Wanted : new guardian angels for abandoned animals

By Jamie Ee, The Business Times

OFF THE CUFF

   Enough of emotional finger-pointing. Rational solutions are what's needed at

Noah's Ark Lodge

   I VISITED Noah's Ark Lodge for the first time last weekend.

   It's funny how animals - and I don't mean the ones living in the shelter -

seem to be naturally drawn to this pocket of rural outback land set deep in

the midst of a relatively untouched stretch of Seletar. Packs of strays who've

commandeered abandoned structures as home run around fearlessly, giving the

impression that they're either Noah's Ark residents released on a day pass, or

trained PR consultants hired to create an image of happy doggie hinterland to

impress prospective "adoptive" parents.

   In surprisingly good physical condition for strays (looks like they've been

getting takeaway meals from their kind neighbour), the dogs scratch and play

contentedly on the dusty roads, to the point that even if you want to stop and

offer them PR status in your back yard, they might very well decline.

   But theirs is a different dilemma from their counterparts in Noah's Ark

itself - while their biggest enemy would be the dogcatchers, the animals in

the shelter are not even aware that their future is now in the hands of the

AVA and the new tenant that has taken over the lease of the premises.

   Much has been said about the moral dilemma of chucking out a man - Raymund

Wee - who spent seven years of his life caring for stray and abandoned

animals, and putting in his place a commercial breeder whose altruism has not

been tested. There's been a lot of good guy/bad guy sentiment brewing, and

much of it has boiled down to this: Raymund Wee - animal hero; new tenant

Thierry Lim and AVA - heartless souls bound by cold commercialism and an

indifferent bureaucracy. True or unfair, that is the question.

   I don't know Mr Wee or Mr Lim personally. But what I saw at Noah's Ark that

day was a group of volunteers and dog lovers prepared to fight for the

animals' well-being, and at the same time, a very typical Singapore attitude

that when something goes wrong, blame the heartless government department

involved.

   I say, stop with the emotional finger-pointing and start looking for a proper

solution. As an animal shelter, I can't think of a better place than Noah's

Ark, where the animals get their basic needs of food and shelter. But really,

should it stop there?

   Out of the hundreds of dogs I saw, a handful caught my attention. One was a

shar pei named Wrinkle. At least, that's what the volunteers named him. But

you could call him by name and he wouldn't respond. I wouldn't either, not to

such a dumb name anyway. But Wrinkle's an aloof dog who had no attachment to

anybody there and spent his time walking around aimlessly as if he were just

biding his time, waiting for something or someone. Maybe the moron who

abandoned him in the first place. Then there was PR dog - a friendly fellow

who sucked up to all and sundry, obviously dying to be adopted but, no such

luck, apparently. And Mangy, obviously named for his appearance, looking lost

and confused amidst the stream of visitors. And so on.

   Dogs need someone to love. An animal shelter is not the ideal solution for

the abandoned dog or stray, it's ideal only for people who want to dump their

responsibility on somebody else. If anything, the current urgency to get the

animals adopted quickly could actually be a good thing, because then they'll

have a proper owner and home instead of living in this animal orphanage where

the caregivers are kind but individual love and nurturing are impossible.

   Don't blame the government for upsetting what has been a real cosy situation.

Yes, it can help make a bad situation better and it's already happening with

the release of land in Loyang and the micro-chipping of the Noah's Ark

animals. If the right-minded people got together, some rational solutions can

be found. Raymund Wee doesn't have to be the only angel. The next one could

well be Thierry Lim. But if not, then the challenge amongst the most vocal

Noah's Ark supporters should be: come on, who among you has the courage to

take up the cause?

   CAST YOUR VOTE: Go to the BT Online website (business-times.asia1.com.sg) and

take part in the interactive poll based on this column.

   RESULTS OF LAST WEEK'S POLL: What's your definition of the ideal mum? One who

cooks, cleans, looks after the kids and still looks sexy in bed - 16.35 per

cent. A career woman who will delay a major deal to take her kids to the

doctor - 14.15 per cent. One who can balance work, kids, maid and

mother-in-law - 53.15 per cent. One who stays home and gets to watch her kids

grow up - 16.35 per cent.

Source: The Business Times
Date: 19 May 2000

A case of semantics vs good samaritans

By Jamie Ee, The Business Times

OFF THE CUFF

   Socially-conscious people there are aplenty now in Singapore. But will the

combined strength of thousands of voices be effective in changing government

regulation with regard to Noah's Ark?

   THERE ARE several ways to tell that you're in a developed country: there are

plenty of avenues available for you to recycle waste materials, wheelchair

access is commonplace and - you see very few stray dogs and cats on the

streets.

   Even in supposedly impersonal New York, it's not uncommon to see buses with

special electric platforms that can be lowered to ground level for wheelchair

users. Is it any wonder that when a Singaporean sees something like that, he

or she wishes that the same kind of attention could be paid at home to such

seemingly non-relevant areas that benefit only a small minority?

   Household recycling is currently not second nature to us. Wheelchair access

is more of an exception than the norm. Facilities to house and re-home stray

animals are limited to the efforts of the woefully under-equipped SPCA and a

few kind-hearted individuals. And now, even the latter is threatened, thanks

to regulations that are generally impervious to human circumstance, much less

animal discomfort.

   The issue now is Noah's Ark Lodge, a privately-run animal shelter threatened

with closure because the operator, Raymund Wee, cannot renew the expiring

lease as he is a sub-tenant. As the main tenant is not renewing the lease, the

land, according to Primary Production Department regulations, has to be

returned "in vacant possession" so that it can be put up for public tender.

   This means that homes have to be found double-quick for Noah's Ark

inhabitants or they face extermination. Unless the PPD decides to bend the

rules a bit and allow Mr Wee to continue to lease the land in his own name.

The issue is not new. Government regulation stays unmoveable. The PPD talks

about land redevelopment and land scarcity. A small group of dissenters

grumble and write letters to The Straits Times forum pages, but protests

invariably fizzle out and lobbyists like Mr Wee are doomed to lose. Again.

   The difference this time, though, is in the amazing response Mr Wee has

garnered. Take one look at the website set up to receive signatures for a

petition that Mr Wee wants to send to the PPD. On Tuesday, there were some

2,000 names on the list. On Wednesday, the figure had hit nearly 5,000. By the

Jan 31 deadline, who knows how many thousand names will be on it?

   It certainly shows the growing maturity - okay, one should ignore the choice

expletives used to describe the PPD by one or two signatories - of an educated

population unwilling to let a perceived injustice go unchallenged. Remember

the barrage of indignant letters to support the lawyer who was beaten up after

telling an inconsiderate cinema-goer to stop using his mobile phone?

   Socially-conscious people there are aplenty now. But what I would be waiting

to see is how effective the combined strength of thousands of voices will be

in changing government regulation. Will the PPD bend to the pressure? Will it

see the folly of letting semantics get in the way of good samaritanism?

   Without getting into the emotional nature of Noah's Ark's case, it does seem

that it is successful in doing what it does - helping to take care of the

stray animal problem without using public money. And it seems that

redevelopment of that land is not on the cards yet - the surrounding land has

already had their leases renewed. So, given that Noah's Ark is doing more good

than harm, why let red tape destroy it?

   In any bureaucracy, there are regulations that need to be amended when there

is a greater good to be achieved rather than smooth logistics. A country

doesn't just develop because of its physical infrastructure; it develops when

its people and institutions are flexible enough to respond to, rather than

fight against, each other's needs. I hope the petitioners are successful. If

so, I'll take my hat off, not just to them, but to a system that knows where

its heart is.

Source: The Business Times
Date: 14 January 2000