Don't be too sterile, S'pore

THE sight that greeted me when I landed in Geneva on my first visit to Switzerland four years ago was that of a small, scruffy terrier in a tug-of-war with its sharply-suited owner as it proceeded to make its mark on the airport floor.

Before I could say 'poo', a cleaner swept the offending pile off the pristine floor before disinfecting it.

It all happened like clockwork; so quickly and fluidly that it almost seemed choreographed.

'This is Switzerland,' I remember reminding myself, impressed with service that is unobstrusive, yet attentive.

Incidentally, the World Health Organisation headquarters is located in Geneva.

I am reminded of that incident by the current controversy over the culling of strays. I say controversy because the wisdom of this approach is questionable.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) itself says that culling is not an effective way to manage the stray problem. I might add that neither is it effective against crows, for shooters can never hope to catch up with the influx from neighbouring territories as long as there's food for the taking.

More importantly, such intolerance for strays on health ground does not bode well for Singaporeans who will increasingly have to inhabit places outside of this sterile bubble we are creating.

The culling of strays also suffers from the myopia of expedience, when what is needed is a long-term solution.

No-one - cat-lover or hater - wants to see strays on the streets.

Yet, there are 80,000 stray cats.

The AVA, on its website, says: 'Culling by pest control companies removes cats that are easily caught, leaving the wilder and often more prolific cats to continue to multiply. This method may produce immediate short-term results but the results are just temporary.'

Indeed, its own figures show that culling has not made a dent on the stray population in the last 10 years. Yet the killings continue, even of sterilised animals, causing undue anguish among the Stray Cat Rehabilitation Programme volunteers, among others. AVA has also undermined its word in breaking its contract with animal welfare groups when the programme was instituted in August 1998.

Last year alone, the AVA impounded 4,570 dogs and 5,517 cats, most of which were killed.

A national budget to sterilise and care for existing strays will go a long way to demonstrate responsibility, compassion and leadership by example.

Concurrently, AVA should press for a long-term solution that nips the problem in the bud by targeting the source of strays - people who abandon their pets.

On average, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals receives 300 abandoned dogs and 400 cats a month.

AVA should press for a mandate to police and punish people like them. It should push for these errant owners (and not stray care-givers who have to pick up after their anti-social behaviour) to face stiff sentences.

AVA should also make it compulsory for all cats and dogs, imported or locally-bred, to be implanted with microchips to help identify owners should they be abandoned. Would-be owners would have to bear the additional cost.

In the interim, AVA should resume consultation and work with animal welfare groups on the stray sterilisation programme.

The reason offered for the culling of even sterilised cats is that they pose a health hazard. If this is true, cat owners must be a suicidal bunch!

If Singapore is to join the ranks of the environmentally-enlightened nations, its management of such problems as strays must factor in more than scientific research.

It must include the impact that a sterile and sanitised environment, devoid of animals that are part of the urban eco-system, would have on its population.

Fitness instructor Balakrishnan Matchap, 34, was spot on in pointing out the need for balance.

'We cannot make our environment too sterile,' he said, 'We need to improve our relationship with the living things around us.'

Copyright © 2003 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.