2nd reading round up speech by SMS Tan Kiat How, on the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Amendment Bill 2022

Jul 4, 2022

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken for their views and support of this Bill.

Let me first address the points they have raised on the ESA, followed by briefly addressing the other suggestions made to tackle illegal wildlife trade that go beyond the Act.

Penalties

First, on the proposed penalties for illegal wildlife trade in the ESA.

Members – Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, and Mr Yip Hon Weng all have observed that the illegal wildlife trade can make for very lucrative business, and asked if the penalties for illegal wildlife trade could therefore be further enhanced to increase deterrence – For example, by raising the proposed imprisonment term for individuals who illegally trade Appendix II or III species, from four to five years; and, increasing the maximum aggregate fine further across the board, to three times the market value of the goods.

I agree with Members on the need for adequate penalties. This is why we have further enhanced our penalty framework, following feedback from the public consultation exercise we went through earlier – we will increase the fines and jail terms that can be meted out for individuals who illegally trade in CITES species; as well as penalties for the domestic trade in CITES species, to align with that for international trade. We will also introduce stiffer penalties for corporate offenders who illegally trade CITES species. These are corporations, unincorporated associations or partnerships. In addition, the maximum aggregate fine will be raised across the board, to match the market value of all illegally traded CITES species comprised in the offence, where the market value is higher than the maximum aggregate fines of $500,000 or $1,000,000 for individual and corporate offenders respectively.

We are taking significant steps in raising the penalties from the current Act; While also providing greater clarity to existing penalties, such as specifying that the offender will be fined on the basis of each specimen of the CITES species comprised in the offence.

At the same time, we need to strike the right balance – Ensuring that the penalties meted out are proportionate to the offence; and, consistent with other domestic legislation.

For example, we have proposed higher penalties than that in the Wildlife Act which Mr Yip Hon Weng mentioned, which covers common wildlife, in view that illegal trade in CITES species has a significantly higher impact on the survival of these endangered species in the wild. In addition to pegging the maximum aggregate fine to the market value of the goods, we have also proposed a maximum aggregate fine of $1,000,000 for corporate offenders. This allows the Courts the flexibility to consider other aggravating factors and to impose much heavier penalties in cases where the market value of the goods is low. This cap for the maximum aggregate fine for corporate offenders is proportionate to other serious offences in domestic legislation – For example, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, where corporate offenders may be subject to a fine of $1,000,000, or twice the value of the benefits reaped from offences such as drug dealing.

Moreover, it is not just about consistency with our domestic legislation. More importantly, the ESA also touches on Singapore’s obligations as a CITES Party to combat illegal wildlife trade.

And as cited by Mr Leon Perera, we have indeed benchmarked our proposed penalty framework against neighbouring jurisdictions in the region. [1] I’d like to clarify with Mr Leon Perera that our penalties are not the lowest in the region. With the Bill, our penalties will also be roughly on par with our neighbours. For example, the proposed range of four to eight years for the maximum imprisonment terms for illegal wildlife trade offences is comparable with Malaysia’s maximum imprisonment for such offences, which is up to seven years. It also places Singapore on the middle end of the spectrum regionally. The Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar impose maximum imprisonment terms of up to ten to fifteen years, albeit with significantly much lower monetary fines compared to our framework. Meanwhile, Cambodia’s, Laos’ and Indonesia’s maximum imprisonment terms are up to five years. So, we are not the lowest, compared with our neighbouring jurisdictions. The introduction of differentiated heavier penalties for offences involving CITES Appendix I species is also aligned to jurisdictions such as Brunei, the Philippines, and Hong Kong.

In addition to these enhanced penalties, the Bill will introduce provisions to allow for the seizure and forfeiture of items used to conceal CITES species, as well as conveyances. This will serve to further deter illegal wildlife trade as would-be smugglers would face the prospect of losing their vehicles as well as any additional cargo that was used to commit the offence.

In a nutshell, we are taking steps to significantly raise the penalties. At the same time, we are mindful that the penalties need to be proportionate to the offence and are broadly consistent with our other domestic legislation and comparable with our neighbours.

I would like to assure Members that we will continue to review our penalty framework to ensure that they serve as a sufficient deterrent against illegal wildlife trade.

Members have also pointed out that it would be important to reduce consumer demand of illegally traded CITES species, by targeting buyers. Although buyers of illegally traded CITES species can already be penalised under the Act, Members such as Mr Louis Ng suggested to explicitly include the act of buying as an offence in the Act. This was also a suggestion raised during our public consultation exercise, which we have considered carefully.

Although “buying” is not explicitly set out as an offence in our legislation, as Mr Yip Hon Weng has also pointed out, there are other existing levers that penalise buyers of illegally traded CITES species.

And, NParks has taken enforcement action using these levers. For example, under section 4 of the ESA, any person in possession of a CITES species that has been illegally imported is guilty of an offence. This includes possession of such a species purchased from a seller. Under section 19, any persons who abets the commission of any offence under the ESA is also guilty of an offence. This means that buyers can be penalised for facilitating the sale of illegally traded CITES species, including CITES species that cannot be sold, such as elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns. Over the last five years,[2] NParks has used these provisions to charge eight persons for possession of illegally traded CITES species and three persons for facilitating the sale of such species. I would like to assure Members that NParks will continue to be vigilant on this front and exercise these levers to tackle this issue.

At the same time, we are mindful that there may also be persons who may unsuspecting purchasers of illegally traded CITES species. Most of the general public might not be able to differentiate between CITES species and non-CITES species, much less be able to verify if the species was traded legally. Hence, we aim to tackle this issue upstream. NParks conducts regular checks on businesses and individuals who sell CITES species, to ensure that they have the relevant permits for the species. Just last year, NParks carried out two island-wide operations and seized more than 90 wildlife specimens, including some CITES species, from sellers who had listed them on social media and e-commerce platforms. These online sellers did not have the relevant permits for the CITES species. So I’d like to assure members that we are paying close attention to such illegal trade of such species on online platforms, including e-commerce platforms.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if online sellers would be prosecuted as a business or commercial entity, even if they did not have a business registration. In the case that I just mentioned, based on NParks’ investigations, the online sellers were persons who were keeping the wildlife as pets or breeding them at home for sale. They are individuals with no registered businesses and will be dealt with accordingly under the ESA.

Also, in response to Mr Yip’s comments, I would like to clarify that there are CITES species that can be kept as pets in Singapore, but only with permission and the relevant permits from NParks. Whether CITES species can be kept as pets is based on several factors, including the potential impact to animal and public health, animal welfare, environmental impact, and public safety. NParks regularly reviews the suitability of these wildlife species as pets.

So, apart from regulating the wildlife trade in Singapore, we also regulate the keeping of wildlife as pets, to safeguard animal health and welfare. We also aim to maintain a balanced ecosystem, which can be disrupted when non-native wildlife is illegally abandoned or released into our green and blue spaces. NParks receives tip-offs and monitors online and social media platforms for cases of illegally kept wildlife, and will not hesitate to take strict action.

For example, in 2020, NParks charged an individual for the illegal possession and sale of a boa constrictor, which is listed in CITES Appendix II, on the online messaging service, Telegram. The individual was later fined $1,000. With the amendments proposed in the Bill, these offenders will be subject to stiffer penalties, including a monetary fine of up to $100,000, and a maximum imprisonment term of up to six years, for the sale and advertisement of illegally traded CITES species. This is in addition to our work with enforcement agencies and the industry to ensure that all CITES species are legally traded in Singapore.

Investigation and Enforcement Powers

Our partnerships also play an important role to enhance our measures to combat illegal wildlife trade – Including to bolster our capabilities to effectively tackle new forms of illegal wildlife trade, such as the recent shift of the trade on to online platforms, as Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted.

Let me just touch on this item, as part of our investigation and enforcement regime under the ESA.

Today, NParks works closely with the industry, such as e-commerce platforms and online auction houses, to combat the illegal trade of CITES species online. Mr Yip suggested we hold the digital platforms accountable for removing content advertising and facilitating the sale of illegally traded CITES species. NParks regularly engages these platforms to raise awareness on the impacts of illegal wildlife trade, and educate these stakeholders on how they can contribute to our efforts to prevent the online trade of these products. Thus far, the industry has been cooperative, and committed to prevent the illegal sale of these products on their platforms. Mr Yip referenced the Digital Services Act. The European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on this set of new rules earlier only this year and from what we understand, it has not been formally approved. We will continue to monitor this space.

NParks also works closely with enforcement agencies and international organisations, tapping on their expertise and experience, to complement its capabilities and resources in tracking down illegal wildlife traders online. For example, NParks works with the Singapore Police Force to extract information from digital devices that may be helpful in our investigation. NParks also has a group of well-trained enforcement officers to tackle illegal wildlife trade. These officers are trained in the implementation of CITES provisions, the identification of CITES species, investigative methods, and the use of technology to aid enforcement. Their officers also attend international conferences and workshops, including those organised by INTERPOL on combatting cyber-enabled wildlife crime. So, they keep up with developments in the field, as well as to share best practices.

Mr Louis Ng asked if we could include a reward to incentivise informers to make reports, drawn from fines imposed under the ESA.

I thank Mr Ng for his suggestion. Indeed, NParks will receive tip-offs from time to time to enforce against illegal wildlife trafficking; And that is why we have made amendments to protect the identity of these informers, which may encourage more persons to provide information about such illegal activities.

We are in the midst of exploring the feasibility of a reward programme, to further encourage informers to step forward. We are reviewing the approaches taken by other agencies, such as the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore.

We will continue to explore the implementation of such a programme administratively. Let me also take the chance to clarify on a few points that were raised by Mr Leon Perera, one of which was regarding Bengal cats. Mr Perera may have misinterpreted my earlier speech. Today, the Bengal cat, which is a cross between the wild Asian leopard cat, which is a CITES-listed species, and the domestic cat, does not require traders to produce a permit when trading the species (but this only applies to Bengal cats which have a wild Asian Leopard Cat ancestor in their lineages, from the fifth generation that precedes it). Traders have been cooperative in providing permits for Bengal cats which have a wild Asian Leopard cat ancestor in their lineages, up to four generations that precede it. Moving forward, when the amendments come into force, it will be an explicit requirement for traders to produce a permit for the trade of such Bengal cats in the Act. The second point that Mr Perera also raised was about going beyond the CITES agreements to, for example, have reverse listings, and include the different species that are not currently listed under CITES. Allow me to clarify that CITES is currently the only international agreement under the United Nations framework that regulates the trade of endangered species, and the international body that almost all countries sign up to be a Party to, to enforce regulations for sustainable trade of endangered species. So CITES is the main vehicle in which these rules and regulations are enforced across the world – and the intent of the ESA is to give effect to Singapore’s obligations as a CITES party, and to enforce these rules as a responsible member of the CITES agreement. And on Mr Perera’s point about taking leadership in ASEAN, I’m very glad to share that we are indeed taking leadership as far as we can within the region. For example, earlier in my speech, I had mentioned that we had set up the Centre for Wildlife Forensics, which became a CITES reference laboratory. Earlier this year in March, NParks’ Youth Stewards under the Youth Stewards for Nature programme also organised the World Wildlife Day Regional Youth Symposium, bringing youths from across the region together to discuss these issues, think about solutions and work together as one community. So indeed, we are playing our part in the region and taking our leadership role as well as we can with members in the region. And I welcome all the young people sitting out there to join our programmes as well.

Scope of the ESA

Lastly, on the overall scope of the ESA.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the scope of the ESA could be expanded to include non-CITES species, or streamlined with the Wildlife Act, to regulate all wildlife matters in Singapore.

Today, NParks oversees various Acts which deal with different aspects of animal-related policies. The ESA, regulates the trade of animal and plant species listed under the CITES in Singapore – this primarily tackles the international trade in the species, and affirms our international commitment as a Party to CITES. The Wildlife Act, on the other hand, ensures the protection, preservation and management of Singapore’s wildlife. So, these pieces of legislation have different but complementary functions, and they come together to support our efforts to safeguard animal health and welfare.

It is important that we ensure that we have a strong and robust legislative framework underpinning our efforts to tackle wildlife crime. This is why we continue to review and update our legislation. For example, the Wildlife Act, previously named the Wild Animals and Birds Act, was amended and came into force in June 2020. And, we are now also amending the ESA, to keep pace with the times and ensure that we can continue to effectively combat all forms of illegal wildlife trade in Singapore.

Other Suggestions

Let me now move on to other issues that were raised on tackling illegal wildlife trade beyond the ESA.

To enhance our levers to combat illegal wildlife trade, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Ng asked for illegal wildlife trade to be recognised as a serious organised crime in Singapore. I thank the Members for their suggestions.

The Organised Crime Act (OCA) provides law enforcement agencies powers to act against organised crime, and is focused on criminalising activities that are of greatest concern to Singapore.

I note Mr Louis Ng’s points on the potential threats of illegal wildlife trade to public health, wildlife ecology, and its use in international money laundering. These are valid considerations. I also thank Mr Louis Ng for sharing with us on your position paper that he has put together with academics and NGOs – I have shared that with my fellow colleagues, and we will review and assess these with the relevant agencies.

Beyond legislation and enforcement, we agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that public education and outreach is key in combating illegal wildlife trade, and in safeguarding animal health and welfare in Singapore.

We will continue to engage the community to raise awareness on Singapore’s role on this front – And in turn, reduce demand for illegally sourced wildlife products in Singapore, including those sold on virtual platforms.

For example, we have embarked on webinars and exhibitions to educate the public on the best practices as consumers, such as how they can identify and purchase legal CITES products.

NParks and the World Wide Fund for Nature-Singapore have jointly organised roundtable discussions with the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online, which includes digital platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Lazada and Carousell, to raise awareness on the illegal sale of exotic pets online.

In January this year, they also jointly engaged over 80 representatives from the shipping industry, to share best practices for tackling the illegal trade in wildlife.

Last but not least, NParks involves youths in efforts to tackle illegal wildlife trade as part of its Youth Stewards for Nature programme, which I had mentioned earlier.

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker sir, let me conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support and suggestions, and our partners and stakeholders for their feedback and support in our review of the ESA.

Overall, the amendments will help to strengthen our regulations for the trade of CITES species, and to enhance our penalties and enforcement powers against such illegal trade.

Weeding out illegal trade in CITES-listed species requires the concerted effort of all stakeholders. The fight also goes beyond Singapore and requires strong cooperation at the bilateral, regional and international levels. We will continue to partner with the international community, and with local stakeholders and the community, to combat illegal wildlife trade and safeguard our planet’s natural heritage.

Mr Deputy Speaker sir, I believed I have addressed the questions and suggestions from the members and I beg to move.