DogPeople.Org 

PLEASE CONTACT US IF YOU WANT TO DONATE

Fee to keep dogs in condo?  Issue is about irresponsible owners

I refer to your report on page H2 yesterday about the dogs, especially big dogs, being unjustly discriminated by the Bayshore Park management council.  The logic behind the council's decision is illogical, dictatorial and unreasonable.  Their proposed solution to impose monetary penalty on those residents who own big dogs and third dog is arbitrary, ineffective and simply, evil.

To put it in very simple term: the council is unable to solve the problem of dogs “dirtying” the place, and hence, to cover their inefficiencies in dealing with the problem, they conveniently decided to ban all big dogs and to limit the number of small dogs.  But don’t they know that whether a dog is big or small, all dogs have to defecate and urinate?  The issue is not about the dogs themselves.  It is about IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP; it is about dog owners who are really not qualified to own dogs.  Dogs, and animals, can’t talk and protest and that make them easy victims to unjust decisions from authority.

The council should focus on the irresponsible owners, whether by soft approach like education or hard approach like imposing fines on owners who don’t clean up after their dogs.  A smart and efficient council will enlist the help of the other good dog owners to help spread awareness and pressurize the bad dog owners to uplift their hygienic standards.  What Bayshore Park council did is far from being smart and efficient.

Your report also mentioned that one of the complaints used by the council is that “dogs frighten children”.  Again, it is not the fault of the dogs at all.  If the child is taught by the ignorant parents to fear dogs, then that is how they will react whenever they see dogs.  Similarly, if the children are taught by the parents to fear Indians (black) or ang mohs (white), then that is also how they will react whenever they see Indians or ang mohs.  It is the parents who need to be fixed here, not the dogs.  Unless the dog is specially trained to act aggressively, where another set of ruling should address, family pet dogs are generally not aggressive at all.  The truth is Singaporean’s understandings of animal behaviour in general, and dogs in particular, are so low that many innocent gestures of dogs like lunching forward to sniff, jumping to greet, barking for attention are wrongly perceived as aggressive by unknowledgeable people.

If the council is of the belief that small dogs can just stay inside the unit and should not be let outside of the unit at all, then it is an issue serious enough to warrant the interventions of SPCA and AVA as this kind of ruling involves confining dogs in small spaces and depriving them necessary daily outdoor exercises which amount to animal cruelty.

It is important that councils and all condo residents understand that over-restrictive condo by-laws do have a direct effect on the demand of the property.  It will only lower the appeal and shrink the market of buyers and tenants to your condo property if your condo by-laws are anti-pets or have rules similar to the HDB.  So it is very important for condo owners not to allow a small minority of dog-hating people to manipulate the by-laws to their selfish preference.  Many people chose to live in condos because they want to own big dogs and more than one dog.  Just a few weeks ago, your paper has also reported that there was a sudden increase of pet shops in Singapore testament to the changing lifestyle of Singaporeans.

To sum up what I said, there is nothing more eloquently express by the American Indian Chief Dan George*:

If you talk to the animals

they will talk to you

and you will know each other.

If you do not talk to them

you will not know them.

And what you do not know

you will fear.

What one fears

one destroys.

source: Superdog: raising the perfect canine companion by Micheal W. Fox published in 1990.

DogPeople.Org

No go for condo dog-bashers 

I refer to the article by your reporter Lynn Lee titled “No go for controversial dog fee plan” published on March 30, 2004 on page H2.  Her article did not constitute a fair and balanced reporting as it was skewed towards the side of the council of Bayshore Park. 

Firstly she failed to say that the condo’s current by-law is erroneous.  The current by-law states, “A Subsidiary Proprietor or occupier of a lot shall keep dogs of a small breed as defined by the relevant authorities".  It is therefore meant to say that ALL residents have to keep a small breed dog!  Just as being exemplified by another by-law that states “A subsidiary proprietor or occupier of a lot shall maintain uniformity in the colour of the walls of the balcony with the existing color of the exterior of the building…..”, meaning to say residents have to follow the condo’s existing colour scheme.  It is clear that their current by-law is erroneous and if a law is erroneous it cannot be enforced and therefore ceases its function as a law.  In other words, Bayshore Park has never have any viable by-law on the size of dogs that can be kept.  

What is more ridiculous is the proposed amendment is more erroneous than the current one it sought to replace.  It consists of non-existent things like “AVA schedule of dogs permitted for residential flats/apartments” and has categories of dogs that AVA do not have.  As far as AVA is concerned, a private apartment can keep up to 3 dogs regardless of size.  The council certainly had not done their homework conscientiously.  Even after these were pointed out to the council and a motion to table the proposed amendment was seconded, the chairman ignored it and continued to argue with the floor.

Secondly, by repeatedly emphasizing that the anti-dog group had the majority of the votes, Ms. Lee failed to tell the truth that the difference of the votes was actually less than 1%.  Our far-sighted government had foresaw problems to arise whereby a small group of office bearers would make use of the provisions for proxies to easily pass by-laws at an AGM in favour of their own personal agendas and so our government stipulated in the Land Title (Strata) Act that at least 75% of the votes cast have to be in favour of the proposed by-law in order for it to be passed.  It is a very fair law as it ensures the rights of the minorities are protected.

Thirdly, it would do your readers due justice if Ms. Lee, whom I believe was not personally present at the AGM, had interviewed some one who had attended the AGM and who is against the proposed by-law.  This person would have told her that it was not a heated debate.  It is more accurately the ignorance and incompetence of the chairman to implement and maintain proper decorum at the AGM.  For civilized people like us who regularly attend meetings, it is a matter-of-fact that the chairman’s function is to chair a meeting and not to debate and defend anything or scold anyone.  If a chairman wants to offer his/her opinions, the only proper way is to give up the chairmanship temporarily to someone else and join the floor for debates.  What happened at the AGM was only one person continuously arguing against over ten persons or so.

DogPeople.Org　

Killing of strays unjustified

We read with regret that the AVA and the town councils are killing stray cats and dogs indiscriminately in the name of “public health reasons” (The Straits Times, page H1, May 24, 2003), although it is obvious the trigger points of these intensified killings are results of their unfounded fear of SARS. 

There is no evidence that stray cats and dogs in Singapore spread SARS.  Since the epidemic started, the only transmission of infection was from people to people.  So, logically speaking, it is people who should be “culled”, not the cats and dogs.  Targeting these innocent and helpless animals that cannot defend themselves is of course the easiest way to trump up public confidence.  However, whether it is called “Singapore’s OK” or any other name, it is unethical and inappropriate and it goes against our Prime Minister’s goal of making Singapore a gracious international city to live in. 

Cats play an essential part in any habitable environment especially in urban cities.  They are the natural predators of rats, mice, lizards and a variety of insects.  Five mice a day are what an average cat needs to feed on in order to consume enough protein for itself.  A single female rat can give birth six times a year and give birth up to ten offspring each time.  The rat becomes sexually mature at 2-3 months old.  You do the math.  We should use cats to hunt and keep rats under control.  If Singapore is to get rid of all the cats on this island, we will have a bigger problem – the rat problem.  We will then have to recruit another foreign talent – Pied Piper.  

The truth is stray cats and dogs do not dirty any place as much as us humans do.  Just go to any hawker center and wet market in any residential estate and look at the floors, the drains, the walls, the exhaust fans, the toilets, the stalls, the tables and chairs etc. - everything looks dirty.  We created an environment where cockroaches, flies and rats thrive.  It is these disease-spreading pests that we have to channel our limited resources to fight against, not the innocent cats and dogs.

We strongly applaud Dr. Teo Ho Pin’s call for people to adopt strays and keep them as pets at home (Sunday Times, Page 20, May 25, 2003).  In line with this, it is just the right time that the HDB re-evaluates her decades-old regulations on what type of pets the residents are allowed to keep in HDB.  80% of Singaporeans live in HDB.  The social demographics as well as aspirations of HDB residents of today are very different from those a few decades ago.  Many HDB residents are eager to keep cats and well-behaved dogs in their apartments.  Cats can live a happy life just inside an apartment without going outdoors.  Dogs, whether big or small, can also live in apartments if they are adequately exercised and are trained to behave properly. 

We really don’t believe killing strays can solve anything.  To only concentrate on the cure while neglecting the prevention side of things simply won’t work.  One reason why after so many years of trying to put down strays by AVA and SPCA there are still so many strays is because irresponsible people kept throwing their pets away, or not confining their un-sterilized pets within their properties, thereby giving them chances to mate outside and produce unwanted offspring.  It is a good timing for the government to make microchipping cats and dogs compulsory.  Owners will be fined if their pets are found thrown away or straying while still un-sterilized.   This will effectively curb people from abandoning their cats and dogs.  Taxpayers will not be made to shoulder and pay for the irresponsible acts of a few pet owners. 

There is also a need to overhaul how Singapore manages her garbage and wastes, especially in areas of storage and collection, both on the individual and national levels.  Like Japan, since more than a decade ago, they have been separating different types of garbage and using biodegradable bags to store garbage.  We should study from other countries and modify their successful systems to suit our conditions - a constantly hot and humid climate and a high population density predominantly residing in high-rise environment.　

DogPeople.Org　

Look at my ear!  I'm sterilized already.  Please don't kill me.  (Gigi is for adoption)