Forum: Advocacy for constituents should be done with care to maintain public trust

I refer to the report on parliamentary comments by Associate Professor Jamus Lim regarding the Animal and Veterinary Service (“Alvin Tan sets record straight over Jamus Lim’s comments during debate on regulating vet sector”, May 5).

In Singapore, professional disciplinary systems ^_ such as those under the Singapore Medical Council and the Animal and Veterinary Service ^_ are designed to be structured, evidence-based and independent. Complaints are assessed rigorously and escalated only when warranted.

In this context, it is important that public statements, especially in Parliament, do not inadvertently cast doubt on these processes without clear and substantiated grounds.

Members of Parliament have a duty to represent their constituents and to raise concerns. However, when cases are presented based on information later disputed by the authorities, it may create the impression that established frameworks are lacking or have not been fairly applied.

This has wider implications. Public confidence in disciplinary systems may be weakened, and agencies may feel pressured to revisit matters that have already undergone due process. It may also place professionals, who have been investigated, under renewed scrutiny despite prior reviews.

Advocacy for constituents is essential. Equally, it should be exercised with care, so as not to undermine institutional integrity and public trust.

Desmond Wai Chun Tao (Dr)