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

内容涉复述李玮玲指控总理要求本社撤文 媒体人质问弟妹畅所欲言其他人却不行?

昨日(9月1日),李总理新闻秘书张俪霖,代表总理向本社总编许渊臣发函,指本社英语站在8月15日刊登的一篇评论,复述针对总理的不实指控,要求本社撤下并在三日内道歉。 张俪霖指上述评论涉及重复总理妹妹李玮玲,在此前作出的指控,指其已故父亲李光耀曾受到哥哥李显龙的误导,误以为欧思礼38号故居已经获政府宪报为文化遗产,故此要保留遗嘱中要求拆除故居的指示是徒劳的。 张俪霖驳斥上述指控毫无根据,也解释2017年7月,总理已在国会作出充分解释,反驳其弟妹的指控。总理重申李光耀个人遗嘱要求在他百年后拆除欧思礼38号故居。 然而,在听取内阁一致认为故居不应被拆除的意见后,李光耀最终接受政府有可能出于公共利益而保留该产业,因此愿意灵活处理和考虑拆屋以外的选项。 此外,张俪霖也反驳,李光耀自2011年起就没有在任何一份遗嘱中,将李总理列为遗嘱执行人和受托人。 她续称,上述文章的指控具诽谤行,总理选择不起诉弟妹,不代表容许他人复述和散播这些指控。 信函称总理限定本社英语站在三天内需撤下上述评论,并刊登道歉启事以及承诺不再刊载有关指控,否则总理“别无选择,只能委律师行使法律权益”。 本社英语站已在昨晚撤下上述誌期8月15日的评论文章,惟暂未针对总理公署的要求,作出任何回应。 对于总理公署再对本社抛下重磅弹,也有许多读者、社运分子表达关注,其中范国瀚就在个人脸书揶揄,“总理又在起诉网络批评声音”。 至于资深媒体人兼《海峡时报》前副总编辑默乐(Bertha Henson)则质问,总理选择不起诉弟妹,但是不容许他人复述、散播他们的指控,难道意味着总理的弟妹可以畅所欲言,但是其他人如果重复他们的言论就不可以?“法律是这样运作的么?” 人权律师、前政治拘留者张素兰则好奇询问:如果网络公民请总理弟妹也参与诉讼?恐怕只有总理和他的弟妹才知道真相。…

The cost of Singapore’s heavy export reliance

The golden age of growth may be past. AP.

Man shares ‘nightmare’ experience with ambulance service when trying to transport COVID-19 positive relative into S’pore

Trying to transport his sick father-in-law across the border from Johor Bahru…

疫情持续蔓延 塞尔维亚与斯里兰卡暂缓选举

塞尔维亚选举委员会表示,塞尔维亚已启动紧急状态,为了有效遏制病毒传染,将禁止公共活动,包括暂停所有选举的准备工作。 塞尔维亚《闪报》(Blic)报道,选举将可能会推迟一个月,但也并未说明消息来源。 而塞尔维亚总统亚历山大(Aleksandar Vucic)将会于周二与政党代表会面。 委员会表示,在紧急状态解除后,选举准备工作将会恢复。 目前塞尔维亚已限制所有外籍人士入境,同时关闭学校并限制商店营业时间。 塞尔维亚总理安娜(Ana Brnabic)周一表示,如果民众不遵守待在家的指令,政府可能会开始实施宵禁。 而紧急状态可能会持续90天,最长可延长至180天。 除了塞尔维亚,《路透社》报道,斯里兰卡原定4月25日举行国会选举,因疫情的蔓延而将被推迟。 选委会主席迪夏普利亚(Mahinda Deshapriya)表示,只有在得到疫情控制后,才能确定举行国会选举的日期。…