In a parliamentary question, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, Ms He Ting Ru, raised concerns about animal cruelty and welfare cases in Singapore, seeking detailed data from the Ministry for National Development.

She inquired about the number of cases investigated and enforcement actions taken over the last five years, along with a breakdown by types of offences and animals involved.

In a written reply, Minister for National Development, Mr Desmond Lee, provided the data, revealing that the National Parks Board (NParks) investigated an average of 1,200 animal cruelty and welfare cases each year between 2019 and 2023.

The majority of these cases involved dogs and cats. Mr Lee noted that of these investigations, an average of 50 cases annually resulted in enforcement actions, such as issuing warning letters, composition fines, or court prosecutions.

However, a significant number of cases did not lead to enforcement action. Mr Lee explained that this was often due to a lack of evidence or the cases being unrelated to cruelty and welfare.

Commonly, these involved disputes or nuisances caused by pets or community animals, or incidents like accidental falls from heights leading to the deaths of community animals.

*Enforcement action refers to the issuance of a warning letter, a composition fine, or to court prosecution. Investigations for some cases are ongoing and have not been included in the count.

SINGAPORE: Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) clashed with Mr Gerald Giam, MP for Aljunied GRC from the Workers’ Party (WP), over his criticism of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and its close relationship with the PAP.

During the debate on the Platform Workers Bill, Mr. Giam argued that NTUC should be independent rather than maintaining its current symbiotic relationship with the PAP.

Midway through Mr Giam’s speech, PAP MP Christopher de Souza from Holland–Bukit Timah GRC interrupted, accusing him of using the debate to attack NTUC rather than focusing on the Bill.

Leader of the House Indranee Rajah also contributed to the debate, noting that close ties between unions and political parties are common in democracies worldwide, such as in the UK, US, and Canada.

She pointed out that Mr Giam’s call for union independence from political parties is inconsistent with practices in other democracies.

In response, Mr Giam acknowledged the global context but argued that while UK unions may support the Labour Party, they do not have the same level of symbiotic relationship with their political parties as NTUC does with the PAP in Singapore.

He emphasised that the WP supports a tripartite dialogue among employers, unions, and the government but not with any specific political party.

Mr Giam highlighted the need for unions to be independent and nonpartisan to better represent workers’ interests.

Meanwhile, Speaker Seah Kian Peng emphasised the importance of sticking to the relevance of the topic being debated, as per Standing Order Section 50.

Pritam Singh, Leader of Opposition also weighed in, noting that political remarks should be consistently applied and citing a previous instance where Mr. de Souza spoke on leadership transitions during a budget debate. Singh argued that PAP members should reflect on their own practices.

“I think the salutary message you provided at the end is important because it cannot be just accusations made at the opposition, but I think some PAP members ought to reflect on themselves, ” said Mr Singh.

In response, Mr De Souza justifying his earlier speech on leadership transitions by arguing that strong leadership is crucial for effective governance, including budgetary matters.

He insisted that his speech was relevant to the budget debate, in contrast to what he perceived as Mr Giam’s irrelevant critique of NTUC.

Senior Minister of State for Defence Mr. Heng Chee How joined the debate, defending NTUC’s relationship with the PAP.

He argued that this alignment benefits workers by effectively communicating their needs and prioritizing their interests.

Heng highlighted the PAP’s track record in delivering results for Singapore and its workers. He asserted that the PAP’s long-standing governance has consistently prioritized workers’ needs and has not compromised their interests.

Heng criticised some recommendations made by Gerald Giam, suggesting that they could potentially undermine the effectiveness of tripartite partnerships.

He warned that such recommendations could lead to ineffective agreements and hinder progress for workers.

In response, Mr Giam acknowledged the hard work of unionists but critiqued systemic constraints on union independence.

He argued that his proposals for greater union independence aim to empower workers’ representatives to advocate more effectively for their interests.

Giam addressed criticisms that his initial remarks were irrelevant by explaining they set the stage for his main policy points.

“I believe that my proposals for union independence are meant to empower unionists and platform associations leaders to act freely in the best interests of their workers.”

Later, Giam posed a thought-provoking question: “Can I assume that … if the PAP were to ever lose power, the NTUC would therefore become an instrument of opposition against the new government?”

Indranee responded that she could not speak for NTUC but emphasized that it would be up to NTUC and its workers to decide which political party, if any, they support.

“What I can say is that the PAP would do its very utmost not to have to give them a reason to think that we would never support them, or that as a government, we would not do our very best for the workers and the trade union congress.”