fined or jailed. In this way, we not only deter acts of cruelty to animals but also protect human rights. Sir, we must not readily send our people to jail, just because of cruel acts on animals.

Operational efficiency of AVA

Sir, to achieve greater operational efficiency in enforcing the Animals and Birds Act, we need to adopt a holistic approach to control animals in Singapore. All pet animals must be licensed and tagged, so as to facilitate the traceability of owners and animals. This will improve the effectiveness of enforcing the Act with regard to the abandonment of animals by owners. We should also strengthen the Act to instill a greater sense of responsibility among pet owners. At present, any person can purchase or adopt an animal as a pet without undergoing any training to care for the animal. As a result, some animal owners may encounter difficulties in keeping their pets, thus losing or abandoning their pets. This will consequently increase the population of strays and pose a higher risk of disease spread in our society. I would suggest to the Minister to include specific provisions on responsibility of pet owners in the Animals and Birds Act.

Licensing of veterinary centres

In clause 29, section 65 sets out a new provision to license veterinary centres. I support this measure. I would like to raise a concern on its impact on business costs. I hope the licensing procedures and fees will not impose an undue cost burden on the veterinary centres, which might result in the closure of these centres.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chandra Mohan Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

This Act was enacted in 1965 for, inter alia, the prevention of cruelty to animals and birds, for measures pertaining to the general welfare and improvement of animals and birds in Singapore. The proposed amendments are timely and to be welcomed. There was a recent newspaper report that the Housing and Development Board does not allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats. Dogs are allowed. The relevant non-governmental organisations have voiced their disappointment and made submissions to the HDB to review their position with regard to the prohibition against cats. It may be argued that this is discriminatory in nature. HDB may well have good reasons for their current position. Perhaps the HDB could further review, together with interested parties, including relevant NGOs, to see if their rules could be modified to allow one cat per household as a pet for a start.

We should also encourage our children and adults to promote in schools, homes and workplaces, the prevention of cruelty to animals and birds. They must be encouraged to promote the general welfare and improvement of animals and birds, both at home and in the environment as a whole, and, I would add also, prevention of cruelty to animals in the zoo. This will, I believe, make us, as human beings, more caring and compassionate and, hopefully, less selfish and self-centred.

One or more of our polytechnics and/or universities should also consider, if found practicable, to introduce veterinary science as a discipline, either as a diploma or degree course, to encourage our young boys and girls to take up this course, so that in the process, it will improve the welfare and care for animals.

I would like to bring up another point. As I read section 69H in clause 31 of the Bill, it says, "Protection from liability", and this is actually a general principle that needs to be considered, not just this particular Bill but also quite a lot of statutes that would be relevant. It says in section 69H:

"No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Authority, the Director-General or any authorised officer, police officer, officer of customs or any other person acting under the direction of the Authority or Director-General for anything which is in good faith done in the execution or purported execution of this Act or any rules made thereunder."

In a sense, this is a provision to exculpate the State from any form of liability. On the whole, it may be a good provision. But it may be timely to note that if you look at the legal entity called the "Republic of Singapore" or the State, it is the richest legal entity in Singapore. It has also, arguably, the most number of civil servants, staff and legal officers who are competent and well informed to carry out the duties under the Act. Therefore, should they be given the extra privileges of immunity from legal suits, ie, not being able to be sued at all? Unlike private citizens, companies or NGOs, it is something to be reviewed perhaps, although one can well understand the State needs to be protected as much as possible from legal liability. But there must come a time when there is a sense of responsibility and fear of potential legal action for damages or other legal remedy by which then, there would, in all probability, be higher standards of professionalism, and this surely must be good for the State as a whole in the long term.

I would urge, therefore, maybe in futuro, that this provision, and provisions of a like nature, be considered in the various statutes of Singapore that we have currently.

With that, I support this Bill.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will reply to Dr Teo Ho Pin's points first and then cover Mr Chandra Mohan's.

I would like to start by commending Dr Teo for having obviously gone through this Bill with a fine-tooth comb, and for detecting what he felt were inconsistent provisions in the Bill. I am even more happy to report that my civil servants have gone through this Bill with an even finer tooth comb. I would like to assure him that there are no loopholes. Let me deal with them specifically.

Dr Teo was worried about inconsistent definition of the means of transport referred in section 9. Let me first bring him back to sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Section 7 provides that no one can import an animal or bird into Singapore without a licence. In section 8, if and when that person does import such a live organism, he has to report to the AVA. Section 9, which Dr Teo refers to, places an additional burden upon the captain of an aircraft, a ship, or the guard of a train. These are modes of transport which are large and require the officers specifically to board and conduct a more detailed examination and in which we want to place the onus of notification, not just on the importer of these animals or livestock, but on the person in charge of that aircraft, ship or train. This is also related to the fact that in certain cases, livestock may not even be imported into Singapore. They may be transhipped via Singapore. And such a person may say, "Look, I am not importing this animal or bird, and I do not feel that I need to apply for an import licence." Section 9 gives us the specific authority to require that the master or captain of this transportation means will specifically inform us that he has on board such livestock. And if we feel that there are public health concerns, we may then decide that we may need to board to conduct an inspection or, indeed, to confine the animal to that ship, aircraft or train.

The next section where he was worried about is the apparent exclusion of the word "train" from vehicle. We have just checked with the Attorney-General's Chambers and I have been informed that when they refer to a vehicle, they mean a conveyance or transmission, especially a structure with wheels in which things or people are transported by land. And I am therefore assured that this includes trains. So there is no loophole in that respect.

To move on, he brought up the issue of a balance between human rights and animal rights. Let me, first, assure Members of the House that there are no animal rights. We are not conferring any rights on animals. However, the issue of cruelty has got everything to do with humanity and with social norms. When an animal is abandoned, hurt or stolen, the emotional pain and distress which the owner of that animal feels is very much a human issue. It is not simply an issue of an animal right. Similarly, when a dog is cooked alive with an acetylene torch, as has indeed happened in Singapore, even though that dog is a stray, it offends our social norms, our sensitivities as to what is appropriate in our culture. So I want to reassure the House that when we are talking about cruelty to animals, we are not talking about stomping on a cockroach or killing a mosquito. We are talking about the need to have the ability to intervene when people indulge in acts which go against our social norms, or indulge in acts which will actually cause distress and pain to fellow human beings. So, let me assure the House that it is all about human beings. It is not about animal rights.

He then went on to talk about the operational efficiency of the AVA and how we need it. He suggested that all pet animals be licensed and tagged. Let me first tell him that we license all dogs and we tag imported dogs. We do not tag rabbits, chinchillas, guinea pigs and all the other things. In fact, if we were to indulge in that, it will surely raise our fees and it would be something which, I am sure, will not be popular.

Our stand is that we will do only what is necessary and what is reasonable. And having put all these licensing requirements in place, the AVA will operate only on a cost recovery basis. We do not intend to make money from this, and we will not indulge in any unnecessary tests, licensing or any other procedures.

I would like to move on to the points raised by Mr Chandra Mohan. The issue of cats in HDB flats is not a new issue. Again, I want to stress that it is not about cats. It is about human beings, social norms and public acceptance. To-date, there has been a difference, whether you like it or not, in terms of public acceptance of dogs vis-a-vis cats. It is not a matter of what is right, or what is wrong. There is a difference. In the past, the HDB has incessantly received complaints about cats from other residents who obviously are not cat lovers. There is a difference between a cat and a dog. Cats are nomadic by nature. A cat is not some animal which normally takes kindly to a leash. A cat is not an animal which you can leave in a flat. The moment a window or any opening is available, that cat will move out. The cat is nomadic by nature. The cat has defecation or urinary habits which may aggravate neighbours. The caterwauling of cats is part of their mating ritual, and the veterinarians in the AVA have told me that cats caterwaul in post-coital agony - not post-coital ecstasy - it is also a source of irritation for neighbours.

I am not saying that it is a never, never situation with cats. I am just pointing out that there are problems. What the HDB has to do is to strike the appropriate balance between the needs and desires of all, if not most, of the residents. Nevertheless, I am aware that the Cat Welfare Society has submitted a re-appeal, and the Ministry will examine the re-appeal for fresh grounds. And if indeed there is merit in this, or there are ways in which we can be more flexible in our implementation, we will certainly look at it.

When he talked about the zoo, I hope he was not implying that there was any cruelty in our zoo. Because I am very, very certain that our zoo is, in fact, a showcase of how animals should be treated and kept and, in fact, looked after in the most appropriate way. And, in fact, it is exactly the educational value of the zoo which, I think, will actually bring about a better attitude of human beings to the proper treatment of animals.

On his suggestion of the university running a veterinary science course, this, obviously, is something which the Ministry of Education will have to decide. But, from my perspective, I do not think this will be necessary. Members of this House may be keen to note that it is harder to get into a veterinary school than it is to get into a medical school. The number of veterinarians we need in Singapore is much, much smaller than the number of doctors we need. And if we do not have the critical mass to conduct a good, high quality course, we are better off sending people with this ability and aptitude to appropriate overseas centres for their training.

The final point he made is about protection from liability. I think those are generic points, not specific to this Bill itself. But the only thing which I would like to say in reply is that this protects the Authority, the Director-General and public officials who are performing their duties pursuant to directions of the legislation, or to rules passed by Parliament, or the appropriate Executive, and that they are doing this in good faith. If these officers do not perform the task in good faith, they are liable to prosecution, not only by the public, but even internally, subject to our own disciplinary processes and indeed criminal prosecution. I think, as a lawyer, he would agree with that.

If members of the public feel that laws are unfair, the appropriate forum for that is this Parliament, and that is why Members scrutinise all legislation which is passed down here, and all rules and subsidiary legislation emanating from that. If the laws have been misapplied, members of the public have a recourse to the legal system. And that is why we have more than adequate lawyers in Singapore. So I think, contrary to your premise, it would be wrong to assume that the State and its public officials and, indeed, outsourced agents, acting on behalf of the State, are suddenly being given a licence to behave in an unfair manner, in an unjustified manner, in a capricious manner. I do not think that is the state of affairs.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

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