Apr 26, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #28 of 41
Re: [arthur] Labour Day Walk, Bukit Kiara May 1, 2003
[In reply to]
From what little I've heard, that vicinity is supposed to be private property. Used to be owned by a businessman called "Ng Heng Heam" (not sure of spelling), who is now deceased. It may be part of his family estate now. But I don't know how DBKL comes into the picture. However, this is unconfirmed and requires further research. Any chance of MKA helping us out here ???? I'm sure their networks are stronger and naturally, their voices louder too. Maybe, MKA is able to have a dialogue with DBKL, not only to clarify this issue, but also in lobbying for a dog-friendly park (just like they did with the dog licence issue).
I would like to believe that the problem arises from irresponsible dog owners. These people do not clean up after their dogs, and also allow their dogs to run offleash without respecting fellow joggers/hikers who may have an aversion for dogs (religious or otherwise). I have personally seen people who let their dogs run off-leash, beyond their owner's sight, do their business, or even sniff people up. When the owner comes by, he/she just walk past as if nothing happened. They've even remarked that their dogs are "friendly" and "won't bite". They forget the fact that some people just don't like dogs - FULLSTOP! Whether or not the dogs friendly or won't bite is not the point. Granted, their dogs may be friendly and well trained, but dogs cannot differentiate a person's religion. It's up to the human owners to do that, which is why in our country, it is our responsibility to keep our dogs leashed in a public place. I had half a mind to tell them off, but refrained from doing so, lest they call me a busybody. My fears came true, and now, our pets are banned.
I also feel that the authorities are taking the easy way out. If indeed there were public complaints about dog owners, DBKL could have easily put up a sign to educate pet owners on their responsibilities (e.g. remind people to pick up poo, to respect religious beliefs, ensure dogs are leashed/ muzzled, provide more dustbins etc. etc.). But instead, they put up a sign to ban all pets. Job done. It's as good as banning all motorists from using the roads just because a handful of them ignore all known traffic rules. On the same token, why not ban all joggers too since I have also seen some of them dump used tissues on the road, uprooting ferns to take home (presumable as home decor) etc. I just fail to understand what goes on in those decision makers' minds.
This latest development simply reflects how irrational the council can sometimes be.