Guest guest Posted February 19, 2004 Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 ***************************Advertisement*************************** TechCentral http://star-techcentral.com ***************************************************************** This message was forwarded to you by yitzeling. Comment from sender: This article is from The Star Online (http://thestar.com.my) URL: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/2/19/focus/7328188 & sec=focus ________________________ Thursday February 19, 2004 Dogged by biased ruling THE recently introduced ruling by the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) compelling dog owners to seek permission from their immediate neighbours in order to obtain a dog licence has generated a lot of displeasure and resentment as it is humiliating. While we certainly should sympathise with some residents who are being terrorised by their neighbours’ dogs, it is questionable whether there is a need to have such a draconian one-sided ruling on dog licensing. The MPSJ should, instead, act diligently on complaints against errant dog-owners and also round up the strays. The lingering problem that some terrorised residents might have been facing is akin to the traffic congestion caused by errant motorists and restaurant operators. When there is lack of enforcement or none at all, it is easily understandable to see the blatant persistence of misconduct amongst errant dog owners, motorists and restaurant owners. Hence, it all boils down to enforcement. This new regulation is biased against responsible dog owners in a number of respects. It is an undue violation of their private property rights. Though not all of them have vicious neighbours, some who are unfortunate may find themselves being denied the right to keep dogs as pets within their very own premises by unreasonable neighbours. Some may have to constantly please their neighbours so as not to risk the prospect of not being able to renew their dog licences when the time comes. While aggrieved residents could at least complain to MPSJ of the nuisance posed by their neighbours’ dogs, what recourse would be available to those being unfairly denied the opportunity to keep dogs as pets? Can they complain to MPSJ as well? Furthermore, some may end up not being able to maintain dogs as an added security to their homes, against thefts and burglaries. The ruling is not only unjust to humans but to dogs as well. Just because there are rogue ones amongst them, should we dismiss all of them as such? Dogs have also contributed to humanity in many ways. One instance would be their role in emergency rescue operations. DR E.C. TAN, Subang Jaya. (via e-mail) <p> ________________________ Your one-stop information portal: The Star Online http://thestar.com.my http://biz.thestar.com.my http://classifieds.thestar.com.my http://cards.thestar.com.my http://search.thestar.com.my http://star-motoring.com http://star-space.com http://star-jobs.com http://star-ecentral.com http://star-techcentral.com 1995-2003 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Star Publications is prohibited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.