TODAY 20051104: Why animal welfare groups in Singapore can’t reach out to the authorities

Hot News // Friday, November 4, 2005

The art of getting heard

Why animal welfare groups in Singapore can’t reach out to the authorities

Goh Boon Choo

IN Singapore, animal cruelty reports precipitate letters in the media calling for harsher punishment, tougher laws and stringent enforcement.

The authorities then issue sympathetic responses, explaining their stand and that they “will not hesitate to take strong action” against perpetrators — but stop short of committing to firmer penalties.

In a reply published in Today in June, the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) said: “While we may not be able to adopt all the suggestions by the (letter) writers, we will definitely take these suggestions into consideration when we review our rules.”

So it was too, when news of Max, the Alaskan Malamute, broke in August.

For fatally neglecting him, Max’s owner, Lim Bee Leong, was fined $3,000. Singaporeans wrote letters and signed an online petition for stiffer punishment.

The persistent calls for tougher enforcement are a symptom of the gap between public disapproval of animal cruelty and official policies.

People understand that animal cruelty concerns society at large. Nine in 10 respondents believe “we have a moral duty to minimise suffering”, according to the results of an Asian survey commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, presented in March.

In July last year, a local newspaper reported that culling costs for 2003 rose 20 per cent. That year, AVA cancelled its five-year-old Stray Cat Rehabilitation Scheme (SCRS), following the Sars scare.

Eighty per cent of readers surveyed objected to AVA’s annual $600,000 culling bill, and more than half felt funds should go to animal welfare groups to re-home or sterilise strays.

Animal welfare groups play an important role in raising awareness and rallying like-minded citizens. But they seem unable to engage the authorities to the extent their counterparts elsewhere do.

The Humane Society of the United States collaborated with a senator to successfully lobby for an end to horse-slaughter for food exports. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it secured senators’ sponsorship of its proposal to change evacuation policies to include refugees’ pets.

The disparity may be due to cultural mindset and maturity of the political system — but in comparison, Singapore’s welfare groups are often left reacting to policy changes. For instance, the Cat Welfare Society championed in vain for the continuation, then reinstatement, of the SCRS.

In fact, AVA’s own case study of the SCRS in Bukit Merah View (since been removed from the AVA website) proved the scheme’s effectiveness over culling.

Tellingly, part of that study’s conclusion was that “sterilisation and responsible management has the support of up to 96 per cent of the public. The majority want cats controlled but do not want them culled”.

Another example is the Action for Singapore Dogs’ (ASD) proposal to the HDB. It suggested easing HDB’s rule on dog breeds, to widen the adoption pool for larger dogs, as temperament rather than size determines a breed’s suitability for flat-living. Despite volunteering to monitor trial adoptions, ASD’s proposal fell through.

Since collaboration is not welcomed, groups have to try to involve themselves indirectly. For example, a US group, pet-abuse.com, produced a training film on investigating animal cruelty and successful deterrent sentencing. Targeted at police and prosecutors, the film’s distribution has widened beyond America.

Welfare groups also need to be politically savvy: Identify and initiate contact with foresighted officials, as it seems change is possible only from within officialdom.

In recent months, readers have written in urging for a rethink on current laws, legislative support for pet ownership (for example compulsory microchipping) and cooperation between AVA and welfare groups to design humane and effective solutions to issues conventional policies cannot address, such as stray culling and unregulated pet breeding. So far, the authorities have issued the standard responses.

The equation between public opinion and official stance is a skewed one. Still, if only extreme cruelty cases compel Singapore to react, it would reflect poorly on our collective compassion.

There will always be another Max, but instead of decrying lax enforcement or incongruent penalties after the fact, Singapore should minimise the number of Maxes by deterring the potential Lim Bee Leongs.

This necessitates paradigm shifts, but to effectively address prevalent problems, the authorities must include Singaporeans and the welfare groups more thoroughly in its policy formulation process.

The writer is an analyst concerned with animal and environmental issues.

HDB’s cat ban elicits incredulity

Popular local blogger Mr Wang blogged about his brother’s art exhibition in Hong Kong. The interesting thing is its his “brother’s sixth exhibition of cat paintings, all of which are inspired by his real-life pet cat”. If this cat minion were in Hong Kong, this would an exhibition I’d go to. I was particularly piqued with this remark by Mr Wang:

And here’s another. I guess this is about HDB’s prohibition on flat owners having a pet cat:

The interesting thing is one reader’s reaction to the HDB cat ban:

Are you sure this is the case? I think this sort of statement spells disaster for credibility.
I think feeding strays is illegal or frowned upon, but not having legal pets.

I think this sort of reaction is good. People do tend to want to believe the positive where there’s a choice, never mind the reality. But this also shows how incredulous people find the ban to be. I’m interested to know the reactions when more people realise just how ridiculous Singapore’s pet and animal control policies are. I’ve responded (adding AVA’s pet cat brochure which extols the suitability of cats as indoor pets who do not need to roam for good measure), but of course it depends on whether Mr Wang approves my comment. I hope he does.

Forget awareness, I cannot believe in this day and age such things should be shocking news. What people need to do is acknowledge reality, not just about the pet legislations in place but also the whole animal population control situation – and the laughability of it all. TNRM is the way to go, culling is ineffective and an expense taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize. When the Singapore government and the bureaucrats running rings around their fingers see the light depends on more and different Singaporeans speaking up.

Foster Mum’s Homeseeker: Kanly, lovely doggy needs a home

Kanly is a 8 month old black female puppy, medium-large size. She is sterilised and seeking a permanent home.

Temperament: Friendly, trusting, affectionate, and calm. Does not bark. Shy with men.

Kanly seems ok with cats. The orange blob in the lower right is Yo-yo aka Bonnie, a female ginger kitty in the cattery.

Her Story

Kanly was picked up of the streets as a young pup  5-6 months ago by a young brother and sister pair. She lived in a HDB flat happily, and without problems as she does not bark.

However, as she grew and grew, her family’s neighbours decided they would not tolerate her presence and made a complaint to HDB. Of course, the ultimatum was issued to her young owners. The kids were distraught but luckily, they were able to seek help. Kanly was rescued by Noah’s Ark and is now being fostered by Foster Mum.

Kanly is a victim of the same draconian HDB pet rules that threaten cats. As such, she cannot be rehomed to someone living in HDB.

ENQUIRIES: ADOPTION AND PROCEDURE
Please email sephycat@gmail.com with the following:

• your name
• contact
• a summary of your background and experience with dogs

Serious adopters only, please. All info will be treated in confidence and forwarded to Kanly’s guardian.

TODAY Online 20090323: Pet issues can’t be legislated away

A follow-up to TODAY 20090316: Rise in lost dogs, despite laws. (Links and emphasis mine)

Online Only – Pet issues can’t be legislated away
04:16 PM March 23, 2009
Letter from Goh Boon Choo

I refer to “Rise in lost dogs, despite laws” (Mar 16).The dog abandonment statistics released by the SPCA is alarming but not unexpected. When the tighter dog licence rules came into effect on 1 Sep 07, there was an immediate increase in large dogs being abandoned. I wrote a commentary on Singapore’s pet issues for TODAY, “Pet project: Let’s work together”, which was published on 7 Nov 07.

The SPCA statistics show the situation for dogs, and to a large extent cats, has not changed since then. 85 per cent of Singaporeans and Singapore residents stay in HDB flats, where only certain breeds of dogs are allowed, determined by size when temperament should be the determining factor.

HDB also categorically bans cats as pets even though animal experts and the AVA have said sterilised cats make perfect flat pets. Though HDB’s ban applies only to flat interiors, the Town Councils took it upon themselves to extend it to the streets.

Most cats surrendered to the SPCA are homeless, or community cats. That the number of cats it receives has dropped to 300 from 500 monthly is concrete testament to the success of efforts by residents who sterilise, stabilise and manage their neighbourhood’s community cat population. This is TNRM: trap-neuter-return-management. It is humane and effective, compared to the AVA and Town Councils’ penchant for cat killing.

In Singapore, TNRM is commonly self-funded. I am one such Singaporean and I have been running TNRM for 3 areas in my estate for 10 years.

However, TNRM programmes are still not recognised by Town Councils, nor even some of our Members of Parliament as active citizenry, organic community building at its best. In fact, successful TNRM programmes are sometimes undermined by Town Councils’ enthusiasm to respond to all manner of cat-related complaints by rounding up every cat in sight to be killed at the AVA, without even investigating the root cause. It is a vicious cycle as the removals create a vacuum effect, leaving the neighbourhood open for new, often unsterilised, cats to take over. Resident volunteers like myself have to sterilise the new cats if we don’t want to see our TNRM programmes down the drain.

Despite more than 2 decades of cat culling, new cats keep appearing. Town Councils and the AVA need to address the pertinent question: where are our community cats coming from?

Out of Singapore homes, just like the abandoned pet dogs.

With changing demographics, Singaporeans’ needs and wants for a cuddly pet will continue to evolve and grow, ban or no ban.

The Singapore Government needs to recognise pet issues, like every other problem, cannot be legislated out of existence. The key is in acknowledging that people want to keep pets, that cats and dogs are very popular pet choices regardless of what type of residence they live in, and to manage the situation accordingly.

Myanimalfamily averted hoarder crisis

[EDIT 20090329] MyAnimalFamily: Animal hoarding in Singapore

---

Today, myanimalfamily blogs about a temporarily averted hoarder crisis.

I believe this is the same case V mentioned he was doing the transport for when we were making arrangements for Bradley and Saba as the details match, from the house filled with scaredy ginger-coloured cats, its unforgettable ‘fragrance’ and a retarded resident who needs help.

Hats off to the woman of myanimalfamily for managing this case, helping the cats and the people. I believe it is telling that transforming the sentiment from

… an entire floor of residents to band together crying for blood

to

They in fact, came to their own conclusion that it was not possible to take away all the old woman’s cats without causing her much pain and suffering and finally only asked that the situation with the smell be resolved.

One neighbour even spoke up to say that even though she was affected, she would not complain against a lonely old woman, causing some sheepish looks from the others.

was no mean feat. It helped that the woman was able to describe the situation inside the flat.

It was a good opportunity to ask them for their understanding of the old woman’s situation. Obviously, no one knew she was alone with no children, looking after a retarded brother.

Most people are reasonable and tolerant. Most people with complaints or grievances want the source of their pain taken care. Most people don’t want to see lives snuffed out or cause another to lose heath and home if there’s another way about it. There can be no better example than this case. So why do Town Councils still tend to be so trigger happy when it comes to cat-complaints?

The TC and even HDB officer in this case exempted of course. Give credit where credit’s due. Go read the account now.

---

[EDIT 20090329] MyAnimalFamily: Animal hoarding in Singapore

Reuters 20090129: Small, furry, outlawed: Singapore torn over cat rights

I like this. But I confess I was hoping to see a more in-depth article. But hey, international spotlight! Thanks to Ms Murdoch for casting some light where the HDB obstinately insist should remain dark, dank, and smelly. Dawn’s comments are great too (appended)

Small, furry, outlawed: Singapore torn over cat rights

Reuters – Thursday, January 29

By Gillian Murdoch

SINGAPORE, Jan 29 – Cat lovers in Singapore are campaigning for felines to have the same rights as dogs — a roof over their heads and a safe home.

For decades cats have been banned from Singapore’s high-density Housing and Development Board flats, which house more than 80 percent of the 4.6 million population.

Anyone caught breaking the rule faces a fine of Singapore $4,000 .

Khin, a healthcare worker, was forced to move homes after a housing official spotted her cat and snapped four or five photos of the feline sleeping “illegally” on her couch.

“I never dreamt I would have to move house to keep cats,” said Khin, who has no surname.

“Singapore is modern and they have rules to keep people harmonious but this is ridiculous.”

While some pet owners can afford to move to cat-friendly private housing, others cannot.

“Irresponsible owners would just dump them,” said Boon Yeong, one of a multitude of informal cat feeders who take it upon themselves to look after the estimated 60,000 strays living in Singapore’s storm drains, carparks, and alleyways.

Being thrown or born onto the streets can amount to a virtual death sentence, Yeong said.

FURRY FUGITIVES

Every year more than 10,000 strays are culled by the island’s authorities, the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals .

Strays not rounded up and killed have a life expectancy of two to three years while indoor cats average about 20.

But with felines banned from the vast majority of homes, getting them off Singapore’s streets isn’t easy.

Some desperate cat lovers spend thousands of dollars to board “illegal” moggies, year-after-year, in non-profit cat shelters.

“It’s really a no-choice situation,” said Tay Sia Ping, the manager of the island’s biggest such cat shelter.

About a third of her 1,400 furry boarders were evicted from HDB apartments, she said. Few are ever adopted.

While Singapore’s cat lovers want the “cat ban” lifted, as it was for small dogs three decades ago, authorities say it is necessary to avoid cat-related spats between neighbours.

“Our principal consideration is to preserve a pleasant living environment and good neighbourly relations,” Singapore’s HDB told Reuters in an emailed statement.

“We need to strike a balance between pet lovers and those who are more sensitive to the disturbances caused by animals.”

HDB’s website says banning cats, not dogs, is justified, as “they are nomadic in nature and are difficult to be confined”.

Some 10,000 years after felines were first domesticated, easing human-cat tensions remains a “million dollar question”, said Kate Blaszak, Asia Veterinary Programmes Manager for the World Society for the Protection of Animals .

The world’s first top-level meeting of cat population management experts, organised last year, did not identify any magic bullets, Blaszak said.

“One size does not fit all. What is effective and appropriate in one situation may in another,” she said.

In the meantime, supporters of Singapore’s strays say they are waiting for the cats’ death sentences to be lifted.

“Most people who have problems don’t want the cats to be killed, nor does killing the cats usually solve the problem,” said Singaporean cat welfare advocate Dawn Kua, one of many who blog about their plight

“No one is happy with the ‘solution’ — it’s just a knee jerk reaction without solving the underlying problem.”

Here’s Dawn‘s comments:

Friday, January 30, 2009

Same old excuse

Okay seriously now – how often is HDB going to trot out the tired excuse about cats being ‘nomadic by nature’ and ‘difficult to be confined’ to justify not changing the HDB rule?

Since this has been raised yet again, let me refute this one more time, especially for people who may have come to this blog for the first time :-

1. Cats are excellent apartment animals. Why? They don’t need to be walked and they are small. They entertain themselves. They are pretty quiet most of the time and are generally much quieter than dogs. More than 30 local vets signed letters attesting to the fact that they are wonderful for people in apartments.

2. What on earth is being nomadic by nature? If you let a dog, rabbit or child run around with supervision, I would not be at all surprised if they wandered out of an HDB flat too. Don’t believe me? Just leave that door open 🙂

3. This also applies to cats being difficult to confine. Really? My cats are all confined indoors and they don’t go out. Ever. It wasn’t difficult at all to keep them in. All it took was some time and effort on our part to cat proof the place. Think of it as akin to baby proofing a home.

I know many people who have cats who never, ever go out. Most responsible people with cats do not want their cats to wander in the first place – there are all manner of dangers out there. Also as responsible neighbours, many realise not everyone likes their cats as much as they do and that it is better to keep their cats indoors.

So instead of a ban how about just focusing on responsible pet ownership? The problem isn’t in the inherent nature of cats – it’s in the irresponsible behaviour of some cat owners. Plus right now what incentive is there for being responsible and keeping the cat in? It just means that if the HDB comes along any cat owner can be fined (or possibly evicted) if any cat, no matter how well kept, is found in their flat. If the cat is outdoors though, that isn’t a problem with the HDB at all – but it may be a huge problem for your neighbours.

What’s the solution? Allow people to keep cats – but ensure that these people are responsible. Make sure that the owners are responsible for sterilising their cats and keeping them indoors at all times. Also a limit could be imposed on how many cats are kept in a flat. This also allows the HDB to better use their resources to monitor genuine cases when there is a problem. Currently, they have to have to inspect flats every time there is a complaint, whether that complaint is valid or not. The mere presence of a cat is enough to get a cat owner into trouble – and also means that the rule can, and has been subverted, by neighbours to get even with each other. Instead of promoting harmony, this rule is doing the exact opposite.

Posted by Dawn at 12:27 AM

Click on the blog post title to read the discussion.

New Paper 20090228: Serious about changing law on strays? Join animal-welfare groups

This is the new-paper-printed version of Dawn’s repartee to Mr Lee Chiu San’s letter, which succinctly sums up the history of cat welfare in Singapore. Dawn deserves a medal for dealing with such bigotry with such serenity

The Electric New Paper :

Serious about changing law on strays? Join animal-welfare groups

28 February 2009

I WAS taken aback to read Mr Lee Chiu San’s comments in ‘Feel sorry for strays? Commit to repeal ban’ (The New Paper, 24 Feb).

It seems Mr Lee is unaware that people have been working for many years to repeal the ban on having cats in flats.

The Cat Welfare Society (CWS) and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have both worked on this for many years.

During my time as Director of Operations with CWS, we received the support of more than 30 vets, gathered more than 3,000 signatures in less than three weeks, met the Housing Development Board twice with two separate proposals (available online on CWS’ website).

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority also had no objection to cats in flats. I am also aware of many individuals who have written to the HDB asking them to change the rule.

CWS proposal rejected
CWS would have been happy to revisit the issue and we took HDB’s concerns at our previous meetings and incorporated them into our new proposals. Our last request for a meeting to discuss a new proposal was turned down.

CWS’ suggestions were that all cats be sterilised, microchipped and that there be a limit on the number of cats in flats (subject to a compassionate period for existing cats as they did when the rule with dogs was changed).

A register could be maintained by the Residents’ Committee (RC).
CWS also offered to help with mediation in terms of complaints and advising irresponsible cat owners. There was also a town council willing to implement a pilot project with its RC, but again this was turned down by the HDB.

It was disingenuous that Mr Lee mentioned the case of Mr Tang. There was no active campaigning on the part of Mr Tang to change the law.

So quick to tar community
I was surprised that Mr Lee is so quick to tar the entire community of people working with cats with the same brush especially as he is an ex-committee member of the Singapore Cat Club. After all, isn’t this the same community we’re talking about?

Of course, it is the duty of every citizen to obey the law, but as Mr Lee is well aware, there is no law against cat feeding. In fact, his letter is an example of what he claims to dislike in others.

There is already a law against littering, which is the same law that should be used against people who do not clear up after cat feeding.

Why have an additional law to ban cat feeding specifically unless there is a particular bias against people who feed cats?

Mr Lee mentioned that ‘Those who feed cats near the homes of others may not experience their thievery, fighting and bad behaviour’.

Perhaps Mr Lee is in an estate where there are no responsible caregivers running a Trap-Neuter-Return-Manage programme, which involves responsible feeding, sterilisation and mediation of complaints.

Certainly, if the cats are fed, they would not need to ‘thieve’ in his words, and sterilisation would stop the fighting, though I am unclear what ‘bad behaviour’ he refers to.

If Mr Lee is serious about changing the law to allow cats in HDB flats, I am sure that people working for animal welfare would be happy to have him on board.

FROM READER DAWN KUA SU-WEN

Today 20080728: Relaxing pet ownership rules might be an answer

Another letter in response to the article: Canine Control. The Stray Dilemma For Animal Groups.

I can guess, and people familiar with situation would say the same, that AVA would trot out their deader-than-dead template reply and hope the public flogs it and forget about them again. So though I have promised to refrain from going link happy, please do consider writing in and supporting this letter. For tips and clues, please refer to the points I’ve laid out here, but of course modify them, your agenda and tone accordingly. Thanks. 

This story was printed from TODAYonline

Can more be done?

Relaxing pet ownership rules might be an answer

Monday • July 28, 2008

I REFER to “The stray dilemma for animal groups” (July 25) and “Reader: You should not cull strays as you please, AVA” (July 26-27).

While I agree we should not be releasing sterilised animals back where they came from, there needs to be a solution to the problem.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has a Responsible Pet Ownership project. Perhaps the various authorities, individuals and groups could work in tandem, review the effectiveness of this campaign and come up with some more positive measures to supplement them?

For a start, most strays are mongrels. Perhaps we could consider more laxity for ownership of such dogs in public housing or temporary dog ownership schemes for “factory” dogs.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Today 20080725: Canine Control. The Stray Dilemma For Animal Groups

Very good article in last Friday’s edition of Today. I am pleasantly surprised to see that this is a comment by a newswoman, vs the freelance comments that usually define such articles here. (I shall refrain from going link-happy here since I’ve already linked all our related posts and external references to death in similar commentaries in the past). We can only hope this triggers some action in the right direction, though I wouldn’t bet the kitty condo on it.

(EDIT: Links to letters in response at bottom too. Also refer to NewPaper 20080721: CARS ALONG JALAN PEMIMPIN SWERVE DANGEROUSLY TO DODGE CATS)

This story was printed from TODAYonline

The stray dilemma for animal groups

One plans to sterilise 400 industrial dogs this year, but it may not save them from being culled

Friday • July 25, 2008

ESTHER NG

estherng@mediacorp.com.sg

THE volunteers get stray dogs sterilised, shelter them for a few days while they recuperate, then release them back where they came from, whether factories, industrial estates or the neighbourhood.

Left: AVA’s dog impoundment stats. Right: AVA’s sudden withdrawal of support for TNRM in 2003 (Scroll to the bottom of this post and click on the full pdf version to see details)

This year alone, one animal welfare group, Noah’s Ark Cares, hopes to get400 industrial dogs sterilised, in an effort to curb Singapore’s growing stray population.

All this adds up in terms of personal time and costs — some $250 a dog :— but for all their efforts, the dogs still risk being caught and culled by the authorities.

Responding to Today’s queries, the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) said it does not condone the release of sterilised dogs into the environment, and it would round them up if they are found in public places.

“The sterilised dogs should be re-homed and licensed but not released into the environment,” said Mr Madhavan Kannan, head of AVA’s Centre for Animal Welfare and Control. Last September, the AVA had introduced tougher penalties for dog-owners to discourage abandonment, including a fine of up to $5,000 for not leashing one’s dog in public.

The problem? There are more dogs than there are people willing to take them in, and animal shelters such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Doggie Rescue Shelter are already overwhelmed.

“Every year, the SPCA receives around 9,000 animals; only a tenth find homes,” said its executive officer Deirdre Moss. “Not only are we competing with the many pet shops and pet farms to find homes for these animals, there are also limited avenues to re-home dogs because of restrictive housing board rules and no restriction to commercial breeding.”

So why do volunteer groups such as Noah’s Ark and Action for Singapore Dogs (ASD) persist with sterilisation, if their efforts are undone when the dogs are caught and put down? Their response: It is better to have sterilised strays roaming the streets than unsterilised ones that could add to the stray population.

A tough sell to the public

Noah’s Ark launched its Project Industrial Dogs scheme in June 2005 providing low-cost sterilisation, while ASD started its scheme in 2002. Noah’s Ark president,Ms Chew Gek Hiang, said the group often tries to get factory owners to take ownership of the dogs in their compounds.

“We encourage them to sterilise the dogs, have them micro-chipped and licensed.”

At Alexandra Village, where stray dogs have been a fixture for years, workshop owners that Today spoke to supported a mass sterilisation programme, although most were reluctant to share the costs.

Pointing to a dog nearby, Mr Tay Tai Hua, 58, of Champion Auto Air-conditioner Company said: “This dog is very pitiful. She gives birth three times a year. It would be good if she was sterilised, but I don’t know if I want to pay for it.”

Sterilised dogs are identified by a clipped left ear, and according to ASD’s president Ricky Teo, the group used to sterilise 10 to 20 dogs a month — but they kept getting culled by AVA, so they now only sterilise pregnant industrial dogs, which number two to five a month.

He added: “We just had to pay $500 to bail a sterilised dog out of AVA’s pound this week. The dog was outside the factory’s premises when it was trapped. All this is extra cost.”

For the strays’ sterilisation procedure, vets charge the groups a subsidised rate but even so, to achieve its target this year, Noah’s Ark needs to raise $50,000.

While animal activists maintain that sterilisation is a more effective way of reducing the stray population :— since new strays will simply enter the area where dogs have been culled, and multiply :— have they managed to convince the public of the merits of their case?

Said Mr YK Chan, 50, a security guard who patronises the Alexandra Village hawker centre: “I’m afraid of dogs. Some are more aggressive than others; I was bitten when I was a child.”

But sales executive Kelvin Yong, 27, said: “So long as the dogs are not near populated areas, I think we should give the sterilisation project a go.”

Dog trainer Patrick Wong said sterilised dogs are generally less aggressive and are not likely to roam, especially if caregivers provide food.

“Unless cornered or perceived as a threat, most dogs will leave humans alone,” he said. And if faced with a strange dog? “Remain calm and walk steadily. Do not run, scream or appear frightened.”

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Click here for the full pdf version

Responses:

• Today 20080726: AVA should not cull strays as it pleases
• Today 20080728: We donate to humans but not to animals
• Today 20080728: Relaxing pet ownership rules might be an answer
• Today 20080811: Microchipping helps AVA in management of stray dogs
• Today 20080815: Why cull a dog that has been sterilised??
• Today 20080821: Why culling is necessary? …
  

Also refer to NewPaper 20080721: CARS ALONG JALAN PEMIMPIN SWERVE DANGEROUSLY TO DODGE CATS

Today: Where’s the ‘heart’ in heartland? 25th June

From the cws unofficial diary: Today: Where’s the ‘heart’ in heartland? 25th June

My heart goes out to Ms Helga Gamp, the letter writer, since we’re essentially in the same army. But I’m not surprised at all by her encounters with her tc. Talk about offering your right cheek after being slapped on your left or grinning and bearing with being stabbed in the back while looking at your stabber and continuing to extend a hand.

Because it is a fact, a sad one, but fact nonetheless, that town councils tend to view cat caregivers with us-vs-them view, though of course there are also stories of TCOs who are more eager and understanding than caregivers in their areas on Dawn’s old blog. (I wish I had one around the vicinity.)

However, tcs tend to find nothing wrong with bending over backward for the most frivolous complaints, even coming up with a ZERO stray agenda.

Neighbours don’t have to be strangers, but how much are officious tea/block parties helping to close the gap? A glance at the bored looks of the scraggles of participants is rather telling.

Relationships and ties can only be hothoused so much. If the authorities would climb down off their high-caddy, they might just see how organically grassroots are growing under their feet, without their benign interference. Any interference thus far that they have in fact bestowed on such organic grassroots served more to trample on and mess things up. Case in point: Tampines tc (latest salvo here). The kampong spirit would do well with some careful and progressive nurturing, rather than forced down residents’ throats as great milestones.

“THE road ahead for the Housing Board (HDB) is to meet the housing needs of a growing population with increasingly different needs and aspirations,” so said National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan. But housing needs are not just about brick-and-mortar issues, never mind accolades about its contributions to superficial cohesion.

EDIT 20080625: Outside of Singapore, caregiver groups do hit brickwalls too, “Compassion often eludes feral cats; groups out to save them“

Neighbourliness in Singapore

The follow-up to the Sunday Times’s Hey neighbour, don’t be a stranger two weeks ago, 13 Jan 08, has been interesting.

I’ve said what I’ve had to say, so I’ll leave you with the reading, in chronological order. But I just want to make an observation: article 4 is a very pleasant surprise, simply because it is by a Malay fellow-caregiver. I hope it helps break the stereotype that caregivers are Chinese females and show that caregivers transcends racial lines too.

1) Neighbours who just can’t get along (20 Jan 08)

Jan 20, 2008
Neighbours who just can’t get along
Last week, we looked at how Singaporeans barely knew their neighbours despite living beside one another for years. Here, we focus on un-neighbourly behaviour and the rising number of complaints the authorities have been dealing with
By Mavis Toh
MS PERDICHA CHEN accuses her neighbours, the Sims, of hanging cages with their loud-chirping pet birds along the common corridor from as early as 6am, and claims that the family’s dog is often unleashed. View more photos FOUR birds kept as pets by one household have become a flash point for residents living on the eighth floor of an Hougang flat. Ms Perdicha Chen, 48, who lives opposite the Sim household, has lodged more than 20 reports with the town council, the HDB and police, and has even been to see her MP twice over the past six months. The birds’ loud chirping, says Ms Chen, has led to many sleepless mornings as her neighbour has the habit of hanging his bird cages along the common corridor from as early as 6am. ‘When the authorities come, he would keep the cages in the house for two days and then they are back to their old ways,’ says the frustrated accounts executive who has lived there for 20 years. Cases of neighbours bickering are becoming more common these days, say parties which have to deal with such complaints. The HDB says that there has been an increase in feedback regarding annoyances caused by neighbours – such as noise disturbances, dripping mops and wet laundry. MPs have also noted that more residents, unhappy with their neighbours, have approached them for help at the weekly Meet-the-People sessions. And at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) last year, 277 sessions were conducted for disputes between neighbours. This made up just over half of the total number of mediations at the centre last year. The year before, there were 306 disputes between neighbours. In Aljunied GRC, MP Cynthia Phua logged 30 cases of such disputes last year, double the figure in 2006. More recently, she adds, at least two such cases have been popping up weekly. Over at Jurong GRC, MP Halimah Yacob sees at least two cases a month. The disputes, MPs say, range from petty issues such as the hanging of underwear and burning of joss paper along common corridors, to more serious ones such as the tossing of rubbish out of kitchen windows, with the garbage landing on neighbours’ laundry. Of the cases heard at the CMC, 80 per cent are about noisy residents or those who hurl verbal abuse and harass their neighbours. Common corridor obstruction and dripping laundry make up the other cases. Besides the chirping birds, Ms Chen and another neighbour, Mr Alan Ang, 56, are also annoyed with the Sims’ barking terrier. They say that the dog is often unleashed and has even run into their homes. When approached by The Sunday Times, Mr Samuel Sim, 42, denies their complaints. He says he owns only two birds and does not hang the cages along the corridor. His dog, he adds, is always leashed. Mr Sim, who lives in the three-room flat with his wife, three teenage daughters and a maid, accuses his neighbours of hurling vulgarities at his family and maid. ‘They’re the ones trying to make trouble,’ says the businessman who moved in five years ago. ‘We don’t disturb them but they have nothing better to do.’ Over in Bedok, resident Chen Wen Ling, 39, is looking forward to getting away from her neighbour of 20 years. So great is the animosity between them that both sides barely exchange greetings. The bad vibes started almost 15 years ago when her neighbour started crowding the common corridor with more than 10 pairs of shoes and up to 20 flower pots, she claims, adding that the other party refused to clear the area despite repeated requests. The housewife says: ‘When my friend visited me, she asked if my neighbour was operating a shoe shop.’ She is moving out this September. Such long-drawn festering disputes are common, say MPs, and leave little hope for reconciliation as the warring parties are no longer on speaking terms. For Ms Perdicha Chen, she has taken to snapping pictures of the birds and recording their chirping to use as evidence for the police. ‘We don’t want to go to the extent of meeting them in court,’ she says. ‘I just hope they put their birds away and give everyone some peace.’ mavistoh@sph.com.sg (source for link)

2) Tidy city? It’s all down to cleaners (20 Jan 08)

Jan 20, 2008
Tidy city? It’s all down to cleaners
By Jamie Ee & Samantha Eng
THIS BLOCK ON HOUGANG AVENUE 8 had random rubbish scattered next to the garbage bin. The bin cover had been removed, perhaps by someone who had been rummaging through the refuse. View more photos SINGAPORE is clean but not because of the habits of its people. In the wee hours of two mornings, The Sunday Times trawled five precincts and saw them at their ugliest before the cleaners got started. A used sanitary pad had been pitched out of the window of an HDB flat in Circuit Road. So, too, had a soiled baby diaper at a neighbouring block. The stench from puddles of vomit and urine clouded lift lobbies and staircases, while cigarette butts, used tissue paper, cotton buds – and even tufts of hair – were strewn across the void decks. The area directly beneath kitchen windows was the dirtiest. Plastic bags, apple cores, orange peel, broken eggshells: All these and more had been chucked out of the windows at night. The cleaning brigade clears up the mess in time for the harsh light of day. Cleaner Heriati Mohd Isa, who sweeps two blocks in Hougang Avenue 8, is especially annoyed but thinks nothing can be done. ‘I don’t understand. They have dustbins at home. Why must they throw things out of their window?’ said the exasperated 55-year-old as she swept the void deck. Despite the ongoing keep-clean efforts of town councils, cleaners told The Sunday Times that housing estates are anything but. They are resigned to it. Madam Heriati said: ‘Singaporeans are too pampered. They know they can always rely on the cleaners.’ (source for link)

3) LETTER: HDB should reconsider replacing ban on cats with ‘motivational’ regulations

Jan 21, 2008
HDB should reconsider replacing ban on cats with ‘motivational’ regulations
I READ with amusement the article in The Sunday Times about ‘Getting to know your neighbours” with a cartoon by Miel showing a smiling lady poking her head from her flat and a cat beside her (The Sunday Times, Jan 13). The problem we face nowadays is really ‘not knowing your neighbours”. In my neighbourhood, I am fortunate to share a common concern with a few fellow residents on the plight of the community cats. Cats are pushed to the brink by an increasing human population and decreasing tolerance. They are killed for reasons ranging from noise made during mating, defecation in ‘upstairs” common areas (usually caused by cat owners who let their cats roam out), residents’ phobia of cats, scratches on cars, etc. Incensed by the ineffective killing of about 13,000 cats every year for more than two decades and at the public expense of more than half a million dollars annually, we decided to get our butts out of our flats and spent many evenings trapping the cats in our neighbourhood and brought them to the vet to be sterilised. After about three years, we achieved a near 100 per cent sterilised colony of cats. We also work with the town council to help resolve complaints about cats. Through this community work, we met fellow residents from all walks of life, of all ages and of all races. We also got to meet residents who complained about cats and residents who owned cats but were unaware of responsible pet ownership (that includes sterilisation and keeping them indoors). We were touched by the fact that almost all the residents who complained about cats did not want killing as a solution. This was often not known to some town council property officers who assumed that engaging pest controllers to remove ‘downstairs” community cats was the solution. This naturally resulted in a recurrence of complaints. By identifying the right cause of the complaints, we could offer a solution that costs only a bottle of vinegar and a packet of camphor balls (to clear the smell of cat poo and to repel the cats). However, the lack of HDB regulations on responsible cat ownership is a major setback to the success of a managed colony of cats. Irresponsible owners abandon cats and kittens for reasons ranging from moving house, spring cleaning and unwanted litters from unsterilised home cats. Irresponsible owners let their cats roam freely, resulting in complaints from neighbours. Town Council officers are reluctant to speak to such owners about pet responsibility because they said that ‘HDB does not allow cats”. Referring such recalcitrant cat owners to their HDB colleagues will only result in the abandonment of these cats in the estate instead. This will only transfer the problem to the Town Council which may then blame the expanding population on caregivers like me and my fellow residents. I appeal to the HDB to urgently reconsider replacing the ban on cats with regulations so that such irresponsible owners will be ‘motivated” by fines to keep their cats indoors and to have them sterilised. This is a win-win situation to residents in general, to caregivers and also to the property officers in the town council. Tan Chek Wee (source for link)

4) LETTER: Community cats bring Singaporeans together – let us give ourselves a chance

Jan 23, 2008
Community cats bring Singaporeans together – let us give ourselves a chance
IT WAS like a breath of fresh air when I read the article about ‘Getting to know your neighbours’ with Miel’s cartoon showing a smiling woman poking her head from her flat with an equally happy cat beside her (The Sunday Times, Jan 13). I recalled a similar picture of a woman in red feeding a group of community cats at an HDB void deck with fireworks in the background during our National Day celebrations of 2007 that came out in the National Day edition of The Straits Times.I do not recall if Miel was the artist but the picture made a strong impression on me then too. I also read the letter by Mr Tan Chek Wee, ‘HDB should reconsider replacing ban on cats with ‘motivational’ regulations’ (Online forum, Jan 21) and I realised that even though the HDB may have antiquated notions about how cats affect the neighbourhood, it is undeniable that cats and, particularly, community cats can be a great source of joy and inspiration to many in the heartlands.Community cats bring people together, as Miel’s cartoon shows. Many Singaporeans complain about them but just as many find the time and are willing to spend their own resources to take care of the many cats that we have in our neighbourhoods. Many caregivers are private individuals who come together because of their love for cats and feel that more care and attention should be given to these animals who share this Earth with us. Caregivers transcend race and stereotype. I am a caregiver myself and hence I may have a particular bias. I readily admit that I spend much time and energy trying to give my community cats as much care as I give to my family and friends. When community cats get into ‘trouble’ because they might have ‘transgressed’ in some way or they had unintentionally offended someone, all of us get together to solve the problem. We are as young as 14 to as old as 72. I do not ask the ‘old aunty’ who takes care of the community cats around my house her age. She said she is as old as she feels and she is a fiery one, unafraid of people who had tried to intimidate and scare her into giving up her passion of saving ‘her’ cats. What about the cats themselves? Well they come when it’s time for dinner or breakfast and then they leave just as quietly, leaving no trace and disturbing no one. Sometimes, their notion of public property and public space may be different from ours but surely we also need to consider that we are not the only ones with a right to live and should exercise love and care when relating to them. They live their lives and they let us live ours and one of these very long days, we hope that the HDB would really look at how small our lives are, how limited our space is and how much we really would benefit from having community cats in our houses as well as living safely in our neighbourhoods. An indoor cat is a safe cat and a human being who takes in one community cat saves one life from extermination. One day, some of us would be able to open our doors to our neighbours and smile widely at them with our happy cats by our side. Until that day comes, we will soldier on in our quiet way, smiling with warm affection for cartoons such as Miel’s who gives us hope that our dream will come true… some time in Singapore’s future. Jumiah Ahmad (Ms) (source for link)

HDB pet rules – Unpublished letter from a Muslim

In addition to this letter-writer, another friend had also sent in her thoughts about the pet-rules too. Unfortunately, it seems like the media chooses not to publish her letter. The baffling question is “Why?”

Here it is (emphasis mine):

Dear Editor,
I live in a HDB flat. As a Muslim and an animal-lover, I have read the article, “Pet Project: Let’s Work Together” with great interest. I agree HDB should work with the relevant bodies for truly effective management of pet issues.It is a common knowledge that dogs are haram as pets for Muslims. On the other hand, cats are popular choices among us, not least because of our respect for the cat’s significance to the Prophet Muhammad.

Therefore, the HDB pet rules are not fair to Muslims who want interactive pets that are not confined to cages, like rabbits or hamsters.

I am a responsible cat owner – I sterilize my cats and keep them strictly indoors. Quite the opposite from the HDB excuse for banning cats, my pets are quiet and happy to remain indoors, especially after being sterilized. Instead of causing nuisance, my cats have helped create closer relationship with my neighbours, especially their children, who ask to see and pet my cats.

But I also do trap-neuter-release management for the community cats in my neighbourhood, so I can empathise with HDB residents who have problems with irresponsible pet owners. Sadly, I find in my fellow Muslims who own cats a shocking blasé attitude about the basics of responsible cat ownership, which is tantamount to ill-treatment.

Prophet Muhammad spoke specifically about the importance of kindness to animals on many occasions. In fact, “Fear Allah in your ill-treatment of animals” is one of my favourite sayings from Prophet Muhammad. Furthermore Prophet Muhammad stated that there is heavenly reward for every act of kindness done to a living animal.

However, many Muslims who keep cats refuse to sterilize their pets and allow these virile cats to wander. So nuisance is created when the cats defecate outside other people’s homes or caterwaul during mating or territorial fights, and also add to the cat population in the community.

To tackle the problem, at least with regards to cats, HDB has to acknowledge that many HDB residents, especially Muslims, do have pet cats. HDB also has to recognize that nuisance caused by pet cats is due to irresponsible pet owners who do not sterilize or keep their cats indoors. Banning cats does not stop such irresponsible people from simply abandoning their cats if someone complains to the HDB.

HDB must rethink its pet-rules.

ST 20071112: Dog lost HDB home just because of barking

In response to the hdb pet rules issue, a friend sent a letter to the papers about her dog’s story. Straits Times printed an edited version of the letter. I’m appending the original version for reference as well.

Nov 12, 2007
Dog lost HDB home just because of barking

I LIVE in an HDB flat with my spouse. Two years ago, we adopted Magnum, a mid-size mongrel.

Magnum adapted very quickly to living with us. However, as he was an abandoned dog, he had anxiety issues when left alone. We are both working adults, so we did what we could to mitigate potential problems.

Things were peaceful for the first six months. Then someone made an anonymous complaint to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Magnum barked at the door – as is natural for dogs – when people passed by. This seemed to be the gist of the complaint.

The complainant apparently did not want Magnum removed but was concerned about his welfare. We were keen to speak with the complainant to know what the real problem was and find a solution. However, we were told the complainant did not want to speak with us. Our hands were tied.

Soon after that, the HDB told us an anonymous complaint had been lodged about barking from our flat. Again, the complainant’s identity was protected.

We knew then we could not share our flat with Magnum any longer. It was heart-wrenching for Magnum to lose his home so soon after being abandoned.

The HDB was concerned only about ensuring that Magnum was no longer in our home. We can’t help but wonder if that was how Magnum was abandoned in the first place.

As responsible pet owners, we made sure that Magnum went to a good home. But what happens to pets of irresponsible owners when HDB officials come knocking?

Ng Lay Yun (Ms)

Original (links mine)

Dear Editor,
I am writing to share my story, and ask that the HDB implement reasonable rules so that problems relating to pets can be better managed, and promote good neighbourly relations.

I live in a HDB flat with my spouse. Two years ago, we adopted Magnum, a mid-sized mongrel.

Magnum adapted very quickly to living with us. However, as he was an abandoned dog, he had anxiety issues when left alone. We are both working adults, so we did what we could to mitigate potential problems.

Things were peaceful for the first 6 months. Then, someone made an anonymous complaint to the SPCA. Magnum barked, as is natural of dogs, at the door when he is aware of people passing by. This seemed to be the gist of the complaint.

The complainant apparently didn’t want Magnum removed but was concerned about his welfare. We were keen to speak with the complainant in order to know what the real problem was and to find a solution. However, we were told the complainant didn’t want to speak with us. Our hands were tied.

Soon after that, we were notified by HDB that an anonymous complaint has been lodged about barking from our flat. Again, the complainant’s identity was protected.

We knew then we could not share our flat with Magnum any longer. It was heart-wrenching for Magnum to lose his home so soon after being abandoned.

The HDB was only concerned that Magnum was no longer in our home. We can’t help but wonder if that was how Magnum got abandoned in the first place.

As responsible pet owners, we made sure that Magnum went to a good home. But what happens to pets of irresponsible owners when HDB comes knocking? Irresponsible owners probably abandon their pets when problems arise, like the large dogs affected by the AVA rules even though abandonment is a crime. Surely, the HDB has to bear its share of responsibility in such cases.

Since Magnum left us, our neighbourhood has lost that warm welcoming feel – who knows which of our neighbours are unhappy with us for some reason? Worse yet is their preference to make anonymous complaints to the HDB than talk to us about it.

It really doesn’t help that the HDB has unrealistic pet-rules, and is happy to entertain anonymous complaints without verifying their merit.

Setting Aside Semantics: Not Killing Pets Must Be Our Goal

(If you find this post informative, you might like to check out these.)

---

While looking for reference for this post, I came across this article by Wayne Parcelle, President and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.

Read it and maybe you’ll appreciate the amazing dovetail in the twin debate on pet-animal and homeless animal population that I’ve been harping so much about, most recently in this post.

I give you choice quotes from Mr Parcelle’s article, which you’ll see actually is a close reflection what we face here in Singapore too.

… America views those of us in the animal protection movement as being against the needless killing of animals. America happens to be correct. Everyone sincerely committed to the cause of animal protection embraces the concept of animals living complete and quality lives—uninterrupted by torment or cruelty.

… “No-Kill” as an outcome cannot be universally expected to occur overnight, and it cannot succeed without multi-pronged efforts by committed communities. Its conscientious backers recognize that. It’s simple mathematics. If euthanasia is not occurring and intake of dogs and cats is significantly exceeding adoptions, then overcrowding and warehousing—and the attendant suffering—are the undesirable and also unacceptable outcomes. Or if shelters close their doors to animals in need, then the problem is just being pushed off to someone or someplace else, with euthanasia the likely outcome and with the fundamental dynamics essentially left unchanged.

… we must not accept routine euthanasia as a social norm. We should raise expectations and set aggressive goals, but recognize that shelters can’t do it without community engagement at every step. We must continue to reduce rates of relinquishment by ramping up affordable and accessible spay and neuter options and helping people resolve normal pet behavior issues. At the same time, we must show a renewed commitment to bring additional resources, a sustained sense of urgency, diligence, volunteerism and creativity to expand the number of suitable homes and adopt more animals. We can redesign shelters to be more inviting to potential adopters, make it possible for apartment dwellers to have pets, develop sophisticated and research-driven marketing campaigns, partner with other community-based institutions, and so much more.

The problem is not unsolvable….

Yet there are countervailing forces. Many puppy mills are now completely unregulated by the federal government, and they are selling animals direct to the public over the Internet. These marketers of dogs make it easier than ever for consumers to be duped into obtaining a puppy mill dog…

And there are other types of challenges….

Our communities also face large populations of feral cats….

Even with these major challenges, the situation is improving…

Let’s keep moving forward until no healthy and treatable animals are euthanized.

If we’re willing to challenge ourselves and work together, we can get to our lifesaving goal far quicker. And this we must do—lives are depending on us.

Even if you’ve only been remotely aware of the situation in Singapore, you’d probably get a jolt of deja vu. It’s no surprise.

Depressing? I highlighted the encouring bits not just to vary the pattern for your reading pleasure. We do face a frustrating situation, and it is still an uphill battle – much like an osteoporosis-stricken senior having to climb the steps to her 12th storey flat, not because the lift broke down, but because the machinery won’t open sesame for her.

The notable exceptions between the US scenario and what we have here are 1) We do not really have feral cats – our homeless cats tend to be homeless due to abandonment or irresponsibly kept pets allowed to roam unsterilised; 2) there is a more active volunteer base, and greater awareness in the US than here; 3) there is probably a greater acceptance and empathy for pets even at the ethereal reaches of high politics, despite the pet tragedy of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (unlike the OVERT anti-pet stance of the HDB here, and certainly the official lack of tolerance for homeless animals, or the semi-apathy of the legal system toward animal abuse crimes)

Please read Mr Parcelle’s article, and then give yourself a good think – Why the difference in acceptance level in how our cats are killed? and see if there’s a part YOU can play to level the odds in the killing fields for Singapore’s cats and dogs – for example, don’t buy or breed pet animals. If you need more reason, read this, or this.

---

(If you find this post informative, you might like to check out these.)

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.

OUCH

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.