RC member complaint of cat mess outside his flat

A resident who is also a RC (Residents' Committee) complaint to his town council of cat "mess" outside his flat. He knew whom the cat belonged to but he said he wouldnot approach his neighbour directly. The town council contacted a caregiver in the neighbourhood.
The caregiver spoke to the complainant who raised his voice when told that he could repel the cat by washing the area outside his flat with vinegar and sprinkle with crushed comphor powder. He retorted, "Why should I?"
The caregiver paid a visit to the flat from which the cat was allowed to roam out, appealing to the owners to keep the cat indoor. Another family with cat food outside the flat, was asked NOT to lure cats upstairs to feed but to feed cats responsibly downstairs and to clear up any leftover.

When the caregiver fed back to the RC member what has been done to resolve the issue, the complainant was still unhappy and cited the recent New Paper report of 9 cats at Block 712 of Bedok Reservoir. He threatend to bring the matter up to his MP!

RC members such as this resident, may have forgotten the role of RC. He needs to be reminded of his role to "to promote neighbourliness, harmony and cohesiveness among the residents" and "to promote good citizenship among residents".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Association

Residents' Committees

Residents' Committees (RCs) were formed in 1978 to promote neighbourliness and harmony in public housing estates. RCs also serve as channels of communication between residents and the Government. RCs, like CCCs, initially came under the Prime Minister's Office, and later, the Ministry of Community Development. In 1993, RCs and CCCs came under the purview of the PA. Currently, there are over 550 RCs. Each RC has an RC Centre to conduct meetings and programmes and activities for residents. RCs organise residents' parties, conduct house visits and other neighbourhood activities to reach out to residents. They also work closely with the government agencies to improve the living environment, safety and security of their estates.

Run by volunteers, the functions of the Residents' Committee are :

(a) to promote neighbourliness, harmony and cohesiveness among the residents of the Designated Zone;

(b) to liaise with and make recommendations to governmental authorities on the needs and aspirations of residents of the Designated Zone;

(c) to disseminate information and channel feedback on government policies and actions from residents of the Designated Zone; and 2

(d) to promote good citizenship among residents of the Designated Zone.

RC (Residents' Committee) volunteer abusing caregivers and cats!

Letter to the MP from a caregiver

Date: Monday, 28 September, 2009, 2:26 PM

CC ****, **** Town Council
**** Stray Cat Rehab Volunteers

Dear Sir,

I am ***, one of the volunteers managing the stray cats in the *** estate.

Firstly, I would like to thank **** Town Council for their continuous support in working with the volunteers towards stray cat management in the *** Estate. We have been working with **TC for several years and many residents are aware of the programme through 'neighbourly talks' although we have yet to publicise it through posters and publicly educating even more residents on the programme.

Last Saturday residents of T*** RC at Blk ** ***** celebrated the Mid Autumn Festival. It was a happy occasion but something unpleasant took place that made me write to you.

That night, as usual, our feeders went on their daily feeding rounds. The feeders feed the strays in a responsible manner, leaving no food behind and ensure that the cats are well managed through neutering. A fellow resident, with a digital camera at hand, began taking videos and pictures of the feeders, which aroused our concern. A volunteer approached him to find out more and he confidently blurted out that feeding animals is wrong and that he wanted to make a complaint.

I identified him as the son of a fellow T*** RC volunteer (I can only remember him as Mr Y), residing at Blk ** #0*-1***. Mr Y was identified by the RC as one of those whom new residents can look for if they have any queries about the neighbourhood. I received the newsletter when I moved in a few years back.

As a resident and fellow volunteer contributing my services towards the estate too, I am distraught and would like the RC to look into this.

1) As an RC volunteer, Mr Y is either not being briefed by his RC on the estate's programmes or chose not to support the stray cat rehab programme **TC is collaborating with fellow residents of the estate. Such misinformed belief that feeding animals is wrong needs to be corrected. Lest we forget, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong stated during his walkabout in Kim Keat that it is not illegal to feed stray cats, but it must be done responsibly.

2) Identified by the RC as someone whom new residents can look for, he is not setting a good example to new residents by his recent actions. Instead of explaining to the new residents the rationale of the programme and supporting it, he might even be condemning it.

3) Mr Y and myself all make up a team of volunteers working towards the better good of the estate. I would appreciate that he will go up to the volunteers if he has any concern instead of getting his son to take photos and videos, making the feeders feel not at ease.

4) I urge the RC to educate Mr Y and fellow residents on animal compassion if he continues to volunteer for the RC as his actions will reflect badly on the organisation he represents. On one occasion sometime ago, I witnessed him picking up a stone and throwing it at a passing-by cat. What horrified me next was, he picked another stone and gave it to his grandchild to throw it again at the poor animal. Studies have shown the benefits of interaction with animals and how children exposed to pets develop tolerance, compassion and social responsibility. Unfortunately, Mr Y actions could instill negative values in children: the intolerance of other living beings in our community and the acceptability of a sterile humans-only Singapore.

Let's hope Mr Y and family will look beyond their personal dislike for animals/cats and understand the main objective of why the stray cats rehab scheme exist in the first place.

Lastly, I do recognise T** RC's main objectives and reason for their existence. Let's hope we can work as a team and not in silos towards making Fengshan a better place to live in for all.

Thank You
***

http://www.pa.gov.sg/1148093110402/1148970724032.html
Functions of the Committee

3 The functions of the Committee are :

(a) to promote neighbourliness, harmony and cohesiveness among the residents of the Designated Zone;

(b) to liaise with and make recommendations to governmental authorities on the needs and aspirations of residents of the Designated Zone;

(c) to disseminate information and channel feedback on government policies and actions from residents of the Designated Zone; and

(d) to promote good citizenship among residents of the Designated Zone.

Don't let RC members get away with abusing their positions

October 11, 2008

Update to West Case

Ivan:

Michelle Siau, our TNRM subcommittee member was asked to help out for the recent west case and she is doing a great job. She managed to speak to the lady, identify the caregiver there, and the caregiver went on to contact the Town Council. Michelle did some fact-finding too and she found out the complainant was actually a RC member who didn’t want cats near her kids.

---

Meeting with the MP

The RC member in this case was kicking up a fuss yet again. The town council officer told the caregiver that as a result the cats would be rounded up either yesterday or today so the caregiver took half a day off work yesterday to rush to her town council to see what could be done. No one however was able to help because her officer was not around. The GM was not around and no one knew when he'd be back. With the other two caregivers they did not know what else to do.

They did manage to speak to a rather junior officer who told them he did not have much power on this issue. He did tell them that the RC had voted to have the cats removed. The caregivers explained that the RC had voted based on misinformation - according to the RC member who called the caregiver, they had asked specifically if the cats would be killed and if that was the case they did NOT want them to be removed. However the TC officer present had assured them they would be 'adopted'.

The officer also told them that the TC needs to work with the RC and the RC is the representative of the residents. The caregiver said that they should perhaps consult the actual residents like herself - and apparently he told her, there was no need to. They had spoken with the RC and they were deemed to be representative.

They decided to see the MP again and asked if I could go down with them as they had told the MP the last time they'd like to ask me to sit in as well. While they were waiting, whom should they see but the RC chairperson, the complainant AND the town council officer all going in together to see the MP.

She happened to meet one of the RC members there and he told her quietly he did not want the cats removed. He said that he would sign a letter if she wrote one - but he told her not to bring up his name to the MP typically.

The MP said that the complainant had come in waving around HDB regulations and information about MND. He said that he had told the complainant he was very aware of this because he used to be at the AVA himself.

He told the caregivers that the TC officer told him that there was some kind of resolution that necessitated the removal of cats whenever there was one complaint. He said that he had told the town council this was the old resolution. He said he would try and buy some time before the next town council meeting.

He asked if the cats could be removed in the interim. I explained the vacuum effect and he agreed that it made sense. I also said that from what the complainant said, the cats had been removed in the past because of the complainant - but he continued to complain.

He asked the caregiver to work with the TC and the RC. We emphasised that all the caregivers WANTED to work with the TC and the RC, that the caregiver had offered the complainant a car cover and repellent, but that the complainant was the one refusing to work with them.

He told the caregivers he would try and hold off the town council till the next meeting - which was rather odd. One would think an MP would have more clout than that really.

The MP then wrote two letters which he passed to the caregiver to hand to the RC and the TC. The caregiver thought to have a look at the letters and opened one, and was scolded by an RC member who was rather aggressive. I asked if it was possible to have a copy of the letters and he said that it was not their policy to give copies. I said I was aware other RCs did. He asked rather rudely why a copy was needed. I told him that people in TCs and RCs change - having a copy of the letter would make it easier. I said there had been a case where the officer changed and the new officer could not find the letter. He said that the officer had been there for a number of years - which doesn't make sense to me because even if she had been there a number of years doesn't mean she would not leave at some point. He said to look for him if there was an issue (assuming of course that HE doesn't leave either).

As we were leaving, we saw a woman in one of the cubicles yelling at this rather aggressive RC member and I heard something about the police. He quickly walked away and I saw that the woman was immediately ushered into see the MP instead of the helper at the session she had been speaking to up to that point.

Puppy love: Pet dog nips child allergies

April 29, 2008

Children with a dog were as susceptible to asthma and the other problems as counterparts without the pets. -- ST FILE PHOTO PARIS - TAKE a bow-wow, Fido. Scientists have found that Man's best friend is also good for his children too, for young kids who live with a dog may get an immune-system boost against asthma and other allergies. Dr Joachim Heinrich of the Institute of Epidemiology at the Heimholtz Centre in Munich, Germany, led an investigation into more than 3,000 children, whose health was closely monitored from birth to the age of six. Blood tests showed that, in households with dogs, children were less at risk from becoming sensitised to pollens and inhaled allergens - the triggers for asthma and wheezing, allergic rhinitis and eczema - than counterparts in dog-less homes. Dr Heinrich believes that early exposure to germs brought into the house on dog fur could stimulate maturation of the immune system. In other words, the body's defences do not go into allergic overdrive when they are suddenly exposed to dust house mites, pollens and other triggers. Oddly, though, the benefit seen in the children's antibodies did not show through in terms of symptoms, the study found. Children with a dog were as susceptible to asthma and the other problems as counterparts without the pets. 'It is not crystal clear why this is so,' Dr Heinrich said, adding it could be that the protective benefit may show up when the children in the study are a little older. Further assessments will be made when they reach the age of 10. The paper appears in the European Respiratory Journal, published by the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Further work is needed to understand why dogs appear to deliver this protection before a recommendation can be made to get a canine companion, said Dr Heinrich. -- AFP

Join the RC to speak out for humane management of community cats

Join the RC to give a bigger voices to the community cats and also to prevent some RC members from abusing their positions by pressuring the town councils for "silly" reasons that range from blaming cats for scratches on their cats" to "simply do not like cats!"

For some reasons, TC officers seem to accord VIP status to RC members and will pander to their every whim and fancy! and tremble in fear when a RC member complains!

Stop this abuse of power!

RC (Residents' Committee) members cannot and should not abuse their positions

Some town council officers cower and shiver in fear whenever a RC member voices his or her feedback about cats. It is as if a RC member's complaint is an empeoror's edict!

Read about this obnoxious RC member on Dawn's previous blog.

Recently a caregiver received an email from a town council officer that a RC member complaint about the presence of cats in a certain neighbourhood. The caregiver was asked "to look into this matter" that stretched over a number of blocks.

Now, RC members are supposed to serve the interests of ALL the residents. They cannot act above what is expected of other residents.

If they abuse their positions, then their behaviour should be brought to the attention of the MPs or the PA (People Association).

RC members received perks for their "volunteerism". Residents who self-volunteer as caregivers of cats DO NOT receive any perks or recognition but they should not be treated "like dirt"!

See this Residents' Committee
The Residents' Committees (RCs) in public housing estates promote neighbourliness, racial harmony and community cohesiveness among the residents within their RC zones. Run by residents for residents, the RCs also work closely with other PA grassroots organisations like the CCCs and selected government agencies to improve the physical environment and safety of the local precinct.

However the caregiver wrote in to ask the town council officer to request for more details about the RC member's concern and also requesting that the RC member communicate directly with her instead of hiding in anonymity!
The caregiver and a few other residents did a survey over the few blocks mentioned and reported to the town council officer that all the community cats were tipped and no "new" cats seen.

Do not be intimidated by RC members or TC officers

People have diverse interests. Some are interested in the welfare of the cats. An increasing number of residents are putting in their own effort, money and time to trap the cats for sterilisation and offer to help the town councils to resolve problems related to cats. Our Government encourages "active citizenry" and TnRm is just that.

Hence this should be encouraged by the Residents' Committees (RC) and the Town Councils (TC).

However some TC officers seem to cower when a RC member makes a fuss and will pander to his or her complaint even when it is obviously unreasonable and personal.

Some TC officers also display a negative attitude towards residents who offer to help resolve feedback about cats as it means a paradigm shift in the methology. It used to be "we will just activate the pest controllers" response to complaints about cats that is ineffective but then the TC is not transparent in revealing details about complaints such as names, addresses, and the exact nature of the complaints (10 anonymous complaints from ONE resident is considered as 10 complaints!). There is also no audit to check if the problem recurs as very often the "wrong" cats are caught by the pest controllers!

Remember that RC and TC are to serve every resident NOT just those who are aggressive in complaining or those who have a personal hatred or phobia of cats!

MPs too are elected to serve every resident and they must not trivialise residents who want to speak to them at Meet-the-MP sessions about cat issues. If the MPs express impatience or use excuses such as "they are other residents waiting to see me for more important bread and butter issues", just gently remind that issues concerning compassion is equally important! But of course it is discourteous to prolong the meeting unnecessarily. RC members register and interview residents at the Meet-the-MP premise. Some RC members also try to trivialise issues about cats and some will just scribble the words "cat nuisance" after listening to a long account. Again remember these RC members "volunteer" to serve residents, but unlike residents who volunteer in TnRM, they have perks for their volunteerism.

Is your Town Council pandering to "spoilt adult brats"?

http://catwelfare.blogspot.com/2006/...behaviour.html

Monday, October 09, 2006
Encouraging bad behaviour

Remember this guy? I SMSed him this evening to say that we did not know the caregiver in the area, but that we were getting another resident to go down. He called backed to say that he saw some cats sleeping on cars last night. I said the volunteer would be going down.

He complained that nothing had been done - I pointed out that he had said on Friday that he didn't need immediate action as long as something was done. I also pointed out that we needed to try and find someone near him. I said that town councils for example, take 5 working days to get back to the residents of this TC and that this is nowhere near that. He claimed that in HIS case, it was one day - and he's right, because the TC is so worried when he complains that they rush his case to the forefront, because he claims he is going to see the MP. He now says he is going to go back and complain to the TC again.

What annoys me tremendously is that when there were problems in the TC and the caregivers tried to contact them, they were told there was a 5 day waiting period. In this case, he gets special treatment because why? He's ruder? He's more unreasonable? The best way to appease him is to just give in?

He also agreed that removing the cats had happened several times, and new ones keep coming in, and he's not happy any of them sleep on his car (though he cannot show they scratched it because the car has been polished since then). However as long as they don't sleep on his car 'for a while' he's happy.

Truly TC does a disservice to Singapore by pandering to these people - if this was a child, and they were raised this way, you'd get a spoilt brat. If you pander to a spoilt adult, you get a demanding, unreasonable person who isn't willing to do anything but complain. And waste everyone's time and money.

Yet TCs rush to service them. And encourage MORE bad behaviour. Which means in turn MORE rushing to service them. Someone has to set the rule in TCs that there must be standards of common courtesy, and that sometimes, the answer to these people is just "too bad".

One nice thing - someone called to thank us for organising Spay Day today.

http://www.flippyscatpage.com/carpaint.html

Cats and Car-Paint

The quick answer is that car duco - if its in half decent condition - is extremely hard (its baked for at least half an hour at over 300º since it has to withstand road gravel hitting it etc). And cats claws are the same hardness as our fingernails. So unless you can scratch off the paint with your fingernail, there is *no way* a cat can scratch the *paint* of the surface of a car that's in a fairly good condition. (Paint does weather though and if its in a really bad state, it can be scratched, but if its that bad it should be a funny colour of white and be in the junk yard).

However, if the car has been *waxed*, the cat's claws (and your fingernails) can remove some of the wax, leaving what looks likes scratches in the paint, but are in fact just places where the surface of the wax has been removed. But then again a cat just walking across a car doesn't *use* claws, so the only way that the cat could scratch the car is if it was trying to somehow get traction on the surface, by either falling off or (dare I say) running for its life.

The worst a cat can do to in normal circumstances is leave cute little muddy cat prints - annoying but not inherently damaging.

Victoria Chapman, BSc, Paint Technologist

http://catwelfare.blogspot.com/2006/...ar-owners.html
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
New car owners

The town council called after speaking with this guy. It appears he has complained before, and they have removed the cats before and he's still not happy.

The TC reminded us these are not sterilised cats and they can remove them. I pointed out to the TC though that clearly removing the cats STILL isn't satisfying the guy. I suggested trying to work out a more long term solution by working with the feeder - but we need to be able to find her first.

It turns out he has a 6 month old car. The officer said he's rather hot tempered and comes back late at night so the cats tend to sleep on his car for warmth. Save us from people with new cars - or at least those who begrudge the cats a bit of warmth. I haven't seen the scratches he claims were left by the cats - and will not be able to since he claims the car has been repainted. I CAN understand not letting a cat scratch the car of course, but I wonder what happened to the fact that he alleges must prove? Now some cats get hauled off because he said so.

Functions of the Residents' Committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Association

Residents' Committees (RCs) were formed in 1978 to promote neighbourliness and harmony in public housing estates. RCs also serve as channels of communication between residents and the Government. RCs, like CCCs, initially came under the Prime Minister's Office, and later, the Ministry of Community Development.

In 1993, RCs and CCCs came under the purview of the PA. Currently, there are over 550 RCs. Each RC has an RC Centre to conduct meetings and programmes and activities for residents. RCs organise residents' parties, conduct house visits and other neighbourhood activities to reach out to residents. They also work closely with the government agencies to improve the living environment, safety and security of their estates.

Run by volunteers, the functions of the Residents' Committee are :

(a) to promote neighbourliness, harmony and cohesiveness among the residents of the Designated Zone;

(b) to liaise with and make recommendations to governmental authorities on the needs and aspirations of residents of the Designated Zone;

(c) to disseminate information and channel feedback on government policies and actions from residents of the Designated Zone; and 2

(d) to promote good citizenship among residents of the Designated Zone.

RC member kicking up a fuss yet again.

Meeting with the MP

The RC member in this case was kicking up a fuss yet again.
The town council officer told the caregiver that as a result the cats would be rounded up either yesterday or today so the caregiver took half a day off work yesterday to rush to her town council to see what could be done.

No one however was able to help because her officer was not around. The GM was not around and no one knew when he'd be back. With the other two caregivers they did not know what else to do.They did manage to speak to a rather junior officer who told them he did not have much power on this issue. He did tell them that the RC had voted to have the cats removed.

The caregivers explained that the RC had voted based on misinformation - according to the RC member who called the caregiver, they had asked specifically if the cats would be killed and if that was the case they did NOT want them to be removed.

However the TC officer present had assured them they would be 'adopted'.

The officer also told them that the TC needs to work with the RC and the RC is the representative of the residents.

The caregiver said that they should perhaps consult the actual residents like herself - and apparently he told her, there was no need to.

They had spoken with the RC and they were deemed to be representative.

They decided to see the MP again and asked if I could go down with them as they had told the MP the last time they'd like to ask me to sit in as well.
While they were waiting, whom should they see but the RC chairperson, the complainant AND the town council officer all going in together to see the MP.

She happened to meet one of the RC members there and he told her quietly he did not want the cats removed. He said that he would sign a letter if she wrote one - but he told her not to bring up his name to the MP typically.

The MP said that the complainant had come in waving around HDB regulations and information about MND. He said that he had told the complainant he was very aware of this because he used to be at the AVA himself.

He told the caregivers that the TC officer told him that there was some kind of resolution that necessitated the removal of cats whenever there was one complaint.
He said that he had told the town council this was the old resolution.
He said he would try and buy some time before the next town council meeting.
He asked if the cats could be removed in the interim.
I explained the vacuum effect and he agreed that it made sense.
I also said that from what the complainant said, the cats had been removed in the past because of the complainant - but he continued to complain.

He asked the caregiver to work with the TC and the RC. We emphasised that all the caregivers WANTED to work with the TC and the RC, that the caregiver had offered the complainant a car cover and repellent, but that the complainant was the one refusing to work with them.

He told the caregivers he would try and hold off the town council till the next meeting - which was rather odd. One would think an MP would have more clout than that really.

The MP then wrote two letters which he passed to the caregiver to hand to the RC and the TC.

The caregiver thought to have a look at the letters and opened one, and was scolded by an RC member who was rather aggressive.
I asked if it was possible to have a copy of the letters and he said that it was not their policy to give copies. I said I was aware other RCs did. He asked rather rudely why a copy was needed. I told him that people in TCs and RCs change - having a copy of the letter would make it easier. I said there had been a case where the officer changed and the new officer could not find the letter. He said that the officer had been there for a number of years - which doesn't make sense to me because even if she had been there a number of years doesn't mean she would not leave at some point. He said to look for him if there was an issue (assuming of course that HE doesn't leave either).

As we were leaving, we saw a woman in one of the cubicles yelling at this rather aggressive RC member and I heard something about the police. He quickly walked away and I saw that the woman was immediately ushered into see the MP instead of the helper at the session she had been speaking to up to that point.

Labels: Meeting, RC, TC

RC member: "I don't know what happens to the cats."

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

I don't know what happens to the cats.

I just spoke with the caregiver who went to see her RC chairperson last night.

Apparently after meeting the MP, they had been trying to get the RC member who is a complainant to drop the case, but the chairperson was unsure what the status is.

The caregiver asked if the whole case could be dropped in that case, but the chairperson said they need to determine if the cats are causing a nuisance.

The caregiver then took out the petition and the survey results. 132 households signed the petition - even more had responded in the survey to say they had no issue with the cats being there.

The Chairperson looked surprised but then asked how the cats are to be removed. The caregiver said they did not plan to remove the cats and pointed out the residents did not want them removed either.

She pointed out that the complainant had had cats removed several times in the past already and was still asking for the cats to be taken away.

According to the caregiver, the chairperson looked blank.The chairperson finally asked that a copy of the survey and petition be dropped off so she could discuss it with the RC.

The caregiver pointed out that far more people had responded than in her RC poll, and even then the RC members had been misinformed.


The RC Chairperson then said she would speak with the Secretariat, which is part of the PA apparently to determine what to do.

The caregiver pointed out that residents did not want the cats taken away and killed and the chairperson said they did not know what happened to the cats after they were taken away.

The caregiver pointed out that another RC member had clarified this point with her and that she did know now, to which she had no response apparently.

I have to say that I think willful ignorance should not be an excuse.

After all, an RC should be well informed - pretending they do not know, or failing to find out seems to go against the grain of what an RC member should do.

Saying I don't know is not good enough - certainly they should try and find out and not bury their heads in the sand?

Labels: Complaints, RC, survey
posted by Dawn @ 9:39 AM 9 comments

Prejudiced RC (Residents' Committee)

The Straits Times
ST Forum
June 12, 2007

Animal carers given short shrift over cats' fate by RC

THE lives of three sterilised cats at Blk 875 Yishun St 81 are to be 'terminated" as a result of a survey conducted by Nee Soon Zone F RC which showed that 'two responders agreed and one responder disagreed to the removal of the cats'.
Madam Wong, a volunteer who lives in this block, did not receive the survey form. Hence, we were understandably upset as we have volunteered our time, effort and money in the neighbourhood's 'Cat Management' programme.

This includes trapping the community cats to be sterilised so that the population remains controlled and eventually reduced with natural attrition, as well as assisting the town council to resolve feedback about cats so that effective solutions are applied. 'Cat Management" helps the town council to conserve public funds by not engaging pest controllers to kill the cats.

Ms Pang, also a caregiver and resident of this RC zone, had sought Mr Goh Han Chuan, the Nee Soon Zone F chairman, for clarification on an earlier survey. However, she was treated with an attitude that was anything but courteous.

A chat with the residents of Blk 877 showed that:

1) The total number of residents spoken to: 36

2) 18 of them claimed not to have received the survey forms

3) 27 residents do not want the cats to be removed and killed

4) Seven are neutral

5) Two wanted the cats killed

Residents who merely file complaints with the RC were given due respect. Surely then, it is not unreasonable for residents such as Ms Pang and I to ask for the same degree of respect.

We appeal to the RC to work with us, not against, because we really have the same goal of reducing the conflicts between humans and cats.

We believe that a humane solution to the problems of living with cats in our midst sends a positive message to our young people whose lives seem to be imbibed with increasing violence and killing.

Singapore prides itself on its multiple achievements. Trap-Neuter-Release-and-Manage is an evidence-based method that will achieve a long-term and effective solution to our problems with cats.

'Cat Management" also provides a platform for residents of different races to work together, providing opportunities for us to know each other better which is a firm foundation of racial harmony.

Helga Koh Nee Gamp (Ms)