Veterinary Practice Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for National Development.

2.11 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Veterinary Practice Bill establishes a new professional regulatory body, the Veterinary Council, to register veterinarians, or vets, and to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in Singapore.

Today, vets in Singapore are licensed under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA). This framework has served us well in safeguarding animal health and welfare, and in protecting human health from animal diseases. However, our vet sector has evolved and matured significantly. Our pet population and demand for vet services have grown. Over the last two decades, the number of licensed vets has increased by more than five-fold. There are close to 700 licensed vets as of end-2025.

The range and sophistication of vet services and treatment have also expanded. In particular, there has been a rise in the number of vet specialists and breadth of vet specialisations available here in Singapore, offering specialised surgical and medical services. Public expectations of professional standards and accountability have also risen.

And against this backdrop, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the National Parks Board (NParks) had signalled the move to establish a Vet Council in 2023 to oversee professional matters for the vet sector. Coupled with a robust professional regulatory framework, this aims to raise professional standards and uphold public confidence in our vet sector.

In drafting this Bill, we conducted extensive consultation with the vet sector, sought views from the public and studied models governing other human healthcare professions in Singapore and those of reputable vet statutory bodies in other jurisdictions, including Australia, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom (UK).

Let me now elaborate on the Bill's key features.

Part 1 lays out the fundamentals of the Bill. Clause 2 defines the practice of veterinary medicine, which comprises the range of professional activities regulated by the Bill. Clause 3 defines who is regarded as a duly qualified vet.

While only vets are required to be registered at the outset, we plan to eventually extend regulation to other veterinary professionals, such as vet nurses who are currently not licensed, with an appropriate transition period to allow the sector to adjust. We will share more details when ready.

Part 2 of the Bill establishes the Vet Council and sets out its functions in Clause 5. This includes registering vets, setting standards for professional conduct and requirements for upskilling and appointing necessary bodies for disciplinary proceedings against the misconduct and negligence of vets.

Clause 4 provides for the Council's composition, which will comprise a mix of public and private sector members. This may include ex officio members, comprising the Director-General for Animal Health and Welfare who is a public officer, and the elected president of the Singapore Veterinary Association or their nominees and the appointed Registrar of the Council. The Registrar will be a public officer or an officer or employee of a public authority. The Council will also comprise at least four other vets and at least two other non-vets. Members will serve a maximum term of three years and may be re-appointed. The Minister for National Development will have powers to appoint and remove members, while taking into account the Council's prevailing operating needs.

Clause 13 empowers the Council to appoint committees, which will advise the Council on nascent issues, such as reviewing the Code of Ethics for Veterinarians to provide up-to-date standards on professional conduct.

Besides providing fair and adequate representation of the vet sector, which was a key feedback we received during our engagements, we also designed this framework to safeguard public interests. It will ensure that professional regulation is grounded in practical experience with appropriate public oversight while addressing emerging issues faced by the sector.

Part 3 of the Bill sets out structured registration and practising certification frameworks for vets. Clauses 17 to 19 provide for the registration of vets under three classes of registration, to better differentiate a vet's foundational qualification, training and practice experience. Clause 24 requires the Registrar to publish on the Council's website, certain particulars of the registered vets. This enables the public to search for and verify a vet's registration status and place of practice.

Let me elaborate on the three classes of vet registration. First, full registration. This is for vets who either hold a prescribed qualification or hold a qualification in veterinary medicine that is not lower in standing than the prescribed qualification and possess the necessary knowledge, skill and experience. The prescribed qualifications mirror the Animal and Veterinary Service's (AVS's) current licensing criteria, which are accredited by well-established accrediting organisations.

The second class is vets with restricted registration. Vets with restricted registration will be subjected to certain restrictions, such as to practise only under the supervision of vets with full registration or in specific establishments. These vets must hold a qualification in veterinary medicine that does not qualify for full registration but has provided them with adequate training. They must also possess the necessary knowledge, skill and experience, and must be selected for employment in establishments recognised by the Council, such as the zoo or research institutes. This allows the Council to address manpower gaps in niche domains of practice, without compromising animal health and welfare or public confidence in the sector.

The third class of registration is specialist registration. This is for vets with full registration who additionally hold an approved postgraduate qualification or have acquired special knowledge, skill and experience in a particular branch of vet medicine. Such vets will be allowed to use specialist titles, such as vet ophthalmologist or vet pathologist.

A full or restricted registration has no expiry but may be cancelled by the Registrar or Council on any relevant grounds set out in clauses 26 and 38, or Part 5 of the Bill. A specialist registration is subject to renewals by the Council.

To ensure vets continually improve and update their knowledge and skills, registered vets must also obtain a practising certificate from the Council to practise veterinary medicine. Vets must regularly renew their practising certificates and fulfil mandatory continuing professional education requirements. These requirements ensure ongoing competency, and are already in place today for AVS-licensed vets. The Council will provide more clarity on these requirements when ready. With these new frameworks, the public can be better informed of a vet's professional standing and competency.

To minimise disruption to the sector and to ensure continuity of vet services, clause 90 will provide an arrangement for all AVS-licensed vets to transit to the new framework seamlessly. Existing vets holding a licence under the ABA will be temporarily deemed to be duly qualified vets. For instance, the majority of existing vets will be placed on full registration as they currently hold a full licence. Existing vets will then need to obtain registration and a practising certificate within a stipulated grace period to continue practising veterinary medicine.

The Bill also ensures that services provided by certain non-vets will not be disrupted. For instance, clause 29 does not prohibit vet nurses from practising veterinary medicine so long as they act under the supervision of a duly qualified vet and in accordance with prescribed conditions, as they do today.

As we have observed a growth in the range of animal-related services offered by non-vets that may pose a risk to animal health and welfare, Part 4 of the Bill will introduce various offences and penalties to safeguard against unlawful practice and misrepresentation by or about unauthorised persons. The Bill will raise the maximum financial penalty to $50,000 – a $4,000 increase compared to the current level of $10,000 provided under the ABA. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister of State for National Development", Official Report, 8 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 28, Correction By Written Statement section.] This strengthens deterrence against profit-driven motives and was benchmarked with penalties applicable in human healthcare professions.

Apart from prohibiting unauthorised persons from practising veterinary medicine or falsely implying that they are vets and qualified to act as a vet, it will also be an offence for other persons, such as business owners and employers, to make false claims that their employee is qualified. The prohibition of the practice of veterinary medicine by unauthorised persons garnered strong support from stakeholders and the public. It also aims to better assure the public that their animals are receiving treatment from duly qualified vets.

Part 5 of the Bill introduces a robust disciplinary framework for vets, which is designed to be proportionate and impartial. Clauses 44 and 45 establish clear thresholds for escalating disciplinary cases brought against registered vets, whereby the Registrar will first triage a case against a registered vet before recommending to the Council on the action to be taken.

The Registrar can recommend dismissing the case if the complaint is frivolous, so vets are not unduly burdened by unmeritorious cases. If there is evidence of physical or mental health issues which impair the vet's fitness to practise, the Registrar can recommend the Council to cancel, suspend or impose conditions or restrictions on the vet's registration with the vet's agreement.

The Registrar may also recommend to the Council to refer the case to various committees, which are the (a) Complaints Assessment Committee to review the conduct of or services provided by the vet; (b) Disciplinary Committee if the vet has been convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty or implying a defect in character; and (c) Interim Orders Committee to review whether to make an interim order against the vet pending inquiry into the case.

This approach ensures proportionality to the issue at hand. Committee Members will be drawn from either a Complaints Panel appointed by the Council or from both the Complaints Panel and the Council. The intent is for a wider pool of experienced vets to be part of the committees to contribute their clinical perspective. A Complaints Assessment Committee must include a layperson, and a Disciplinary Committee must include two laypersons, namely a legal professional and an observer, to represent public interest and ensure accountability. Members involved at earlier stages of a disciplinary case must not sit on a subsequent committee for the same case. These safeguards mitigate potential conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality in reviewing disciplinary proceedings.

I will highlight next, key actions or orders that may be taken by the different committees. For minor complaints, clause 50 allows the Complaints Assessment Committee to recommend referring a case for mediation by an appointed mediator. This is one of the key features which promotes conciliatory mediation and conciliatory resolution. This may be applied to cases involving miscommunication between vets and their clients and allow for both parties to reach a resolution through facilitated dialogue.

For more egregious cases of misconduct or negligence, clause 56 empowers the Disciplinary Committee to take stronger disciplinary action against a vet, including cancelling or suspending a vet's registration or practising certificate, and imposing a penalty of up to $50,000, which is aligned with that for the human healthcare professions.

As these inquiries may take time, clause 66 empowers the Interim Orders Committee to either suspend or impose conditions or restrictions on a vet's registration for a period not exceeding 18 months while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. Cases where such interim orders may be needed include those involving serious or immediate risks to public or animal health. Interim orders allow for swift responses to protect or secure certain interests, while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. Clause 71 provides that interim orders will cease to be in force either at the end of the period specified in the order, when the order is revoked or when disciplinary proceedings conclude.

Clauses 51, 52, 62 and 70 provide a mechanism for appeals against certain decisions of the Council or its committees to be heard. The Minister will hear appeals against the Council's decisions. The General Division of the High Court will hear appeals against the Disciplinary Committee or the Interim Orders Committee's orders.

This disciplinary framework broadly aligns with that for the human healthcare professions and aims to uphold public confidence in the vet sector.

Lastly, Part 6 of the Bill provides powers for the Council to make regulations on qualifications for registration, continuing professional education requirements and professional standards. The Minister's approval must be sought when regulations are made by the Council.

Sir, we will commence the Bill in two stages, starting with establishing the Veterinary Council this year, followed by the remaining provisions of the Bill, including the registration regime and disciplinary framework for vets next year. This will give the sector sufficient time to adapt to the Bill's requirements and to strengthen their processes. We will share more details in due course.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we need highly skilled and professional vets in our evolving pet landscape. This Bill marks an important milestone in the maturation of our vet sector. It will strengthen professional accountability, support better animal health and welfare outcomes and uphold public confidence in the sector. The Vet Council will benefit the veterinary profession, which has provided support for the Bill. It will lead to better treatment outcomes to better safeguard animal health and welfare. It will also benefit the public who can be more assured of the competency and quality of veterinary services, and better veterinary-client relationships. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.

2.28 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. This is a timely and necessary move. As the pet population in Singapore grows and as vet care becomes more complex, it is right that we strengthen professional standards, clarify the scope of regulated vet services and put in place a robust disciplinary framework. I support the direction of the Bill.

At the same time, I would like to raise one central concern on behalf of many pet owners, which is: how do we strengthen professionalism in the sector while ensuring that vet care remains affordable and accessible?

For many Singaporeans, pets are not incidental. They are part of the family. This is especially so in an ageing society, where pets can be an important source of companionship, comfort and emotional support. To many people, their pet is a source of joy, comfort and, sometimes, their daily, closest companion.

So, as we improve standards and professionalise the sector, we must exercise care that the new rules, guidelines and expectations do not unintentionally drive up the cost of care. Put simply, caring for a cat or dog or any pet must not be the preserve of the wealthy.

Sir, I do not say this to pre-judge the work of AVS or the future Vet Council. I support the direction of this Bill. But because affordability matters so much for the ordinary pet owners, it is important we state this concern early and watch implementation carefully.

With that in mind, I would like to make a few suggestions and seek several clarifications.

First, while the Veterinary Council is a useful and necessary institution, its role under the Bill is primarily to regulate professional standards, registration, conduct and discipline. My suggestion, therefore, is that MND and AVS make clear and affordable and accessible animal care be an important part of the policy objective in how this framework is implemented, including the development of standards, codes and requirements over time. In other words, as standards are raised, affordability should not be treated as an afterthought.

Second, I suggest that the Council, or one of its committees, should have a stronger channel for the voice of the animal welfare and pet owner interests. This could be done either through including one or two individuals with strong standing in the animal welfare community, or through a dedicated advisory committee on affordable and accessible animal care. This would help ensure that the system does not only hear from providers but also remain attentive to the lived realities of pet owners.

Third, I would encourage AVS to begin tracking broad trends in the cost of veterinary care and to share this regularly with the Committee and the Council. I am not suggesting anywhere as elaborate as the healthcare sector's fee benchmark or procedure-by-procedure guidelines. But some basic monitoring of care and costs of care would be helpful.

Without data, we will not know whether the improvements in standards are being achieved in a way that remains sustainable for ordinary Singaporeans. And if care rises in the years ahead, we should at least be able to distinguish between whether it is driven by inflation, manpower costs, or more advanced treatment norms, or regulatory and professional requirements.

Fourth, I would like to seek clarification on the disciplinary and appeals framework. I agree that veterinarians must be held accountable for misconduct and negligence, and I support having meaningful powers to act against serious wrongdoing. But we should also ensure that the process do not inadvertently encourage frivolous complaints because that can have real consequences.

If professionals feel constantly exposed to weak but career-threatening complaints, they may respond by practising defensive medicine, over-ordering procedures or face higher professional indemnity costs. And in the end, these costs may be passed to pet owners.

So, I appreciate clarifications from MND on how the framework will guard against misuse while preserving confidence and fairness for complainants. I note that the Bill allows frivolous or misconstrued complaints to be dismissed, and I welcome that. I also welcome the inclusion of mediation. These are sensible features. But it would be helpful to understand whether AVS expects to publish workflows, aggregate data or guidance over time, so that both the public and the professionals can have confidence that the process is balanced, transparent and not easily abused.

Fifth, as the Council develops codes, standards and professional expectations, I hope there will be deliberate attention on practical and tiered care options. In concrete terms, financially stretched pet owners should still be able to receive clear advice upfront on what constitutes a basic, safe and affordable course of treatment, as distinct from more comprehensive or more advanced options.

Likewise, when an animal is gravely ill and recovery is unlikely, owners should not be left without an affordable and dignified path, including euthanasia where appropriate for the animals. Different owners will make different choices and many will want the best and most extensive treatment possible for their animals. That is entirely understandable. But a well-functional system should always and be able to make room for realistic, humane and affordable options.

Sixth, I urge some caution before we expand on the regulatory regime to other veterinary professionals and allied animal-care providers. The intent is clearly well-meaning, and I understand that this may eventually be necessary. But I hope we at least first observe how the establishment of the Veterinary Council affects the sector, especially in terms of manpower, service delivery and cost, before extending regulation more widely.

And finally, I hope that MND and AVS initiate a serious effort to examine the broader cost of caring for animals in Singapore, to ensure that care remains affordable and accessible. These issues may sit outside the four corners of this Bill, but it sits very much within the concerns of pet owners. Many residents, volunteers and animal lovers active within my constituency of Kebun Baru, including myself, would be happy to contribute to such an engagement on affordable and accessible pet care.

Sir, in conclusion, the formation of this Veterinary Council and this Bill is the natural next step in the evolution of veterinary care in Singapore, and I certainly support it. But as we professionalise the sector, let us keep faith with the ordinary pet owners. Let us make sure that the better standards do not come at the cost of accessibility, and affordability remains a central and real consideration in how this new framework is implemented.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

2.35 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, as a proud parent of a fur kid, I relate to the stress faced by pet owners when bringing their pet, often with much resistance, to the vet for medical treatment or check-up. I am sure many pet owners can relate to how they can somehow figure out whether they are being taken to the dog run or being taken to the vet for medical appointment.

However, no matter how anxious or rebellious the patient may be, it is the patience, skill and professionalism of our veterinary core that often place both the patient and its owner at ease.

In Singapore, demand for veterinary services is booming, owing to the rise in pet ownership and how pets are now often regarded as a member of the family, and not just a pet per se.

The Bill introduces a new three-tiered registration framework for veterinarians based on one's qualifications, namely full, restricted and specialist. Establishing the Veterinary Council as industry's professional body is therefore instrumental towards upholding the high standards expected of the profession, and a move I strongly support. Nonetheless, this Bill arrives against a backdrop of stretched veterinary manpower, mounting public concerns about care costs and an overall pet care ecosystem that still has significant gaps. Allow me to touch on these topics in turn in my speech.

In addition to regulating the veterinary industry, I hope that the Council would strengthen the pipeline of registered veterinarians to ease Singapore's shortage of veterinary professionals. According to the Singapore Veterinary Association, there are approximately 898 pets per vet as of 2022.

Currently, there is no university course in veterinary science available locally. While Ngee Ann and Temasek Polytechnics offer vet-related diplomas, they do not provide students with the pre-requisite qualifications to become a full-fledged licensed veterinarian. To apply for a licence to treat birds and animals under the present system, one must study overseas at a veterinary school recognised either by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons or the Australasian Veterinary Board's Council.

If they hold a veterinary degree from a non-recognised university, they could also sit for and pass either the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Examination, the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination or the Australasian Veterinary Examination. This is a costly pathway, only open to those who have the means to do so or are awarded a scholarship, discriminating against many potential veterinarians with the love and passion for helping animals from pursuing such a novel profession.

In February 2026, a Parliamentary Question was posed to the Minister for Education on whether the Ministry will work with autonomous universities to introduce a locally-offered veterinary degree in view of growing demand and reliance on overseas trained vets. The reply was that the Ministry of Education (MOE) will continue to work with the autonomous universities and sector agencies, such as MND and NParks to monitor and assess how best to meet Singapore's long-term veterinary manpower needs.

I find the answer to be quite inadequate. I understand the arguments that Singapore's small land area means limited farm animal populations, and that there may not be sufficient scale to justify the opening up of a new programme. But the question is not whether the current supply is sufficient, which increasingly appears to be insufficient, but whether the pipeline is resilient. A profession whose entire intake depends on Singaporeans willing to bear the cost and disruption of overseas education with no guarantee of returning, is a profession with a structurally fragile supply chain.

Moreover, we can always start with a partnership model. For starters, I am reminded of the double degree programme offered by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in biomedical sciences and Chinese medicine with Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, which began in 2005. Today, NTU is launching its own four-year Bachelor of Chinese Medicine degree, which enrolled its first class of 25 students in August 2024, with plans to go up to 40 eventually.

I believe this is a model which we can replicate for our own veterinary degree. Will the Government be keen to introduce a locally offered veterinary degree, in addition to strengthening the supplies of veterinarians, which is crucial in addressing the manpower gap? I hope that the Council can look into plugging the brain drain faced by the industry.

As of September 2025, Singapore had approximately 674 licensed veterinarians, rising to around 700 by end-2025. This is up nearly six-fold, from just 122 in 2006. Demand for vet services have been rising alongside the rising incidents of pet ownership, yet every single vet in Singapore has been trained entirely abroad. Amongst the Singaporean veterinary students that study overseas, which comprise an overwhelming majority, only 50% or less choose to return home to practice, as many prefer to work in Australia or the UK, where opportunities abound, with perhaps better work life balance.

A study conducted by James Cook University and the Singapore Veterinary Association highlights that veterinary professionals are four to nine times more likely to experience depression, anxiety and stress compared to their human healthcare counterparts. Improving our local talent pipeline would therefore help plug the brain drain within the industry by spreading out the workload more sustainably, thus reducing the likelihood of burn-out.

Another issue faced by the industry is the lack of career progression, especially amongst veterinary paraprofessionals, such as nurses and technicians. When combined with burn-out and wages in commensurate with their less-than-ideal working conditions, it has resulted in a high attrition rate and manpower shortage. According to the Singapore Veterinary Association, only 20% of veterinary nursing graduates remain in the industry after five years, as of 2022, with many of them viewing this profession as unviable.

With plans to regulate veterinary nurses and technicians in works, I hope that the Council can develop structured opportunities for career progression and specialisation, thus boosting their wages and job prospects.

Furthermore, while clause 4(3) of the Bill specifies that the Council should minimally comprise of four fully-registered veterinarians and two laypeople, there is no explicit requirement for our veterinary paraprofessionals to be represented. Given their invaluable contributions to the industry, paraprofessionals should also have a seat at the table, thus providing an avenue for the concerns to be heard.

Mr Speaker, reforms to the vet sector should also protect consumers' interests. Big conglomerates and private equity firms have recently been heavily investing and acquiring pet care chains and veterinary practices. In fact, although dogs are allergic to chocolate, the Mars Corporation is ironically one of the biggest players in the veterinary scene. While such clinics benefit from a flush of capital, veterinarians might have to keep a closer eye on their bottom lines and the demands of upper management, instead of their patients.

Some years ago, our family adopted a dog from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). We named him Yellow. It was uncommon to find what appeared to be a purebred dog put up for adoption, but Yellow had physical deformities that required consistent and ongoing medical attention. Towards the end of his life, the cost of managing his condition was not far from what one might expect to pay for a human specialist. He was family and we wanted to do everything we could to ease his suffering.

But I am acutely aware that not every family is in the same position. For some, the cost of treatment is simply prohibitive and the cruellest irony of all is that euthanasia, the most unbearable option, may also be the cheapest one.

During the consultation process of the Bill, some respondents have also raised the issue of high veterinary fees and a lack of transparency. Although regulating clinic fees is beyond the remit of the Council, I believe that there is space for the Council to act in the interest of consumer protection and to prevent runaway healthcare cost in the veterinary scene.

It will be instructive of us to study the approach taken by other jurisdictions. For instance, the UK recently started mandating veterinary clinics to publicly disclose their practice ownership structure and introduce price lists for common procedures to boost transparency for consumers.

I do hope the Ministry and the Council can consider regularly publishing hospital bills and fee benchmarks, similar to how the Ministry of Health has done so, or even fee guidelines for starters.

Finally, I return to the concern I have raised previously about pet groomers. Beyond veterinary professionals, there are others within the wider animal care ecosystem that play a key role in ensuring the health and well-being of animals, such as pet groomers and trainers. This Bill creates full professional registration, practising certificates, continuing education requirements and a multi-tiered disciplinary framework for veterinarians, like pet groomers who handle animals daily and the number of whom have been linked to dozens of investigated welfare incidents, and who, in some cases, have been responsible for animal deaths, remain largely unregulated.

A Parliamentary reply this year revealed that NParks investigated 54 cases of harm to animals involving pet groomers over the past three years. Following questions raised in this House, MND indicated in January 2026 that the ABA review would consider whether to include the requirements for closed circuit television recordings.

There have also been cases of mishandling involving dog trainers. For instance, two employees of a dog-training firm were suspended in 2024 for physically harming two dogs under their care in preparation for a photo opportunity.

Currently, pet groomers and trainers are simply required to adhere to the Code of Animal Welfare, a set of minimum standards and best practices regarding certain aspects of animal care, such as housing, feeding and transport.

Back in September 2024, I asked a Parliamentary Question about whether there are plans to implement licensing requirements for pet groomers in the manner similar to pet breeders and boarders. I understand the Government is currently reviewing the Code of Animal Welfare with a focus on groomers as well as introducing a new chapter for dog trainers. However, the aforementioned instances of negligence by pet groomers and trainers highlight the need for a tighter enforcement regime for this group of professionals in addition to revising the penalties for animal cruelty and failure to fulfil duty of care to ensure that practitioners actually adhere to professional standards.

Mr Speaker, to care for animals is a labour of love. I support the passage of this Bill but there is more we can do to develop a fully functional animal health and welfare ecosystem.

I hope we can do more by strengthening the pipeline of veterinary professionals, plugging the brain drain faced by the industry, recognising the contributions of our veterinary professionals, enhancing consumer protection measures within the industry, and tightening the enforcement regime for pet groomers and trainers. This will nurture a driving animal care ecosystem that is centred around the health and welfare of its patients, whether it is domesticated pets, community animals or the wildlife in our garden city.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.

2.46 pm

Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Veterinary Practice Bill. This is a milestone for our veterinary community, a profession that has grown from just over 100 practitioners two decades ago to about 700 today. The industry is still ripe for greater growth. Pet ownership continues to rise and Singaporeans are more sensitive to the care of their furry companions. Many neighbouring countries already have robust regulations for the veterinary industry, and it is opportune for Singapore to join the conversation.

As we move towards a more sophisticated regulatory landscape, we must ensure this Bill has the "claws and teeth" to protect not only the animals and their guardians, but also the dedicated professionals who serve and save them.

I wish to raise three areas of clarifications for consideration.

First, the introduction of a specialist register is a welcome move, strengthening the trust and quality of advanced veterinary services. We would not expect a general practitioner (GP) to perform complex orthopaedic, eye or soft tissue surgery on a human without a residency period and proper specialisation. But these are common surgeries that general licensed vets do in Singapore. This blurred distinction between specialised and non-specialised treatment in the current "GP-heavy" veterinary landscape creates a need for deeper regulation.

However, we must ask if the proposed three-tiered system is sufficiently robust. Specifically, clause 16 defines a specialist tier broadly and gives the Council greater statutory discretion to determine someone's place in this tier. There were concerns raised that the broadness of this tier cannot effectively motivate veterinary pursuits at the highest level.

In contrast, the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists stipulates a highly stratified professional qualification framework that informs their registration, including four tiers distinguishing general practitioners, members, fellows and finally, registered specialists.

The highest tier of registered specialist requires both a post-doctoral degree and years of clinical experience. This is similar to the residency system in human healthcare medicine. Moreover, there is a wide variety of postdoctoral degrees offered to prospective students, allowing them to upskill at the correct level of expertise and knowledge.

Similarly, the UK distinguishes between general practitioners, advanced practitioners and board-certified specialists. Advanced practitioners have postdoctoral degrees and practical experience but still might not meet the threshold to be considered board-certified specialists who receive residency training similar to human medicine, contribute to published research and are active in the specialty.

Contrast this with our three-tier system, which groups all levels of postgraduate expertise under a single "specialist" banner. This may risk the specialist tier being too blunt and not useful to consumers as a mark of trust and quality.

Many vets in Singapore studied in Australia and the UK. They are already familiar with more detailed tiered systems. So, it is not surprising that we have received feedback that the proposed tiers could be more robust, especially in the specialist class.

First, will the Ministry substantiate the specific requirements for the specialist tier in the subsidiary legislation? Second, if we are to stick with these three tiers, how does this safeguard the public interest as effectively as more granular international models? Third, to complement the Bill and encourage more stringent and continuous education requirements, will the Ministry consider providing support and grants to vet professionals for continuing education?

Second, another clarification desired on the ground is how will we protect our vets against death by process in possibly dealing with a "double penalty" of having to simultaneously defend a claim in the civil courts and a Vet Council inquiry, for the same set of facts.

I understand that both processes serve a different purpose. The civil courts serve to compensate for damages, and the Vet Council serves to discipline malpractice. However, vets who are likely to operate in smaller clinics would not have the resources to address two parallel processes. A single case could be a death sentence for the business, even if they are eventually cleared.

For example, under clause 56 of the Bill, an Interim Order can suspend a vet for up to 18 months while investigations proceed. This is a staggering timeframe to disrupt a person's livelihood.

Accountability is important, but it must be balanced with trust in our professionals. Otherwise, we risk increasing consumer costs from defensive medicine or deterring passionate people from taking up this specialised career.

To avoid disproportionate "punishment by process", can the Minister of State elaborate first, how does the Government balance the potential proceedings vets may face? Will there be guidelines to limit the amount of investigation time? If there are concurrent proceedings, can civil cases be put on hold until findings from the Vet Council have been released?

Lastly, we must talk about the "abuse gap." In the UK and Australia, the British and Australian Veterinary Associations have reported a surge in "cyberbullying" and physical intimidation by pet owners. In Singapore, vets often face "de minimis" claims – small, repetitive legal threats – that constitute a form of harassment.

The Government has done a great job since COVID-19 to prevent and protect our healthcare workers from harassment and abuse. We can do the same for our vets.

In the UK, this protection is extended to vets under the Respect Your Vet Team initiative. Furthermore, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which is the UK's equivalent of a Veterinary Council, provides additional support to vets that makes them more than just a regulatory and disciplinary body.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons provides a hotline for vets to discuss grey area issues, support vets through difficult disputes and, in recent years, have launched numerous initiatives to champion the mental well-being for vets. One such initiative is the ProfCon Investigation Support that provides Confidential Peer Support for those under investigation and their flagship Mind Matters Initiative that provides workshops to promote mental well-being and mental health in the industry.

This is a small industry with high attrition rates. Vets tend to have lower comparative pay despite years of specialised study, while managing compassion fatigue and abuse. This is slated to worsen if individuals spend more time and money to upskill as specialists, but continue to receive similar pay and working conditions. This shortage, in turn, transfers to the consumers, as a fall in the supply of vet services results in higher costs and fewer choices.

Will the Ministry consider extending the "Industry Abuse Protections" to veterinarians under the Vet Council, similar to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK, to provide them with better occupational support? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this Bill represents an important milestone for our veterinary industry. As more Singaporeans keep pets and pay greater attention to pet care, the veterinary industry is expected to continue flourishing.

Establishing a new registration system for veterinary specialists will help enhance public trust and quality in advanced veterinary services.

We would not expect a GP to perform complex specialist surgery on humans. Similarly, in the veterinary system, the blurred boundaries between specialist and non-specialist treatment make more comprehensive regulatory mechanisms necessary.

The Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists has established a four-tiered professional qualification framework. Many of our vets have trained in Australia and the UK and are familiar with such tiered systems. Therefore, we have received feedback suggesting that the proposed tiered system, particularly in the specialist category, still has room for improvement.

For this reason, I would like to ask the Minister:

First, will the Minister further clarify the specific requirements for the specialist veterinary category in subsidiary legislation? Second, if we maintain the current three-tiered system, how can we ensure it will be as effective in safeguarding public interest? Third, to complement the Bill and encourage more stringent and continuous professional development, will the Government consider providing training support and grants for vets?

The veterinary industry has a small community but high attrition rates. Practitioners typically require years of specialised study yet face relatively low remuneration, whilst also dealing with emotional fatigue and harassment. If practitioners need to invest more time and money to advance as specialist veterinarians, but remuneration and working conditions remain unchanged, this situation may further deteriorate. The cost of manpower shortage will ultimately be passed on to consumers, as fewer veterinarians mean not only higher costs but also reduced choices.

Therefore, I would also like to ask the Minister whether consideration will be given to providing veterinarians with "Industry Abuse Protections" similar to those established by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK, to strengthen occupational safeguards for veterinary practitioners?

In Nee Soon South, I know some residents who work as veterinarians. They not only care for pets but also help pet owners with compassion. They tell me that when they encounter situations where owners cannot afford medical bills and are forced to surrender their pets, they continue treating these animals and find new homes for them.

The Veterinary Council has the potential to elevate this industry to the next level, but without clear definition of the specialist system or support for practitioners, it would be futile. Therefore, I look forward to seeing a Council that can raise industry standards without dampening practitioners' enthusiasm.

(In English): Mr Speaker, vets do more than care for our animal companions. They are the first line of defence for zoonotic diseases and public health. In Nee Soon South, I have residents who are also vets and they go the extra mile. They share with me they help pet owners who cannot afford veterinary healthcare bills and end up surrendering their pets – the vets continue to treat the animals and even rehome them to another family.

The Vet Council has the potential to help grow this booming industry. But a lack of specialist clarity or support for our vets can threaten the initiative's potential. We want a Council that elevates standards without crushing the spirits of those who practice. These clarifications aside, I stand in support of the Bill.

2.59 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.59 pm until 3.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Veterinary Practice Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Muhaimin Malik.

3.20 pm

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Sir, as a parent to two cats, I understand first-hand the importance of having qualified, trustworthy veterinary professionals caring for our animals.

The establishment of the Veterinary Council, the creation of proper registration framework and the introduction of disciplinary proceedings are long overdue.

There are currently over 690 licensed veterinarians which has increased almost five-and-a-half-folds since 2006, serving an ever-growing population of pet owners who rightly expect professional, accountable care for their animals.

This Bill provides the legal architecture to meet those expectations.

While I support this Bill, my concern lies with what happens when it is enacted. Specifically, I wish to address three areas: public awareness of the new framework, the resourcing of enforcement and the position of experienced but unlicensed animal caregivers.

Sir, clause 24 of the Bill requires the Registrar to publish on the Council's website the names, practice details, qualifications and registration dates of all duly qualified veterinarians. This is a commendable transparency provision.

For the first time, pet owners will have a single authoritative register to verify that the person treating their animal is properly qualified. But a register is only useful if people know it exists and know how to use it. The Bill creates new legal categories that will be unfamiliar to most Singaporeans.

A duly qualified veterinarian is defined in clause 3 as a registered veterinarian with a valid practising certificate, excluding those whose registration or certificate is suspended.

There are three tiers of registration: full, restricted and specialist. Each carries different conditions and scope of practice.

Pet owners will need to understand what these distinctions mean in practical terms, for example, that a veterinarian with restricted registration may only practise at specific establishments or under supervision.

The Bill also creates new offences. Under clause 29, it is illegal for an unqualified individual to practise veterinary medicine. Under clause 30 to 33, it is an offence to falsely represent oneself or another as a qualified veterinarian. But these protections are only effective if pet owners know that unqualified practice is now a criminal offence and know how to report suspected violations.

I would ask the Minister of State two questions.

First, beyond the standard communications, will the Government work with veterinary clinics, pet businesses and community organisations to bring awareness directly to the point of service? For instance, through mandatory display of registration status at clinics, or through pet licensing touchpoints, where owners already interact with AVS.

Second, will the Government ensure that complaint channels are not only available, but prominently publicised so that the offence provisions under clauses 29 to 33 have real deterrent effect? The consumer protection promise of this Bill depends not just on public education, but on the right kind of public education, one that reaches pet owners at the point of service and empowers them to use the tools this Bill provides.

Sir, the Bill creates a robust enforcement toolkit. Clause 29(6) makes unqualified practice an offence punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 12 months. Clauses 30 to 33, criminalise false representation. Clause 79 empowers the appointment of investigators, and clause 73 sets out their powers to conduct investigations. Clause 83 allows the composition of offences, that is, settling matters out of court with a fine. Clause 85 confers jurisdiction on magistrates' courts and district courts.

These are strong provisions, but provisions on paper do not enforce themselves. The Bill does not specify who will carry out enforcement on the ground. AVS under NParks will presumably continue in its existing regulatory role over veterinary clinics and animal related businesses. But the new framework adds substantial responsibilities. Investigating complaints of unqualified practice, supporting the Veterinary Council's disciplinary machinery, monitoring compliance with registration conditions and continue education requirements, and building institutional expertise in a regulatory function that has not previously existed at this scale.

I will ask the Minister of State four questions.

First, what additional enforcement resources does the Government intend to allocate to support the implementation of this Bill?

Second, will there be a dedicated enforcement unit, or will these functions be absorbed into AVS' existing operations?

Third, how many investigators does the Government anticipate appointing in the initial years?

And fourth, will enforcement capacity be progressively scaled up as the framework matures and eventually extend to cover veterinary nurses?

Sir, lastly, I wish to raise a matter that is sensitive, but important: the position of experienced individuals in our community who care for animals, but do not hold veterinary qualifications.

Singapore has a dedicated community of animal caregivers. They include wildlife rehabilitators who nurse injured birds and monitor otters. They include community animal feeders who look after stray and community cats, sometimes treating minor wounds or administrating basic medication. They include shelter workers and volunteers at animal welfare organisations, who provide day-to-day care and first response for animals in distress. Many of these individuals have developed significant practical knowledge over years, even decades of hands-on experience. They perform an invaluable service for animal welfare in Singapore – often without compensation and at their own expense.

The Bill's definition of the practice of veterinary medicine in clause 2 is broad. It covers diagnosis of disease or injury, medical treatment, the administration of anaesthetics, drug prescription and the issuance of professional certificates.

Under clause 29(1), it is an offence for anyone who is not a duly qualified veterinarian to practise veterinary services. Some of the activities currently performed by community animal caregivers could, on a broad reading, fall within this definition.

I note that the Bill does provide an important exception. Clause 29(5) allows non-veterinarians to perform certain acts within the practice of veterinary medicine, provided these acts are not excluded acts and are performed under the supervision of a duly qualified veterinarian and in accordance with prescribed conditions.

The excluded acts defined in clause 29(7), which include diagnosis, surgery, drug prescription and the issuance of professional certificates are strictly reserved for veterinarians. This is appropriate and I do not have any qualms with it. However, the practical boundaries of this exception remain unclear.

What constitutes supervision in the context of community animal care, where there is typically no veterinarian on site?

What are the prescribed conditions that will govern this exception?

Can a community caregiver clean and dress wound on a community cat without breaching the law?

Can a wildlife rehabilitator administer oral rehydration to an injured bird?

These are not hypothetical questions. They describe activities that take place every day in Singapore. The answers will depend on the regulations that are eventually prescribed under this Bill.

I ask the Minister of State four questions.

First, will the Government engage the animal welfare organisations and community caregivers in developing the subsidiary regulations under this Bill?

Second, will there be a transition period during which enforcement action is not taken against bona fide community caregivers performing basic first aid?

Third, does the Government intend to exercise the exemption power under clause 86 to provide the specific carve-outs for community animal welfare activities?

And fourth, will the Government consider developing clear, practical guidelines, distinct from the regulations themselves that explain in plain language what community caregivers can and cannot do under the new framework?

The community animal care sector in Singapore operates largely on goodwill, compassion and volunteer effort. We should regulate to protect animals, not inadvertently criminalise the very people who have been protecting them.

Sir, as a cat parent, I want to know that the professionals caring for my animals are qualified, accountable and held to high standards. This Bill promises to deliver on that assurance. But assurance on paper must translate to confidence in practice. Pet owners must be empowered to use the register and recognise unqualified practice. Enforcement must be resourced to match the ambition of this framework and the community caregivers who have been looking after Singapore's animals long before this Bill, the volunteers who feed the community cats, nurse injured wildlife and staff our shelters must not find themselves on the wrong side of a law meant to protect the very animals they serve.

Notwithstanding my queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

3.31 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking in support of the Veterinary Practice Bill.

NParks noted during public consultations that Singapore has over 690 licensed veterinarians in October 2025. This is five and a half times more than the number in 2006. This shows that the sector has grown in size, scope and complexity since then.

As pet ownership rises, the range of treatments also expands. Our laws must keep pace and this is exactly what this Bill is trying to do, by ensuring that there is qualified care given. This Bill matters because public concerns about animal welfare and accountability have sharpened over the years, including after high-profile incidents in the wider animal care ecosystem.

But beyond individual incidents, I observe a deeper shift that is taking place in this country. As Singapore progresses beyond our first 60 years, our sense of compassion is also broadening. More people do not just only care about themselves and also just human outcomes, but they also care about the welfare of animals around them. And I see this in every single day settings.

In Clementi for instance, some residents are deeply committed to caring for community cats' well-being. In October 2025, I organised a convening between Clementi residents, NParks, AVS and Town Councils where views were actively and passionately aired about how animal welfare can be better safeguarded.

Their concerns are not abstract. They speak from daily caregiving experience, they want to see these animals live well, cared for and a system that responds more compassionately and effectively. What stood out to me was that the residents were not asking for more rules. They were asking for clearer processes, greater empathy and a stronger confidence that the relevant systems would work well when for the animal welfare's concern.

It is against this backdrop, I support the Bill because it entails guardrails for animal welfare by ensuring baseline through having needing prescribed qualifications for veterinarians. However, I have three broad concerns, and I hope the Government can address.

First, it is about the accessibility and talent pipeline for the veterinarian profession. When I speak to young people about their aspirations, their responses are highly diverse. Some want to be lawyers, some want to be doctors, some want to be pilots. But there are also some that tell me that I want to be a vet when I grow older, and this is also reflected in my recent Clementi Community Run, where a youth shared with me when she was much younger, she aspired to be an animal doctor then.

But this particular aspiration usually comes from something simple. When I ask why, this aspiration is shaped by their lived experience. A visit to the zoo, caring for a pet at home or even just wandering around our neighbourhood shops, looking at the pet shops. You see, it is my belief that in Singapore we must be able to tell every single child that their aspirations can be realised and is not a function of their family income.

While I appreciate this Bill providing greater clarity on the qualification and registration framework for those who want to practise as veterinarians in Singapore, I would like to invite you now to join me on a journey to realise what does it take to realise this aspiration. To be fair, the landscape has improved, because before 2018, the only way that you can pursue the relevant qualification to become a veterinarian, was to do this overseas.

Today, the National University of Singapore's (NUS') Life Science's concurrent programme with the University of Melbourne, Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine, or known as DVM, is a pathway to be able to get such qualification. However, it is relatively costly in terms of time, commitment and also finances.

First, you need to first spend five regular semesters in NUS, then following a year in Melbourne to read the first year of DVM, continued with three more years as a full-time international student in Melbourne to complete this DVM. The University of Melbourne's international tuition fee for DVM is nearly A$86,000 per year as of 2026. This means a student would typically have to pay $300,000 or more in tuition fees to be able to complete this concurrent degree programme. There are also other hidden costs as well, such as accommodation, transportation and daily necessities.

So, while this is a good thing that we have at least a local-linked pathway, the financial barriers are real. I say this not as a criticism of this Bill, because after all, this is not a higher education Bill. But once Parliament puts a stronger statutory framework for this particular profession, then I think it is reasonable that we ask whether we can enhance our talent development strategy in this particular sector.

I therefore ask MND, NParks and also MOE, and as well as our institutes of higher learning (IHLs), whether we can study how to be more deliberate to reduce the financial barriers before enrolling into such programmes. This could take the form of these few things: a bonded scholarship, bursary, enhanced study grants, structured sponsorship for Singaporeans prepared to serve in the sector after graduation.

If deeper institution partnership is explored over time, perhaps the Government and our IHLs can also study what are the ways to moderate cost burden for students on such concurrent programme pathways, so the overseas component does not become a decisive barrier. For example, can they still pay local school fees while studying abroad, because this is quite similar to students when they go overseas for exchange.

I note positively there are existing schemes. Let me share some. NParks' Study Grants Programme supports Singapore Citizens pursuing a full-time veterinary programme in an accredited overseas university, and also NParks-Peter Lim Scholarship explicitly supports less privileged youths pursuing careers in the veterinary and animal science sector.

This, in my view, are good moves. But my question is, are they enough, relative to the cost and the length of the pathways and whether there could be more upstream support needed so that talent is not simply lost because this route is too expensive. NParks itself has said that pet ownership is on the rise and Singapore's veterinary sector is expanding to meet this growing demand for high quality animal care. At the same time, Singaporeans' households are keeping pets. Expectation of care have also risen. In fact, I also do know of a number of Clementi residents that recently just did a career switch to go into the animal care industry.

So, when we talk about building pipeline to this profession, we are not planning for a shrinking sector, because the demand looks to me like it is likely going to continue rising. Against this backdrop, I also wonder whether we should consider a full local DVM programme hosted by one of our autonomous universities, as well as maybe degree partnership, where we have more locally delivered components for our current local foreign veterinary programme offerings, stronger clinical placement arrangement.

More broadly, I want to be able to look at every single child in Singapore and say that your aspiration matters. We have the pathways and structures to enable you to realise your aspiration and your aspiration is not a function of your family's income.

I recognise that the points that I have raised cut across the purview of several Ministries, MOE, the Ministry of Manpower, and it does not strictly fall under the purview of MND. But in the spirit of a whole-of-Government collaboration and since this Bill established a legal framework that defines who can practise as a vet, then the broader question is, how do we develop pipeline into this profession should also be considered.

I kid you not – I hesitated for a while and I asked myself whether should I even raise this, because what I have just raised goes beyond the strict four corners of the Bill. But I chose to do so because I believe Singapore must be a place where passion is made possible and not quietly limited by cost constraints.

Second, I hope the Ministry can also focus on developing wider talent pipeline for veterinary and animal care ecosystem broadly. This is because a strong animal care sector does not only run on veterinarians. It also requires veterinary technicians, nurses, animal care workers and other support roles. In this regard, Temasek Polytechnic already offers a diploma in veterinary technology and Singapore Food Agency's sector career page lists that this particular diploma, it is a full-time pathway into a broader agrifood and animal care space.

However, at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) level, I realise that the publicly visible offering seems to be shorter courses or part-time animal care and grooming programmes, such as basic aquatic animal care, with a course duration of seven hours, and a certificate of competency in dog care and grooming with a duration of 14 hours.

As it stands today, I am really not sure whether there are fuller ITE pathways relevant to veterinary or animal care work. It would be helpful for the Ministry to be able to clarify this.

If the response is no or not yet, then I hope the Government will consider more structured pathways to be developed over time, especially since NParks have already said in the longer term, the Veterinary Council will also regulate veterinary nurses, which will play an important role in supporting animal care. This matters because a good system allows people with different strengths, academic profiles and financial starting points to contribute meaningfully. Not everyone will become a vet, but many can still play a part in this high-quality animal care ecosystem if we build proper pathways there.

My third point concerns public assurance, governance and how this framework will work in practice. I spoke at length about pathways; now let me move to clause 18, which introduces a category known as restricted registration for individuals who may not hold qualification from prescribed universities, but they demonstrate necessary training, knowledge, skills and experience. For pet owners and animal lovers, this clarity of this area is important because the Council is expected to also provide more details at a later point, clear public communication on what this restricted registration allows or does not allow to do matters, because it gives pet owners that level of security to know who is giving their pet care and what can they do.

I also support the composition of the Veterinary Council, which include experienced veterinarians and laypersons. However, I would like to have a little bit more elaboration on what exactly are the expertise are we looking at for the layperson? What are they expected to bring to the table? What are the broad considerations that will guide their selection?

I would also appreciate some clarification on the requirement to have at least a fully registered vet on the Council, because it says that it must have at least 10 years of experience as a vet. Does this mean continuous practice or cumulative practice over time? And what reference point does experience starts counting from? Why do I ask? Because some vets or some animal doctors might take a career break at some point and return. The moment that they return and when they have first started, do we look at these years as part of the 10 years of experience as a vet?

On disciplinary matters, I welcome the Bill because it provides a more developed framework for complaints assessment, disciplinary committees, interim orders, investigation, appeals and penalties. NParks has said that this framework has developed with reference from professional regimes in healthcare and the built environment, as well as overseas veterinary statutory boards. This is reassuring, especially because the Bill itself says that for unauthorised practice and related misconduct also carry significant penalties of a $50,000 fine and/or up to 12 months of imprisonment. However, I would like to clarify how the MND arrived at this, and what benchmark were they using to determine this? At the end of the day, we want to be able to ensure that the cost of committing a crime is high enough that it will deter others from doing it.

More broadly, I would also like to understand how the appeals framework will operate in practice. For example, if a certain appeal is routed to the Minister, or where decisions are made across different stages that involves the same bodies, there may be questions about how independent and clearly separated the processes are perceived to be. In a professional regulatory system, it is not only just actual fairness that matters, but is also perceived neutrality. So, it would be helpful if the Ministry could clarify how the framework has been designed to ensure that confidence can be maintained on both fronts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, this Bill plays an important step in building a stronger and a more credible veterinary profession in Singapore. It gives pet owners greater assurance, gives the profession clearer legal footing and gives the public stronger grounds on what standards to expect.

But the job does not end with regulation alone. We should also make pathways into this profession more accessible, make standards clearer for the public and build a system done well in preventing potential harm to our pets and our animals.

If we get this right, then I will be also able to say to a young Singaporean that if your dream, your aspiration is to be an animal doctor, there are clear pathways and structures for you to get there; and for you to achieve this aspiration, it is never a function of your family's income.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

3.46 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, when I was a little boy, like so many children, I wanted a pet dog. Growing up with asthma, however, the doctors advised against it. Yet, my family, especially my mother, loved animals. And when I went abroad to study, Mom seized the opportunity to adopt a miniature schnauzer. She named her Carmel.

Unfortunately, in 2018, Carmel suffered a heart attack. At the time, we did not have a car, but lived about a half kilometre away from an animal hospital. I vividly recall carrying her trembling body and the two of us running in our flip-flops to the facility. Sadly, we were too late. And despite the best efforts of the vet there, we lost Carmel.

My mother went into mourning for a month. For those of us that have loved and lost pets, you would understand how that feels. They are not just an animal. They are part of the family. Mom would have spared no expense to save her beloved Carmel, even if she had been informed in advance that the chances were slim.

In that instance, we had little reason to believe that the veterinary team was not trying their best to save our pet, and I am sure this is the case for almost all cases handled by animal professionals. But complications rise whenever an animal dies. In cases like these, the grieving family may seek an outlet for blame, whether justified or not. Sometimes, the vet may indeed have been negligent. Other times, they, as humans, may have made inadvertent errors. Yet, other times, they may have done everything possible, but the interventions were simply ineffective.

This is why I support the formation of the Veterinary Council, the principal focus of Part 2 of the Bill. The Council appears similar to other professional bodies of this nature, such as the Medical Council, Law Society or Board of Architects, and will go some way toward adjudicating cases that fall into the grey areas. This task currently falls to the AVA. However, I believe that most would agree that adjudication over sophisticated technical judgements is best undertaken by a jury of like-minded, comparably-skilled peers.

While the AVA can, and currently does, credibly perform this role, it will always be a continuous challenge to resource this capacity, rather than to decentralise the regulatory process to other expert voices, such as the Council.

There are, of course, residual concerns, typical of all such self-regulatory settings, that such a body may choose to protect their own. And even in the absence of explicit bias, the similarity of background and training may predispose such veterinarians to groupthink, imparting an implicit bias that would be more forgiving of otherwise unforgivable errors and mistakes.

There is no perfect solution to this, other than to point out that there are actually well understood mechanisms to mitigate such a risk. Common strategies include providing an alternative channel of appeal or an escalation mechanism, should the first decision be deemed unsatisfactory.

I believe the Bill provides as a standard for this Government's legislative approach for recourse via appeal to the Minister. I would be interested to know if there are any plans for a second-tier peer review for Veterinary Council decisions prior to such appeal. Might the Interim Orders Committee, detailed in clause 68, be such a body seeing that they are vested with the authority to revoke, vary or replace orders.

Another safeguard, which is currently implicit in the Bill, is to ensure that not just the supply, but also the demand side of the equation is being represented on the Council. According to NParks, the public consultation accompanying the Bill did raise suggestions for broader representation. Clause 4(3B) does stipulate that two individuals should be laypersons, but it is unclear how informed these members would be about consumer affairs. Would the Minister commit to appointing consumer side advocates for these positions, such as animal welfare group or pet owner association representatives.

Relatedly, to prevent an over-representation of large holding groups or private equity-linked roll-ups, it may be wise to also ensure that one seat be taken up by a veterinary professional hailing from an independent clinic. A third channel for avoiding regulatory capture and conflicts of interest is to make clear what recusal protocols and conflict of interest mandates are in place, to ensure that in instances of investigative or disciplinary committee formation, the selected individuals do not have a clear pecuniary interest in the outcome. This is especially important, given the small size of the veterinary fraternity, which numbers only in the hundreds.

Sir, Part 5 of the Bill is concerned with investigation and disciplinary matters. In my view, this is the heart of the Bill, because a regulatory framework is only as strong as the practical implementation of fair and effective investigative actions, followed by reasonable and acceptable disciplinary procedures. I say this in part because, based on the experience of at least one of my residents, the prior regime may have fallen short. That resident has alleged that a key document submitted to AVS for investigation did not appear to be independently verified for authenticity. This, in turn, undermined her confidence in accountability of the whole process.

To be clear, I am not insinuating that there were or were not lapses in her specific case. However, I am sure that all in this House would agree that public trust and confidence in procedure is of utmost importance, regardless of whether these procedures associated with the investigation and disposal of cases are justifiable or defensible. I note that Part 6 of the Bill does confer a substantial degree of independence and authority to investigators to go about their business, which I agree with.

That said, I wonder if the Minister of State would be willing to share how they expect investigators to proceed with the verification process for evidentiary documents submitted to them. Will there be some independent corroboration of the provenance of these documents? Would the investigators seek out other credible authorities and agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force, to support the investigation process, if necessary?

I will leave us with one final thought, albeit slightly outside the formal scope of the present Bill. Beyond veterinary practice, we must also continue to refine our laws that protect the welfare of animals in line with the spirit of the Bill. Recent events, such as the well reported cases of abuse of cats at Everton Park and Punggol, and the throwing of cats off high floors, hinted the disturbing rise in recorded cases of cruelty inflicted on animals. Indeed, even as confirmed cases fell, from 961 in 2024, to 608 last year, the absolute number is not befitting of an educated populace and advanced society.

I understand that MND is undertaking a review of the ABA, which was last amended in 2014. As of March this year, this is still ongoing. Would the Ministry be willing to share when this review is expected to conclude and when we might expect a Bill to be debated in this House?

Sir, I believe that nobody speaking on this Bill is suggesting the animal welfare be placed at the same level as human welfare. There are many instances, especially when we go about our estate management matters, where we often need to take difficult decisions about prioritising our residents' legitimate concerns about noise and hygiene against the desire to cherish animals that live alongside us.

Still, in any advanced society, we must hold ourselves to a standard of how we treat other living things in our midst. This principle becomes even more stark when, as is often the case with veterinary services, we are dealing with the lives of animals that are often regarded as part of the household. This Bill is a natural step in ensuring that our furry friends and family are treated right by those tasked with their physiological well-being. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.

3.55 pm

Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a registered allied health professional in both Singapore and the UK, regulated by the Allied Health Professions Council and the Health and Care Professions Council, as well as a member of the Singapore Physiotherapy Association and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy in the UK.

So, this Bill speaks to something I have seen very clearly in healthcare. How trust in a profession is built – and how easily it can be eroded if we are not careful.

In Tengah, many of my residents are young families and many have pets. They tell me they want more places to walk with them, to sit with them after a meal, to let them run safely. It reflects something simple: that pets are part of everyday life.

But when something goes wrong, the conversation changes. One resident told me she hesitated when her pet needed treatment – not because she did not care, but because she was not sure what she was agreeing to. And I think many people will recognise this. Because when something goes wrong, it is not just the bill that people worry about, it is whether they are making the right decision at all.

And that is why this Bill matters. Because at its core, this Bill is about trust. But in practice, people do not read regulations. They read people and they trust what they see in front of them. So, if we want to build trust, we must make sure what they see is clear, consistent and credible.

That is why the direction of this Bill is the right one – establishing a Veterinary Council, strengthening registration, requiring continuing professional education and putting in place a clear disciplinary framework. These are not just regulatory changes. They are the foundations of a profession that people can have confidence in. But if we are serious about trust, then we must also be very deliberate about how we design it.

The first is the Veterinary Council itself. The Council will shape standards, oversee conduct and influence how the profession evolves. It must be credible to the profession and it must be trusted by the public. That means having the right mix of expertise across different areas of practice and processes that are clearly fair and impartial.

It also means that where serious disciplinary findings are made, that they are communicated with sufficient clarity, so that both professionals and the public understand what is expected. Because if people cannot see how standards are applied, they will not feel assured that they exist.

The second is clarity in qualifications and titles. For most people, trust begins with what they see – a name, a designation, a title. And the reality is this: most people will not know the difference between one qualification and another, but they will live with the consequences.

So, what matters is not just how qualifications are assessed, but how clearly they are understood. There should be transparency in what is recognised, how specialist titles are determined and what these mean in practice. Because a title can reassure, even when it should not. And if we are not careful, that reassurance can be misplaced.

The third is how we approach restricted practice. Such pathways serve a purpose. They allow entry into the profession while maintaining safeguards. But we must be careful, because if we are not careful, what starts as a pathway can quietly become a standard.

So, there must be clarity on scope, on progression and on how competence is assessed over time. And we should think carefully about who is entrusted to train others, because who we allow to train matters – that is how standards rise or slip. In healthcare, supervision is not a formality. It is a safeguard and that principle applies just as strongly here.

The fourth is continuing professional education. This is essential. But it is also where intent and implementation can diverge. If it becomes a matter of ticking boxes rather than strengthening practice, then we risk losing its purpose. So, as this framework develops, it will be important to ensure that it remains meaningful, relevant and reflective of how practice continues to evolve.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me return to something residents raise often. It is not simply that veterinary costs are expensive. It is not just that care is expensive. It is that people do not know where it will end. Once they say yes, they feel like they have to keep saying yes. And that is a difficult position for any family. Not because they do not love their pet but because they are unsure. And over time, that uncertainty changes how people feel about the entire system.

While pricing may sit outside the scope of this Bill, transparency is something we can strengthen. Clearer communication, better upfront estimates and a more consistent approach across the sector would go a long way. Because when people do not understand the costs, they begin to question the care. And that is something that we should not allow to take root.

Finally, this Bill also points to the future of veterinary care. Care today is no longer delivered by one person alone. It is delivered by teams – veterinarians, nurses, rehabilitation professionals and many others. If we want better outcomes, then we must think ahead in how we structure this wider ecosystem, with clear roles, clear standards and clear accountability. Because good professionals matter, but the system around them matters just as much.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill reflects how our society has evolved and how expectations of care have grown. But the real measure of its success will not be in what we pass today. It will be in what people experience tomorrow. Because, in the end, how we treat animals says something about us. But how we organise care, that says even more.

I support the Bill and I look forward to the Minister of State’s response on these points.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, do you have a clarification of your previous speech? Please go ahead.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I was informed earlier that when I said, "Everton Park and Punggol", it came across as "Everton Park in Punggol". I just wish to state for the record that it was an "and" as a conjunction and not "in".

Mr Deputy Speaker: Anything else?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: No, Sir. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

4.02 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Sir, I have three points to clarify on the Veterinary Practice Bill.

First, the Bill sets up Singapore's first Veterinary Council and the aim to raise standards is welcomed. But every Council member is picked by a Minister who can remove any member for any reason. He has the final appeal against the Council's recommendations.

The Medical Council and the Dental Council both have, by statute, elected members from the profession – 12 out of 27 for the Medical Council and five out of 13 for the Dental Council. Why depart from that statutory elected member model here and what safeguards ensure vets have a real voice in their own oversight?

The consultation outcome did promise to include veterinary professionals on the Council but unlike the Medical Registration Act and the Dental Registration Act, the Bill does not make that representation statutory.

Second, smaller practices will likely bear a heavier burden from future Council rules than chains like Mars Veterinary Health, which runs at least 19 out of Singapore's 121 licensed vet centres, about one in six. Regulatory costs that are marginal for a large chain can be more significant for a small practice. Section 87(3) states, "Regulations made under this Act may make different provisions or prescribe different fees for different classes of persons or different circumstances", and all regulations require the Minister's approval under sections 87(1) and 87(2).

Will the Ministry commit to using the differential fee power in section 87(3) to ensure that regulatory costs do not accelerate the consolidation the vet profession is already experiencing?

Since no regulation the Council makes can take effect without the Minister's approval, I would urge the Ministry to assess before granting that approval, whether compliance costs fall proportionately on small practices relative to their fixed cost base, and to require the Council to invoke section 87(3) where they do not.

Third, the Bill sets the standard but there can be multiple paths to meet it. Singapore has no veterinary degree programme. All 690-plus practising veterinarians trained overseas. When Member Ms Valerie Lee asked MOE in February 2026 about introducing a local veterinary science degree, the reply was that MOE would monitor and assess.

I, like my colleague, Mr Louis Chua, and Member Mr David Hoe support the idea of a local vet degree.

If the goal is higher standards, why not build a local training path that can better guarantee those standards and give Singaporeans who want to become vets a route that does not need a costly overseas degree.

There is a strong regional case for this. No veterinary degree programme in any Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member state currently holds accreditation from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons or the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council – the three bodies whose recognition permits practice in North America, the UK and Europe and Australasia, respectively. A Singapore-based programme that secures any of these accreditations taught in English within a globally recognised university system would be a unique regional asset.

I look forward to the Ministry's reply. Thank you. And in advance of 25 April, I would like to wish all our vets, vet nurses and everyone who works with animals, "Happy World Veterinary Day".

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Diana Pang.

4.06 pm

Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Veterinary Practice Bill. As a fellow pet owner, I believe this legislation is both timely and essential. It rightly acknowledges the critical role the vets play, not just in safeguarding animal health but also in providing a peace of mind to families who entrust their beloved pets to their care. With the increasing prevalence of pet ownership and our rising expectations for animal welfare, establishing a clearer and more robust framework for this profession is a necessary and forward-thinking step. I commend the Government for bringing this important Bill forward.

As this field continues to evolve, it is crucial that we ensure law enhances standards without inadvertently placing undue pressures on the sector. For many Singaporeans, practical concerns loom large – the affordability of the bills, the meaningful and insurance options, the adequacy of local training for future vets and the presence of a reliable safety net for severe complications.

Therefore, while I wholeheartedly support the Bill, I urge the Government to use this opportunity to think more broadly about the sector.

First, a significant concern for many pet owners is the escalating cost of the bills. While most owners are committed to providing responsible care, the cumulative expenses of diagnostic tests, surgeries, hospital stays and follow-up treatments can lead to unexpected and substantial bills. For some families, this presents a genuine affordability challenge, sometimes forcing them to delay or decline necessary treatment or to struggle financially even when they wish to do the best for their fur-child.

As we elevate professional standards, it is equally important to explore ways to make the care more accessible and manageable. I hope the Government will investigate strategies to improve affordability and price transparency, ensuring that pet owners are not left feeling shocked or helpless when critical medical interventions are required.

Second, insurance and whether there should be a compensation fund. The role of insurance in mitigating the financial impact of veterinary care is undeniable. However, many pet owners may lack clarity on the available policies, their precise coverage or the practicalities of making their claims. Some may even believe they are adequately covered, only later to discover the exclusions and limitations or when the treatments become absolutely necessary.

So, while educating the public about pet insurance is vital, I propose a more comprehensive approach: do consider the establishment of a compensation fund, potentially pooled across the profession. This fund could serve as a crucial safety net in serious cases where a veterinarian's negligence results in loss, where insurance proves inadequate, unavailable or has lapsed. We see similar concepts in other professions. For instance, the legal profession has a compensation fund and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore provides compensation for victims of uninsured or untraceable drivers.

I believe the veterinary sector should explore a similar industry-wide pooled fund as a last resort, ensuring that pet owners are not left without a practical remedy when unforeseen and severe circumstances arise.

Third, as the profession evolves, advertising should be approached with care. While some degree of advertising may be acceptable, it should also be governed by stringent ethical guidelines. Veterinary services are not mere commercial commodities. They involve professional judgement, public trust and the welfare of animals. Advertising should therefore be free from misleading claims, exaggeration or aggressive techniques and this could pressure clinics into prioritising commercial competition over professional standards.

I propose that the Government implement an advertising framework that ensures fairness for all veterinarians, avoiding any tilt in favour of larger corporate entities with greater marketing resources. Such a move would help prevent smaller, independent practices from being disadvantaged, thereby preserving the diversity, sustainability and competitive balance within the sector. Furthermore, an uncontrolled increase in marketing competition would inadvertently drive up business costs, which may ultimately be passed on to pet owners. So, I urge the Government to ensure that any framework for the vets’ advertising is underpinned by robust ethics safeguards, maintaining the professionalism, fairness and long-term sustainability for the sector.

Fourth, the pipeline of future vets and whether Singapore should move towards a local vet school. As spoken by many of my colleagues in this Parliament, if we want a strong veterinary profession in Singapore, we must not think just about regulations. We should also think about training and about the future pipeline of vets.

Today, Singapore still relies heavily on overseas education. While the National University of Singapore has a pathway linked to the University of Melbourne, it is not the same as having a fully local veterinary degree and training system here in Singapore. Studying overseas is costly and this may put the profession out of reach for capable Singaporeans.

So, I ask the Ministry whether the Government has done a study on the demand for the studies in Singapore and how many local students each year have to study overseas if they want to become vets. I also ask whether the statistics support opening a full-time vet school in Singapore and if so, how would such a school or course be regulated, how clinical training would be supervised, and how specialist training would fit within the registration framework under this Bill.

If we care about standards, access and long-term resilience, then the pipeline matters. A stronger local pathway can help Singaporeans and Singapore build a deeper bench of veterinarians with local knowledge and long-term commitment.

I also want to raise one specific issue on the disciplinary framework under the Bill.

The Bill allows the Interim Orders Committee to suspend or restrict a vet for up to 18 months even before the disciplinary matter is finally decided. This is serious stuff, affecting livelihood, reputation and the right to practise. Yet, unlike the Disciplinary Committee, there does not appear to be a requirement for a legal professional to sit on the Interim Orders Committee itself. I therefore ask why no legal professional is specifically required at this stage.

Where powers of this seriousness are exercised, it would be good to have a legal professional on the Interim Orders Committee to provide safeguards against procedures and substantive irregularities and errors and to uphold rules of fairness and procedural justice during disciplinary proceedings for vets.

Sixth, pro bono and community veterinary support. Every profession has a role to play in social responsibility. In a sector that intersects with both animal welfare and the well-being of households, we should explore the potential for pro bono or community veterinary support, particularly for lower-income pet owners, urgent welfare cases and rescue organisations.

I am not suggesting an obligatory burden on every clinic. But the sector, in collaboration with the Government, could explore more structured support mechanisms for genuine cases of need. One practical step could involve veterinarians declaring their pro bono hours during their annual licence renewal or consider this as part of the continuing professional education. This would enable the Ministry to track such contributions and foster a stronger culture of service and community engagement among veterinarians.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while I support this Bill, I hope we will not regard this as the end of the conversation. A truly effective veterinary service system is one that not only regulates professionals adeptly but is also one that ordinary Singaporeans trust, understand and access. It must provide robust protection for the public in serious situations, strengthen our local pipeline of future veterinarians, ensure disciplinary powers are wielded with appropriate safeguards and maintain a fair and sustainable professional landscape as the sector continues to evolve. For all these reasons, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan, you have a clarification for a Member who has spoken before you?

Mr Alvin Tan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to clarify with the Member, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, with regard to the statements he made earlier on about Part 5 of the Bill.

The Member had said that, I quote, "Based on the experience of at least one of my residents, the prior regime may have fallen short and that the resident had alleged that the key documents submitted to AVS for investigation did not appear to be independently verified for authenticity. This in turn undermined her confidence in the accountability of the whole process".

This is an important clarification because it also calls into question the standard of AVS and our officers. So, I would like for the Member to qualify this, because he also mentioned that there is at least one resident.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, would you like to reply to that invitation? Please proceed.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. This was an incident where the resident had filed multiple appeals. I am sure that you can check with the Ministry with regard to the chain of events.

To be clear, I represented her case and I also said in my speech that I was not insinuating whether there were any lapses in her case or not, by AVS. But the point I was trying to make, and I will repeat it here, is that public trust and confidence in procedure is really important. And that is why I supported Part 6 of the Bill which confers a degree of independence and authority to investigators to go about the process of investigation, which I am sure in her case would lend her greater confidence.

I also wanted to share a point she had also asked me to share – about ensuring that the verification process for evidentiary documents submitted to the authorities would also involve some degree of independent corroboration about the provenance.

So, I have mentioned those in my speech and I will reiterate that here.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan, would you like to respond to that?

Mr Alvin Tan: Yes. Sir, I thank the Member for clarifying. Indeed, we will go back and check with AVS and any correspondence between the Member representing your resident and ourselves.

I agree with you that public confidence and trust is important. At the same time, we will have to substantiate any of these allegations to ensure that public trust is upheld, of course, with AVS as well as other public institutions. So, we will get back to the Member and if the Member has any further queries, please feel free to direct them to me, so we can verify.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, to be fair to you, is there anything else you wish to add in response?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: No, Speaker, other than to just point out once again that I was not taking a position that questions the professionalism of AVS, but rather representing her sentiments which, as I mentioned in my speech, when you are a grieving parent to a fur-baby, you might understandably be aggrieved and wish to look for an outlet.

Mr Deputy Speaker: No further clarifications. Then, we will move on. Dr Hamid Razak.

4.19 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Veterinary Practice Bill.

This Bill is timely, because veterinary care today sits at the intersection of animal welfare, public trust and public health.

As we have seen, as pet ownership rises, so too there are expectations of care. Our regulatory framework must keep pace, not just to deter poor practice, but to protect good professionals and strengthen confidence among pet owners and the wider community.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, NParks conducted a public consultation from 31 October to 28 November last year and received 103 responses. This number reflects a sector and a public that both care deeply about standards, fairness and clarity.

This Bill too advances that direction in a very structured way. I will raise three points, in the spirit of strengthening implementation, so that the Bill uplifts standards while preserving access and trust.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the first point is on workforce sustainability. Official consultation materials note that 690 over licensed veterinarians as of October 2025. Beyond veterinarians, there are around 1,000 to 1,500 veterinary nurses and technicians in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have also seen encouraging progress in responsible pet ownership. Since the cat management framework began on 1 September 2024, about 41,000 pet cats have been licensed, and over 41,500 people completed the online pet ownership course required for first-time applicants. These efforts work best when they are matched by a professional framework that keeps the standards clear, trusted and consistent.

As we raise standards, we should also keep a close eye on a very simple reality. If standards rise while supply tightens, the lived outcome for pet owners may be longer waits, higher costs and delayed care. This of course is not the intent of this Bill.

The Bill provides levers for calibrated professionalisation. It allows the Council to impose conditions on registration, including supervised practice, performance review, limits to setting and limits to scope for defined periods, to support safe entry and progression.

In this regard, I would like to seek the Ministry's clarification on two practical areas.

First, how will recognition pathways, including for overseas-trained veterinarians, be made clear and predictable, while maintaining standards. The Bill provides for prescribed qualifications, and also for Council assessment of other qualifications and competence, including examinations where appropriate. Clear published guidance will reduce uncertainty and support consistency. This is similar to the First and Second Schedules of the Medical Registration Act, where both local and overseas qualifications are listed.

Second, what complementary measures will support retention and career development? Regulation is not only about disciplining errant practice; it is also about sustaining the workforce so that good professionals can stay and grow.

I would not like to belabour the point but like to echo the points made by colleagues in the Chamber earlier that for the longer-term pipeline, I really hope that MOE and the relevant agencies can keep under review whether there may be a case for a locally administered veterinary degree.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, good regulation should not only raise the bar. It should also widen the pathways for capable people to meet that bar, safely and fairly.

Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second point relates to affordability and consumer trust. The consultation feedback reflected public concerns about transparency and the pricing of veterinary services. NParks has also been clear that this Bill or the scope of this Bill does not cover pricing and fees matters and that separate measures may be considered to address these concerns.

While I do agree that the Veterinary Council itself should not be the price setter, but affordability is shaped by more than just price controls. It is shaped by transparency, clear communication and the confidence pet owners have when making often difficult decisions under time pressure.

When treatment plans are especially complex and costs are uncertain, asymmetry between provider and consumer can lead to disputes, mistrust and delayed care. That certainly does not help animal welfare, and it does not help the profession.

So, even if fees are outside this Bill's scope, I encourage the Ministry and the Council to consider what can be done, through professional standards and guidance, to strengthen transparency in practice, clearer expectations around communication of options of treatment, informed consent and upfront cost discussion, especially in urgent or high-stakes situations.

This is again similar to the medical practice where financial counselling requirements come under Healthcare Services Act. This is not about policing fees but is about strengthening trust through clarity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my third point is a system-level one, the development of the whole animal care ecosystem.

This Bill defines what constitutes the "practice of veterinary medicine" and draws boundaries around key acts that require professional judgement, such as diagnosis, surgical treatment, prescription and certification. At the same time, the consultation outcome makes clear that specified groups, including students and other persons such as nurses, may perform a specified scope of activities under prescribed conditions and supervision.

This is the right principle. It protects animals and the public by keeping core judgement where it belongs, while allowing team-based care to scale safely in a protected environment.

But implementation will matter. I suggest two practical considerations.

First, provide clear and plain guidance on safe delegation and team-based workflows, including what may be done under supervision, what documentation is expected, and how accountability is preserved.

Second, I note the stated longer-term intention to regulate veterinary nurses, with an adequate transition period. A phased approach is sensible, allowing engagement, capability building and continuity of services while raising standards across the wider care team.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I close with one guiding standard. Good regulation is not only how strongly we deter misconduct. It is how confidently good professionals can practise and how clearly citizens can navigate that system.

I also note the importance of clarity in the roles of institutions. The consultation materials make clear that AVS would continue to regulate veterinary clinics and animal-related businesses and remains the first responder for animal feedback, while the Veterinary Council itself will regulate professional standards for veterinary practice. This division of responsibility should help the public know where to go to and help the sector operate with greater clarity, purpose and confidence.

With these observations, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, offered in the spirit of strengthening the implementation and preserving trust, I support the Veterinary Practice Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

4.27 pm

Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Veterinary Practice Bill. I am delivering my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Over the past decade, Singapore society has witnessed an obvious change, especially during and after COVID-19, and that is more and more families have begun keeping pets. Whether in HDB communities or private residential areas, we can see increasing numbers of residents walking their pets, taking them to see a vet, or participating in community activities with them.

For many families, pets are no longer just animals, but important companions in their lives. Some treat pets as friends, others as family members.

I have a friend who owns a medium-sized dog shared with me his story. He said that when he gets a haircut, it costs around $20, but when his dog gets grooming care, it costs over $100 dollars. The annual pet insurance alone costs several hundred dollars. Adding up the daily expenses for treats, supplies and basic care, it amounts to a considerable sum.

Yet despite this, many people are still willing to continue keeping dogs, cats and other pets. Because for them, this is no longer simply about keeping an animal – they truly regard them as family members.

As the saying goes, humans have emotions and animals do too. When society's attitude towards animals gradually changes, our systems also need to keep pace with the times.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with the increase in pet-owning households, demand for veterinary medical services has also risen significantly. From basic vaccinations and health checks to surgical procedures and specialist treatments, Singapore's veterinary services industry is continuously developing and becoming more specialised.

Against this backdrop, establishing a clear, comprehensive and credible veterinary regulatory framework becomes extremely important.

The core objective of this Bill is to establish a more systematic regulatory system for the veterinary profession.

Firstly, the Bill establishes a Veterinary Council as the professional regulatory body for the industry, responsible for veterinary registration, practising certificate management, setting industry standards and disciplinary oversight. Secondly, the Bill establishes a clearer registration system, including full registration, restricted registration and specialist registration, and stipulates that veterinarians must hold valid practising certificates to engage in veterinary medical activities. Thirdly, the Bill clearly stipulates that only qualified registered veterinarians may conduct diagnoses, surgeries, prescribe medications or issue medical certificates, thereby ensuring the professionalism and safety of animal medical services.

At the same time, the Bill also establishes a complete complaints and disciplinary mechanism, providing the public with clear channels to lodge complaints and obtain resolution when encountering professional issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in my view, the significance of this Bill lies not only in industry regulation, but also in enhancing public trust in the veterinary profession. When pets become family members, people's expectations of veterinary services naturally increase. A clear, fair, and professional regulatory system can not only protect animal health and welfare, but also safeguard the rights of pet owners.

The ancients often said: when systems are established, people's hearts are at ease.

When the public knows that an industry has clear standards, oversight, and accountability mechanisms, society's trust in the entire industry will also improve accordingly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while supporting this Bill, I would also like to raise several considerations and ask the Minister for further clarification.

Firstly, whilst establishing a stricter and more systematic regulatory framework, do we also have sufficient talent reserves to support the industry's future development? With increasing pet numbers and increasingly specialised pet medical services, Singapore's future demand for veterinary talent will likely continue to rise. Beyond regulation, should we also simultaneously consider how to attract more young people into the veterinary profession through education, training and professional development opportunities, and support local veterinarians in continuously enhancing their professional capabilities? Can we encourage local universities to set up veterinary degrees?

Secondly, after the Bill is passed, will the Government further strengthen public education so that pet owners clearly understand what constitutes a qualified veterinarian, how to identify registration categories and through which channels they should seek help or lodge complaints when encountering professional issues? Often, whilst institutions have been established, the public may not fully know how to utilise them. If the public is unclear about the differences between full registration, restricted registration and specialist registration, the Bill's protective function may be diminished in practice.

Thirdly, as pet medical technology continues to develop, the industry is gradually seeing specialist services and high-end medical care. Will the Government consider in future how to encourage professional industry development whilst also ensuring service accessibility and reasonable transparency? I believe this is also a concern for many pet owners. Many people are willing to invest in their pets and take responsibility, but they also hope for clearer communication, more transparent explanations and a stronger foundation of trust when facing treatment and medical advice.

Fourthly, beyond regulating veterinarians themselves, will there be continued review of other professional services related to animal care in future, to ensure the entire ecosystem clearly distinguishes the responsibility boundaries between professional medical care, basic care and other auxiliary services?

Today's pet industry development encompasses not just clinics, but also care, grooming, boarding, rehabilitation and other related services. If boundaries are unclear, the public may sometimes be confused about which services involve professional medical judgement, and which do not.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the relationship between humans and animals often reflects a society's level of civilisation. When we are willing to provide better medical care for animals and establish more professional and responsible industry regime, it reflects society's respect for life.

This Bill is proposed precisely against such a social backdrop. It not only improves the institutional foundation of the veterinary profession but also establishes a more solid framework for the healthy development of Singapore's pet medical industry in future.

(In English): In summary, the Veterinary Practice Bill provides a much-needed framework to strengthen the regulation and professional standards of veterinary practice in Singapore. As more Singaporeans welcome pets into their homes, animals are increasingly regarded not merely as companions, but as members of the family. This shift in social attitudes means that the public rightly expects a high level of professionalism, accountability and trust in veterinary services.

This Bill helps meet that expectation by establishing the Veterinary Council, setting clear standards for registration and practising certificates, and putting in place a structured process to address complaints and disciplinary matters. In doing so, it strengthens both public confidence and the integrity of the veterinary profession.

At the same time, I hope we will continue to ask how the framework can be supported in practice. Do we have a sufficient pipeline of veterinary talent for the future? How can we better help pet owners understand the system and identify duly qualified veterinarians? And as the sector continues to grow and specialise, how can we balance professional advancement with accessibility, transparency and trust?

These are important questions as we move forward. Notwithstanding these, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.

4.37 pm

Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. It strengthens animal welfare by ensuring veterinarians are held to high professional standards. It builds public trust through mandatory licensing and clearer processes for managing feedback and complaints. Nevertheless, I would like to raise some points for the Ministry's consideration.

First, I would like to ask what steps the Ministry will take to attract and retain talent in our veterinarian industry.

The supply-demand gap is stark. The number of licensed veterinarians in Singapore has grown significantly from just 122 in 2006 to 674 as of September last year. Yet demand has grown even faster. We have an estimated pet population of about 700,000, including some 114,000 dogs and 94,000 cats, with about one in three households now owning a pet. That is a lot of pets. This translates to roughly one veterinarian for every 1,186 animals, with some of the 674 not working full-time. The profession has expanded, but it has not kept pace with demand.

It also suffers from high stress, long hours and burn-out, driving many local vets to work in Australia or the UK. The brain drain has a direct knock-on effect on costs. Vet fees rose by up to 20% in 2022. The Bill's additional regulatory requirements risk compounding this, adding compliance burdens that may deter talent from entering or staying in the profession.

Will the Ministry consider expanding the list of recognised overseas veterinary qualification and exploring Singapore-based pathways to licensing, so that aspiring vets are not compelled to study abroad and potentially settle there?

Secondly, staying on the topic of cost, I would like to ask whether the Ministry will consider targeting veterinary subsidies for specific groups. There is currently only one non-profit community animal clinic in Singapore, run by the SPCA, serving pet guardians in financial hardship, supplemented by ad hoc free health screenings for lower-income households. This is insufficient for our growing pet population.

I would highlight two groups that we might consider subsidies for. First, rescue and shelter pets. Adoption rates at the SPCA have decreased sharply, from 979 in 2019 to just 250 last year, while rescues have climbed from 2,813 in 2023 to 3,763 last year. Vet bills have risen over 30% since 2022. Subsidised veterinary care for adopted rescue pets from approved rescuers could incentivise adoption and relieve pressures on overstretched shelters.

Animals serving an assisted function deserve some considerations too. Guide dogs for the visually impaired, or therapy animals that provide genuine medical and social value. While Guide Dogs Singapore subsidises some routine care, some financial burden on dog owners remains significant. Will the Ministry consider formalising support for these animals?

Third, I would like to ask the Ministry to clarify the scope of practices that must be performed by a licensed veterinarian, in particular, whether the regulation of pet groomers or practices in the ornamental fish industry can be considered alongside the Bill.

There is no legal requirement for pet groomers to be professionally trained or certified. We have also heard about the tragedies – the death of Fendi the Corgi, who choked during a grooming session; the ACRES White Paper last year had also flagged concerns about the unregulated industry. There is a growing grey area where grooming shades into veterinary practice. For instance, when a groomer handles a pet with an existing skin condition or infection.

Fish cosmetic surgery is a particularly stark example of invasive procedures carried out without medical oversight. In Singapore, Arowana fish are routinely subject to eye lifts, chin jobs, scale shaving and swim bladder repairs by non-vets. A Singapore aquarium magazine also once published a step-by-step guide to tail amputation on Flowerhorn cichlids using scissors without anaesthetic and dye injection into Parrot cichlids using hypodermic needles. Many of these aesthetic services continue to be openly publicising in the ornamental fish industry.

Will the Ministry or Veterinary Council issue clear guidelines on which procedures might need a licensed vet and consider a basic certification framework for pet groomers?

A related concern is the rise of non-conventional animal therapies – from stem cell treatments to administering horse injections, medications to dogs and cats – amplified by social media. AVS and the Singapore Veterinary Association in this regard, have jointly published the Veterinary Therapeutic Guidelines in response and these remain voluntary. Will the Ministry consider empowering the Veterinary Council to enforce minimum standards for non-conventional therapies, protecting pet owners from treatments that are unproven or potentially harmful?

Fourth, the Bill will first apply to veterinarians before eventually extending to veterinary nurses. I welcome this. However, the Veterinary Council was originally slated for establishment last year and was delayed. Will the Ministry provide a concrete timeline for when veterinary nurses will be brought under the framework, so the profession can anticipate and plan accordingly?

This also aligns with pricing transparency, where the Veterinary Therapeutic Guidelines already recommend that vets provide clinics with cost estimates and disclose the evidence base for such treatments, but this is currently voluntary. Given that vet fees rose by up to 20% between 2022 and 2023, and that this Bill may add further compliance costs, will the Ministry therefore consider making pricing transparency and informed consent on costs a statutory obligation under the Bill?

Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support this Bill and look forward to the Ministry's response.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4.44 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, during my house visits, I often meet residents who are deeply devoted to their pets.

Ms C, a Yio Chu Kang resident, is one of them. She has even helped to organise pet shows and events in our constituency. A few years ago, when her dog passed away, it was a very difficult time for her. When I visited her again recently, she showed me photos, paintings she had kept and even a tattoo of her dog's name on her arm. For her and for many Singaporeans, animals are no longer just pets. They are family. When a family member falls ill, we do not ask for the bare minimum. We expect care that is modern, professional and accountable.

This Bill reflects that shift. It marks an important transition from a licensing regime to a professional regulatory framework, recognising that the veterinary sector has grown in scale, complexity and public expectations.

I support this Bill's intent. The establishment of the Veterinary Council, with powers to register vets, set standards, accredit training and enforce discipline, is a significant step towards professionalising the sector. The tiered registration system and continuing professional education requirements will raise standards across the board.

However, residents will ultimately judge this Bill not by its structures, but by whether it gives them the confidence at the point of care. I have several clarifications on the Bill.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, vet services must remain affordable and accessible.

Pet ownership today is not a luxury. Pets are a source of emotional support for seniors, children and families with special needs. Beyond households, community caregivers, independent rescuers and animal shelters pay out of their own pockets to care for animals which may not even be their own.

Yet, the cost of veterinary care has become a growing concern. Prices vary widely. There is no clear benchmarking. There is little predictability for families.

A consultation may cost $50 to $70. Pre-surgery bloodwork can exceed $300. Hospitalisation can cost hundreds of dollars a night and emergency care can easily exceed $500. For chronic conditions, such as kidney or liver failure, it is not uncommon to see caregivers crowdfunding five-figure sums to save an animal.

To be fair, vets face rising costs in commercial rent, diagnostic equipment and imported medicines. But recognising these pressures does not resolve the burden on residents.

Affordability was one of the most prominent concerns raised during the public consultation. Yet, veterinary fees fall outside the scope of this Bill.

From the resident's perspective, regulating quality without a concrete affordability and transparency roadmap feels incomplete. Pet owners experience quality and price at the same counter, often during a stressful emergency. Why should they wait for a future policy response when this concern is already well-established?

If stronger regulations increase compliance and operational costs, what assurance do we have that households will not face even steeper bills?

I have four specific questions on this.

First, will the Ministry commit to a clear timeline for these separate affordability and transparency measures?

Second, while we wait, can we mandate fee transparency immediately? Will the Council require clinics to provide itemised billing, written pre-treatment estimates for non-emergency procedures and clearer financial consent before significant treatments? Will the Council also publish fee benchmarks so that people know the sort of ranges to expect and for other vets to benchmark themselves, like in the medical sector?

Third, will the Ministry actively monitor whether the implementation of this Bill correlates with rising consumer costs?

Fourth, will the Ministry work with the industry to help manage the underlying drivers of these costs, such as commercial rent and medicine procurement?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a well-regulated sector is not enough if residents cannot afford to say yes to critical treatment. Access does not begin at the clinic door. Access begins at the bill.

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, residents want a competent team to treat their pet. When a family hands over their pet for a major procedure, they face a sobering reality. There is always a risk that the animal may never wake up. Because the stakes are high, they want assurance.

The Bill defines the practice of veterinary medicine broadly but allows certain acts to be performed by non-vets under supervision. Importantly, high-risk procedures, such as the administration of anaesthesia are not excluded. Yet, the regulatory framework for veterinary nurses and paraprofessionals is not yet in place. This creates a regulatory gap.

The Council is tasked with setting standards and requiring continuing professional education for vets, but the paraprofessionals assisting them remain in legislative limbo.

I have several questions.

What does "under veterinary supervision" mean in practice for high-risk procedures? Is this supervision direct, on-site and immediate or merely general supervision or consultation should any issues arise from another room? If a veterinary nurse is permitted to administer anaesthesia under supervision, what competency assurance exists right now, before their regulatory framework is in place? Can the Ministry clarify when these additional provisions relating to paraprofessionals, will be introduced? Will the Ministry commit to publishing the supervision guidelines before the main operational provisions of this Bill commence? Will the Council provide a clear, public list of high-risk acts requiring tighter, direct vet involvement? Finally, do residents have the right to know exactly who is clinically responsible at each stage of their pet's treatment? When the risks and corresponding costs are high, clarity cannot be left to interpretation.

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, residents need clear and accessible information to make informed choices. The Bill introduces a structured registration system of full, restricted and specialist categories. This is a positive step. However, the information currently made available to the public is limited to name, place of practice, qualifications and registration date. This is not enough.

As Vice Chair of the Health Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), I have seen how transparency builds trust. In human medicine, the Singapore Medical Council provides a clear benchmark. The public can check a doctor's registration type, specialist branch, practising certificate status and active conditions or restrictions.

If we treat our pets like family and vets like professionals, residents deserve a similar level of clarity. A public register should be a tool for informed choice, not just a list of degrees. Hence, will the Veterinary Council's public register be aligned with the Singapore Medical Council's standards? Will it include specialist branches, practising certificate status and active conditions or restrictions? Pet owners should not need specialist knowledge just to understand who is qualified to do what, right now.

Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when things go wrong, residents must have confidence that they can seek redress.

The Bill establishes a structured disciplinary process with safeguards like layperson involvement and conflict-of-interest rules. But from a grieving resident's perspective, the process may still feel intimidating.

I have four areas of concern.

First, the entry barrier. A disciplinary case must be supported by a statutory declaration. For an ordinary resident, this is not a mere administrative step. It is the start of a formal legal process. Will there be clear guidance and simpler templates so genuine grievances are not deterred?

Second, the timeline of justice. While the Bill sets a three-year limitation period, what are the indicative service timelines for triage, inquiry and final decision? Relatedly, what are the expected processing times for Complaints Assessment Committees and Disciplinary Committees, and are there clear service standards? Furthermore, given that individuals may still pursue civil claims through the Courts, what role does this disciplinary framework play in practice and what would encourage the public to use this process instead of going directly to Court?

Third, transparency of investigations. Will there be a firm commitment to publish disciplinary workflows and final outcomes, so complainants are not left feeling shut out?

Fourth, appeals and independence. Appeals against certain Council decisions go to the Minister, who also appoints and may remove Council members. I do not doubt the integrity of our institutions. But how does this structure ensure perceived independence in the eyes of the public? In particular, why do appeals from the Complaints Assessment Committee need to be heard by the Minister? Is there scope for these to be adjudicated by an independent tribunal instead?

Fifth, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must ensure inclusivity for vets for easy compliance, while maintaining high standards. I seek clarification on the registration framework. What are the fees required for vets to obtain and maintain their registration? How frequently must practising certificates be renewed and what criteria will be used to assess renewal? Will the Council continually review the list of accredited qualifications and recognised schools to ensure standards remain current and internationally benchmarked?

Further, how will older vets transition into this new system? If processes are primarily digital, what support will be provided to ensure senior practitioners are not left behind? Also, how would representation within the Veterinary Council reflect the diversity of the profession?

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me return to Ms C. For her, caring for her dog was never just about fun. It was about love, responsibility and trust. Her deep love for her pets is not uncommon. In Singapore, pet owners have parted with life savings to save their pets, hired help or sacrificed travel and career opportunities to care for ill and ageing pets, as they would for their family members.

So, the question before us is no longer just about animals or pets. It is about how we care for those we consider family. And if that is the case, then the questions raised in my speech are not abstract. They are about whether care is affordable, so families can say yes without fear. They are about whether care is competent, so families can trust those treating their pets. They are about whether care is transparent, so families can make informed decisions. They are about whether care is accountable, so families know the system will be fair when something goes wrong.

This Bill moves us forward. It strengthens standards. It builds a framework. It raises professionalism. But a framework alone does not create confidence. Confidence is built when access is real, when responsibility is clear, when information is transparent and when accountability is trusted. Because trust is not created by regulation alone. It is created when systems work for people, when processes are clear and when outcomes are fair.

So, let us take this opportunity to do more than regulate. Let us ensure that no family hesitates because of cost and that no resident is left uncertain about who is responsible. Let us also ensure that no one feels shut out when seeking accountability and let us build a system that residents can rely on, not just in principle, but in practice. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

4.57 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, which seeks to provide for the registration of veterinarians and the regulation of individuals practising veterinary medicine.

This Bill reflects how we, as a society, value animal welfare, professional standards and consumer trust.

As Singapore's pet scene evolves and grows, our vet care systems and regulatory framework must evolve in tandem. In this regard, the Bill is both timely and necessary. However, I would like to raise several questions and suggestions, particularly from the perspectives of workforce development and consumer protection and, at the same time, to draw on relevant practices from other jurisdictions.

Sir, Singapore's vet landscape has changed significantly in recent years, driven largely by the rise in pet ownership. Pets today, as many Members of the House have mentioned, are no longer just companions. For many households, they are family members.

With this shift has come a corresponding rise in expectations. Owners seek not only competent care, but also high standards of professionalism, communication and accountability. Many pet owners are also prepared to invest more to ensure the well-being of their animals. As a pet owner myself, I can certainly relate to this. We all want to do our best for our pets, especially when they are unwell or vulnerable.

In this context, the establishment of a Veterinary Council is an important step forward. It will strengthen governance, uphold standards and enhance public confidence in vet services.

Sir, while the Bill focuses on veterinarians, veterinary care is delivered by a team. Vet nurses, technicians and allied professionals are integral to diagnosis, treatment and recovery. They are often the first point of contact for pet owners and play a critical role in ensuring continuity of care.

From a Labour Movement perspective, it is important that these workers are not treated as peripheral, but as professionals in their own right. This means having clear standards of practice, structured training and certification pathways, fair wages and working conditions and meaningful career progression. Without these, we risk a situation where demand continues to grow, but the workforce remains stretched, under-recognised and difficult to retain.

If we look at developments overseas, the direction is clear. In Western Australia, veterinary nursing has been formally recognised as a regulated profession. In Hong Kong, the authorities are studying a framework to regulate veterinary nursing practitioners. Similarly, in the UK, reforms are moving towards stronger recognition and oversight of allied veterinary professionals. These developments suggest that a modern vet system does not focus only on vets, but also on the entire care team.

In this regard, I am glad to note from the Minister of State's opening speech that there are plans to develop a more formal framework for vet nurses and technicians in Singapore. But the question is whether it will be done through accreditation, registration or other mechanisms. And the more important question is, when will it take place. Such a framework would not only uplift the profession but also give consumers greater assurance about the competency of the entire care team.

Sir, beyond standards, we must consider the sustainability of our vet workforce. Today, the pathway to becoming a vet remains largely dependent on overseas training, such as the concurrent programme between NUS and the University of Melbourne. While this has served us well, it may not be sufficient to meet growing demand, particularly as veterinary services become more specialised. There are also barriers in terms of cost and accessibility. Not all aspiring Singaporeans may have the means to pursue overseas education.

From a workforce development perspective, we should consider whether more can be done to strengthen local pathways: whether through expanded partnerships, local clinical training opportunities, or, in the longer term, a local degree option. At the same time, we should continue to support and to develop our local pool of vet nurses and technicians, who form the backbone of our day-to-day care. A strong, well-supported workforce across all levels is essential if we are to deliver consistent, high-quality vet services.

Sir, I now turn to the consumer perspective. Vet care can be a significant and sometimes, unexpected expense for households. Pet owners often have to make decisions under emotional stress, with limited information and time. This creates a situation of information asymmetry, where consumers may not always be able to fully assess treatment options or costs. In such circumstances, trust becomes critical. However, trust must be supported by systems: by transparency, accountability and fair practices.

Feedback from the public has highlighted concerns about the lack of upfront price clarity, wide variations in fees and difficulty in comparing services across providers. In this regard, we should look at developments in the UK. Recent reforms there have placed strong emphasis on consumer protection, including requiring clinics to publish price lists for common treatments, disclose ownership structures and strengthen complaints and redress mechanisms. The rationale is clear: vet care is a complex service, and consumers need better information to make informed decisions. I would therefore like to call on AVS to consider similar measures, such as clear fee disclosures for common services, provision of estimates for higher-cost procedures and more consistent itemisation of bills.

Sir, beyond pricing, another important area is informed consent. In Hong Kong, the regulatory body has introduced clearer expectations on client communication, including guidance on what should be conveyed to pet owners before treatment. This includes information on diagnosis, treatment options, risks and estimated costs. Such practices recognise that consumers should be properly informed before making decisions, especially where procedures may be complex or costly. I would therefore like to ask whether similar guidance or professional standards on informed consent will be developed here in Singapore.

Sir, trust in any profession also depends on transparency in how misconduct is handled. In jurisdictions, such as Canada and Hong Kong, disciplinary outcomes and practitioner information are made publicly accessible to varying degrees, enabling consumers to make more informed choices. I would like to ask whether Singapore's framework will similarly provide a clear and accessible way for the public to verify practitioners' registration status, and access relevant disciplinary information where appropriate. In addition, Western Australia's model includes a consumer representative within its Veterinary Practice Board, helping to ensure that public-interest considerations are incorporated into regulatory decision-making.

In this regard, I would like to ask whether the composition of our Vet Council will similarly incorporate, or formally consult, consumer or public-interest perspectives. This will help ensure that the regulatory framework is not solely profession-led, but also grounded in the needs, expectations and protection of consumers.

Sir, while strengthening regulation, we must also ensure that it remains fair and proportionate. Internationally, there is increasing recognition that regulation should not only be disciplinary, but also developmental – supporting professionals to improve and maintain standards. For example, data from Canada shows that many complaints are resolved through advice, remediation or education, rather than disciplinary sanctions alone. This is particularly important in a manpower-constrained sector, where we must retain and support skilled professionals while at the same time, upholding standards.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a significant step forward in strengthening Singapore's animal health and welfare ecosystem. However, as we raise standards for veterinarians, we must also take a holistic approach, one that uplifts all members of the vet care team, strengthens workforce pipelines and local pathways and, at the same time, enhances consumer protection, transparency and trust.

International experience shows that a modern vet system goes beyond regulating individuals. It builds a professional, accountable and consumer-centric ecosystem. By moving in this direction, we can develop a vet sector that is not only professionally robust, but also fair, sustainable and trusted by the public. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.

5.08 pm

Mr Alvin Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the 14 Members for their support of the Bill. I learnt many different things: Members' love for their pets and animals, including Carmel, Yellow; and also about fish cosmetic surgery, including eye lifts and chin jobs.

Please allow me to address Members' comments via four broad themes.

The first theme is on representation of the Veterinary Council. The Veterinary Council will perform an essential role to regulate our vet sector. Its primary duty is to register vets, set and maintain high standards for the practice of veterinary medicine in Singapore and appoint necessary bodies for disciplinary proceedings to safeguard animal health and welfare as well as the public interest.

In that regard, I agree with Dr Choo Pei Ling that Council members should have the right mix of expertise to fairly and adequately represent the vet sector and to set the high standards that is expected of the vet sector. This is why this Bill provides for the Minister to appoint a balanced composition of members. I shared earlier that the Council may include ex-officio members from the public and private sectors.

In this regard and to respond to Mr Kenneth Tiong's question, the Council must also comprise at least four other vets, including one with at least 10 cumulative years of experience as a vet, which may include the duration licensed by AVS or registered with the Council.

Considering public feedback that we have received through the consultation process, we intend to also appoint suitably experienced vets from diverse areas of the vet sector. This will allow us to strengthen the development of professional standards that enhance and advance the vet sector.

On Mr David Hoe and Mr Melvin Yong's queries, the Bill provides that the Council must comprise at least two laypersons who are non-vets. We intend to nominate legal professionals from the start because this helps provide wider perspectives and ensure the reflection of broader public interest in the Council's work. There will also be Government oversight of key aspects of the Council for alignment with public interest and accountability, and I will elaborate on these later.

Over time, we will review the Veterinary Council's operating needs and adjust its composition accordingly. This may include appointing other vet professionals, such as vet nurses, further down the road. The Council may also appoint committees. This could include key representatives of animal groups to share feedback with the Council as Mr Henry Kwek and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested.

The second theme of questions surround the new registration and practising certificate framework, which Mr Cai Yinzhou, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Dr Choo Pei Ling raised questions on. Every vet that practises veterinary medicine must be registered with the Council and have a valid practising certificate. The Bill defines the practice of veterinary medicine, which can only be performed by duly qualified vets.

The Bill also introduces a new specialist registration, which is not part of the existing licensing framework for vets under the ABA. But in line with feedback that we received from the vet sector, the Council intends to recognise specialist vets primarily based on postgraduate degrees or qualifications, and will publish the requirements on its website when ready. So, we will start with this new three-tiered registration framework and then monitor its effectiveness. We are also open to exploring other approaches to further recognise as well as to differentiate vets where necessary.

With regard to Ms Diana Pang's suggestion, the Bill will not require vets to declare their pro bono hours as part of the practising certificate renewal requirements. But we appreciate that vets regularly volunteer their time and efforts, such as in sterilisation and microchipping drives on a pro bono basis, and we will explore other ways to recognise their goodwill and their generosity.

Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Dr Choo Pei Ling, Ms Diana Pang, Mr David Hoe, Dr Hamid Razak, Mr Melvin Yong and others had also raised questions about the veterinary workforce. I shared earlier that the Council will continue to implement continuing professional education requirements for vets to renew their practising certificate, to equip them with up-to-date knowledge, skills and experience. AVS also provides scholarships and study grants for students to pursue vet programmes and contribute to our pipeline of vet professionals.

Beyond this, AVS and the Council will partner stakeholders, such as MOE and the IHLs, to strengthen veterinary-related formal education programmes or training provided locally, including those that may allow mid-career entrants into the sector. Our review also includes manpower projections and resource requirements to study the need and feasibility of a local vet degree programme.

Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked about occupational support. While the Protection from Harassment Act protects all individuals, including vets, from harassment, AVS will also work with the Council to explore other initiatives to improve workplace practices and professional development opportunities to better support our vets.

We also intend to eventually extend registration to other vet professionals, such as vet nurses. While they are not currently licensed by AVS today, we will continue to engage our vet sector before developing the regulatory framework for them. In line with Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Yip Hon Weng's suggestions, we will also monitor the impact of the enhanced set of regulations to vets. We will update on the registration timeline for other vet professionals when we are ready.

Meanwhile, the Bill will clarify the scope of vet activities and circumstances where non-vets may perform them. For instance, vet nurses will be allowed to perform certain vet activities under supervision by a duly qualified vet and in accordance with any prescribed conditions. This requirement to be supervised is already in place today. The Council will also publish guidelines before the commencement of the relevant provisions next year, setting out the broad principles of the appropriate supervision.

To Mr Muhaimin Malik's questions, we share your concerns about community animals and their caregivers. I have many of them in my constituency as well. To our community caregivers, please continue to care for your animals as you already do, but please also exercise judgement when you need to refer them or to bring them to a vet.

The third theme of questions that Members have raised relate to penalties and disciplinary proceeding provisions as prescribed by the Bill.

First, Mr David Hoe asked how penalties under the Bill were derived. Compared to what is provided for under the ABA, this Bill raises the maximum fine for offences relating to unlawful practice of vet medicine or misrepresentation as a vet from $10,000 to $50,000. This is to provide sufficient deterrence against profit-driven motives. There is no change to the existing 12-month maximum imprisonment term, and the $50,000 fine quantum is benchmarked against the human healthcare sector, including the dental and allied healthcare professions.

AVS will continue to regulate animal health and welfare, and offences involving animal welfare and cruelty will continue to be dealt with under the ABA. As Members know, and I have said that in public and in this House, we are reviewing the penalties for animal welfare offences and the licensing regime for pet sector activities, including pet grooming businesses under the ABA. We will share more when ready.

Second, we have established a robust disciplinary framework, including a range of disciplinary orders that may be imposed on errant vets to strengthen deterrence against professional misconduct. I shared earlier how the Bill establishes clear escalation thresholds in handling complaints and how the various committees can make orders to deal with professional misconduct.

To Mr Yip Hon Weng's question about the completion timeline for the disciplinary inquiry, clauses 48 and 54 provide that the Complaints Assessment Committee and the Disciplinary Committee must complete its inquiry by three months and six months respectively. This is unless the Council, on application by the Complaints Assessment Committee or Disciplinary Committee, allows otherwise.

To Mr Muhaimin Malik's questions about resourcing for enforcement, NParks currently undertakes the enforcement of the existing vet licensing framework and will continue to support the Veterinary Council as we transition to the new framework. We also wish to assure Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that NParks has strict protocols around evidence gathering and investigations, and works with other agencies, where practical and necessary, to gather information to support its investigations.

Third, Ms Diana Pang asked why there is no requirement for a legal professional to be in the Interim Orders Committee. Allow me to explain. Where necessary, legal professionals can be appointed to the Interim Orders Committee, as clauses 4 and 39 respectively provide for laypersons, such as legal professionals, to be represented in the Council and the complaints panel.

Clause 65 also provides for the Council to appoint an advocate and solicitor to prosecute the disciplinary case, or to advise the Interim Orders Committee on any legal matter relating to the inquiry or review. There are also safeguards for vets before the Interim Orders Committee. Before the Council appoints any independent expert, it must give the registered vet concerned an opportunity for him or her to make representations on the proposed appointment. The vet may also appeal to the General Division of the High Court against the Interim Orders Committee's decision. And all interim orders are also subject to periodic review, to ensure no order remains in force longer than is necessary.

Mr Henry Kwek asked if the enhanced disciplinary proceedings could result in the sector becoming overly litigious and if vets may feel pressured to adopt defensive practices to protect themselves. The Bill addresses this concern.

First, while any member of the public may submit a complaint against vets, every complaint must be made in writing and also supported by a statutory declaration. The limitation period for complaints also ensures that cases brought before the Council are supported by timely and reliable evidence.

Second, there will be clear escalation thresholds in the handling of complaints. The Registrar will objectively assess and triage each case, and can recommend dismissal of frivolous complaints to the Council, so vets are not unduly burdened by cases without merit.

Third, the Bill allows for conciliatory measures, such as mediation, as well as voluntary cancellation or suspension of registration where there are concerns on the vet's fitness to practise. These measures, subject to the Council's approval, help to address issues through negotiation without defaulting to formal disciplinary proceedings.

Sir, the fourth and final theme of questions Members have asked relate to safeguards for pet owners.

Mr Henry Kwek rightly said that the framework must guard against misuse, while preserving confidence and fairness. I agree with him. The Council is, first and foremost, a regulator. Its primary duty is to maintain professional standards, and not to promote or advocate the professions' interest. There are thus safeguards and clear lines of accountability back to the Government, which will ensure alignment with broader public interest.

The Veterinary Council President and members are appointed by the Minister, who can also remove members where necessary. The Registrar is also appointed by the Minister and must be a public officer, or an officer or employee of a public authority. The Minister's approval must be sought when the Council makes regulations, such as those relating to qualifications and continuing professional education requirements for registration.

I also want to assure Mr David Hoe and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that the disciplinary proceedings likewise incorporate multiple safeguards to mitigate conflict of interest and to ensure impartiality. Let me elaborate further.

First, disciplinary proceedings must also include non-vets, such as legal professionals, to provide balanced and objective oversight. Members with conflicts of interest must also recuse themselves from proceedings.

Second, the Bill prohibits certain individuals to review the same case along various stages of proceedings. For instance, the Registrar who reviewed and referred the case to the Council must not be appointed to a Complaints Assessment Committee, a Disciplinary Committee, or an Interim Orders Committee. A member of the Complaints Assessment Committee who conducted an inquiry in respect of a disciplinary case must not be appointed as a member or observer of a Disciplinary Committee on the same case.

Third, aggrieved parties may also appeal to the Minister or the General Division of the High Court. Appeals do not return to the Council and the committees for reconsideration, ensuring that disciplinary decisions are subject to independent review, and safeguarding the interests of both vets and the public. This appeal mechanism takes reference from the disciplinary framework of the human healthcare sector, including the dental and allied health professions.

Some Members have also mentioned about raising awareness, I think Mr Muhaimin mentioned that earlier. AVS will work with the Council to raise awareness and educate the public on its requirements and processes. This includes information on the Council's webpage, which will contain information such as vets' class of registration and place of employment. This can help the public identify vets with restricted registration, who may only practise in establishments recognised by the Council.

The Council will also publish disciplinary findings of key cases when concluded, to facilitate awareness and uplift standards within the vet sector and for public education. The Council will also publish a guide to support complainants seeking redress. This will include steps on how to file a complaint, including how to make a statutory declaration. This guide will also address Ms Lee Hui Ying and Mr Yip Hon Weng's queries on when a complainant should file a complaint with the Council or otherwise commence a civil proceeding. A complainant may pursue either or both, as the circumstances warrant. This is consistent with how other professional regulatory frameworks in Singapore operate.

Ms Diana Pang asked about advertising standards for veterinary services and Mr Cai Yinzhou asked about minimum standards for non-conventional therapies. The Code of Ethics for Veterinarians includes advertising standards for veterinary services, such as requiring information to be factual and not comparative. Under the Code, a vet is also responsible for choosing the treatment regimens for his patients, based on sound, evidence-based science and practice and/or diagnostic test results. This is applicable to non-conventional novel therapies as well.

Many Members also raised concerns about the affordability of care and transparency of costs. I have heard that as well in my interactions with vets and also the broader public. This Code also requires vets to clearly explain treatment options, risks and costs, to obtain consent from owners for the treatment of their animal, and avoid unnecessary procedures. Vets should also provide pet owners with an estimate of fees. These standards ensure better pricing transparency and help to build trust between pet owners and vets by promoting professionalism and fairness.

Under this Bill, while vets will be subject to regulatory requirements, they will be similar to those under today's licensing regime under AVS. Furthermore, provisions are in place to ensure a smooth transition for current practitioners into the new regime.

Notwithstanding, AVS will partner the Council to review the Code of Ethics and will study Members' suggestions for cost structures to be more transparent, such as to provide itemisation of bills and clearer fee disclosures.

We are also looking at other measures to address this. This includes listing fees to promote greater transparency. We will update on the timeline when ready. In addition, there are pet insurance schemes available in Singapore to help pet owners with the cost of vet services. There are also professional indemnity insurance schemes for vets to cover legal defence and settlement costs arising from allegations of professional negligence or misconduct. We share Members' concerns on the need to be mindful of costs to animal owners and are closely monitoring the trends.

To Mr Kenneth Tiong's questions on fees for registration and practising certificates, we will consider various factors including current cost trends and the impact on existing practices in determining the prescribed fees.

While we understand that many Singaporeans see pets as a member of their family, mine included, and we understand concerns around vet costs, we must also recognise that pet ownership is a personal choice and a long-term commitment that comes with responsibilities. Owners are responsible for providing for their pets' needs, including medical care. So, we strongly encourage prospective pet owners to thoroughly consider the full cost of raising a pet before committing to becoming a pet owner.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, vet professionals form an important pillar of our animal health and welfare system. Under this Bill, there will be fair and adequate representation of the vet sector in the Veterinary Council to drive the refinement of professional services. The Veterinary Council will also be equipped to effectively deal with malpractice to safeguard animal health and welfare.

Finally, this Bill is intended to benefit the public by raising the professional standards of our vet sector. I seek the House's full support for this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong, do you have a clarification arising out of the Minister of State's speech? Please proceed.

5.28 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister of State for the assurances of vet representation on the Council. So, can I just ask the Minister of State to clarify why vet representation is not codified on a statutory basis, unlike the Medical Registration Act of 1997 and the Dental Registration Act of 1999?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan, would you like to respond?

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, we are starting on a new slate, setting up the Veterinary Council, and we have already took dressing with other healthcare professions, and we will evaluate over time and see whether these are necessary over time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Any further clarifications? Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for this comprehensive response. I would like to check whether MND is open to providing more funding to AVS.

Ten years ago, I made a speech on NParks, and I noted then that NParks' annual budget is less than half of that of an acute care hospital. And I checked the figures just now, I think it is still around the same. Basically, NParks is operating on a very, very lean budget. It is very efficient. I have a lot of respect for NParks staff, but they have to handle a lot of things. And now, with public expectations, and from what we hear from the Chamber, this new regulation is a step-up, I do hope that the Government can provide a bit more resources to AVS, to discharge what the public expects of this new regulation regime.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan, would you like to respond?

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Henry Kwek for his questions. I think my AVS colleagues will be very encouraged by his appeal. We will resource our AVS and NParks colleagues as necessary for them to conduct their important mission.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr David Hoe, you have a clarification? Please proceed.

Mr David Hoe: I thank the Minister of State for the response. I am specifically heartened to hear that we will explore a possible veterinary local degree. I would like to clarify if MND will be working with MOE to explore the possibility of an ITE pathway in the veterinary sector. Specifically, could we consider a Higher Nitec course that could then feed into the polytechnic diploma-related course?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan, would you like to respond?

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr David Hoe for his questions. As I mentioned earlier, we are looking at manpower projections as well as resource requirements to study a local programme. We already have programmes with some polytechnics as well. We will take his suggestion into consideration.

Sir, if I may clarify my response to Mr Kenneth Tiong. In fact, the vet representation on the Veterinary Council is already codified in the Bill. My apologies.

5.32 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: No further clarifications?

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Alvin Tan].

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the House.