Alvin Tan sets record straight over Jamus Lim’s comments during debate on regulating vet sector

SINGAPORE – Minister of State for National Development Alvin Tan on May 5 sought to set the record straight on a case raised in Parliament by Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim concerning a resident’s experience in reporting an incident to the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS).

Mr Tan called out Associate Professor Lim (Sengkang GRC) for omitting facts in his anecdote, which created the impression that “the AVS had not been thorough in its investigations”.

Prof Lim had cited the case, which involved the death of a pet dog after a procedure at a veterinary clinic, during a debate on April 8 regarding a Bill to regulate the veterinary industry.

During that debate, Prof Lim said one of his residents 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 had said.

After the debate, Mr Tan checked on the case and clarified it before the House on May 5.

After the resident’s pet dog died in October 2024, she filed a complaint with AVS alleging that the potential risks and benefits of the medical procedure were not explained to her, and claimed that the clinic had committed forgery on the consent form or altered the contents.

Mr Tan told Parliament 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.

Footage also showed the vet explaining the risks of the medical procedure, including heart failure and death.

There was also no evidence suggesting that forgery may have been committed by the clinic, he added. The police conducted investigations after the resident filed a report, and found no evidence of forgery.

Mr Tan said the AVS had kept Prof Lim informed on the investigation’s outcome as he had appealed to the National Parks Board (NParks) and other agencies on the resident’s behalf.

NParks had responded to his appeal in October 2025 and February 2026.

Mr Tan also pointed out that when Prof Lim had delivered his speech during the debate in April 2026, he would have known that AVS had found no professional negligence or misconduct by the vet.

“While AVS had found that there were areas for improvement in the (vet’s) documentation of communications (with the resident)... this did not affect the outcome of (veterinary) case management,” he added.

In an e-mail to the resident in October 2025, Prof Lim wrote that the AVS had found no relevant regulatory violations, said Mr Tan.

Prof Lim also wrote: “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.”

Mr Tan added that if Prof Lim had put all the facts before Parliament and the public, it would have given the House “a fuller and more complete picture of the matter”.

“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,” he said.

While recounting the resident’s experience on April 8, Prof Lim had said he was not insinuating that there were any lapses by AVS in her case, but wanted to stress that “public trust and confidence in procedure are really important”.

While Mr Tan agreed with Prof Lim that public confidence and trust are important, “that applies not only to the work of public agencies and public officers but also to what is said in this House and this Chamber”.

“That is also why MPs must take care to put out facts carefully and be careful when asserting allegations against public officers,” he added.

After Mr Tan’s clarification, Prof Lim said he does not dispute Mr Tan’s accounting, but added: “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 her case, and I believe I did so. This is my job. I’m sure that (Mr Tan) will do the same for his residents.”

In response, Mr Tan said that what is said in Parliament and what is omitted are both important.

“In this regard, the professionalism and the reputation of the AVS, our public officers, were called into question by what was being said and what was not being said in this House. And that is the crux of the matter,” he added.

Before Mr Tan’s clarification, Prof Lim and WP chief Pritam Singh rose to clarify factual errors in their previous speeches on carparks and natural gas.