Introduction
Sir, as a parent to two cats, I understand firsthand the importance of having qualified, trustworthy veterinary professionals caring for our animals. The establishment of a Veterinary Council, the creation of a 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 times 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 after 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.
Educating The Public on the New Framework
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 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.
Adequacy of Enforcement Resources
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 for 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. The Animal & Veterinary Service 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 continuing education requirements, and building up institutional expertise in a regulatory function that has not previously existed at this scale.
I would ask the Minister 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’s 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 extends to cover veterinary nurses?
The Position of Experienced but Unlicensed Animal Caregivers
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 administering 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 the 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 medicine. 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 a 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 four questions. First, will the Government engage with 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 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.
Conclusion
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 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.
Thank you.
