ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL

Column: 2184

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

3.10 pm

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

Singapore is a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which regulates trade in wildlife. Parliament passed the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) in March 1989 to give effect to CITES in

Column: 2185

Singapore. The Act was amended in 2002 to include a list of endangered species.

Since the last amendment, there have been substantive changes to the CITES enforcement obligations on member states and the interpretation of illegal trade. Thus, there is a need to update and realign the ESA to the changes in the CITES, and to enhance the deterrence against any illegal trade in wildlife through Singapore.

My Ministry has carried out a comprehensive review of the ESA. The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill would repeal the ESA and re-enact with amendments the ESA. The key features of the Bill are as follows: Firstly, the Bill will strengthen the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority's (AVA) enforcement powers. Changes will, for example, allow enforcement action to be taken against illegal transshipments through Singapore of CITES-protected wildlife species. Secondly, the Bill will raise the maximum level of penalties to ensure an effective deterrence against the illegal trafficking and trade of CITES-protected species. Thirdly, the Bill will update terms, definitions and provisions used in CITES, and align general provisions in the ESA with those in other relevant legislation.

Sir, I will elaborate on the key features of the Bill.

Strengthening AVA's Enforcement Powers

First, on acting against illegal transshipments. Singapore is one of the busiest ports in the world and is an attractive transshipment hub. Currently, while the ESA empowers AVA to take action against illegal imports and exports of CITES-protected species, it is not specific about AVA's powers with regard to transshipments.

The Bill will empower AVA to investigate illegal transshipment or transit

Column: 2186

cases, and search, inspect, detain, seize or confiscate any illegal CITES-protected species.

This provision will be applicable to both travellers and cargoes passing through Singapore. It will enable AVA to act decisively upon receiving strong intelligence and evidence and tip-offs of illegal CITES-protected species being transshipped through Singapore and prevent Singapore from being used as a conduit for the smuggling of CITES-protected species.

Next, on treating fake products as if they were genuine. In line with CITES's recommendation, the Bill will allow AVA to take appropriate enforcement actions based on the markings, labels or claims that a product contains a part or derivative of a CITES species, without having to prove that this part or derivative is actually present in the product. Countries like Australia and also Hong Kong have similar provisions.

Some examples of fake products are traditional Chinese medicines purporting to contain bear bile, tiger bone, rhino horn or musk.

Sales of fake products will damage Singapore's image as a responsible global citizen to the same extent as sales of genuine products, as the international community is quick to judge our reputation based on such claims. In addition, the proliferation of sales of fake products produces "noise" and will complicate our effort to apprehend the genuine cases.

Sir, the Bill will also raise the maximum level of penalties to better reflect the severity of the offences and strengthen deterrence against illegal wildlife trade.

According to Interpol, smuggling of wildlife is second only to narcotics in

Column: 2187

terms of the profits they generate and is estimated at some US$5 billion annually. The House may recall that in 2002, AVA has seized six tons of elephant ivory tusks in a single consignment, and that was worth about US$10 million then.

As the value of smuggled endangered wildlife can be very high, the current fine of $5,000 is not an effective deterrent. So the Bill will increase the maximum penalty for illegal trafficking of endangered species from $5,000 and/or a year's jail, to $50,000 and/or two years' imprisonment. The fine is applicable to each CITES-protected animal or plant, or part thereof, involved in the offence, up to an aggregate maximum of $500,000.

For abetment and attempted offences, the Bill will also impose the same penalty as the main offence. This is in line with the Criminal Procedure Code, where abetment and attempt to commit an offence carries the same penalty as the offence itself.

Lastly, to maintain consistency with other Acts administered by AVA, the Bill will amend relevant provisions to be in line with similar clauses in those Acts. These include specifying the jurisdiction of District Courts to impose full penalties under the ESA; empowering AVA to seal and collect samples of specimens; and requiring owners, importers or exporters of CITES species to bear the cost of damage to specimens in the course of lawful exercise of powers by AVA.

The Bill will also put in place provisions to specify the manner in which documents, such as notices, summonses, are delivered to persons connected with the offences; allow recorded statements to be submitted as evidence in court; and make it an offence to post advertisements for sale of illegal CITES specimens.

Column: 2188

Sir, in summary, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill will strengthen deterrence and enforcement against illegal wildlife trade, and align the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act to recent changes made to CITES.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Bill, which repeals and re-enacts the existing Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, particularly as it seeks to increase the penalties for illegal wildlife trading and enhance the enforcement powers of the Director-General, Agri-food and Veterinary Services, and other authorised officers. It is a big step forward for Singapore in our contribution towards environmental conservation and protection. We must play our part to conserve our planet and our fellow occupants - plants and animals - to ensure a sustainable living environment for our future generations.

Singapore, due to our strategic location and the rich biodiversity of our neighbours, has become a transshipment hub for commercial trade in animals, plants and their by-products. Unfortunately, along with this, there is also some perception that we could unwittingly have become a centre for the illegal multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade. Even though this has not been proven to be so, we must do whatever we can to help stop this illegal and cruel trade.

Too many species in Southeast Asia have been hunted to extinction. I understand that more than half of smuggled animals die. The majority of the survivors end up mistreated. Many do not adapt well to captivity and the very act of removing them from their natural habitat damages the fragile ecosystem and threatens the species' and other species' existence. Part of the problem is poverty

Column: 2189

and ignorance. Another part is economics - demand is enormous and huge profits can be made.

I would like to raise three points in relation to the Bill.

Firstly, the mode of imposing penalty. I am glad that the Bill has increased the penalties imposed for illegally dealing with endangered species ten-fold, from $5,000 per species to $50,000 per species, but subject to a maximum of $500,000, and with a maximum jail term of two years, instead of a year.

However, given that the sums involved in illegal wildlife trading can run into tens of millions of dollars, as the Minister of State has just noted, I would like to ask the Minister of State why the penalty imposed is not computed on a per animal basis, but on a per species basis. This is despite the fact that there have been calls from various quarters, including the Animal Concern Research Education Society (ACRES), who have asked for the penalty imposed to be based on the number of animals traded, or in the case of animal parts, on a quantifiable unit, instead of a per species basis, which does not reflect the true market value of what is illegally traded.

Logically, the higher the number of animals being illegally traded, the higher would be the value. Hence, the heftier the fine ought to be. This would then be an even stronger deterrent against illegal wildlife trading.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State what is the rationale for imposing penalties based on a per species basis. Is this in line with similar legislation in other countries that are also signatories to CITES? Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister of State why is there a need to cap the penalty to a maximum of $500,000. If these illegal traffickers continue to commit such offences,

Column: 2190

despite the hefty penalties, why should the law help limit the financial risk they face upon prosecution?

Secondly, enforcement powers and manpower. I am also pleased that the Director-General and other authorised officers are now given wider enforcement powers, which include the right to enter and search any premises or ship, or any other conveyance as well as the right to seize any animal or plant, if there is a reason to suspect that they are being illegally trafficked. However, such enforcement powers can only be effective if there is sufficient manpower. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister of State if the manpower for enforcement would also be strengthened. This would help to minimise the chance of illegal shipments slipping through the customs.

I would also like to ask the Minister of State, how regularly AVA conducts checks on pet shops to ensure that there is no illegal trade in endangered species and that animal welfare is not compromised. And for that matter, even for Chinese medical shops. Just last year, it was reported that AVA, acting on a survey conducted by ACRES, visited some 100 pet shops and found 20 selling endangered species.

How do cargoes, containing significant quantities of endangered animals occasionally slip into Singapore without detection? Would the AVA be undertaking stricter enforcement at pet shops, Chinese medical shops, checkpoints and other locations? Heavier penalties ought to be coupled with stricter enforcement to effectively deter such illegal trafficking of wildlife.

Thirdly, public education. Finally, I would like to urge the Ministry to work closely with civic groups like ACRES, community centres, schools and other institutions to conduct more public education exercises to heighten the

Column: 2191

public's awareness about not keeping endangered animals, the risks they pose to the animals and/or plants and their new environment. We should also continue to encourage members of the public and whistle-blower, to alert the authorities about individuals and organisations who flout the law.

Sir, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act was first passed, as was noted by the Minister of State, in March 1989 to give effect to the CITES. The Act has since been amended twice and this time it is being repealed and re-enacted to update and streamline the Act and align it with CITES' requirements. I am pleased that the Government has been proactive in this respect, and has taken into account feedback from the community regarding the need to impose heavier penalties as well as widen enforcement powers for the Act to serve as an effective deterrent against illegal wildlife trading.

Sir, I support the Bill but hope that the Government can further strengthen the penalties as well as the enforcement system.

Dr Geh Min: Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to applaud the Government for the new Bill on endangered species.

I could not help noticing that the debate yesterday has dealt on many issues pertaining to national security. Of course, the National Service was the highlight. But there were other issues like security of the Causeway, terrorism and even the possible risk of Singapore being exposed to tsunami and Avian flu. These are all issues of national security. I applaud this Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill because I think this deals with an area which also pertains to national security.

Column: 2192

May I say here that I would like to clarify that I am not talking about protecting animals against people. Dr Amy Khor has actually covered that ground very well. I am glad that she did. I am going to concentrate on protecting people from wildlife.

It has been well-recognised that there has been a sharp rise in the incidence of zoonosis or diseases transmitted by animals. Why? It is certainly not because of an increase in wildlife in the world, but the experts say it is because of changing conditions that bring wildlife into closer contact with humans.

There are certain conditions or causes which we cannot do anything about - increased globalism, increased international trade, increased international tourism, increased urbanisation. But there are causes which we can do something about, and which we should do something about and the illegal wildlife trade is definitely one of them.

It has been shown by experts that one of the most dangerous cocktails you could have to generate new pathogens like SARS, for example, is close unnatural and unnecessary proximity between wildlife, domestic animals and humans. Professor Li Wendong, in an article on SARS, when he did his research on SARS, mentioned this in relation to a market in Guangzhou where there was a lot of illegal wildlife trading.

Singapore does not have the conditions that China has but, however, as has been noted, we do have an illegal wildlife trade. I fully support the attempt by this Bill to eradicate this trade. However, I would like to address the issue of implementation which I am sure the Government fully intends to implement as effectively as possible.

It has been brought to my attention, and this has already been mentioned by

Column: 2193

the hon. Member, Dr Amy Khor, that at present, AVA does not have enough manpower to effectively implement the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. Despite the hopeful deterrent that higher penalties will have, this must be matched by the training of more AVA officers. NGO groups have done their part and, in fact, I have heard from ACRES that they not only alert AVA officers after doing their own recces, they have to go and pick up the AVA officers and drive them to the locations because apparently, there is not enough transport provided. I do not know how many vans AVA has for their officers, but they are not enough.

The other area for better implementation that I would like to suggest is that AVA officers work more closely with other Government agencies, customs and immigration offices and the Police Force. A large part of this Bill is made up of a list of endangered species.

I must confess that despite being President of the Nature Society, on reading through this list, I do not recognise half of them. It is all in Latin, of course, among other things. Obviously, we cannot expect the ordinary man-in-the-street, the police and the immigration officers to know. So a handful of AVA officers with the expertise can never implement this effectively. I would ask for better education of other enforcement agencies working with AVA to implement this.

Finally, I would like to also call for better public education. A lot of the illegal wildlife that is brought into Singapore is done so with the unwitting participation of an ignorant community or members of the public. And I think a lot could be done, together with this new Bill, to alert members of the public, not just on the dangers to the illegal wildlife but the dangers to the community if illegal wildlife comes to Singapore. Because illegal wildlife, as we have heard, comes through in a sizable volume. A lot of these

Column: 2194

animals are kept in highly unsanitary, crowded places. A lot of them die in transit. And this, as we all know, is one of the best ways to spread disease. It is impossible to track them, either the source or the movements, because it is illegal. And, finally, they are released into the community. Once they are released into the community, we cannot track them at all. A lot of them would be released into homes, but some of them are released into our national parks and reserves. Because, after people buy them, they may decide that they do not want them any more and the wildlife are put into the reservoirs of our drinking water. They are put into the national parks, and then it is too late.

May I just mention here that in the case of SARS, the crucial scientific link when the virus mutated and became dangerous to humans has still not been found and experts say it will probably never be found now. This sort of switch that the virus makes is something that we cannot always prevent, although WHO suggests that we have to spend at least $1 billion on Avian Flu to try and prevent it. Otherwise, we will lose many times that quantum. But where there is low hanging fruit, like closing the loopholes on the illegal wildlife trade, we should do it and we can do it. I applaud the Government for the new Bill on endangered species.

With this, I support the Bill.

3.35 pm

Mr Heng Chee How: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Amy Khor and Dr Geh Min for rising in support of the Bill. I would like to address the points that they made.

First of all, on the need to safeguard Singapore's reputation as an international centre for trade and as an international transshipment hub, I cannot agree more

Column: 2195

with the two Members. We want to remain a global centre for trade, commerce and transshipment, and we will do everything possible to promote this status. But, at the same time, we will not want this role of ours to be abused by those engaged in illegal activities, whether it is narcotics or illegal wildlife trade, because that damages us in a serious way. This Bill will go some way towards addressing this particular danger that we may face.

Dr Amy Khor asked whether or not it would be on a per animal basis. It is actually on a per animal basis because, according to the interpretation, the word "species" would also relate to per animal.

On her question on penalties, she is right. We have increased the minimum fine ten-fold. In fact, the maximum fine of $500,000 is a hundred-fold of the old arrangement.

She asked whether or not there are other jurisdictions that have similar arrangements. I know that in the case of Hong Kong, they have similar arrangements. They have a maximum fine of HK$5 million and two years' imprisonment.

Both Dr Amy Khor and Dr Geh Min alluded to the importance of trained manpower to implement the measures in this Bill. AVA is aware of this. AVA has a pool of trained officers and would ensure that the manpower is properly trained. AVA would also review its structures and processes, including the headcount, and it would make the applications for supplementation if that becomes necessary. But, at the same time, it recognises that to tackle something like this, it really goes beyond AVA as well, because a lot of times, we know where to go because of intelligence. We are then talking about a network

Column: 2196

approach - working with Customs, working with the Police, working with the relevant NGOs, working with international partners. All this is actually very important for us to target properly at these kinds of illegal activities.

Dr Amy Khor asked whether or not the AVA conducts checks on the pet shops, and whether they do so regularly enough in order to ferret out such activities. I would say that checks can be done, but these things can happen anywhere. The more critical and more productive way is to strengthen our intelligence collection abilities and to strengthen our network of partners. In that way, we are better able to sharp shoot and go in for effectiveness. So we will continue with our checks on related establishments but we will put even more emphasis on strengthening our coordination and networking with our partners.

Dr Geh Min alluded to a case where private transport apparently had been used to conduct a raid on some premises. I do not know the details of that case. But sometimes it is actually better to conduct a raid without a QX plate car, because it helps you get closer to the target. I really do not know the details of that case, but it might just have been that. Nonetheless, the important thing really is that we should work in partnership, enhance our intelligence collaboration and then be able to pinpoint and sharp shoot.

On public education, once again, we are all together on this and I absolutely agree that there is a lot more that we can do, first of all, to raise the awareness of the importance of protecting our wildlife in general and of the importance of making sure that we do not become a centre of illegal wildlife trade and all the dangers that it can bring to our economy as well as to public health, as Dr Geh Min has elaborated.

Column: 2197

Sir, I believe I have addressed all the points.

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. - [Mr Heng Chee How].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: The citation year "2005" will be changed to "2006" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 31 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting suspended accordingly

at 3.42 pm until 4.05 pm.