Introduction

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification on the investigation processes conducted by NParks’ Animal and Veterinary Service, or AVS. On 8 April 2026, I had mentioned in this Chamber that I will go back and check on any correspondence between Member Jamus Lim and AVS relating to this topic.

Statements made by MP Jamus Lim

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’s 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 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’s part. However, juxtaposing his recitation of his resident’s allegations that: one. 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 complaint 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 that there could be more than one case. He has since confirmed he was referring to just one resident.

Case Background 

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. 

Rebutting Allegations

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’s findings.

First allegation – Lack of informed consent 

The first allegation is about 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 CCTV footages 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 allegation – Forgery

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.

I believe this consent form is the “key document” that the resident had alleged was not “independently verified for authenticity”. 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.  

Presenting a complete picture of the facts

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, AVS had explained its investigation outcome to the resident. 

AVS 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’s 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 complaint. 

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 “no relevant regulatory violations”. 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.”

End quote. 

He 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. 

AVS’s independence

Sir, given the facts that I had 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, without fear or favour.

Conclusion

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

I agree with the Member that public confidence and trust is important. That applies not only to the work of public agencies and public officers but also to what is said in this House and 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 MPs must take care to put out facts carefully and be careful when asserting allegations against public officers.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.