Clarification by Minister of State for National Development

12.49 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification on the investigation processes conducted by the National Parks Board's (NPark's) Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS).

On 8 April 2026, I had mentioned in this Chamber that I would go back and check on any correspondence between Member Jamus Lim and the AVS relating to this topic.

During the Second Reading of the Veterinary Practice Bill on 8 April 2026, Member Jamus Lim made statements in relation to the fairness and independence of AVS' investigations. Specifically, he stated, and I quote, "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." End quote.

The Member also stated and I quote, "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." End quote.

Sir, the Member argued that a regulatory framework requires fair and effective investigations and also referred to his resident's allegation that AVS did not independently verify a key document. He also said that Part 6 of the Bill gives investigators independence and authority, which would lend his resident greater confidence. The Member emphasised that this was his resident's experience and he was not insinuating lapses on AVS' part.

However, juxtaposing the recitation of his resident's allegations that one, the prior regime may have fallen short; and two, that a key document submitted to AVS for verification did not appear to be independently verified, which in turn undermined his resident's confidence in the accountability of the process, with his statement that public trust and confidence in procedure is important, gives rise to a clear inference that AVS had not conducted its investigations on his resident's complaints fairly, effectively and independently.

Sir, as this is a serious allegation, I wrote to the Member after the Sitting to seek confirmation about the case concerned. I also asked if there was more than one case, as he had referred to the experience of at least one resident, which implies there could be more than one case. He has since confirmed he was referring to just one resident.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have checked on the case referred to by the Member and would like to provide a clarification for the record.

In October 2024, the Member's resident brought her dog to a veterinary clinic for medical attention as the dog was unwell. Unfortunately, the dog died after a medical procedure.

The resident then filed a complaint to AVS against the vet. The resident made two allegations material to our discussion today. I will address each allegation in turn and also explain AVS' findings.

The first allegation is about the lack of informed consent.

First, the resident alleged that informed consent was not given as the potential risks and benefits of the medical procedure were not explained to her.

As part of the investigation process, AVS had thoroughly reviewed the available evidence, including closed circuit television (CCTV) footage and medical records. AVS found no evidence of professional negligence or misconduct by the vet.

Contrary to the resident's claims, the evidence showed that the vet had informed the resident of the dog's prognosis and provided various treatment options. The CCTV footage also recorded the vet explaining the risks of the medical procedure, including heart failure and death.

Second, the resident claimed that the clinic had committed forgery, alleging that the signature on the consent form was forged and not hers, and that even if she had signed the form, the contents had been altered. This was despite the resident having previously acknowledged to AVS that she had signed a form digitally.

Sir, I believe this consent form is the "key document" that the resident had alleged was not, quote, "independently verified for authenticity", unquote. This form essentially stated that the resident gave consent for the vet to sedate or anaesthetise her dog for treatment or diagnostics or both.

As I mentioned earlier, AVS had reviewed the CCTV footage, medical records and case outcomes in the process of its investigation for professional negligence or misconduct. There was no evidence to suggest that forgery may have been committed by the clinic.

In addition to lodging a complaint to AVS, the resident also made a Police report alleging forgery. The Police conducted independent investigations and found no evidence of forgery by the clinic. Instead, the Police found evidence that she had signed a form digitally at the clinic, in the presence of its staff. Therefore, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Police will not take further action.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, AVS had explained its investigation outcome to the resident. AVS had also kept Member Jamus Lim informed, as he had appealed to NParks and other Government agencies on the resident's behalf. The resident had copied the Member in her reply to AVS on 11 September 2025, regarding AVS' investigation outcome. NParks had also replied to the Member's appeal on 9 October 2025 and 25 February 2026.

Therefore, when the Member delivered his speech on the Veterinary Practice Bill on 8 April 2026, the Member would have known of three key pieces of information from correspondence copied or provided to the Member.

First, the Member knew that AVS had investigated the incident.

Second, he knew that AVS had found no professional negligence or misconduct by the vet.

Third, the Member knew that while AVS had found that there were "areas for improvement in the [vet's] documentation of communications [with the resident]…this did not affect the outcome of [veterinary] case management".

In fact, in an email to the resident on 28 October 2025, the Member himself noted that AVS had found, quote, "no relevant regulatory violations", unquote. He also told the resident, and I quote: "I also hope that you are willing to accept that the route of appealing to the authorities is effectively closed, unless you are able to provide material new information to prompt them to reopen the case." Unquote.

The Member then suggested to the resident that she could consider pursuing the case via a civil suit, if she wished for some closure.

Sir, if Member Jamus Lim had put all these facts before Parliament and the public, it would have given Parliament a fuller and more complete picture of the matter. Instead, the impression he created was that AVS had not been thorough in its investigations. This is unwarranted and it is not fair to the AVS officers.

Sir, given the facts that I have set out earlier, the allegations that AVS had not independently verified a key document or that accountability in the process was lacking are clearly untrue. AVS carried out a thorough investigation, examined the evidence and took appropriate action where warranted, and did so independently.

The investigation panel in the resident's case included AVS officers, some of whom are veterinarians. These are public officers who handle complaints of professional misconduct seriously, professionally and without any vested interest in the outcome. These are public officers with the relevant domain expertise and knowledge, and hence, the credibility to carry out such investigations objectively and without fear or favour.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this clarification is to set the record straight on the rigour and impartiality of AVS' investigative processes.

I agree with the Member that public confidence and trust is important. That applies not only to the work of our public agencies and public officers, but also to what is said in this House and in this Chamber. That is why it is crucial to set out the facts for the record, and to uphold the public's confidence and trust in our institutions and to ensure fairness to our public officers. That is also why Members of Parliament (MPs) must take care to put out facts carefully and be careful when asserting allegations against public officers.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, is there anything you wish to add as a point of clarification? Please proceed.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): My thanks to the Minister of State for the update. I will convey this update to my resident.

I do not dispute the accounting of the Minister of State. Still, I believe, as I did then and as I still do now, that it is my role to raise the concerns of the lived experience of my residents.

Prior to the delivery of that speech, I had checked to see that I was faithfully representing her case, and I believe I did so.

This is my job. I am sure that the Minister of State will do the same for his residents.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan. Is there anything that you wish to clarify out of that response?

Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for his response and for taking into account what I had just said.

Sir, all MPs, when we meet with our residents, we try to lend an empathetic ear. In this case, in this resident's case, she had lost her pet and it is understandable that she is upset. And I quote, the MP had said that, "When you are a grieving parent to a fur baby, you might understandably be aggrieved and wish to look for an outlet." Unquote.

That outlet should not be at the expense of unfairly calling out and questioning the professionalism of our public officers. MPs have a responsibility in this regard to steward information and to present a full picture as possible. In this regard, the professionalism and the reputation of the AVS, our public officers, was called into question by what was being said and what was not being said in this House. That is the crux of the matter.

What was said, if I were to go to the facts, is that words that were being used was that "the prior regime may have fallen short"; second, that it "undermined her confidence in [the] accountability of the whole process"; and third, when the phrase "at least one" was used — why say "at least one", when there was just one? Because if you say "at least one", it also implies that there is more than one. What happens is that my colleagues also had to spend time to look into the cases and to check to see if there were more than one. So, that is what was said.

The second is what was left unsaid, which is also equally important. What was left unsaid was that in the emails and in the MP Appeal System (MPAS), the Member was informed that: one, he was aware of the fact that AVS had investigated the incident; he was aware of the processes; he was aware that AVS found no professional negligence or misconduct by the vet; he was aware and noted that AVS had found no relevant regulatory violations, and he had also suggested to the resident to consider pursuing a civil suit.

So, where I am coming from, in being fair to our public officers, is that what is said is important, what is not said is important. And if what was presented to Parliament and in fact, to the public, leaves an impression unfairly that the public officers had not done their job and it undermines the credibility and professionalism of the public officers, then we ought to take care of what we say and also take care with what we do not say.

1.03 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is there anything you wish to reply to on that, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim? None. Order. Business Motion by the Deputy Leader of the House.