How to better regulate the pet boarding industry
Should the law be eased slightly by limiting the frequency and the number of pets that can be boarded at homes of a certain size for instance, asks the author, a Member of Parliament.
Penni, our Pomeranian dog whom we rescued, has been with my family for 14 years now. To us, she is not just a pet but a member of our family. Like many Singaporeans, our pets are our companions, our best friends, our soul mates.
Many people have written to me about the recent Platinium Dogs Club case and I share their concerns.
I cannot imagine passing Penni to a pet boarder and then finding out she died there. I dread to think how devastating it must be for Elaine who lost her dog Prince.
What happened at Platinium Dogs Club has raised many questions and I hope the ongoing investigations will help shed light on what happened to the animals in its care.
But taking a broader view of the industry beyond this case, there are gaps in our policies and legislation on pet boarding businesses. We need to close these gaps to ensure that these businesses adhere to animal welfare standards.
This is why I raised this issue in Parliament this month, and for a start, asked the government to introduce a licensing requirement for pet boarding businesses.
We do already have the Code of Animal Welfare (for the Pet Industry) with a specific section on “Minimum Standards and Best Practices for Pet Boarders, Pet Sitters & Pet Day Care Providers”.
The code took effect from Oct 2016 and gives the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) teeth to take errant businesses that do not comply with it to task. Businesses are expected to comply with the minimum standards in the code and they are encouraged to adopt the best practices to further raise the standard of animal welfare in Singapore.
It is possible that some pet boarders are not aware of such a code, as reported by TODAY.
READ ALSO:
Understaffed animal welfare groups at Tengah lodge seek the authorities' help to hire foreign workers
Grab your pet and go: GrabPet service launches in Singapore
Another problem is that we currently do not have a list of pet boarders who are operating outside of pet farms.
If we do not know who they are and where they are operating at, how then do we ensure that they comply with the Code of Animal Welfare?
How do we be proactive and do spot checks on the pet boarders to ensure they are up to standards?
Perhaps the only time we will know that these pet boarders exist is when someone files a complaint on poor animal welfare.
While AVA can investigate and possibly take action against these boarders, this is merely reactive and does not address the crux of the problem.
We should not be tackling animal cruelty after it happens. Instead, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that pet boarders comply with the standards in the first place so that animals are not mistreated.
A licensing requirement will be a good start, and can lead to better regulation of the industry.
It will give us a chance to do basic checks on individuals who apply to operate a pet boarding business.
The authorities can ensure that they have staff members who are trained in Pet Animal Management and Welfare and are aware of the Code of Animal Welfare.
Checks can also be conducted on their proposed premises for the pet boarding and ensure that it is suitable.
Most importantly, authorities can then follow up and do spot checks to ensure the conditions continue to be optimal for animal welfare.
To be sure, we are moving forward on this issue, with the announcement by Senior Parliamentary Secretary for National Development Sun Xueling in Parliament that AVA intends to “undertake a holistic review of the regulatory approach for the pet industry, including how best to regulate pet boarding businesses.”
She added that as part of this review, AVA will engage its stakeholders — pet owners, industry players and animal welfare groups — to “find the right balance across their various needs and interests.”
“Many pet boarders out there who are do-gooders, well-meaning pet lovers, who provide pet boarding facilities.”
While this may be the case, this review should also look at the issue of licensing those who operate pet boarding services out of their homes on a freelance basis.
Some of them may be pet lovers that Ms Sun refers to, but the law is clear that both Housing and Development Board flats and private residential properties cannot be used for pet boarding services at the moment.
Should the law be eased slightly by limiting the frequency and the number of pets that can be boarded at homes of a certain size for instance? Can we find a middle ground so that they can continue to operate and at the same time not affect the living environment of their neighbours?
I’m optimistic that the AVA review will lead to positive changes and it will be a huge step forward in the animal protection movement in Singapore. It will signal our government’s strong stance on safeguarding the welfare of animals.
I hope that everyone who has spoken up so passionately on this issue will also share their views and suggestions and participate in the upcoming review of the regulatory approach for the pet industry.
I have no doubt that stronger regulations to safeguard the welfare of animals will be welcomed by these pet boarders.
It really is the minority who give this industry a bad name and we need to weed them out.
Let’s work together to strengthen our policies and legislation. Together, we can give a voice to the voiceless and help ensure that our animal friends are well taken care of when we entrust them to pet boarders.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Louis Ng is founder and chief executive of Animal Concerns Research and Education Society, an animal welfare group commonly known as Acres. He is also Member of Parliament for Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency.
