SINGAPORE: Members of Parliament (MPs) have the responsibility to steward information and present “a full picture as possible”, Minister of State for National Development Alvin Tan said in parliament on Tuesday (May 5) as he called out Workers’ Party’s (WP) Jamus Lim for giving incomplete facts in a speech last month.
In his response, the Sengkang GRC MP said it was his role to raise concerns of the lived experience of his residents, adding that prior to the delivery of the speech, he had checked to see that he was “faithfully representing a case”.
During the debate on the Veterinary Practice Bill on Apr 8, Associate Professor Lim gave an anecdote of an aggrieved resident’s experience reporting an incident to the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS).
The resident had filed a complaint against a vet as her dog died after a medical procedure, which she claimed she did not provide informed consent for.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
The resident had alleged that key documents submitted to AVS for investigation did not appear to be independently verified for authenticity, which undermined her confidence in the accountability of the process, he said.
On Tuesday, Mr Tan rose to seek a clarification on the anecdote, stating that he had checked on the resident’s case following Assoc Prof Lim’s speech.
He found that what was presented to parliament had left an “unfair” impression that undermined the credibility and professionalism of the public officers, adding that the WP MP had been kept in the loop during the investigative process.
“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,” said Mr Tan.
“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.”
Mr Tan’s clarification came after Assoc Prof Lim retracted a separate claim he made during a Mar 5 debate on the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's budget.
Assoc Prof Lim had mistakenly cited “forgone income” as an objection to converting car parks into pickleball courts, later correcting it to “forgone space.” He added that the Housing and Development Board takes into account whether there are enough parking lots to meet demand.
In his speech in April, Assoc Prof Lim used the resident’s example when explaining that the investigative and disciplinary action is “the heart” of the Bill.
He added then that a regulatory framework is only as strong as the practical implementation of fair and effective investigative actions, followed by reasonable and acceptable disciplinary measures.
“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,” he said at the time.
On Tuesday, Mr Tan gave a full account of what transpired during AVS’ probe.
Mr Tan said the resident had brought her dog to a veterinary clinic in Oct 2024 for medical attention as the dog was unwell. The dog later died after a medical procedure, which prompted the resident to file a complaint with AVS against the vet.
The resident had alleged that informed consent was not given as the potential risks and benefits of the medical procedure were not explained to her.
However, Mr Tan said that AVS had thoroughly reviewed the available evidence, including CCTV footage and medical records, and found no evidence of professional negligence or misconduct by the vet.
Mr Tan added that 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.
The resident also claimed that the clinic had committed forgery, although police investigations later found evidence that she had signed the form digitally at the clinic and in the presence of the staff, Mr Tan said.
Mr Tan said that Assoc Prof Lim had known about the full details of the case when he made his speech, highlighting various exchanges between AVS, the resident and the opposition MP.
These correspondence included a Sep 11, 2025 reply by the resident to AVS regarding the investigation outcome, which was also sent to Assoc Prof Lim.
Mr Tan added that the National Parks Board (NParks) had replied to Assoc Prof Lim on Oct 9, 2025, and Feb 25, 2026, as he had appealed to NParks and other government agencies on her behalf.
From the correspondence, Assoc Prof Lim would have known that AVS investigated the incident and found no professional negligence or misconduct, said Mr Tan.
Additionally, while AVS had found that there were areas for improvement in the vet's documentation or communication with the resident, this did not affect the outcome of veterinary case management, Mr Tan said.
Mr Tan then pointed to an email by Assoc Prof Lim to the resident on Oct 28, 2025, in which the WP MP noted that AVS had found “no relevant regulatory violations”.
“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,” Assoc Prof Lim wrote.
In his speech in April, Assoc Prof Lim stressed that he was not insinuating that there were any lapses in the resident’s case.
However, Mr Tan said his speech implied that AVS had not conducted its investigations on his resident’s complaint fairly, effectively and independently because he juxtaposed the resident’s allegations alongside his statement that “public trust and confidence in procedure is important”.
Mr Tan called this a “serious allegation”.
He also noted that in his speech, Assoc Prof Lim had referred to the experience of “at least one” resident, which implies that there could be more than one case.
Assoc Prof Lim has since confirmed that he was referring to just one resident, Mr Tan said.
In his response to Mr Tan’s clarification, Assoc Prof Lim thanked Mr Tan for the update and said he did not dispute the accounting with him. He added that he would convey the information to the resident.
“Still, I believe, as I did then, and I still do now, that it’s 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 a case, and I believe I did so.
“This is my job. I'm sure that the (Minister of State) will do the same for his residents,” he said.
Mr Tan responded that what is said and omitted in parliament is important.
“And if what was presented to parliament and in fact to the public, leaves an impression that unfairly, that the public officers had not done their job and they undermined the credibility and professionalism of public officers, then we ought to take care of what we say and also take care with what we do not say,” he said.
Continue reading...
In his response, the Sengkang GRC MP said it was his role to raise concerns of the lived experience of his residents, adding that prior to the delivery of the speech, he had checked to see that he was “faithfully representing a case”.
During the debate on the Veterinary Practice Bill on Apr 8, Associate Professor Lim gave an anecdote of an aggrieved resident’s experience reporting an incident to the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS).
The resident had filed a complaint against a vet as her dog died after a medical procedure, which she claimed she did not provide informed consent for.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
The resident had alleged that key documents submitted to AVS for investigation did not appear to be independently verified for authenticity, which undermined her confidence in the accountability of the process, he said.
On Tuesday, Mr Tan rose to seek a clarification on the anecdote, stating that he had checked on the resident’s case following Assoc Prof Lim’s speech.
He found that what was presented to parliament had left an “unfair” impression that undermined the credibility and professionalism of the public officers, adding that the WP MP had been kept in the loop during the investigative process.
“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,” said Mr Tan.
“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.”
Mr Tan’s clarification came after Assoc Prof Lim retracted a separate claim he made during a Mar 5 debate on the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's budget.
Assoc Prof Lim had mistakenly cited “forgone income” as an objection to converting car parks into pickleball courts, later correcting it to “forgone space.” He added that the Housing and Development Board takes into account whether there are enough parking lots to meet demand.
FULL ACCOUNT OF AVS' PROBE
In his speech in April, Assoc Prof Lim used the resident’s example when explaining that the investigative and disciplinary action is “the heart” of the Bill.
He added then that a regulatory framework is only as strong as the practical implementation of fair and effective investigative actions, followed by reasonable and acceptable disciplinary measures.
“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,” he said at the time.
On Tuesday, Mr Tan gave a full account of what transpired during AVS’ probe.
Mr Tan said the resident had brought her dog to a veterinary clinic in Oct 2024 for medical attention as the dog was unwell. The dog later died after a medical procedure, which prompted the resident to file a complaint with AVS against the vet.
The resident had alleged that informed consent was not given as the potential risks and benefits of the medical procedure were not explained to her.
However, Mr Tan said that AVS had thoroughly reviewed the available evidence, including CCTV footage and medical records, and found no evidence of professional negligence or misconduct by the vet.
Mr Tan added that 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.
The resident also claimed that the clinic had committed forgery, although police investigations later found evidence that she had signed the form digitally at the clinic and in the presence of the staff, Mr Tan said.
Related:
A ‘SERIOUS ALLEGATION’
Mr Tan said that Assoc Prof Lim had known about the full details of the case when he made his speech, highlighting various exchanges between AVS, the resident and the opposition MP.
These correspondence included a Sep 11, 2025 reply by the resident to AVS regarding the investigation outcome, which was also sent to Assoc Prof Lim.
Mr Tan added that the National Parks Board (NParks) had replied to Assoc Prof Lim on Oct 9, 2025, and Feb 25, 2026, as he had appealed to NParks and other government agencies on her behalf.
From the correspondence, Assoc Prof Lim would have known that AVS investigated the incident and found no professional negligence or misconduct, said Mr Tan.
Additionally, while AVS had found that there were areas for improvement in the vet's documentation or communication with the resident, this did not affect the outcome of veterinary case management, Mr Tan said.
Mr Tan then pointed to an email by Assoc Prof Lim to the resident on Oct 28, 2025, in which the WP MP noted that AVS had found “no relevant regulatory violations”.
“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,” Assoc Prof Lim wrote.
In his speech in April, Assoc Prof Lim stressed that he was not insinuating that there were any lapses in the resident’s case.
However, Mr Tan said his speech implied that AVS had not conducted its investigations on his resident’s complaint fairly, effectively and independently because he juxtaposed the resident’s allegations alongside his statement that “public trust and confidence in procedure is important”.
Mr Tan called this a “serious allegation”.
He also noted that in his speech, Assoc Prof Lim had referred to the experience of “at least one” resident, which implies that there could be more than one case.
Assoc Prof Lim has since confirmed that he was referring to just one resident, Mr Tan said.
In his response to Mr Tan’s clarification, Assoc Prof Lim thanked Mr Tan for the update and said he did not dispute the accounting with him. He added that he would convey the information to the resident.
“Still, I believe, as I did then, and I still do now, that it’s 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 a case, and I believe I did so.
“This is my job. I'm sure that the (Minister of State) will do the same for his residents,” he said.
Mr Tan responded that what is said and omitted in parliament is important.
“And if what was presented to parliament and in fact to the public, leaves an impression that unfairly, that the public officers had not done their job and they undermined the credibility and professionalism of public officers, then we ought to take care of what we say and also take care with what we do not say,” he said.
Continue reading...