Hansard, Wednesday, 5 November 2014

1 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for National Development what are the reasons piped gas is not made available in HDB rental flats.

Madam, it is to minimise the cost of providing and maintaining HDB rental flats. Having piped gas will increase both construction and maintenance costs and not all tenants cook. For those who cook, there are alternatives to piped gas, such as bottled gas, electric or induction stoves.

Mr Baey.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister this: the topic of providing window grilles for rental flats was raised at the last session, but unlike window grilles, there are more families who do cook at home. Yes, the Minister has mentioned that other heating options are available to residents, but I think for the LPG cylinders, there is often cost in terms of the deposit and people do have to pay in full upfront. For low-income families which the rented flats are targeted at, this could be an unnecessary burden that we could help to relieve them of. I hope that the Ministry could re-consider its decision and to install gas pipes for new rental flats.

The latest study that I read suggests that among HDB households where there is already access to the gas pipes, about one quarter do not make use of it. Twenty-five percent is quite a high percentage. That is why we try to avoid any additional cost for this particular group of clientele.

In terms of bottled gas – I use bottled gas – it is a common option. That is why we do not consider piped gas as essential. The deposit that you would have to pay for bottled gas is, in fact, lower than if you have to switch on the piped gas.

Page: 9

2 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the reason for IDA's recent approval for SingPost to increase local and international postage rates; (b) why does SingPost need to increase postage rates by 15% from 26 cents to 30 cents even though its underlying net profit increased by 2.9% and domestic and international mail revenue grew by 4% and 27% respectively last year; and (c) what is the number of complaints against SingPost for the past three years.

Mdm Speaker, the global postal landscape has become increasingly challenging for national postal operators. Letter volumes are declining worldwide, while operating costs continue upwards. SingPost's experience is no different, which was a key consideration for IDA when granting its approval for the revised postage rates.

Over the past few years, SingPost has been facing pressures from higher labour and operating costs. In addition, the rates which SingPost pays to overseas postal operators have increased by about 40% since 2010 and are set to further increase by more than 30% by 2017. These rates are determined by the international body, the Universal Postal Union Congress.

SingPost has not increased its postage rates over the last eight years. SingPost has also not resorted to cost-cutting measures such as reduction of postal staff, closure of post offices and scaling back on daily deliveries, unlike other national postal operators. Instead, it has treated postal workers responsibly by raising workers' salaries and hiring of older workers. SingPost also committed to invest $100 million in service improvement measures and will further invest in mail sorting infrastructure to increase accuracy and efficiency of mail processing. In addition, to mitigate the immediate impact of the postage rate increase, SingPost has offered each household a free six-stamp booklet. This is the number of letters that an average individual posts per year.

Mdm Speaker, while IDA regulates dominant licensees to ensure that they do not impose excessive charges, IDA's policy principle has been to allow these licensees to recover costs in the provision of such basic services. IDA is also mindful that dominant licensees are not obliged to use revenue from the unregulated business segments to subsidise basic services. These principles were similarly applied to SingPost, which is a dominant licensee.

The number of complaints received against SingPost has remained fairly low. Out of the estimated 1 billion mail items delivered annually, there is an average of about 100 complaints per year, or about one complaint per 10 million letters. IDA takes a serious view of all complaints and will impose penalties on SingPost for non-compliance of IDA's postal

Page: 10

Quality of Service framework. I would like to assure this House that IDA will closely monitor SingPost's service enhancement measures, so as to improve the reliability and quality of basic postal services.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for answering the question. I have two supplementary questions. First, postal rates have been rising steadily throughout the years, from 10 cents to 30 cents. SingPost's net profit showed an average of nearly 3% increase per annum. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether there would be another round of increment to local and international rates in the future years, even when SingPost shows continuing profits, bearing in mind that SingPost is a public listed company that operates a monopoly for the essential postage service in Singapore. Secondly, how is the $100 million service improvement plan disbursed? Is it disbursed in stages throughout the years?

I thank Mrs Chiam for her supplementary questions. In terms of postage rate increases over the years, I would like to reiterate what I have shared with the House just now, which is that postal rates have not increased for the last eight years. As for the profit increases that Mrs Chiam had alluded to, in SingPost's case, the bulk of it actually came from the unregulated mail as well as the unregulated business sectors that are not related to post.

In terms of whether or not we foresee another round of increases, I think the principles that IDA uses to evaluate any such possible increase is that we need to look at the impact of the cost and the various drivers of the regulated mail segment. In submitting their case for this particular round of postal rate increases, SingPost has made references to, for instance, increase in labour costs and the cost that they have to pay to international post operators. IDA has felt that these are relevant to the regulated mail sector.

The assurance to the House is that we would look very carefully at the reasons that the operator gives for requesting for a round of postal rate increases. We are also very careful about the impact on consumers. This includes not just the postal rates, but also what kinds of service improvements we can expect out of it.

As for the plans for investing the $100 million into service improvements, I do not have a staged timeline, but my understanding is that SingPost is keen to do this as quickly as possible. This includes service quality improvements, postal infrastructure improvements and it also involves more deliveries. My understanding is that they would like to implement this as quickly as possible.

Page: 11

3 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry will consider regulating the playing of music in public places, including retail outlets, to exclude songs with lyrics which promote or suggest violence or prejudicial action against individuals or groups by gender, race, religion or disability.

Madam, as the media regulator, MDA regulates: (a) the playing of songs over the radio; (b) music sold at retail outlets; and (c) songs performed in concerts. The first two are co-regulated, whereby broadcasters and retailers take guidance from and abide by MDA's Free-To-Air Radio Programme Code and Guidelines for Audio Materials, respectively. Concerts are classified under arts entertainment licences issued by MDA. MDA's regulatory focus is on songs that denigrate race and religion, or those that promote drug-taking, anti-social behaviour, crime or violence.

It is not practical for MDA to extend its regulatory ambit to all public places which play songs as background music, such as retail outlets and shopping malls. Doing so would be burdensome and disproportionate to the risk involved. Even if rules were created to regulate such businesses, it would preferably be based on a co-regulatory model, which would still require businesses to exercise their own judgement based on a set of guidelines drawn up by MDA.

Therefore, I would encourage retailers, shops and malls which play music within their premises to exercise common sense and social responsibility in their selection of music, and ensure that the songs played in their premises will not cause offence to their customers.

In a recent case, a customer had noticed inappropriate music being played at a fashion retail store and spoken up against it. I am glad to note that, according to news reports, the retailer has acknowledged the mistake and apologised. This incident shows that the common sense and civic-mindedness of the public is important in highlighting such issues for their satisfactory resolution. We can all play a part in catching and preventing prejudice in our society. Public education and awareness have a larger role to play in such instances, than does regulation.

I thank the Minister of State for her very comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, I would like to ask whether or not the Ministry has any data on what is the prevalence of such complaints of a similar nature, maybe over the past few years. Secondly, even in the absence of some sort of regulatory framework at this point in time, I was wondering whether the Ministry would consider having some sort of feedback or surveillance mechanism to get an idea of this problem. In

Page: 12

this particular case, it was brought to the attention of the public by a young person who is quite active on social media, but there could be many other Singaporeans who may feel offended and may not have a proper way of airing their concerns or grievances.

Madam, I do not have data of the first sort that Dr Chia has asked about. I would imagine that in some of these cases, if customers do notice inappropriate music being played, that at least in some of these cases, they would be able to resolve it bilaterally with the business or the retail outlet that is concerned. As for his suggestion of whether we are considering putting in a feedback or surveillance system, we do not have plans to do so at the moment. I think that we would always be prepared to look at cases where if the consumer has tried to bring it to the attention to the management of the business premises in the first place, but perhaps did not get satisfaction, we would always be prepared to look at it if they were to raise it to us.

4 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) Diploma or Specialist Diploma awarded by WDA is recognised by Ministries or Statutory Boards for the purpose of job application or gaining entry into the Public Service; (b) what is the estimated number of civil servants employed based on their WSQ qualifications; and (c) what is the equivalent qualification, for example, Polytechnic diploma or National ITE Certificate, that they are recruited at.

The Public Service recruits officers based on their individual merits. In finding the best person for a job, our agencies consider factors such as relevant skills and training, work experience, academic background and aptitude. The requirements are different for different jobs. A person with a WSQ diploma in a particular field will be deemed as having the relevant training and skills in that field and agencies can take this into account in assessing his suitability for the position.

The Member asks how many officers are employed based on their WSQ qualification. We do not track this number as we do not employ officers based solely on their WSQ qualification but whether they demonstrate the overall required abilities and qualities for the jobs. The Member will also be pleased to know that public service agencies send our in-service officers to attend WSQ programmes as part of their job training. Officers who complete these WSQ programmes will have their training records updated and they will be deemed to have acquired the relevant skills in that specific area.

Page: 13

5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of higher prices of food at hawker centres (a) whether the Ministry will introduce rules to curb the sale of hawker stalls at exorbitant prices; (b) what is the percentage increase in rent after a hawker centre is upgraded; and (c) how is this increase in rent determined.

Mdm Speaker, NEA has disallowed subletting and assignment of hawker stalls by all new stallholders since April 2012. Existing stallholders have a three-year grace period that expires in March 2015 to comply with these new conditions.

The Government has upgraded a total of 106 hawker centres at a cost of about $420 million since 2001 under the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP). After standard upgrading, subsidised hawkers of cooked food stalls would pay a monthly rent of $192. If the centre underwent rebuilding and/or major reconfiguration works, the subsidised monthly rent for a cooked food stall would be $320. For non-subsidised stallholders, the rents are adjusted based on valuation done by professional valuers to reflect the upgraded facilities. The Government does not recover the full cost of upgrading.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. The Minister mentioned just now the deadline of March 2015 – I want to clarify that this means that after this date, they cannot sublet anymore. Is this correct? Secondly, we have heard very often, residents saying that after upgrading or rebuilding, the cost of food in a hawker centre has gone up. Some view that it is not necessary for such improvement works. I would like to ask whether the hawkers or the residents have a say as to whether the hawker centres need upgrading or not.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to confirm the Member's understanding that when we made the changes in 2012 on restricting the subletting of hawker centre stalls, we made two changes. For new stallholders, who successfully tender for stalls from March 2012 onwards, they are not allowed to sublet. For existing stallholders, we have given them a three-year grace period and this is ending in March 2015. So, after March 2015, all stallholders are supposed to be owner-operators. They will have to operate the stalls themselves. We do give some flexibility for an owner to operate up to two stalls. For various reasons, they could have partnerships with another partner; they can then operate in two stalls. That is the flexibility that we have given them.

Page: 14

On the point about whether all upgrading is necessary, we do take into consideration the views of the stallholders. Let me explain. Under HUP, we have allowed four sold centres to delay the upgrading because of feedback from stallholders. The reason being that these are sold stalls and many of the stallholders require a continuous operation to pay for the cost of their stalls. We do take into consideration the views of the hawkers.

I have also heard the same feedback as the hon Member. I have asked my colleagues in the Ministry and they told me that the newest hawker centre that has gone through an upgrading programme is one that was upgraded 24 years after it was built. I do not think that is an unreasonable length of time to have a major upgrading of a centre – after 24 years in operation. We are very careful. We do not upgrade a centre unnecessarily. We only determine what is required to improve the experience of the patrons. We also do not upgrade a centre more than once. We have not done so. The HUP has been more or less completed. We do not intend to upgrade any more centres in the future. The programme has ended.

6 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the main types of mental illness affecting Singaporeans; (b) what is the number of relapses; and (c) what is the monitoring mechanism which our healthcare facilities use in identifying such relapses.

Based on national surveys conducted and Institute of Mental Health (IMH)'s data, the top three mental conditions affecting Singaporeans are dementia, depression and anxiety.

For dementia, relapse episodes cannot be easily determined as the condition will progressively worsen over time. For depression and anxiety, patients experience a relapse when they suffer an increase in the intensity of the illness affecting their daily routine. However, for patients whose daily functions are constantly affected by the severity of the illness, the "relapse" will be less identifiable.

Nevertheless, studies have shown that at least 50% of those who recover from a first episode of depression will have one or more additional episodes in their lifetime. For anxiety disorders, it was shown that the relapse rate for generalised anxiety disorder was about 27% over a three-year period.

Our mental health clinics routinely monitor "no-show" at outpatient attendances especially for high risk groups to ensure that our patients are reviewed regularly and any sign

Page: 15

of early relapse can be managed in a timely manner.

Detecting signs of relapse early may enable intervention to prevent a full relapse or reduce its severity when it occurs. As family, friends and neighbours are closest to those with mental conditions, they are in the best position to detect warning signs, for instance, change in behaviour, disordered thinking or missing appointments that indicate a potential relapse. In this respect, IMH and the Agency of Integrated Care (AIC) have been working with grassroots organisations and their volunteers to: (a) increase mental health knowledge and skills so that they are able to recognise early signs; and (b) link residents who are displaying warning signs to appropriate mental health, general health or social services. As at the end of fiscal year 2013, AIC has engaged 12 constituencies, trained over 300 grassroots leaders and volunteers and assisted 190 residents.

Four community support teams led by Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) have also been set up through AIC to conduct home visits for clients identified by community partners, such as Family Service Centres (FSCs), Senior Activity Centres (SACs) and Town Councils, who may require more thorough assessments.

Additionally, AIC has worked with various VWOs to set up seven community engagement and support teams within SACs to identify elderly who may suffer from dementia or depression. These teams facilitate early recognition and provide basic emotional support to clients and caregivers. The seven teams have reached out to over 21,000 clients as at the end of fiscal year 2013. For those who require more intervention, for example clinical care, psychotherapy, these support teams will then refer the patients to the specialist-led or allied health-led multidisciplinary teams in the community based on their needs.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have three supplementary questions. First, given that non-compliance is very common in patients with mental illness and chances of relapse are high, what is being done and can be done to ensure that discharged patients stick to their routine drugs? Next, what is the current psychiatrist-to-population ratio today and are we able to cope with the number of people suffering from mental disorders? Lastly, what can the Ministry do to promote more providers of community-based mental health services and make them more accessible to better support people with mental disorders, so that they can be better supported and re-integrate into society?

Can I ask the Member to repeat his second question?

Page: 16

What is the current psychiatrist-to-population ratio today and are we able to cope with the current number of people suffering from mental disorders?

Thank you. For the first question about non-compliance and how do we try and ensure compliance by discharged patients, as I had noted in my reply earlier, our mental health clinics routinely monitor these "no show" patients or our outpatient attendances, especially for the high-risk groups to ensure that our patients are reviewed regularly and any sign of early relapse can be managed in a timely manner. For these "no show" cases, the case managers will follow up with phone calls to check if the patients are well, to fix the next appointment where possible and to do brief assessment over the phone to understand why the patients are not showing up. If they still remain uncontactable, the case managers could conduct home visits.

In addition, IMH is enhancing its capability to track over 11,000 patients discharged with two diagnosis – schizophrenia and delusional disorder which carry higher risk of default and disturbed behaviour; and another 1,000 selected outpatients tagged to be high risk due to their previous history of dangerous behaviour.

IMH then ensures that these tracked patients comply with follow-up treatment through telephone case management and home visits where necessary. IMH's mobile crisis team is also deployed to de-escalate crisis situations and assist in bringing patients for inpatient treatment if required. Through IMH's enhanced tracking of these patients and follow-up, over 91% of patients tracked so far, have attended first appointment after discharge.

For the second question about the psychiatrist-to-population ratio, as of 2013, there are 3.5 psychiatrists per 100,000 population. The national training supply for psychiatrists has been producing about seven to eight psychiatrists each year for the last three years. But in order to support the projected demand for mental health services required, the training supply for psychiatrists has been increased to an average of about 14 to 15 each year. With this increased in training supply, the psychiatrists in public sector have increased from about 89 to 130 – or around 46% – from 2009 to 2013. This growth in training supply should be sufficient to meet the service needs.

With regard to the third question about better support for patients who have discharged into the community, who may be in remission: first of all, the Community Mental Health Masterplan that was developed in 2012 was developed to ensure patients who no longer require institutionalised mental healthcare, are well supported in the community. One of the ways we are achieving this is by developing new community-based mental health services to improve access to mental healthcare. Some of the recent key services that we have initiated include the one I had just mentioned, enhancing discharged and after care services, where IMH is enhancing its capability to track patients and to follow up; improving

Page: 17

capability of service providers in community and primary care so that mental health services can be more easily accessed. We do this with two specialist-led and three allied health-led multi-disciplinary teams that have been set up. They support mental health professionals, including over 80 General Practitioner (GP) partners, in caring for mental health patients within the community. These community teams will provide clinical care, psychotherapy and education to support the patients, their caregivers and the general public. These teams have supported over 2,000 patients as at the end of fiscal year 2013.

Thirdly, enhancing support and capability of community partners. I have touched on that – working with the grassroots organisations, training them so that they can recognise some of these potential relapse cases and then, linking them to the appropriate services.

Lastly, enhancing our crisis response. IMH operates a 24-hour mental health helpline which will provide immediate support and advice for patients, caregivers and community partners. You can access it through some of our community partners, such as the Family Service Centres.

Dr Lily Neo.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. In order to provide better support to the community for psychiatric patients, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there can be provision of more healthcare workers, nurses or psychiatrists to give early detection care, follow-up and treatment to the psychiatric patients in the community which is pretty lacking at the moment?

As I have noted earlier in my reply, we have ramped up the supply of trained psychiatrists and the increase over the years has been about 46% between 2009 and 2013. We think that this should be sufficient. In addition, of course, we need to train nurses, as well as allied health professionals, for this.

I have also said that in order to be able to avail such services to the community and care for these patients in the community – try and prevent relapse – we have taken a multi-prong approach, various initiatives. I have actually elaborated on some of them earlier in terms of IMH enhancing its own capability for after care services for these patients, especially the high-risk patients.

In fact, mental health clinics that are providing such services are also keeping a close track on the "no show" patients, as I have also said earlier. There are other initiatives, for instance, having community support teams – specialists, allied health teams, specialist-led

Page: 18

or multidisciplinary-led teams – that can be accessed by the community for interventions.

Ms Chia Yong Yong.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions. Does MOH have statistics on children and young people with mental health issues? Also, given the importance of community support and acceptance, how are these children and young people supported and integrated into schools and the community?

I do not have the statistics for the number of children with mental health problems. Perhaps, the hon Member might like to file another Parliamentary Question on it.

With regard to integration in schools and the community, I think IMH is mindful of this, and that is the reason why, as far as possible, we do not encourage institutionalised care and we try and integrate them back into the society in terms of having close follow-up through support services within the community, like mental health clinics within the community, so that they do not have the stigma. They do not have to go to IMH. They could also access community-led teams that can support them, if needed, with home visits and so on.

Miss Penny Low.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. A supplementary question, please. For the low-risk patients who have been discharged, ultimately, I think the aim must be to integrate them not just back into the community but also into the workplace. Are there also work integration programmes and counselling and such sessions that have been designed to guide them through and also guide their colleagues and employers so that they could more successfully integrate back into the workplace?

Yes. IMH itself has a programme to help these patients find jobs – train them, prepare them and to find jobs. Just over the weekend, I actually attended an event run by a charity group, Mindset, which is working with St Andrew's Community Services who has employment support schemes to help these ex-patients and patients in recovery re-integrate back into society in terms of upgrading their skills, and provide them with relevant skills to enhance their employability and also help them find jobs.

Miss Penny Low.

Page: 19

A quick follow-up question. I am heartened to hear that there are work support schemes for the patients. But what about the employers and their colleagues? Quite often, the environment will become too stressful because people do not quite understand how they function and what works for them. So, whether there are also schemes in place to help employers and their colleagues understand how to deal with such a patient.

The other aspect of the work, for instance, of these employment support services by St Andrew's Community Services, is also about working with the potential employers and helping them to see how they can work together, perhaps even redesigning the job processes and so on, to accommodate the prospective employees.

HPB also has mental health programmes that we encourage employers to implement at the workplace, for not just potential employees but existing employees as well.

7 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether a tender was called for the provision of an English Language course for one People's Liberation Army officer; (b) if so, what was the tender amount awarded to the education provider; and (c) under what circumstances was the tender awarded.

Mdm Speaker, the Member has asked specific queries about a course which MINDEF had tendered for. Before I answer her specific questions, I think it will be useful for Members to understand a little bit more about why militaries exchange officers. And for obviously good reasons, It is very useful for SAF to send our officers to attend the staff college courses of other militaries and vice versa. It will establish very good relationships with other countries' militaries and you will understand their perspectives. And when incidents occur, they can be very useful resource persons, as it occurred, for example, in the Indian Ocean tsunami, where we had our own officers who had gone to Indonesia and when we were on the ground, we could quickly connect with the officers there.

And, so, for these reasons, militaries all over have for many years exchanged officers to each other's courses to establish better ties. But one of the problems in doing this is, of course, language of instruction. For example, if we send our SAF officers to Indonesia, not all of them can speak Bahasa Indonesia. Bahasa Indonesia is actually not that difficult. For example, if we sent them to Thailand, or to Japan, and the language of instruction is in that country's language. For a year, language proficiency is important for them to be able to benefit from the course. Vice versa, for some foreign officers who attend SAF's military courses, we have to help them gain language proficiency so that they can benefit from their

Page: 20

time here.

And for this particular officer which the Member asked for, we required a personalised 360-hour course. One-on-one, 360-hour course, is standard to get them to the level of proficiency conducted by a qualified English instructor. When our SAF officers go to other countries, they do the same in terms of spending some months to gain language proficiency. As I have said, such as in Bahasa Indonesia.

So, for this purpose, a 360-hour course, personalised, one-on-one, conducted by a qualified English language instructor, MINDEF put out a tender on Government's e-procurement portal, Government Electronic Business (GeBiz), for this language course. We had about five or six people, companies who replied. The contract was awarded to the lowest offer that met the requirements and this was the amount of $25,900, which worked out to about $70 an hour. All this was in strict compliance with Government regulations.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. I would like to ask a supplementary question. Were there any other occasions where the Government paid for language classes for officials from another nation's government?

Mdm Speaker, I would not speak on behalf of Government. I will speak on behalf of MINDEF. Yes, we do this for foreign officers from other countries as well. In the last staff course graduation dinner that was just last week, I think there were about 15 foreign officers from countries, which is quite good for us. Some of them already have language proficiency, so they do not need it, but some do and we offer it to them. There is a level of reciprocity that other countries provide for our SAF officers going there, but I will tell you that not all countries provide reciprocity. Depending on their resources, some countries do. This is part and parcel of our relationship-building. But the short answer to your question is "MINDEF does".

Order. End of Question Time.

Page: 21

[(proc text) Resumption of debate on Question (4 November 2014), "That the Bill be now read a Second time". – [Mr Yeo Guat Kwang] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

First, I would like to congratulate the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee (AWLRC) for the excellent work done on this Bill. Indeed, there has been growing awareness and concern among Singaporeans about the protection and welfare of animals, whether these are wild, strays, pets or kept in our zoos and aquariums. This speaks well of our society. The amendments are timely and I am sure the updated legislation, backed by rigorous enforcement, will enable us to be better stewards and custodians of our fellow creatures.

The Committee has been thorough in its work, seeking views from a wide spectrum of Singaporeans and the various stakeholder groups, including vets, animal welfare groups and the pet industry. I would like to share a couple of my concerns about pet ownership and supply.

Firstly, ownership. Ideally, the owner or the family should take care of a pet for life. This is especially important for animals which form strong attachments to their carers, such as dogs. Some owners even refer to their pets affectionately as "furkids". Having a pet is akin to having a baby. One key difference is that while the baby will grow up and become independent one day, the pet is forever dependent on its owner. A pet owner needs to be prepared to care for a pet throughout its lifespan. A puppy typically lives 10-13 years; a kitten 12-14 years; and a bunny, nine-12 years. During this time, a child would have grown up and may outgrow his fascination with pets and an adult would probably have less energy to care for pets. However, there are a number of people who buy or adopt pets on impulse or without adequate research or planning.

Subsequently, when they realise that the work and costs involved in caring for these animals are higher than expected, or when their personal circumstances change, they neglect or abandon these poor animals.

According to an estimate by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), at least 10,000 pets are abandoned or left at shelters every year. A significant number of

Page: 22

these animals have to be put down as there are simply not enough suitable adopters and resources to keep them. This is clearly unacceptable.

To reduce incidents of neglect and abandonment, people interested in adopting from animal welfare groups have to go through extensive interviews to gauge their suitability. The adopters' residences, family members, working hours, lifestyles and even their neighbours are taken into consideration. This process is essential in ensuring a successful adoption.

Since 1 January this year, pet retailers and buyers are required to sign AVA pet purchase declaration forms. This was one of AWLRC's recommendations which did not require legislative amendments. The pre-sale screening checklist includes questions about the buyers' age, pet ownership history, familiarity with the needs and inherited traits of the pet and whether the new owner has the time and resources to care for it. Buyers have to declare that the shops have provided them with detailed information on pet care, including food, exercise and health needs. This pre-sale screening is certainly a step in the right direction.

Potential owners are prompted to think more deeply and carefully before buying and this would help to reduce impulse buying or adoption. In addition, the questionnaire can help highlight any incompatibility between buyers and pets.

However, the problem here is that the party conducting the screening is the pet retailer/vendor, who has a vested interest in ensuring successful transactions. Logically, the assessment of pet owners should be performed by a neutral disinterested party, such as AVA or an animal welfare group. I acknowledge that getting pet owner certifications from independent third parties sounds very inconvenient. However, compared to putting down thousands of animals every year, especially highly cognisant ones, such as dogs and cats, I think this additional red tape is definitely the lesser evil.

In addition, I would like to enquire about the role of the current declaration forms in the event of subsequent abuse and abandonment. Does AVA maintain these forms in its database for the lifespan of these animals? If so, can the information be used by prosecutors?

Secondly, my point on supply. I would like to urge the Ministry to limit the number of pet farms and stores selling animals, as well as the number of animals being sold. More stringent requirements should also be imposed to ensure the health of animals being bred or imported for sale. Sellers should be required to be more transparent about the lineage of their animals and be required to offer animals suited to our warm and humid tropical climate and dense, built-up environment.

Page: 23

An animal may look very adorable with thick and soft fur, but the owner has to know that much time, effort and money are needed to keep such an animal healthy, comfortable and remain adorable. There are some species of dogs which need to be kept in an air-conditioned place. Owners might think that they are able to commit to that. But remember, while we can easily switch off the air-conditioner, we are at the same time also switching off the life of an animal.

In recent years, there have been a number of mass adoption exercises due to pet farms closing down or not being able to sell their "excessive stock". There have also been cases of poor breeding practices leading to genetic health problems. Many animals which cannot find homes or which suffer from health problems had to be put down. Such tragic outcomes could have been prevented if we had more stringent measures in place upstream. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, it has been an honour and privilege for me to be a member of the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee (AWLRC) and to support this Private Member's Bill moved by hon Member Mr Yeo Guat Kwang.

As my hon colleague Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has mentioned, the 24 recommendations put forth by the AWLRC in March 2013 included legislative recommendations, as well as non-legislative recommendations. I would now like to speak on three issues which are not addressed directly by today's Bill but which have been raised as concerns by many of my residents.

Firstly, the restriction on the number and species of animals allowed per household. Let me begin with dogs.

For HDB owners, regardless of the size of the flat and the number of household members, only one dog of an approved breed may be kept in each HDB flat. The approved 62 breeds are smaller dogs, standing at about 40 cm at the shoulders and weighing 10 kg or less. They are deemed to be more manageable. Any HDB flat owner who keeps an unapproved breed of dog or has more than one dog, in fact, can be fined up to $4,000.

For private residences, similarly, regardless of the size of the apartment or landed property and the number of household members, each is allowed a maximum of three dogs. In fact, special permission must be obtained from AVA to keep more than three dogs. In addition, a maximum of one scheduled dog can be licensed and kept per private property.

Page: 24

Scheduled dogs are potentially more aggressive and need to be well-trained to keep them under control.

Some HDB residents of larger units or who are living with fewer people have requested that they be allowed to keep more than one approved dog. For example, an elderly couple whose children have moved out can live quite comfortably with a chihuahua in a 4-room flat. I hope HDB and AVA will consider taking into account the size of the unit and the number of household members when granting dog licences.

Conversely, I am concerned that private property owners, some whose units are smaller than certain HDB flats, should be allowed to keep up to three dogs, including a scheduled dog. I urge AVA to also consider taking into account the size of private residences when granting such licences. Bigger dogs should also be restricted to owners with properties above a certain size.

Other pet animals, such as fish, hamsters, rabbits and birds, usually do not cause nuisance to neighbours and there is no restriction on their numbers.

However, HDB flat owners are not allowed to keep cats in HDB flats as they are perceived to be difficult to confine. Those interested in keeping cats feel that cats can be confined without problems by fencing their windows and doors with netting. Cats can also be toilet-trained and can be controlled by sterilisation. To prevent cats from uncontrolled roaming, owners can put their cats on leashes and take them out for walks, just like for dogs.

"Love Cats", a two-year pilot project to assess the feasibility of keeping cats in HDB flats, was launched in October 2012. This project was led by HDB, MND, AVA, Sembawang Town Council and the Cat Welfare Society. May I ask the Minister how did the project go and if there would be any changes in HDB's policy on cats as pets as a result of this project?

Next, we need to address feedback by residents on noise created by pets. So far, barking by dogs is, I believe, the most common problem that most Members of Parliament and residents face. Dogs bark in response to dangers and disturbances or to communicate frustration, discomfort or need for attention. Dogs which bark constantly also may not have enough exercise, be properly disciplined or socialised. I quote the famous dog-trainer Cesar Millan who recommends exercise, discipline, affection – in that order – for happy dogs. Presently, neighbours have little recourse if the owners of noisy dogs are uncooperative. May I suggest that we implement more stringent measures to require such owners and dogs to attend training and rehabilitation in order to keep their licences?

Page: 25

Lastly, we need to step up public education to get all pet owners to be responsible for their pets' waste in public. Quite a number of pet owners and their foreign domestic workers are not aware that they can be fined for not picking up their pets' faeces. We have to publicise that first-time offenders can be fined up to $1,000 and repeat offenders, up to $5,000 under the Environmental Public Health Act. One way is to highlight this in the Pets Purchase Declaration form. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Well, we certainly learnt a lot about dogs and cats today. But I must say I agree with some of the points raised by the Member though. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mdm Speaker, the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by its attitude towards animals – from birds, cats, dogs and so on. Singapore strives to be a civilised society that possesses high levels of moral integrity and social responsibility. From a young age, we have been taught to protect and help the weak. We make concessions for the elderly, the children, the disabled and the poor. We speak up for them, and the Government takes the lead by relentlessly reviewing and improving the safety nets for these people. But when it comes to the treatment of animals and pets, sadly, there is a lot of room for improvement.

Each year, at least 7,000 animals were taken in by SPCA because their owners did not want them or had abandoned them as pets. And almost half of these were small domestic pets like rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs – often abandoned at void decks. Cases of extreme animal cruelty have also been hitting the headlines in the past year. We read of a man who was fined $10,000 in Court in April for committing animal cruelty. It was the first time the maximum fine had been imposed by the Court for animal cruelty. The man had brought the dead dog to the SPCA for disposal. Upon examination by the SPCA veterinarian, the dog carcass was found to be extremely thin and appeared to have been chronically starved or malnourished, possibly for months, before its death. This is extremely worrying.

Animal cruelty is not a minor personality flaw that one should carelessly write off. Various sources, like Alberta SPCA, UK-based anti-domestic violence NGO Equation and Envision Counselling and Support Centre, have findings that link animal cruelty to domestic violence and possibly other types of aggression. Abusers target animals that are powerless and vulnerable, a reflection of what bullies, rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence do. How can we be assured that violence and cruelty that an abuser exhibits towards animals will not, one day, come to haunt a child, a weaker human? If one could so callously neglect or dispose of a living companion, then that speaks volumes of his/her priorities. Who is to say that he or she would not do the same to his or her aged parents or children? Indeed, the way animals are treated in our country is potentially a reflection of our behaviour and

Page: 26

outlook towards life. We must take a firm stand against pet abandonment and cruelty towards animals.

I am in full support for the tougher laws against pet abandonment and animal cruelty. It is a significant step in the right direction towards a kinder, more responsible and mature society.

Heavy fines and jail terms will serve as deterrent measures and should, to a certain extent, make one think twice before abusing or neglecting a pet. These penalties must be effectively enforced, or they will become akin to white elephants.

We will likely be relying heavily on members of the public as witnesses to identify the culprits and it is therefore important that there is a quick and simple channel for them to make the reports. Who can they call? Should it be the Police, the AVA or animal welfare organisations? How soon would the responsible authority respond to the case? What are the signs of animal abuse or neglect? Awareness must be spread so that the general public can act as eyes and ears in their estates and look out for crimes towards animals.

But punishments are short-term solutions. If we are to nip the problem in the bud, we will have to explore more plausible solutions stemming from a moral conscience rather than solely from a legal perspective.

Besides subjecting offenders to fines and jail terms, give them mandatory counselling and education to reduce the likelihood of repeat offenders. Begin education from a young age. Encourage schools to invite animal welfare organisations to talk about animal cruelty issues and prevention on a regular basis.

Having said all this, we must strike a balance between protecting animals, between taking action against animal cruelty and the cost of doing business. I have heard concerns, feedback from shop owners in the neighbourhood. So, we have to ensure that this amendment will not add on to their business cost, especially those smaller shops in the neighbourhood. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Pet business owners should do their best to teach the pet owners the correct and responsible way of keeping a pet. To avoid increasing burdens on the pet business owners, we could encourage them to collaborate with NGOs. We should try all ways and means to reduce the number of irresponsible pet owners, for example, we could interview the potential owners or inspect the living environment that the pet is to live in, especially those large pets that need more time and space to look after. By doing this, we not only can reduce the number of irresponsible buyers,

Page: 27

but also provide comprehensive advice and resources to buyers who are keen to learn the correct way of looking after their pets.

Lastly, to prevent pet business owners from neglecting or abusing animals, pet shops, pet farms and pet boarding places should be inspected by authorities regularly.

In order for the Bill to work, we need cooperation from all the stakeholders. You cannot clap with one hand. Besides providing a safe environment for the animals in Singapore, we also need to look after the interests of people who are disturbed by animals or had unpleasant encounters with animals. Some people become violent towards animals because they cannot bear the incessant barking, animals droppings in the community or attacks from animals. I always remind my residents to clean after their pets and remind cat lovers to clean up the container from which they feed the stray cats. We do not want the water in the container to breed mosquitos or the left-over food to attract cockroaches or rats. Every month when my residents and I do the "picking-up litter" activity together, we often notice containers with left-over food inside. Residents complain about this frequently.

We need to streamline the procedures for people to report the irresponsible pet owners and the cat lovers who pay no attention to cleanliness and hygiene, so that we can mete out punishment accordingly. In fact, many pet owners do not know the consequences of their behaviour. For example, when outside, it is illegal not to clean up after the pet or to put a muzzle over the mouth of those aggressive pets. In other words, those pet owners lacked the relevant legal knowledge or they did not receive enough information when buying the pet. Hence, it is important to increase the awareness of pet owners to raise their pets in a responsible manner.

It will be a long process to create a more harmonious and gracious society, during which we need to learn and adjust continuously. When formulating policies, we should give pet lovers more opportunities for dialogue and feedback to participate in this process.

I fully support this Bill. Meanwhile, I firmly believe that only by increasing our national awareness can we improve animal welfare and promote responsible breeding behaviour. I urge relevant individuals and agencies, including the Government, to put in more resources in this area. I also hope that the amendment would not add to the business cost of small businesses, especially those neighbourhood shops. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the philosopher Immanuel Kant said: "He who is cruel to animals also becomes hard in his dealings with men. Therefore, we can judge

Page: 28

the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." It is therefore opportune that we see before this House the Animal and Birds (Amendment) Bill up for Second Reading.

I was invited by the hon Member Mr Yeo Guat Kwang to join him on the Animal Welfare Legislative Review Committee (AWLRC) when it was formed. Through it, I eventually came to chair the Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Committee (MSCC) when it was established on 1 October 2013 to serve as a platform for various stakeholders to share their views and build up mutual understanding on animal welfare and to enhance collaborative efforts in promoting animal welfare in Singapore.

Although the name itself is already quite a handful, the work that went into the committee was no small feat either. I am honoured that I had the opportunity to work with a team of passionate individuals representing different sectors and interests. We had representatives from various Animal Welfare Groups, such as the Cat Welfare Society, SPCA, Save our Street Dogs, ACRES. We also had representatives from the industry, such as PETAS and SVA as well as hobbyist groups, such as the Singapore Kennel Club. On top of these, we have representatives from various grassroots organisations to give voice to ordinary Singaporeans on this issue.

I must say that some of the intense and passionate consultations we held were on occasions hotter than some of the debates that we have had in this House.

The work we went through may have been tough but we felt it was for a good cause. Our first task at hand was to draft the codes of animal welfare for pet owners as well as the pet industry. As one of the recommendations borne out of the Animal Welfare Legislative Review Committee, we felt that a proper set of codes will be required to give structure to the amendments to the Animal and Birds Act. The development of codes of animal welfare is therefore a significant milestone in the animal welfare scene in Singapore. The codes will serve as an important document on the minimum standards of animal welfare that various stakeholders, such as the pet owners and the pet industry, can agree on and provide pertinent information to those who are responsible for animals on how they should provide care for them.

Drafting the codes was one task, but getting buy-in was also equally important. As the codes are applicable to a wide spectrum of people who interact with pet animals in Singapore, it was imperative that we obtained the views of the public on the formulation of these important documents. To this end, the MSCC launched a public feedback exercise on the REACH website lasting from 28 January 2014 to 28 February 2014.

Page: 29

In the space of that one month, over 2,000 comments from nearly 600 respondents were received. I am also glad to note that for welfare standards highlighted for public consultation, on average, at least 90% of the respondents agreed with them. After going through the comments and rounds of additional meetings with members of the MSCC, approximately two-thirds of these comments from the respondents have been incorporated into the draft codes which we submitted to AVA for consideration and adoption.

The MSCC recognised that the codes cannot be too prescriptive or onerous for pet owners and businesses and there is a need to balance between what the Singapore society reasonably expects and supports to be the standards of animal welfare vis-a-vis those viewed by passionate animal lovers. Thus, the codes comprise of guidelines that establish what is deemed necessary to meet the basic needs of the animals and the best practices that the pet owners and the pet industry are encouraged to adopt. This is to further raise the standard of animal welfare in Singapore.

Just as the codes are the result of intense discussion as well as the need for strategic compromises, so too this Act. Mr Yeo had pointed out that the Bill took longer than expected to arrive in Parliament, not because the changes were so onerous but because we needed to ensure that we consulted as widely and as extensively as possible. Even so, we were unable to incorporate every single proposal or suggestion.

The long-term success of this Act, should it be passed, will not be counted by how many cases it successfully punishes or brings to task. It should be judged on its eventual uselessness. The reason I say this is that the day we do not need to bring anyone to task would perhaps mark the point that basic levels of animal welfare have become the norm in Singapore. Although it is likely to be a long way off, we can start certainly by trying.

A lot of what the hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh had indicated in his speech earlier is about compromise. How do we find the balance between the needs of the community, with its vibrant mix of people and views, including those who are passionately in love with animals and those who are not and how do we allow them to coexist peacefully is perhaps the greatest challenge that we all face.

The MSCC will, at the passage of the Bill, undertake its next two important tasks. One is to introduce a set of training requirements that can be applied to the entire pet industry, including animal welfare groups, so that all permanent employees have the basic skills and know-how in handling different pets and to provide the right balance of welfare in caring for the animals. Under current requirement, only pet shops are required to send their permanent staff for training. We are extending this to all who are involved in the pet industry.

Page: 30

This in itself will need careful balancing. We must irrevocably emphasise the need for basic training standards to be met while, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had mentioned earlier, not make it too onerous for businesses. But I would like to add that just as we do not leave our computers to be mended by untrained technicians, more so for living creatures like pets that they should be taken care of by trained professionals.

At the current moment, Temasek Polytechnic currently runs a skills certification course for pet shop employees. We will be interested in exploring how this course can be built upon to expand for all involved in the pet industry. I must emphasise that this training will help to foster greater responsibility within the pet industry to ensure better animal welfare rather than it being an additional burden for business.

The most crucial aspect of the MSCC's work going forward will also be education and I am thankful for Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's emphasis on this point as well. How do we educate the public on the importance of animal welfare as well as balance the welfare of the community at large? The day that we can ensure that animal welfare, just like any other form of right behaviour, becomes the norm, will be the mark of our success. A working group comprising representatives from the animal welfare groups as well as the grassroots will be looking in this area.

To this end, even the subtle signal of changing the title of Part IV of the Act to include animal welfare is important because this reflects the intention to move from a reactive mode to being one of more responsive and preventive, such as addressing the welfare of animals in the way that they are cared for and not just limited to punishment after the fact.

To this end, I would like to seek AVA and MND's continued support for the MSCC as well as the other recommendations of the AWLRC, so that the work does not end simply with the passage of this Bill and its amendments. The Bill is simply the beginning of a longer journey. I would also urge AVA to also consider the other recommendations proposed by the AWLRC, such as the licensing framework for the pet breeders and boarding activities. These are important for us to look into over the long term as well.

Mdm Speaker, it is not often that many of us get to help to introduce a Private Member's Bill to Parliament and to speak on two Private Member's Bills in the same sitting. I take the opportunity to thank all the members of the MSCC for their dedication towards animal welfare, I also thank my fellow members of the AWLRC for the hard work in bringing this Bill to Parliament, especially under the able leadership of the hon Member Mr Yeo Guat Kwang. Most of all, I thank all the members of the public for the support and suggestions that have made this Bill possible and close to reality. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the

Page: 31

Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Private Member's amendment Bill on Animals and Birds.

Animal abuse is cruel, perverse and simply wrong. We are all capable of compassion and such cruel actions simply just demean us as human beings. Hence, as an animal lover and having "fur kids" of my own, I am very glad that this Bill was crafted with a responsive and preventive approach in mind to ensure responsible care and welfare of animals. This Bill will no doubt strengthen the legal framework governing animal welfare. And so on this note, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the great effort put in by the hon Members Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Edwin Tong, Mr Vikram Nair as well as all the members of AWLRC and the MND staff.

In this amendment Bill, I note that the penalties will be enhanced and the powers of AVA will be expanded to include enforcement. These are positive measures that will strongly signal that animal abuse is unacceptable. Nevertheless, this enhanced legislative regime needs to be paired with fair and sensitive enforcement, vigorous and efficient processes as well as an inclusive community engagement effort.

First, I hope that the enforcement will be fair and sensitive. While I strongly believe that persons guilty of animal abuse should be penalised and that stiff penalties will act as deterrence, we should take care not to hurt small firms doing pet-related business. At the same time, while pet owners and potential pet owners must understand the moral and legal obligations involved in owning a pet, we should take care not to put off potential responsible pet owners from adopting animals altogether.

Second, we need vigorous and efficient processes. Specifically, I am concerned about pet abandonment as I found out it is actually relatively easy for a pet owner to abandon his pet even though this is a legal offence.

I make the following points based on a personal experience having navigated through the current system. More than a year ago, HOPE Dog Rescue put up a post on its Facebook page calling for urgent foster or adopter for a dog believed to be a retriever. The dog was first found wandering around a HDB estate for weeks before a young girl found him, notified HOPE Dog Rescue and then at the same time, placed him at the SPCA for temporary shelter. The reason for putting him at SPCA was because there was no available foster at that point in time. The dog was only one year nine months old, had suffered some injuries – was

Page: 32

without fur, even its brows and whiskers were all off – and was extremely thin, hungry and thirsty when it was found. I eventually adopted the dog and I am glad to say that today it is a happy, healthy retriever – all its fur has grown out, gained six kg, smart, quite a goof ball but definitely a sweetheart.

The dog had a microchip and there was a name registered to it. However, as the original owner did not renew the licence after a year, this man was no longer deemed to be the legal owner of the dog. Nevertheless, with the help from AVA, the young girl who found the dog managed to speak with the man who claimed that he had given up the dog to another person. When asked about the name and contact number or even the email address of the person he supposedly gave the dog to, he claimed to have none. This claim, in my opinion, was extremely suspicious because unless he happened to find some extremely kind-hearted stranger off the street to hand the dog over to, how is it possible that he does not have any information or the means to locate the second owner? In any case, whether it was this man or the mysterious second owner's doing, the dog was found abandoned. The man whose name was in the system was also not legally liable because the licence had lapsed and he was no longer the registered owner at that point in time.

So, there are two issues here that I would like to raise. Firstly, there is currently no obligation on the owner to ensure that the subsequent owner registers himself or herself to the AVA – only some of the animal welfare organisations impose such a requirement and, second, it is almost impossible to hold anyone responsible for pet abandonment. In the Act, pet abandonment is deemed to be an offence if the owner abandons the pet without reasonable cause or excuse.

From what I understand, abandonment is currently recognised as an offence only if the owner confesses, which I am highly doubtful of because whoever is guilty, I do not think the person will confess. Or if the act of abandoning the pet was caught on camera, which is challenging as well because the guilty owner will usually do so very discreetly. And even if it is not so discreetly, who among the unsuspecting passers-by will stand by with a camera and is prescient enough to have a camera ready and film the act of abandonment? The burden of proof in the latter is almost impossible to achieve.

Hence, I would like to make three recommendations to the pet licensing process. First, current pet owners who wish to give away their pets for whatever reason should ensure that the next owner registers himself or herself within a stipulated timeframe. Alternatively, both parties should sign an acknowledgement form to document the transfer.

Second, if a pet is found to be "lost" and has a microchip with a name registered to it, even if the registrant claimed that he had given the pet to another owner, he should be held responsible unless he has the acknowledgement described in recommendation one. The

Page: 33

registrant should be held responsible even if the licence has expired. If there is an acknowledgement signed, the authority can then hold the subsequent owner as indicated in the form responsible.

Third, for innocent pet owners whose pets had run away, they should proactively make a report with the authority – AVA would be most logical in this case – on top of the usual search practices such as putting up notices. Should the pet be found and reported to the AVA, the AVA can then match the reports and return the pet. The act of reporting is meant to commit the pet owners to take back the pets should the pets be found. This should not be difficult if the pet owner is sincere in wanting to take back the pet that he or she has lost. Just putting up some notices is, to me, not adequate as proof.

The third point that I would like to raise is about having an inclusive community engagement effort. Beyond the legal framework and strengthening of processes, I hope the Government will continue with its support for and collaboration with animal welfare organisations. Animal welfare organisations can play an important role in the community. Many look out for strays, foster them, nurse them back to health and try to find new families for them. For example, as I mentioned earlier, HOPE Dog Rescue helped to publicise the case of the dog I eventually adopted.

Such organisations can also help with AVA's public education effort so that owners know what their moral and legal obligations are, what proper care means and, of course, now with this new amendment Act, what changes have been made. In addition, I believe the animal welfare organisations can assist with community issues such as neighbour disputes. Some Town Councils work with the Cat Welfare Society to address cat-related issues in HDB estates. In MacPherson, for instance, our Marine Parade Town Council taps on Cat Welfare Society's expertise in cats from time to time to resolve cat-related issues. Similarly, such a partnership can be extended to say, dogs, as well. We have all heard of complaints about how some neighbour's pet dog is barking incessantly or too loudly or how a pet dog seems to have crossed a certain boundary and the list goes on.

Apart from animal welfare organisations, there are many good-hearted individuals out there who will mobilise and organise themselves to help animals in distress or solve animal-related issues. I have witnessed a few of such instances within my own community. One example was an informal group formed by residents who would patrol a particular neighbourhood when they know of possible cat abusers in the area. Another example involved a resident who heard barking sounds in the drain near her flat. When news got out, over 30 volunteers from all walks of life came to search over several days for this suspected dog. Many even tried to search the drains and crawl through them, although there were some risks involved. They set aside their personal time and energy just to search for the suspected dog because they fear that an innocent life may be harmed if no action is taken in

Page: 34

a timely manner.

Although I would also add that the search would have been much easier and thorough if there is, say, a life-detecting equipment that we can borrow from the authorities. On this particular case, I should also take this opportunity to thank AVA and the PUB's quick response team for coming down as soon as they caught news of it and did their very best to help the volunteers to search for the suspected dog. Till this day, we still have not found the dog, for those who are curious.

Hence, I sincerely believe that there is scope for stronger resource support and closer collaboration with animal welfare organisations and volunteers. I believe that by working together and helping each other, we can help make the community, whether it is for animal lovers or for non-animal lovers, much more pleasant.

All said, I do believe that the amendment Bill serves to strengthen the legal framework, providing a responsive and preventive approach to animal welfare. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I am honoured to have been part of the team of Members of Parliament working on this Bill. This Bill was the product of much work and cooperation from the AVA, animal welfare groups and others who have an interest in animals, and I would like to thank all who had contributed their efforts towards this. I am also happy with MND's continued support, without which the implementation of many of the measures here would not be possible.

I have always had a soft spot for animals, having grown up with two adorable, mischievous dogs in the house. However, the concept of animal rights is not an easy one and I believe every animal lover who has eaten meat would probably know this tension intuitively.

One the early advocates of animal rights was probably the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham who when discussing the rationale for animal rights asked, "The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?" As a general rule, I believe we should do our best to minimise animal suffering wherever possible. And that is very much the intention of the original Animals and Birds Act as well as this amendment. Under section 42 of the Act, a wide range of cruel conduct, from beating, kicking and ill-treating an animal to abandonment were considered cruel and subject to a fine of $10,000 or a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months.

Page: 35

However, while many examples of cruelty were prohibited under the old Act, there was never a positive duty of care on owners to take care of animals. In this Bill, we introduced the concept of a "person in charge" and this is because we realise that in practice, the people in contact with the animals, who care for them, quite often may not technically be the owners of the animals. These include employees in pet shops and people working in animal shelters.

The duty of care has been introduced on animal owners and includes a requirement on owners to provide animals with food and shelter, not to confine or convey the animal in any way that causes unreasonable or unnecessary pain, not to abandon the animal or cause the animal to be abandoned and where the animal is missing, to take reasonable steps to locate the animal. They will also have a duty to ensure that animals are cared for in accordance with the relevant codes of animal welfare.

The code of animal welfare is another new feature of this Bill that allows regulators to apply specific standards. The code is also intended to be a dynamic document and may be amended as necessary, so that the rules can keep up with whatever the latest practices of cruelty might be.

At the same time, the fines for cruelty to animals under section 42 have also been enhanced. It distinguishes between two types of offences. First, those who commit offences in the course of carrying on a business; and second, for those who may commit the offence as individuals. This Act recognises that those who carry on a business have a much higher standard to hold. For offences committed by those who operate the business, the fine for first offence is $40,000 with a term of imprisonment of up to two years; and for second and subsequent offences, a maximum fine of $100,000 with up to three years imprisonment.

This recognises the fact that a very large deal of cruelty can be inflicted by those who operate businesses, say, in puppy farms and other areas. I do not wish to cite too many specific examples here lest it turns into a witch hunt. The second area, the penalties for individuals, have also been enhanced but not as much, recognising that individuals may often care only for a few animals or one or two and the fine here will be not exceeding $15,000 for a first offence and a maximum of 18 months in prison, or a fine not exceeding $30,000 for second and subsequent offence and a maximum of three years imprisonment.

The Court will also have the power to issue disqualification orders where necessary for offenders under this Act. This will help prevent offenders from committing subsequent offences. This is a discretionary power which the Court can use when necessary.

Page: 36

A number of Members earlier on raised concerns about what would happen to owners of SMEs and whether this Bill imposes more onerous conditions on them. Clause 6 of this Bill does require people who handle animals and animal-related businesses to be qualified staff. In order to make sure that this qualification is not too onerous, we should make it clear that this requirement does not apply to staff working in the business who do not deal with animals. For example, the counter staff, assistants and so on, do not need to be qualified. However, those who handle animals, I think it should be a fair minimum requirement that they have the necessary qualifications so that at least they know what they ought to do in caring for animals.

The final section of this Bill deals with enforcement powers. Without these, I believe the Bill would be much more difficult or the Bill would have very little meaning. The enforcement powers were based on input from the AVA and give a wide range of powers, including powers to interview, search and investigate and powers to get documents and information necessary for investigation. This is broadly in line with investigative powers of enforcement agencies in other parts of legislation as well. I think there should be nothing wrong with this.

Finally, I should probably also address what this Bill does not cover. I think some of my fellow Members have raised concerns about the significant disamenities that might be caused by animals, including nuisance from noise and defecation in public areas. While these are issues that obviously concern many of us and probably do require solutions, they are not really the focus of this Bill. The focus of this Bill is to look out for animal welfare and to improve the protection of animals. The nuisance caused by animals could be dealt with within subsequent legislation.

I would like to thank everyone once again for their support for this Bill – without your support, we would not be able to take this important step in advancing the protection of animals.

Mdm Speaker, let me first thank Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and members of his Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee (AWLRC) for reviewing and updating our animal welfare legislation. My Ministry also appreciates the effort by Mr Yeo to table this Private Member's Bill to enhance animal welfare in Singapore.

Many Singaporeans are becoming more concerned about animal welfare issues. This is a reflection of our maturity as a society, where people begin to be more active in advocating

Page: 37

various causes that resonate with them. In my work at MND, I have had the privilege of meeting many Singaporeans of all ages and from all walks of life, who care passionately about animal welfare and want to make a difference.

Some rescue and rehabilitate smuggled wildlife. Some dig deep into their pockets or raise funds to set up shelters for abandoned animals or volunteer their time and energy at such shelters. Others conduct education and outreach to the public on responsible pet ownership or help mediate the neighbourhood disputes arising from animals. They feel that the manner in which Singaporeans treat animals, over which we have dominion, is one measure of how compassionate we are as a society and as a community. When graphic acts of animal cruelty have been committed, many speak out and decry the inflicting of senseless pain and suffering on animals that are often defenceless under the circumstances.

At the same time, we recognise that animals can evoke a range of very different responses from different people. Some love them, some people are indifferent to them, while others either recoil in fear or loathe animals.

Society's views on animal welfare also vary. For instance, animal welfare groups and animal lovers hope for stricter laws to raise animal welfare standards. Those who work in the pet industry, while broadly supportive of animal welfare, are also mindful of potentially higher compliance costs. Various other stakeholders are more concerned about the impact of animals on public safety, public health and public nuisance. For example, in 2013, AVA received more than 17,000 pieces of animal-related feedback – including concerns on animal welfare and complaints relating to wild or stray animals or neighbourhood disputes centering around pets.

The landscape is made even more complex by the fact that animal issues – from the worst acts of animal cruelty to very real risks to human lives and injury, can be very emotive. When people live in close proximity in a dense city like Singapore, there is even more potential for disagreements to occur.