Following Update: Town Councils’ ZERO Stray policy based on shaky logic, Dawn wrote about Dr Teo Ho Pin’s reply (emphasis mine, no strength to re-comment the fallacies of Dr Teo’s reply and assumptions):
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
We wrote to Dr Teo this morning to ask about whether as chairperson of the TC, he might consider changing the ‘zero-stray’ policy in light of the HDB clarification that their rules are not applicable to cats in the common areas.
Dr Teo just wrote back to say that this was incorrect. He also said that town councils can set their own bylaws but that they do consult with HDB on policies and bylaws for the interest of the community at large. He mentioned that whether HDB policy allows it or not, TCs can set their own bylaws. He mentioned that despite HDB’s rule that allows dogs in flats, they do not allow stray dogs or other stray animals, whether they be chickens, ducks, etc in the town council.
He also urged us to put our efforts into Responsible Pet Ownership and including the housing of ‘strays’ in appropriate places.
I was a little confused so I wrote back to clarify because I’m not sure what was incorrect – was HDB incorrect? Or did he mean TCs were not influenced by HDB bylaws? We know that TCs can set their own bylaws, but Dr Teo had mentioned in the meeting that we had that HDB is the landlord and that the TCs follow the HDB rules closely (and also by TCs subsequently when we met them as well). We were hoping that as HDB did not envision that their bylaw on cats in flats be extended to the estate, that Dr Teo might re-think his policy as well.
We are also confused as to where the bylaws are. It would be good to know exactly what they say and so I wrote to ask if he might be able to clarify.
We also asked if he might support a change in the housing policy because we agree that it would certainly be good to house more cats in homes, but as 85% of the population cannot legally own cats, this is a problem.
posted by Dawn @ 5:52 PM