The animal farm bill

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

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

THE ANIMAL FARM BILL

.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
1 Nov 2014 - 7:23pm








You know the circus is in town, when more and more politicians are getting into the animal act. Instead of going the extra mile to reduce the onerous cost of housing ("HDB to reduce supply of BTO flats next year"), Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan was singing praises of fellow two legged creatures Yeo Guat Kwang, Alex Yam, Gan Thiam Poh, Edwin Tong and Vikram Nair for tabling a bill in Parliament that would set new animal welfare standards. The same "w" word that is taboo when applied to humans in Singapore.

Khaw highlighted the significance of the Private Member Bill in his blog post on Friday, "In our Parliament history, there have not been many Private Member's Bills. On MND matters, there has been none." History in the making, chaired by Yeo of the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee (AWLRC), who happens to hold office in 64 other corporate entities. We are told numerous consultations were organised by Yeo's pack of party animals to ensure that all views were considered. "It will also update the penalties for convicted acts of animal cruelty," a measure taken no doubt to address ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing who are always baying, "What's wrong in collecting more money?"

Give an inch and they predictably demand a yard - not the animals, the activists. At least one party, Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES), is bitching about its views being rejected. Currently motorists who may accidentally turn a dog, horse, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or cattle into road kill are supposed to stop and pick up the mess. ACRES is upset cats, monkeys, birds and rabbits are not accorded similar privileged treatment. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) argued that the specific provision for animals in the Road Traffic Act (RTA) was confined only to farm animals of commercial value. Which kind of makes sense in the current scheme of things, since non-economic contributing humans are rarely entitled to welfare, however dire their needs.







It is interesting none of the warring parties seem to a hoot about chickens. These are definitely farm animals, and they produce their quota of eggs on demand. Whether they have access to their nest egg at retirement age is a different matter. Maybe the chicken joke is too politically sensitive.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: Because the grass(roots) over the other side is more lucrative.

Tattler
*The writer blogs at http://singaporedesk.blogspot.com/


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