Feeding community cats

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Mahatma Gandhi

We have a dog and four cats. Our latest is a three-legged Siamese-cross kitten that my wife and I found near our estate one night. One of her legs is just a stump (you can just see it in this picture) -- it's a clean break, so it wasn't natural. The vet thinks it was either a trap, or something (say, a bike) ran over the leg, or she lost it in a fight. We named her Mei-Mei -- she's almost 7 months old, and has really come a long way.

We found her only because we were feeding the community cats (aka stray cats) outside our estate. We heard the mewing as we were feeding the cats, and found her crouching in the shrubs, staring hungrily -- but fearfully and warily -- at us. We feel lucky to have found her. In fact, all of our pets are strays -- the dog was my wife's, picked up as a puppy from a drain, and our other three cats were all kittens found by other people and adopted by us. We've actually found another orphaned before, whom we fostered for a bit before we managed to re-home her with someone -- we found Coco's mother dead one day, for reasons unknown.

We feed the cats every night. There used to be a couple of ladies who would also feed the cats, but gradually they stopped (one moved away, I don't know what happened to the other one. Now it's just my wife and I, and another lady who comes around about once a week.

We started feeding them because we found them pitiful, or in local parlance, very "poor thing". (As an aside, I'd be keen to know if anyone has a "proper" English translation for "poor thing"!) They have to survive the rain, the traffic, this that the other -- we didn't want them to also have to go hungry or cause a nuisance when foraging for food.

As the cats became more familiar with us, they became so affectionate. The ones nearest our estate would wait outside our gate if we are a bit later than usual in coming out to feed them, and would scamper towards us the moment we open the side-gate and step out. In fact, sometimes they actually just sit and wait outside the side-gate!

They are not afraid of us, and will run along beside us (or more likely, keep running across our path and thereby trip us up) as we walk towards the designated feeding spots. Some of them would keep trying to rub themselves against our calves. And they all purr oh so loudly as they eat the food voraciously.

Very often, I wanted so badly to just gather up all of them in my arms and cuddle them. It will never happen though -- they are not used to it, so any attempt to do that will almost certainly just result in a multitude of scratches.

So we worry when they are hungry, because some of them are on the other side of a busy road and so sometimes try to run across the road when they see us coming. And we are very sad, when any cat we've been feeding stops showing up, because the odds are pretty much stacked against it. And we feel guilty about taking holidays, because what will happen to the (our) cats?

I initially saw the nightly cat-feeding as a chore. But after a while, I began to look forward to it, when I realised that it was actually good for me. It would calm me down however stressed I was, and it soothed me in a way that few things could. After feeding them, I would invariably feel glad in the knowledge that they were all safe and sound for another night. Small mercies can go a long way.

Not many people understand why feeders do what we do. Maybe that's because not many people feed. I firmly believe that only those who do it will truly understand. But even short of that, I think people should be able to understand the sense of compassion that drives feeders to do what we do. I will always remember what my then-new helper said, to my great embarrassment, when she found out that my wife and I feed the cats around our area: "Oh, you must be good people!"

I have tremendous respect for a lot of feeders, who go way beyond what my wife and I do -- they organise, they advocate for the cats they take care of, they engage with and mediate between town councils and unhappy residents, and very often they foster cats for rehoming. All for some furballs to whom they really owe no obligation or duty, other than a general sense that we need to take care of and protect the defenceless and those less fortunate than us, human and otherwise. All out of their own time and money. That is true selfless altruism, because there really is nothing in it for anyone.

And you know, while it is an extremely fragmented circle, the fact remains that animal welfare groups are a fantastic example of successful grassroots activism: completely ground-up, spontaneous and responsive, passionate and devoted to the cause, geographically-dispersed, well-organised and highly-networked, and most importantly and most strikingly of all, largely self-funding even if it is largely shoestring.

Siamese-y, Sissy Soo, Blackie, Phantom, and the Fuglies, thank you for brightening up my nights and lightening my spirits. I only hope more people get to enjoy such moments with your little furry kindred. And to Little One and Reverse Panda Eyes, I hope you are OK wherever you are, but if not at least you are in a better place. Yes, I know the names probably either don't make sense or sound completely random to anyone other than us -- blame that on us, not the cats.

PS. To feeders and would-be feeders, please do familiarise yourselves with the dos and don'ts of feeding -- you can check out the materials available at the Cat Welfare Society website and the Singapore Community Cats blog.

Questions for Written Answer #2 and #3: 21 May 2007

Here are 2 more WPQs filed for the sitting on 21 May 2007. The first WPQ is about stray cats, and is a follow-up to an earlier OPQ in March 2007, where I had asked about repeat complainants and the MOS did not have the information handy. Unfortunately the information is ultimately not as interesting or helpful as it could be, since the number of repeat complainants is not tracked (I think that's what the response meant).

The second WPQ is, like the one I posted earlier about figures on PRs and citizens, an attempt to get more information on a topic close to the heart of many Singaporeans, on which precious little detailed official data has been available.

It is by now accepted, and probably ingrained in many if not most of us, that Singapore needs to remain open to foreign talent/workers, to enable our economy to continue growing. What we have never seen are official statistics on the types of foreign talent/workers coming into Singapore (although Leong Sze Hian has posted some statistics, albeit without attribution as to source -- see this article, in point F8).

Unfortunately, again I was fobbed off. I basically did not receive a reply to (a) or (b) at all. I'm OK with not getting an answer for (c), if the data is not tracked. But what took the cake was how the response was able to disclose the "published foreign employment level" of 756,000, and yet claim that "a breakdown is not available" with a straight face. It's tough to understand how we can publish a total number without having a breakdown. Another to try again in July.

WPQ

STRAY CATS

(Figures on Complaints)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for National Development, of the approximately 10,000 complaints about stray cats received by the Agri-Food Veterinary Authority (AVA), HDB and the Town Councils (a) how many were repeat complaints; (b) how many persons are these repeat complaints attributable to; and (c) how many of these repeat complaints were directed to AVA, HDB and the Town Councils respectively.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Of the 10,000 complaints on stray cats received per year, half were lodged with the Town Councils. The remainder were lodged with AVA and HDB.

Approximately 18% of the total complaints received by the Town Councils were repeat complaints. AVA and HDB do not track the number of repeat complaints.

WPQ

EMPLOYMENT PASSES

(Figures and Nationalities)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for Manpower for each of the last ten years (a) how many P1, P2, Q, R and S passes were issued; (b) what were the 20 most common nationalities of each class of work pass holders; and (c) what was the average period of validity for each class of work pass.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Chart 1 shows the employment changes from 1998. The published foreign employment level is 756,000 and a breakdown is not available.

In recent years, our foreign employment has grown in tandem with robust economic growth and job creation. The number of work passes has also risen across the different pass types.

Foreigners of all nationalities can apply for P, Q and S passes. Depending on the industry sector, R pass holders may be from Malaysia, North Asian Sources such as Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea and Taiwan, or Non-Traditional Sources including Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

The length of stay, and hence period of work pass validity, for P, Q and S pass holders is largely determined by their employers. There is no stipulated maximum employment period. In contrast, there is a cap on the period that R pass holders can work in Singapore. MOM recently extended the maximum period to help employers retain their experienced R-pass holders. Please refer to Table 1.

Chart 1: Cumulative Employment Change, Jan 1998 - Dec 2006

[chart showing the "cumulative employment change" -- meaning the cumulative change in employment since January 1998 -- with one line for the total change, a second for the total change for local residents, and the third for the total change for foreigners. What this has to do with my question eludes me.]

Table 1: Maximum employment periods for R-pass Holders

Skills Level of R-pass Holders	Previous Maximum Employment Period	Current Maximum Employment Period (as at 1 April 2007)
Skilled (R1 pass)	15 years	18 years
Unskilled (R2 pass)	4 years	6 years

Questions for Oral Answer: 1 March 2007

These are 2 questions I filed, that were answered on 1 March 2007. One is about stray cats, which is really a much more complex issue than you'd think, and the other is about who is getting all these new jobs in Singapore.

Firstly, stray cats. I've been pigeonholed as "championing" animal welfare -- I think thanks almost entirely to TODAY, who, in their news report on the appointment of the NMPs, singled out the low-income and animal welfare as the two issues I stood for, based on my essay.

But those of you who have read it will know that I wrote about much more than that. And it's been alternately galling and amusing, when people asked me about animal welfare. It's not that it's not important to me -- it is, thanks to my absolutely adorable pets (all adopted strays) -- but given limited time and opportunities, there are other issues that assume higher priority on my list.

Still, the marathon Budget sessions meant that eventually my question on stray cats was aired in Parliament, even though it was not reported in the media. I would thank the Minister of State for hearing me out and her balanced response, even though I disagree with the position taken and the Ministry's view on the effectiveness of sterilisation as opposed to culling. Also, she did not seem familiar with the Guernsey example (search the archives for stores on "stray cats" in 2004), and I was a little surprised that she did not address a research study by the Singapore Veterinary Association in Bukit Merah. I have asked for the figures on repeat complainants that she offered, but am still waiting for her response.

I must thank the Cat Welfare Society and the SPCA for helping me with background information on this issue, and I am sure that I will raise animal welfare issues again.

The second question was about the 170,000-odd new jobs created in Singapore. One of the interesting nuances in the media coverage on this was that the reports always talked about "locals" getting XXX number of the new jobs and "foreigners" getting YYY number.

And this was really because the data released by the Ministry was on those terms. There was no breakdown in how many of the "locals" who got these new jobs were Singapore citizens and how many were PRs (and I knew that citizens + PRs = locals).

So I decided to ask.

I think the Minister basically dodged the question, in particular the follow-up portions about extrapolating the numbers from income tax and CPF data. I believe that the MOM doesn't have those figures, and I suspect it is because they are not set up to collate the numbers that way.

It is easy to do a local-vs-foreigner split, simply because the foreigners need employment passes, S-passes and work permits. But from the MOM's perspective, there is no differentiation between citizens and PRs, and no way for them to collect data.

It's different for CPF and income tax though. It would be possible to correlate that (although for income tax, the figures would be 2 years old). But I think it would require a massive undertaking, and I am honestly not sure if the cost is justified. So I didn't push the Minister on it. Plus I see the merit in his response, even though I think it does fail to address the very important issue of the quality of jobs going to locals.

OPQ #1

STRAY CATS

(Complaints)

Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year from 2002 to 2006 (i) what was the stray cat population in Singapore; (ii) how many complaints concerning stray cats were received by Government agencies and town councils in total; and (b) whether there is any statistically-valid empirical evidence that culling has been an effective long-term solution in managing the stray cat population in Singapore.

The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, sir, the AVA estimates that there are 60,000 stray cats in Singapore. The total number of complaints concerning stray cats received by AVA, HDB and the town councils averaged at 10,000 per year for the period from 2002 to 2006.

Cats can breed two to three times a year, producing litters of two to five kittens each time. Stray cats here breed prolifically due to the conducive living environment, such as plentiful supply of easily available food. The presence of a large uncontrolled population of stray cats can pose public health and environmental problems, and gives rise to public complaints of nuisances.

AVA is not aware of any empirical evidence that culling is an effective long-term solution in managing the stray cat population in Singapore. AVA adopts a pragmatic multi-pronged approach to address the problem of strays here. A balanced approach is needed to take into account the good intentions of cat lovers, as well as the genuine interest of people who are affected by the nuisance caused by stray cats.

Culling, sterilisation and public education are three necessary parts of a balanced control and management strategy on stray cats. Culling is an acceptable and necessary means of reducing the stray cat population, as sterilisation alone will not effectively control the number of stray cats.

Public education is also an important part of AVA’s strategy for controlling the number of strays because selfish and irresponsible people who abandon unwanted pets, allow them to breed freely and indiscriminately feeding strays also contribute to adding more strays to the environment.

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, three supplementary questions. First, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the HDB, Town Councils and AVA keep records on whether the complainants make repeat complaints.

Second, is with reference to the Minister of State's statement that stray cats breed prolifically, and she has also mentioned culling in her answer. Is the Minister of State aware that there is empirical evidence that sterilisation in the form of the trap, neuter and release strategy is effective in controlling the stray cat population? The example being the island of Guernsey which has managed to control its stray cat population so effectively that it had to import stray cats from other areas so as to allow cat lovers to adopt them.

Sir, my third supplementary question is with respect to the balanced approach that the Minister of State has described. Does the AVA advocate such a balanced approach to the Town Councils which I understand to be primarily responsible for controlling the stray cat problem? Because my understanding is that some Town Councils adopt a purely culling-based approach.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, on the first question whether AVA, HDB and Town Councils track the number of repeat complaints, at this moment, I do not have the information. I believe that they do keep a record of the people who complain but, in compiling statistics, I do not think they eliminate repeat complaints. I will check on this and, if necessary, provide an answer to the Member.

As to the empirical evidence of sterilisation, some years back, in 1998, we embarked on a programme of sterilisation and release. I believe this is what the NMP is referring to. In 2003, ie, five years later, we did a review of that programme. Actually, the Town Councils found that the programme had not been effective in controlling the stray cat population. The complaints on food remains and cat waste continued and, surprisingly in some cases, they actually reported an increase in the number of complaints despite the programme to sterilise. It is for this reason that AVA thinks that it is not just an enforcement issue but also a public participation issue. Therefore, AVA is quite happy to work with the community to control the number of strays in their area.

As regards Town Councils' action, I believe that the Town Councils take a very pragmatic approach. They will act on complaints. We have actually been discussing with the Town Councils of taking a balanced approach. Of course, while they would act only on complaints and when there is a complaint, they would have to show that they act on it as well. Town Councils do have a responsibility towards its residents to ensure that the place is kept clean and the environment conducive.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, the Minister of State mentioned that the relevant agencies do not keep statistics on repeat complainants. My understanding is that, very often, it is the few people who just absolutely hate cats for some reason who keep complaining. I would tie this in with the Minister of State's reply to my third supplementary question about how AVA works with the Town Councils and how the Town Councils react in response to complaints. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister of State what kind of programmes does the AVA have to ensure that Town Councils do not adopt only an immediate response and instead have a long-term holistic approach.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I think I have answered earlier that between the three agencies - AVA, HDB and Town Councils - they receive an average of 10,000 complaints per year, which is actually 30 complaints per day. Granted, there could be people who feel passionate about this issue and probably complain more than once, I think 30 a day is probably more than what a few people could do, unless they do it on a full-time basis.

As regards to programmes, as I said, we have the interest of the animals at heart. AVA does quite a few programmes on public education. We will look into specific issues if the NMP feels that Town Councils have taken action that is perhaps too harsh for the cat lover.

OPQ #2

STATISTICS ON JOBS CREATED

Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many of the jobs created in 2006 were taken up by Singapore citizens, permanent residents and foreigners respectively; (b) what is the Government estimates of these statistics if it does not track them for Singapore citizens and permanent residents; and (c) whether it can derive such statistics using income tax and CPF contribution data and, if so, what are these statistics.

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, our employment data is based on the resident or local population which captures Singapore citizens and permanent residents as a single group. In other words, our system enters it as one component. We do not separate them as at this moment.

If we wanted a sense amongst the local population - what proportion of Singapore citizens vis-a-vis PRs - as a snapshot, we do have the breakdown of proportions within the general population – we take the census or when we do our surveys - for example, in June 2005, out of a total population of 4.34 million, the Department of Statistics said that 72% were citizens, 10% were permanent residents and 18% were non-residents. So if it is 10% PRs out of a population of 4.34 million, we have 430,000 PRs, and we assume that some of them are children and housewives, and assume that a number are working and then try to minus the number of what you get from our labour data, you could come up with a guesstimate, but it is just a guess work. It would be difficult to extrapolate this to derive accurate employment data for the various groups, because we must also take into account the change in employment numbers. The employment numbers fluctuate and we are not sure which group is changing at that point of time - foreign workers and PRs moving in and out of Singapore as well as the fact that PRs change their status and become citizens across periods.

What we can say is that for locals, 2006 was a record year for employment creation. Another way of looking at it and addressing the NMP's point is whether there were adequate jobs created for Singaporeans. Out of a total of 173,300 jobs, which was a record year, we know that more than half were for locals - 88,200. But our average shows that each year, we only add about 33,000 locals for the past. In other words, for the last two years, especially for last year, we have exceeded that to about two or three times what the average number of jobs created for locals.

I think a better way of measuring this would be to move towards employment data. I will speak a little bit more about this during the Committee of Supply. That will give us a better sense of all available citizens within an age band how many are working. That number is quite determinate and that is where most countries are moving towards to give accurate employment data.