Speaker, I have three points to clarify on the Veterinary Practice Bill.
First, the Bill sets up Singapore's first Veterinary Council, and the aim to raise standards is welcome. But every Council member is picked by the Minister, who can also remove any member "for any reason" and hears the final appeal against the Council’s recommendations. The Medical Council and Dental Council both have, by statute, elected members from the profession - 12 out of 27 for the Medical Council, and 5 out of 13 for the Dental Council. Why depart from that statutory elected-member model here, and what safeguards ensure vets have a real voice in their own oversight? The consultation outcome did promise to include veterinary professionals on the Council — but unlike the Medical Registration Act and the Dental Registration Act, the Bill does not make that representation statutory.
Second, smaller practices will likely bear a heavier burden from future Council rules than chains like Mars Veterinary Health, which runs at least 19 of Singapore's 121 licensed vet centres — about one in six. Regulatory costs that are marginal for a large chain can be more significant for a small practice. Section 87(3) states (quote) “Regulations made under this Act may make different provisions, or prescribe different fees, for different classes of persons or different circumstances.” (end quote) and all regulations require the Minister’s approval under 87(1) and 87(2). Will the Ministry commit to using the differential-fee power in Section 87(3) to ensure that regulatory costs do not accelerate the consolidation the vet profession is already experiencing? Since no regulation the Council makes can take effect without the Minister's approval, I would urge the Ministry to assess, before granting that approval, whether compliance costs fall proportionately on small practices relative to their fixed-cost base — and to require the Council to invoke Section 87(3) where they do not.
Third, the Bill sets the standard but there can be multiple paths to meet it. Singapore has no veterinary degree programme. All 690-plus practising veterinarians trained overseas. When Member Ms Valerie Lee asked MOE in February 2026 about introducing a local veterinary science degree, the reply was that MOE would “monitor and assess”. I support the idea of a local vet degree. If the goal is higher standards, why not build a local training path that can better guarantee those standards — and give Singaporeans who want to become vets, a route that does not need a costly overseas degree?
There is also a strong regional case for this. No veterinary degree programme in any ASEAN member state currently holds accreditation from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, or the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council — the three bodies whose recognition permits practice in North America, the UK and Europe, and Australasia respectively. A Singapore-based programme that secures any of these accreditations, taught in English within a globally recognised university system, would be a unique regional asset.
I look forward to the Ministry’s reply. Thank you. And in advance of 25th April, I’d like to wish all our vets, vet nurses, and everyone who works with animals, a Happy World Veterinary Day.
