Why the difference in acceptance level in how our cats are killed?

The 3rd David Hooi arrest has people speaking out, voicing their feelings for the cats he has killed.

Coincidentally, Mama Piggy shared the latest culling statistics from the SPCA and AVA. While numbers are lower than previous years, the fact remains that we’re still condoning some for advocating the taking of lives, as Dawn said here. It seems it does matter how people kill cats. How else to explain the fact that poeple like Tony Tan Tuan Khoon, residing somewhere in Seletar, is able to rack up more than 200 cat lives, and looks set to add more? Or how an irrational complaint that “black cats are scary” is so eagerly pandered by the TC responsible? What could inspire such brainspawns like the Town Councils’ brilliant spark – ZERO Stray policy?

Gives me a headache just thinking about it.


At the same time, I hope people do understand why animals need our empathy and tolerance. I am a natural human-cynic, but maybe events like the Singapore Wildlife Stampede will bring the message to people and serve as timely, constant reminders. It is important to remember that animal welfare is not restricted to the exotics, endangered animals outside Singapore – the dogs and cats wandering Singapore’s streets deserve no less sympathy and protection. Why else were NGOs like Cat Welfare Society invited to participate?

Really, every day should be World Animal Day. It’s not called the life-cycle for nothing and we’re still a part of it, however high up we want to place ourselves. It’s the last thing to play Jenga with, but humans have been doing just that. I’ve been rehearsing my “I TOLD you so!”, just in case I do get to see the aftermath.


2 responses to “Why the difference in acceptance level in how our cats are killed?

  1. I guess maybe its because of the different level of perceived goodness. Some people may see SPCA/AVA culling as a benefit “for the animals” and to “benefit society”. I put them in quotes as they are really subjective. Whereas when other kills or torture animals for kicks, there are not inherent goodness in those actions.

    Very much like sharks fins and chickens. In general, people can accept that eating sharks fins is cruel because there are no health benefits of sharks fins, further more in many cases the sharks are not entirely kill for food, just the fins and they are left to drown in the sea with their fins cut off. But for chickens, people may be able to accept it because they are used as food (so there is an inherent goodness, in a way) and also we have been used to eating and see chickens hanging around chicken rice stores.

  2. I would venture the same conclusion, which is unfortunate – selective empathy breeds discrimination.