14/02/2025
★ ✰ Bidadari Stray Dogs: Caretaker Challenges NParks’ Justification For Removal ✰ ★
The controversy over the National Parks Board’s (NParks) decision to trap and remove the Bidadari stray dogs continues to grow as longtime caretaker Jermaine Chua raises serious concerns over the agency’s justification for its actions.
While NParks has cited public safety concerns and reports of territorial behaviour, as reported by Singapore mainstream media, Chua argues that these claims lack clear evidence and that alternative solutions have not been fully explored.
☆ Questioning NParks’ Claims on Public Safety Risks ☆
NParks stated that it has received over 60 pieces of feedback, including 20 reports of the dogs chasing parkgoers. However, Chua questions the specificity and accuracy of these reports.
“Are these 20 reports a subset of the 60 feedback, or does this mean there are 80 incidents in total? More importantly, how many of these are unique incidents rather than repeated complaints from the same individuals?” Chua asked.
She further highlighted that during a 15 January meeting with NParks, she and other feeders had asked NParks to provide video evidence of the alleged chasing incidents. However, NParks admitted that there was none.
“I am not sure why NParks made this decision to remove the dogs despite having no evidence. None of us have ever witnessed the dogs chasing anyone. The dogs are extremely skittish and do not even approach humans, let alone chase them,” she said.
Chua and the feeders had requested that NParks install surveillance cameras in areas where complaints were received to verify these reports.
However, according to Chua, NParks did not commit to this request. By the next meeting on 27 January, it had already decided to proceed with trapping — despite reportedly having no surveillance footage showing aggressive behaviour.
☆ Injury Incident: Was It Truly a Safety Risk? ☆
NParks also cited an incident where a child was injured while running away from the dogs as a justification for their removal. Chua acknowledges that such incidents warrant concern but questions whether the Bidadari dogs were actually involved.
“If a child was chased and injured, then yes, it is a safety concern. HOWEVER, we need further verification to determine if the dog belonged to the Bidadari pack. At this juncture, it would be unfair to point fingers without concrete evidence,” she argued.
Additionally, she revealed that during two meetings with NParks, this incident was never brought up.
“We were only told that a child fell because she was startled by a dog’s barking. This contradicts what NParks is now claiming. In my opinion, the words used by NParks suggest two distinct and separate incidents, and the facts need to be clarified.”
☆ “If No Injuries Have Happened Yet, That Means It’s Too Late?” ☆
NParks’ director of community animal management operations, Lin Anhui, defended the decision by stating: “If we do have a case of direct injury, that means it’s too late.”
Chua finds this reasoning contradictory and inconsistent, questioning why NParks does not apply the same standard to other urban wildlife such as monkeys, otters, wild boars, and crocodiles — all of which have caused more serious injuries than the Bidadari dogs.
“If this logic applies to stray dogs, shouldn’t it also apply to other wildlife? Yet, these animals are not systematically removed. Fear alone should not justify removal, especially when there is no documented case of aggression.”
She argues that a more balanced approach, such as public education and protective measures, would be far more effective than preemptive removal.
☆ Trapping and Hoarding: “How Is This Humane?” ☆
NParks insists that it is using “humane trapping methods”, stating that food and water have been placed in a corral to condition the dogs before the enclosure is closed.
However, Chua strongly refutes that the process is truly humane, especially for the elderly and skittish Bidadari dogs.
“These dogs have never been confined before. Trapping them will subject them to immense stress, fear, and confusion. It is a terrifying experience for a dog that has never lived in captivity.”
She also challenged NParks’ claim that the blue canvas hoarding does not restrict the dogs’ movement.
“If NParks has installed similar hoardings elsewhere and seen dogs moving freely, they should provide evidence. From the moment the hoarding was installed on January 27, NParks told us that stepping into the enclosed area to feed the dogs could be considered trespassing. So how were we supposed to continue feeding them?”
Chua further revealed that, for seven days after the hoarding was erected, the dogs did not eat.
“Since NParks did not tell us if they were providing food, we continued placing food and water outside the hoarding every day. But the food was untouched for an entire week. This is clear evidence that the dogs were negatively impacted.”
☆ Rehoming and Rehabilitation: “Not That Simple” ☆
NParks has assured the public that the dogs will be rehomed, fostered, or placed in shelters, and dismissed concerns about their age, stating: “It is not always difficult to rehabilitate older dogs.”
Chua argues that this oversimplifies the problem, pointing out that NParks is not the one responsible for rehabilitation and rehoming — animal welfare groups (AWGs) are.
“The onus of bailing the dogs out from NParks, finding foster homes, rehabilitation, and rehoming has always fallen on AWGs—not NParks. And if they assess the dogs as unsuitable for rehoming, they will either be relocated or euthanized.”
She warned that relocating the dogs to another area merely shifts the problem instead of solving it.
“These dogs will have to fight with existing packs in a new area for territory and food. And if there are no feeders there, they may starve. Is that humane?”
She further challenged NParks’ claim that euthanasia is a “last resort”, stating:
“Euthanasia should only be considered if the animal is suffering and has no quality of life. Any departure from this is inhumane. We are not sure if they will eventually be euthanized based on NParks’ internal assessment, which may not prioritize their health. That is why we need to bail them out immediately if they are trapped.”
☆ Alternative Solutions Ignored? ☆
Chua has repeatedly proposed alternative solutions, such as keeping the dogs within a restricted area using hoarding and fencing, as NParks itself claims the hoarding is effective in minimizing interactions.
“NParks says the hoarding works, so why not take the next step and fully enclose the area to ensure they remain within it? Signages could be put up to educate parkgoers. If the hoarding is truly effective, there is no reason to remove the dogs at all.”
She also questioned whether NParks has truly considered all perspectives before making its decision. “More than 3,000 people have signed a petition to let the dogs stay. Why are their voices being ignored while NParks acts purely on complaints?”
The online petition started by Chua on Change.org has since gathered more than 4,500 signatures as of Friday, urging NParks to reconsider its decision.
☆ “Stay True to TNRM” ☆
Ultimately, Chua emphasized that removal is not in line with NParks’ own Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage (TNRM) program, which aims to allow sterilized strays to live out their lives in their habitat.
“Public education is key. Decisions should be based on facts, not fear. We need to stay true to the intent and objective of the TNRM program—not abandon it when it becomes inconvenient.”
As NParks moves forward with its plan, the fate of the Bidadari Dogs hangs in the balance, raising urgent questions about Singapore’s approach to urban wildlife management. ❣
Caretaker Jermaine Chua challenges NParks’ claim that Bidadari stray dogs pose a safety risk, citing a lack of evidence. She argues that removal contradicts the TNRM program and urges alternatives like fencing. With 3,000+ petitioners supporting coexistence, she calls for a humane resolution.
