Better Caring for Animals in Our Midst

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 mini schnauzer (I’d like to think that it wasn’t as a substitute child, but her actions didn’t lend much confidence). She named her Karmel.

Unfortunately, in 2018, Karmel suffered a heart attack. At the time, we didn’t have a car, but lived about a half-kilometer 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 Karmel.

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 aren’t “just an animal.” They are a part of the family. Mom would have spared no expense to save her beloved Karmel, even if she had been informed that the chances were slim.

In that instance, we had little reason to believe that the veterinary team wasn’t trying their level best to save our pet. And, I am sure, this is the case for almost all cases handled by animal professionals. 

But complications arise when the 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 their interventions were simply ineffective.

A veterinary council will ensure adjudication is performed by technically-informed peers

This is why I support the formation of a 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 in the gray area. 

This task currently falls to the AVA. However, I believe most would agree that adjudication over sophisticated, technical judgments 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, than to decentralize the regulatory process to other expert voices, such as a council.

There are, of course, residual concerns—typical in all such self-regulatory settings—that such a body may choose to “protect its own.” And even in the absence of explicit bias, the similarity of background and training may predispose other 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 well-understood mechanisms to mitigate such risk. Common strategies include providing either an alternative channel of appeal, or an escalation mechanism, should the first decision be deemed unsatisfactory. I believe Clause 20(8) of the Bill provides, as is 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.

Now, Clause 4(3)(b) does stipulate that two individuals should be “laypersons,” but it is unclear how informed these members would be about consumer issues. Will the Minister commit to appointing consumer-side advocates for these positions, such as animal welfare groups or pet owner association representatives? Relatedly, to prevent an overrepresentation of large holding groups or private equity-linked rollups, it may be wise to ensure that one seat that would 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.

Investigative and disciplinary action must garner public trust and confidence

Part 5 of the Bill is concerned with the 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 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 in this regard. That resident has alleged that 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 entire process.

To be clear, I am not insinuating that there was, or was not, any lapses in her case. However, I am sure that all in this House will agree that public trust and confidence in procedure is of utmost importance, regardless of whether 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 would be willing to share how they expect investigators to proceed with the verification process for evidentiary documents submitted to them. Will there be independent corroboration on the provenance of these documents? Would the investigator seek out other credible authorities and agencies—such as the SPF—to support the investigation process?

Conclusion

I will leave with one final thought, albeit slightly outside of the formal scope of this 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 community cats at Everton Park and Punggol, and the throwing of cats off high floors, hint at 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 Animals and Birds Act, which was last amended in 2014. As of March last year, this will still ongoing. Would the Minister share when the 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 that animal welfare be placed on the same level as human welfare. There are many instances, especially as we go about estate management matters, where we often need to take difficult decisions about prioritizing our residents’ legitimate concerns about noise and hygiene, against the desire to cherish animals living 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 forward in ensuring that our furry friends and family are treated right by those tasked with their physiological wellbeing. I support the Bill.

‍