Fann Sim Channel NewsAsia 16 Aug 18;
SINGAPORE: There is strong support for tougher wildlife protection laws in Singapore, according to findings from a REACH survey released on Thursday (Aug 16).
The online survey had questions drawn from amendments proposed for the Wild Animals and Birds Act (WABA) by the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee (WALRC).
The committee, formed by Member of Parliament for Nee Soon GRC Louis Ng in February, is made up of stakeholders from the nature community, pest control companies, religious organisations, town councils and grassroots organisations.
The survey was posted on Government feedback site REACH from June to July and received over 1,000 responses and comments.
Among the findings, 81 per cent of respondents felt that the release of animals without a permit should be disallowed.
Seventy per cent felt that the feeding of wild animals should not be allowed.
According to the report, 61 per cent felt that all wild birds including crows, mynas, and pigeons should also be protected from being killed, kept or captured without a permit.
Eighty-one per cent felt that the deployment of nets and traps outside private premises and nature reserves should be regulated.
The findings also revealed 57 per cent felt that selected citizens should be given the power to assist the Government in enforcement, while 66 per cent felt that current penalties are inadequate in deterring individual offenders.
Ninety per cent felt that the penalties for repeat offenders should be more severe, and 89 per cent felt that the penalties for corporations should be more severe than for individuals.
Eighty per cent felt that organisations need to be specifically trained and licensed if they wish to provide wildlife removal services.
Eighty-three per cent supported having a code of conduct for wildlife photography, while 89 per cent wanted a code of conduct for general activities in nature areas.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WABA
The committee proposed 10 amendments to the WABA ranging from suggestions to ban the feeding of wild animals throughout Singapore as well as banning the release of animals without a license throughout Singapore.
The initial amendments proposed by WALRC have been tweaked according to the observations gathered from the latest public feedback.
For example, the amendments included selected marine invertebrates such as horseshoe crabs and corals for protection after input from the marine biology research community.
The committee also deliberated initially on a total ban of possessing traps in public but tempered its stance after public feedback that it would be troublesome for researchers, recreational fishers and pet owners. The proposed amendment was revised to a lighter ban of deploying traps for all wild animals and birds by unqualified individuals.
During a media briefing, Mr Ng added that the amendment to prevent unauthorised trapping is targeted at poachers, who have made use of loopholes in the current version of WABA to capture certain birds.
Six species of birds, including the house crow, common myna, and white vented myna are excluded from current protection laws.
"A lot of times on the ground when you go to someone trapping the bird, the fellow will say, 'I'm just trapping a common myna' and there's nothing we can do because trapping a common myna under WABA is legal," he said.
These amendments will be subjected to further public consultation and discussions with stakeholders in October before being presented in Parliament next year.
“Currently, animals receive a full suite of protection when they are in nature reserves and national parks. The problem is that the animal loses some protection once the animal leaves the nature reserves and national parks," said Mr Ng, who also chairs the WALRC.
"This is the gap we are trying to fill in the amendments to the WABA. Ultimately, the animals don’t know where the boundaries of the nature reserves and national parks lie, and the same animal should receive the same protection regardless of where the animal is."
The proposed amendments will also align WABA with other nature-related legislation, which feature stronger penalties and protection for wildlife, Mr Ng said.
The WABA is the principal legislation that protects wildlife in Singapore and was enacted in 1965, with its last revision in 2000. While there have been seven revisions to WABA, Mr Ng said that they are "consequential revisions" to WABA due to revisions to amendments made to the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority Act, and were not specific to WABA.
"If you look at the WABA at this point, it's just focusing on kill, keep and take. But if you look at other pieces of legislation under the Parks and Trees Act, it also includes release, feed and disturb. We have the first three now in WABA, and we're trying to add three more to make sure the animal receives similar protection regardless of where the animal is," Mr Ng.
"Things have changed a lot in Singapore [since 1965]. The landscape has changed a lot. So the legislation has to be updated and changed," he added.
Source: CNA/ad(mn)
Feeding of wild animals should be banned, say most Singaporeans in survey
Jose Hong Straits Times 16 Aug 18;
SINGAPORE - Almost three-quarters of Singaporeans feel that the feeding of wild animals should be banned throughout the country, according to a new survey.
More than four-fifths also believe that animals should not be released into the wild without a permit, revealed a poll carried out via government feedback site Reach (Reaching Everyone for Activity Citizenry @ Home) from June to July.
The results were released on Thursday (Aug 16).
More than 1,000 Singaporeans gave their feedback to 11 questions on proposed amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act (WABA).
In February, Nee Soon GRC MP Louis Ng announced that he would propose amendments to WABA through a private member's Bill in Parliament, to better protect the wildlife in Singapore. Some of these amendments include giving trained citizens the powers to educate others about WABA, and giving companies heavier penalties than individuals for breaking the Act.
He formed a Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee that comprises stakeholders from the nature community, pest control companies, religious organisations, town councils and grassroots organisations.
Other results from the survey show that 66 per cent of respondents felt that current penalties are not adequate to deter individual offenders, while 90 per cent felt that the penalties for repeat offenders need to be more severe.
WABA was enacted in the 1960s, with little revision since, and also does not protect any invertebrates - animals without a backbone - such as the endangered horseshoe crab.
Mr Ng said: "Currently, animals receive a full suite of protection when they are in nature reserves and national parks. The problem is that the animal loses some protection once the animal leaves the nature reserves and national parks. This is the gap we are trying to fill in the amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act.
"Ultimately, the animals don't know where the boundaries of the nature reserves and national parks lie, and the same animal should receive the same protection regardless of where the animal is."
Members of the public will have more opportunities to share their views on the proposed amendments after the Bill has been drafted and before it is read in Parliament.
Deputy chief executive of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres), Mr Kalai Vanan Balakrishnan, said: "On a daily basis, we see animals being fed outside the nature reserve, which draws them even farther into public spaces and causes conflicts to start. The proposed amendments to WABA will help in this critical area."
Some animals without backbones could be protected, but not illegal to kill mosquitoes and cockroaches
WONG PEI TING Today Online 16 Aug 18;
SINGAPORE — Threatened invertebrates – or animals without backbones – such as the Common Rose butterfly and horseshoe crabs in Singapore will be offered more protection under proposed changes to the law spearheaded by Member of Parliament Louis Ng.
Just as it is an offence to kill, take or capture birds, reptiles, fish and animals with backbones here, Mr Ng and his team are looking to have threatened invertebrates covered under the Wild Animals and Birds Act.
This will assuage concerns of ant hobbyists and others who wondered if it would become illegal to swat mosquitoes or kill cockroaches. Ant hobbyists catch queen ants to start colonies, which they keep at home.
"So if the ant is not endangered, they can carry on catching and trapping them, but (people should not be) going into the nature reserves (to find their queen ants)," said Mr Ng at a media briefing to present findings of a public consultation on government portal Reach.
The survey drew more than 1,000 responses from June 18 to July 20.
Some concerns came from parents who wondered if a ban on capturing all invertebrates might stifle the curiosity of children, who may want to capture insects for their school projects.
Mr Ng said including only invertebrates listed in the Singapore Red Data Book: Threatened Plants and Animals of Singapore would be a "reasonable start". There are 171 invertebrate species listed in the book's 2008 edition.
Draft changes to the Wild Animals and Birds Act, first enacted in 1965, are expected to be ready in October and another round of public consultation will be conducted then.
Mr Ng chairs the 17-member Wild Animal Legislation Review Committee tasked to look into changes to the Act, which he previously said was outdated. Suggestions include banning the feeding of wild animals throughout Singapore. Currently, the practice is only banned in the nature reserves and parks under the Parks and Trees Act.
On concerns that the proposed changes might make Singapore too restrictive a place to enjoy nature, Mr Ng said: "The concern really is that we want to make sure everyone can enjoy nature and appreciate nature in the long term.
"If we continue to disturb, if we continue to feed, if we continue to release these animals, it will be damaging to our local biodiversity in the ecosystem and ultimately, nobody will be able to enjoy our wildlife anymore."
Seventy per cent of survey respondents agreed that feeding of wildlife should not be allowed, while 90 per cent agreed that selected invertebrates should be protected.
There was disquiet among cat and dog lovers who wanted to continue feeding strays. They will be able to do so, said Ms Karen Sim, secretary of the committee. The Act does not cover domestic dogs and cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, domestic pigs, poultry and ducks.
The proposed changes aim to target feeding that contributes to human-wildlife conflicts, such as the feeding of wild boars and monkeys, said Mr Kalai Vanan Balakrishnan, deputy chief executive of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres). Two individuals who apparently drove regularly to Tuas to feed bread to wild boars, for instance, could have resulted in some 20 of the animals loitering at Tuas bus terminal, he told TODAY. A video of the herd last year alarmed some members of the public.
PIGEONS IN NEED OF PROTECTION?
One of the least popular suggestions among survey respondents was the inclusion of six species of wild birds for protection under the Act: The house crow, purple-backed starling, Philippine glossy starling, common mynah, white-vented mynah, and feral pigeons.
Only 61 per cent of respondents agreed that the species should be protected. Others felt they were pests that dirty the environment and spread diseases, and were so common that they do not need protection.
The committee will go ahead with the proposal to protect the six species, to close a loophole that currently lets off many bird poachers.
There have been many instances of poachers looking to trap rare birds who lied that they were targeting an unprotected species, when approached, said Mr Ng.
Mr Kalai said Acres receives reports of suspected poaching "on a daily basis", but the suspects would either say they already own the bird, or are trying to find a lost bird.
The committee is also looking to prohibit the deployment of nets, traps, hunting devices and instruments – making it illegal for someone to be seen with a trap, even outside a nature reserve. Recreational anglers will be exempted.
Eighty-one per cent of respondents supported this move, on the account that traps harm otters. Those who were against the proposal said this would make it hard for people to trap wildlife for research, get rid of pests, or return lost pets.
Eighty-one per cent of respondents supported banning the release of all wild animals without a permit.
The committee also wants to align penalties under the Act (fines of up to S$1,000) with the Parks and Trees Act (up to six months' jail or a fine of up to S$50,000) to offer equal protection to animals outside of nature reserves. Sixty-six per cent of respondents think the current penalties are not enough to deter offenders.
Community volunteers could be given enforcement powers to deal with selected offences such as the feeding or release of animals. Mr Ng said the powers will be similar to that of the National Environment Agency's (NEA) community volunteer programme.
NEA volunteers can request for the particulars of litterbugs, those who smoke in prohibited areas or spit and urinate in public places, pet owners who do not pick up after their pets, and drivers who have smoky vehicles or leave the engine of a stationary vehicle running.
The particulars are submitted to NEA for follow-up action.
The committee will also propose abolishing an archaic law allowing private individuals to keep wildlife such as kangaroos, wallabies and orang utans as pets as long as they obtain a licence to do so.
Most Singaporeans support ban on feeding of wild animals
JOSE HONG The New Paper 17 Aug 18;
Almost three-quarters of Singaporeans polled feel the feeding of wild animals should be banned.
More than four-fifths also believe animals should not be released into the wild without a permit, based on a poll by government feedback website Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home from June to July. The results were released yesterday.
More than 1,000 Singaporeans gave their feedback to 11 questions on proposed amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act (Waba).
In February, Nee Soon GRC MP Louis Ng announced he would propose amendments to the Act through a private member's Bill in Parliament to better protect wildlife in Singapore.
Waba was enacted in the 1960s with little revision since and does not protect invertebrates - animals without a backbone - such as the endangered horseshoe crab. Some of these amendments, also announced yesterday, include bringing certain invertebrates under the protection of the law, as well as banning the feeding of wild animals.
In the survey, 66 per cent of respondents felt current penalties are not adequate to deter offenders, and 90 per cent felt penalties for repeat offenders need to be more severe.
Mr Ng said: "Currently, animals receive a full suite of protection when they are in nature reserves and national parks. The problem is that the animal loses some protection once the animal leaves the nature reserves and national parks. This is the gap we are trying to fill in the amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act,
"Ultimately, the animals don't know where the boundaries of nature reserves and national parks lie, and the same animal should receive the same protection regardless of where the animal is."
Members of the public will have more opportunities to share their views on the proposed amendments after the Bill has been drafted and before it is read in Parliament.
The deputy chief executive of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society, Mr Kalai Vanan Balakrishnan, said: "On a daily basis we see animals being fed outside the nature reserve, which draws them even farther into public spaces and causes conflicts to start. The proposed amendments to Waba will help in this critical area."
ENCOURAGED
In a joint statement yesterday, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore and the National Parks Board said: "We are encouraged by the public's active participation in the consultation.
"Their feedback is useful and will be considered in the review of animal-related regulations and processes."
