ALL: MINDEF said it would only issue a ‘stern warning’

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

ALL: MINDEF said it would only issue a ‘stern warning’

February 28th, 2014 | Author: Editorial

A founding member of the Animal Lovers League (ALL), Cathy Strong, has surfaced to shed more light on the alleged abuse of the Pasir Ris camp dog.

On 26 February 2014, TRE reported that a kind-hearted NSF whistleblower who had made a video of a dog tied to a shower stall in a military camp by a Lieutenant-Colonel (LTC) was charged while the LTC was not [Link].
According to Cathy, an officer from MINDEF had approached her for information on the whistleblower and had assured her that they were merely investigating the alleged dog abuse and the whistleblower would not be charged. He would at most be issued a “stern warning”. Cathy said:
Why was Simon’s son punished? This is one question I have asked myself over and over again. After all, I was assured that no charges will be pressed upon him apart from, possibly, a stern warning.

A day or two after the posting of the video, a spokesperson from Mindef called me and said Mindef was investigating the case of dog abuse at the camp. She asked if she could contact the NSF guy for more details. I told her that I could not reveal is name without his prior consent. She then assured me that he would not be charged but possibly be given a stern warning.

I believed and trusted her word as she willingly gave me her boss’s direct line if I needed affirmation. I convinced Simon’s son to work with Mindef to put an end to this abuse. I told him that I was confident that here in Singapore, no one is above the law.

Simon’s son relented after my assurance, much to my utmost regret now.
Apparently, the officer’s assurance was an inducement to Cathy to reveal the identity of the whistleblower because MINDEF promptly charged the whistleblower and his non-commissioned officer once Cathy divulged that information.

Cathy disputes MINDEF’s claim that the dogs are dangerous strays.

She says that two of them were left behind by their owners who moved out of the neighbouring farms.
One of them was the black dog in the video. AVA had that dog’s microchip number registered to the guy who occupied the fish farm opposite the camp. AVA also registered that dog as a sterilised dog. The army boys nam…ed her “Girl Girl”. She has a son that they named “Xiao Hei”.
Cathy says that another four dogs are also not strays as MINDEF alleges in their statement. The dogs, named “Butter”, “Clover”, “Browny” and “Ballsac”, are in fact “permanent residents” at the Pasir Ris camp and taken care of by the army boys.
A guy saw our post on ALL facebook and called to say they belonged to a friend whose parents would not allow her to keep them. They were only a few months old then. Rather than sending them to SPCA, she decided to leave them in the care of the boys at the camp as she has some friends there.

As “Butter” and “Clover” grew to adulthood, one of the personnel at the camp took them to the Vet to have them sterilised as they are both females.

Next we have “Ballsac” that might as well be a permanent fixture at the camp as he had been there for as long as the boys can remember.
Interestingly, Cathy notes that these dogs have been living at the camp for close to 6 years without any complaints of dog bites until last December.

A TRE reader, who introduced himself as a dog-trainer, says that dogs are relatively disciplined and tame animals and they normally do not attack, unless they are being provoked or threatened.
As such, he opines that the female staff at the camp may have been bitten because the dog was provoked.

In any case, going by online comments, it appears that MINDEF’s handling of the alleged dog abuse case leaves room for debate.
What do you think?

Related: NSF’s father proud of son’s actions in dog abuse case


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.