Alvin Tan calls out Jamus Lim over AVS investigation into death of pet dog, Lim says it's his duty to voice residents' concerns

Minister of State for National Development Alvin Tan and Workers' Party MP Jamus Lim had a brief but tense exchange in Parliament on May 5.

They were discussing an anecdote that Lim had shared earlier in an Apr. 8 speech, also in Parliament, regarding the death of a resident's dog after a medical procedure at the vet.

In his speech, made in response to the second reading of the Veterinary Practice Bill, Lim had called for the formation of a Veterinary Council, suggesting that "the prior regime may have fallen short" in its investigative actions.

This was based on an incident that a resident had shared with him, he said.

But Tan disputed the account, saying that Lim created an "unwarranted" impression that Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) had not been thorough in its investigation.

This was "not fair to the AVS officers", he said.

The incident

Lim had brought up the anecdote, shared by a resident, in his Apr. 8 speech.

The resident had alleged that "key documents submitted to AVS for investigation" did not appear to be independently verified for authenticity, he said.

"This, in turn, undermined her confidence in the accountability of the entire process."

While Lim specified that he was not insinuating the presence or absence of any lapses in her case, he also said that investigations "must garner public trust and confidence" in such procedures.

In this regard, the "prior regime may have fallen short", he said.

During his speech, Lim did not elaborate about what the incident was.

A "serious allegation"

Tan said that in the aftermath of that speech, he wrote to Lim to request more details.

This is because Lim's anecdote had suggested that AVS had not investigated residents' complaints "fairly, effectively, and independently".

This was a "serious allegation", Tan said.

He then revealed more details about the incident, which took place in October 2024.

The resident had brought her dog to a veterinary clinic for medical attention as it was unwell.

But the dog passed away after a medical procedure.

The resident then filed a complaint to AVS against the vet, alleging that the potential risks and benefits had not been explained to her.

The resident further alleged that she had not signed the consent form allowing the vet to sedate or anaesthesise her dog for treatment or diagnostics.

Rather, she claimed that the clinic had forged her signature, or altered the contents of the form.

No evidence of claims

Investigations by AVS revealed no evidence of either claim, Tan said.

After reviewing CCTV footage, they found that the vet had informed the resident of the dog's prognosis, and explained the risks of the medical procedure.

The agency, as well as the police, also found no evidence that the clinic had committed forgery, Tan said.

As Lim had appealed to the National Parks Board (NParks) on the resident's behalf, he was aware of the investigation and its outcomes before he delivered his speech on Apr. 8.

He had also suggested to the resident that she could pursue a civil suit if she wished for closure.

Tan said that in omitting "all these facts" from his speech, Lim had failed to give Parliament a fuller and more complete picture of the matter.

"Instead the impression he created was that AVS had not been thorough in its investigation...

...MPs must take care to put out facts carefully, and be careful when asserting allegations against public officers."

"This is my job"

In response, Lim said that he would convey all this to his resident.

But he emphasised that it is "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 MOS will do the same for his residents."

Take care what you say and don't say: Tan

Tan thanked Lim for his response and acknowledged that MPs must be empathetic when speaking to residents.

In this case, the resident had lost a pet, and had "understandably" been aggrieved and sought an outlet.

But that outlet "should not be at the expense of unfairly calling out and questioning the professionalism of our public officers", Tan said.

"MPs have a responsibility, in this regard, to steward information and to present as full a picture as possible," he said.

"If what was presented to Parliament, and in fact to the public, leaves an impression that unfairly [suggests] that public officers had not done their job, and that undermines the credibility and professionalism of public officers... then we ought to take care of what we say, and also take care of what we do not say."

When asked if he wished to reply to this, Lim declined to do so.