JUNE 5, 2003
Our Columnist
Culling of cats: Is it still 'Govt knows best'?

By Sharon Loh

AT A lunch for the media early last month, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) made some presentations about its work.

One of these praised the merits of its Stray Cat Rehabilitation programme.

The five-year-old scheme, in which volunteers collect stray cats for spaying before returning them to their environments, was held up as a shining example of what could be achieved by the Government working together with the community.

At no point during the briefing was it mentioned that the programme would be suspended in favour of a stepped-up eradication of Singapore's 80,000 stray cats.

Yet that is what happened less than two weeks later.

The AVA did inform town councils, which help to trap the animals, of the change in policy. But individual volunteers on the programme found out only when they took cats to the sterilisation centre and were turned away.

In a letter to The Straits Times on May 30, AVA spokesman Goh Shih Yong gave the reason for the change: 'There has been feedback that the scheme is not working well in some town councils and the AVA has received an increased number of complaints about the nuisance caused by stray cats, including those under the scheme.'

This is not what the AVA says on its website, www.ava.gov.sg

There, it says that its sterilisation scheme 'has shown good results in areas where good rapport has been built up between the volunteers and the authorities, and volunteers are able to work closely with the authorities to deal with stray cat matters.

'We believe that this self-help, community-based type of approach is the answer to resolving the stray cat situation in the long run.'

Now, the AVA finds it has to equivocate, as the country is cleaned up to make sure the Sars virus has nowhere to hide. On May 24, the Minister of State for National Development, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, told reporters that the culling of strays was for the sake of public hygiene and not because of Sars. Still, the timing of the AVA's about-face has some wondering if it is being made to implement a policy it does not subscribe to.

On its website, it says its own figures for the past 10 years show that culling has neither decreased the number of cats that have to be destroyed each year nor the number of complaints received. It 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 temporary.'

In the veterinary world, the debate continues over whether culling of feral animals is preferable to a population control method called Trap, Neuter, Return (TNR).

NO MOOD FOR DISSENT

IN TNR, feral cats are caught, spayed and returned to their old environments. New cats stay out as they respect the territorial rights of the existing group. TNR has been used with some success in controlling (and reducing over time, as the cats eventually die off and do not reproduce) stray populations.

Animals in spayed colonies are able to lead good lives, and looking after them brings emotional well-being to their caregivers. The AVA had 500 volunteers who were learning how to manage them.

Following scares in China and Hong Kong that cats may be reservoirs for zoonotic diseases, however, the AVA began culling cats here.

The brouhaha that erupted among cat lovers here led to a meeting of the AVA and the Cat Welfare Society.

The society is now preparing a proposal to improve the scheme. The door, it said, does not seem to have closed.

This is heartening as it would be regrettable if one of the precious few collaborations between the Government and civil organisations had to end like this.

However, in a situation that has everyone reading between the lines, what seems clear is the Government is in no mood to brook dissent.

Whatever the praise heaped on its moves to communicate more effectively with the ground, and its daily and transparent disclosures of the Sars situation, the truth is that the nature of the communication has not changed. It still goes one way.

Sars has been the catalyst that tightened the grip, and people are compliant because they are more afraid of the virus than losing their liberties.

Now, individuals who step out of line will find that they will pay the price.

So far, these have been spitters, litterbugs and quarantine breakers, but when will it be people feeding stray cats?

A long shot? Let's hope so.

Whether or not the AVA is justified in its choice is not really the point. The niggling question is whether, when push comes to shove, the authorities will always fall back on 'Father knows best'?

Singapore's swiftness in using the strong arm of the law to contain the Sars outbreak earned it both praise and criticism from outsiders.

Many saw its decisiveness as the only way to deal with an infectious disease outbreak. Others, however, argued that such unquestioning public obedience was a telling indictment of the lack of civil liberties in the nation.

The animal groups, knowing their place on the food chain, have wisely kept a low profile. They have also stopped their own sterilisation programmes.

Ultimately, this is not simply a matter of the cat lovers versus the AVA. It is about whether Singapore has truly opened up in the last few months or whether it has simply become more impenetrable. Assuming that the long-term goal of remaking Singapore is still on the cards, it is up to the public to decide which it wants.