Friday, March 11, 2011

Would DAP Organise A Press Conference For A Rapist?

Animal rights groups take Ean Yong and Teo to task


CECILIA VICTOR
Friday, March 11th, 2011 14:05:00

PETALING JAYA: Animal rights group accused Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah and Serdang Member of Parliament Teo Nie Ching for taking the Serdang cat killer issue lightly.
Ean Yong, a Selangor executive councillor, and Teo arranged for the Press conference last Sunday when Chow Xiao Wei, 21, admitted to being the Serdang cat killer, apologised and promised not to do it again.

Assisted Animal Therapy for Disabled and Elderly president Anthony Siva Balan Thanasayan said Ean Yong and Teo should have handed Chow to the police for further action.

"Although what Chow did was cruel, by letting her expose herself to the public, her life has been threatened by people who want to cause her bodily harm," he said.

"If Ean Yong and Teo were sincere, they should offer free legal service to Chow if she is brought to court."

Anthony also wondered if Ean Yong and Teo would have organised a Press conference for a self-confessed rapist who wanted to apologise publicly.

"Just as a rapist should be punished, an animal abuser should face the law," he said.

Malaysian Animal Rights Society (Roar) president N. Surendren said both Ean Yong and Teo should apologise.

"It seemed as though they wanted to protect Chow by portraying her as a victim and all that a culprit needs to do is say sorry and everything could be forgiven and forgotten," he said.

Now NGOs want Ean Yong to apologise

PETALING JAYA: "It's just a cat," Selangor executive councillor and Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah allegedly commented during a Press conference at his office last Sunday when Chow Xiao Wei, 21, confessed to being the Serdang cat killer and apologised.

Tomorrow, Malaysian Animal Welfare Society, Lawyers for Liberty and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) plan to protest at the Democratic Action Party (DAP) headquarters here before handing over a memorandum to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, demanding a public apology from Ean Yong and Serdang Member of Parliament Teo Nie Ching.

A spokesperson for Lawyers for Liberty said political parties should not defend a criminal act and the culprit must face the law.

Ean Yong told The Malay Mail: "I didn't say such a thing, someone is trying to make me look bad. I suspect all this is politically motivated."

Apparently, Ean Yong has already clarified the matter with NGOs.

However, animal lover N. Rajesvaran claimed that Ean Yong had also blurted out "It's just a cat" in a casual manner when they were having a conversation.

READ: 'Serdang cat killer' faces second police report


PET+BLOGSPOT is the ONLINE BLOG of the Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association or Petpositive. Our stories are CURRENT, ACCURATE and RELIABLE. We offer both local and foreign news on animals, disability and the elderly. PET+BLOGSPOT was first established in October 2007. Our hits since then are now 100,000 and ever increasing! PET+BLOGSPOT is updated daily. Kindly note that views expressed in this PET+BLOGSPOT are not necessarily those of PETPOSITIVE. You may also visit our Webpage by browsing: www.petpositive.com.my You can also find us in Facebook under PETPOSITIVE EMPOWERMENT. Please sign up as a FOLLOWER of this Blog if you haven't done so already in order to show us your kind support for our work. Thank you!

6 comments:

Santi vardhana Caitanya dasa said...

Ehem.....

Dear Sir, please don't mind....
but what about millions of cows, goats, chickens and fishes killed daily in market for food? That is not killing and torture? Or is it that killing for food is allowed? In that case is killing a cat for food allowed?

Please become a vegetarian if one is to seriously advocate animal rights.

temenggong said...

Relax man. The girl has apologised and has also offered to do community service, and the matter should end there. What more can she do!

Anthony SB Thanasayan said...

Dear Santi,

Thank you for your comments.

Your arguments are very subjective.

Whilst we respect all vegetarians and admire that their decision not to eat meat, we do not believe that they are better human beings than meat eaters.

Being vegetarian has nothing to do with one's morality or behaviour.

People who consume meat do so purely for food and its nutritional value - not because they want to torture animals.

In most cases, the animals are slaughtered by proper guidelines and standards.

The same can be said about those who kill ants, cockroaches and mosquitoes.

If there are people who don't kill them, it is also ridiculous as they spread diseases.

So should we not killed dengue larvae because we should not "kill animals"?

We need a clear and moderate view on this.

So, no, one doesn't have to be a vegetarian to qualify to be an animal rights advocate.

To put it bluntly, we all go to heaven and hell.

PETPOSITIVE said...

Dear temenggong,

Thank you for your comment.

Animal abuse is a crime punishable by a fine and prison sentence.

The due process of the law must take effect.

If we think that it is okay for an animal abuser just to confess his/her crime and get away with it, then we should also apply the same rule for murderers, rapists and child abusers.

We hope that this simple explanation clarifies our position.

Regards,

Santi Vardhana Caitanya dasa said...

Dear Sir,

I agree that being a vegetarian does not, by it self, make one a better human than a meat eating human, although, he does contribute to a better world in terms of ecology, environment, and optimal usage of water source.

However, to say say that one eats meat for nutrition is a false argument. There are much evidence for these. In fact, most doctor would advice reduction of meat consumption for a healthier living.

However, it is my opinion that for one to advocate animal rights, then to go and eat some flesh of another animal is a smack of hypocrisy.

You respectable self mentioned that the animals were slaughtered following many procedures and rules. Does that mean that the right of that animal to live is not compromised? Procedure or no procedure, killing an animal without due reason is wrong.

That does not mean one could not kill in self defense. If there is some danger to humans, killing is reasonable.

Killing animals for food is unjustified, especially when there is so much alternative food available in form of grains, lentils, beans, vegetables, fruits, tubers etc.

Vegetarianism is also a better option economically, apart from medical, nutrition, and if you may permit me, religious, than a meat eating diet Sir.

Thank you for your kind response.

Anthony SB Thanasayan said...

Dear Santi,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

After listening to your side, I guess we must simply agree to disagree here.

I personally do not see any conflict in eating animals for health as being cruel to animals.

It has also not been "proven" anywhere that being a vegetarian is better than consuming meat.

Your argument of killing animals when they are a danger to us is just as contradicting. Who decides?

Thank you, nonetheless, for sharing with me your views.

Regards