feeders1
A website, savebeachroadcats.com (SBRC) is being set up by cat feeders at Beach Road to chronicle all the serial cat abuse cases from the area, along with information on the suspected abuser who has been killing the cats.
With over 50 cats are found to be killed and abused over the past 3 years at Beach Road and many more unaccounted cases along the Kallang river, cat feeders of Beach Road are forced to move their public awareness campaign online after years of inaction by the relevant authorities.
Graphical images of dead cats are shown in the blog posts, where and when the cats were found dead are documented down, along with the response by the authorities.

cat abuses
Images of the killed and abused cats
The creators wrote in to TOC saying that though the Singapore government reiterates a strong official stance on pet and animal abuse, all that they have been hearing from authorities, like the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA), are instead empty platitudes such as:

“AVA takes animal cruelty seriously and will take action against any offender for acts of animal cruelty if there is strong direct evidence and witnesses who are willing to testify in court.”

Multiple bodies and cases have already been forwarded to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and concurrent reports made to the AVA.
Due to the investigations of the cat feeders, a suspect has been identified through various witness accounts and the documented behavior of the suspect. Many residents believe the serial cat abuser to be a “white-haired uncle” who is a resident of the area.
He has been spotted several times loitering around the neighbourhood in the wee hours of the morning and cats would often be found abused or dead afterwards. The suspect has even been questioned by other residents but he flatly denies the accusations upon him.
SBRC says that it had made one police report about the suspect in 2011, and a very recent one just last week . There may be other police reports made by others which they are not aware of but from their experience, the SBRC says the police would usually refer such cases to the AVA because they are “animal-related”.
In an incident where a community cat was flung to its death in broad daylight three years ago, a heated confrontation between the suspect who was present at the scene and the cat feeders took place. An investigation officer from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) was even assigned to the case but there had been no follow up since then despite attempts to reach the officer. (Read more about the incident here)
If the SPF’s tactic is to push all animal-related abuse cases to the AVA, an agency without actual policing powers and far less investigative resources, which in turn place an extraordinarily responsibility on civilians to do their work for them, how exactly evidence or proof of the crime are the elderly resident feeders from an impoverished estate expected to deliver, asked the cat feeders.
They added that the AVA puts the burden on the feeders or the people who care to come up with the evidence, or to source for willing eyewitnesses, in an area where the usual attitude to shady things is to close one eye and not to care.
An AVA spokesperson was reported to have said that the AVA has conducted its own investigation into the abuse cases but there is not enough evidence and there have been no witnesses who saw the abuse taking place.
Other than a poster or two or the rare occasional Facebook post, the response from the AVA and SPCA was equally as muted. “Nothing much we can do since there’s a lack of evidence”, “it’s all just circumstantial and pure conjecture and speculation” or even “this isn’t abuse” would be the often heard replies after numerous phone calls made just to chase down an answer.
They ask how could the government’s claims  on taking animal abuse seriously be believed  if swift resolution is not forthcoming.
“With louder voices from fellow Singaporeans who care, this will hopefully alter our dead-end efforts to make the authorities sit up and take notice.”
“Please help us spread our message, and help us bring this up to the government agencies involved.”

Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Netizens agree that shortage of manpower at customs is causing horrendous traffic along the Causeway

Last month, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) said that travellers heading…

黄埔小贩也申诉富食客接手后运营成本增

2016年11月20日,环境局宣布委托职总富食客合作社,作为七座小贩中心的新管理代理。环境局根据观察,职总富食客自2014年来管理勿洛小贩中心“运作良好”,而作出以上决定。 目前,由职总富食客管理的七座小贩中心如下: 大巴窑大牌75 旧机场路小贩中心 黄埔通道第90座小贩中心 黄埔通道大牌91小贩中心和大牌92巴刹 义顺忠邦小贩中心 兀兰71通道第676A 座小贩中心(新) 巴西立中路小贩中心(新) 环境局指出,勿洛小贩针对富食客的管理、对小贩反映的回应、可负担食物价格和干净环境等事项,给与正面的反馈。 黄埔通道90座小贩中心 …

过去五年 四成上班族曾遭性骚扰!仅30%受害者举报

调查发现,每五名受访者中,就有两人曾在过去五年内遭受到职场性骚扰!然而,愿意举报者仅30%,情况令人忧心。 本地妇女行动及研究协会(AWARE),偕同国际调查机构益普索(Ipsos)于去年11月,向1千名本地公民和永久居民展开调查,亦是本地首个探讨职场性骚扰的全国调查。 调查发现,多达四成上班族在过去五年,曾在职场遭受性骚扰,但只有30%受害者会正式举报。 值得关注的是,受访者对于职场性骚扰的界定不清楚,其中包括收到含有性别歧视或色情意味的图像、笑话或文字;发表针对受害者样貌、身材或性行为冒犯性言论,以及不必要的肢体接触等。 而在意识到自己是受害者的人当中,有一半人最初并不认为自己曾是受害者,直到调查人员描述了特定的性骚扰情形,他们才恍然大悟。 仅三成受害者会举报 至于是否会举报性骚扰行为,仅三成的受访者表示,会向公司通报职场性骚扰,而选择不通报的受访者,则因各种理由拒绝,如希望淡忘事件、认为遭受的职场性骚扰不算严重,以及缺乏证据。 有五分之二的举报案件,加害者最终被调职或解雇;但在五分之一的案件中,尽管有骚扰的证据,但加害者没有遭受任何处罚。 AWARE倡导与研究主管莎莉·辛戈兰(Shailey Hingorani)指出,该调查凸显了本地职场性骚扰普遍且急需处理的问题。 尽管我国在处理性暴力优于其他国家,但在处理职场性骚扰上,却似乎落后于其他专门立法的国家,辛戈兰表示。 建议立法禁职场骚扰…

Indranee Rajah: CPIB investigations did not reveal any connection with a government agency or contract where corruption by ST Marine occurred so the company is not debarred from govt contracts

Debarment from participating in government contracts is a separate and distinct exercise…