Basket.

"People do things to annoy dogs too", collected from The New Paper, 9 October 2007.

I read the report, "Dog rips part of her ear (The New Paper, 5 Oct), where 3-year-old Matilda was attacked by a siberian husky.

I found it unusual that a dog of such gentle nature was capable of causing such harm if unprovoked.

I am a dog owner and tend to play with dogs that I meet when I am out.

I have never been attacked or bitten by a dog because my parents have instilled in me the correct way to apprach and socialise with dogs.

In the article, the father of the victim claimed that the dog suddenly ran up to the victim and knocked her down before biting her.

Although I was not there, I wonder why the dog acted that way.

When I take my dog out for a walk, people sometimes make barking or meowing sounds at the dog or do other things that are sure to annoy any one of us.

When this happens to my dog, I usually tell the person (usually a child) off. If parents don't teach their children how to behave around dogs, who is going to?

The article also said that after the incident, the victim's father picked up a stick to hit the dog.

He also admitted to wanting to have it killed.

I understand he was shocked that the dog bit his daughter, but that is no way to react.

I think the victim's father owes the dog owner and apology if he did strike the dog.


Right. First of all, this is the worst letter I've ever seen published in any national newspaper in a long, long time. Granted, The New Paper hardly has much of a reputation to maintain, but I find it difficult to believe that any editor at all can find this kind of crap suitable for publication.

The incident in question was an attack on a 3-year-old girl at Sentosa by a Siberian Husky, which ripped off part of her ear. It was undoubtedly a vicious and savage attack, and reportedly unprovoked - and of course, the dog had not been leashed.

Now, I certainly feel that the victim's father overreacted by assaulting the dog and demanding that it be put down. However, his anger is perfectly understandable. I mean, look, his 3-year-old daughter was attacked and wounded by the animal, and not wounded lightly at that. Any parent who cares deeply about their children would be bound towards such a reaction. It's perfectly natural.

What is not perfectly natural is what our writer here is suggesting - that the dog ought to be absolved of blame because it was provoked. Perhaps it was. We do not know. But let me ask: what about the little girl? She is three. She is perfectly innocent. I highly doubt that she did anything intentionally to provoke the dog. I also highly doubt that it takes high intelligence to realise that a large dog is a threat to a small child, and thus should be properly handled around children, including leashing and perhaps even muzzling.

So what we have here is a writer completely blinded by her devotion towards canines, in that nowhere does she fault the dog's owner(s) for not leashing their pet. Animals might be acknowledged to be calm and of peaceable temperament. However, how can anyone be sure that they always are? People have their bad days too - I think, so do dogs. Perhaps the husky was having one. Either way, the chances of such a traumatic attack on the little girls could have been considerably lessened if the husky had been leashed, at least.

It wouldn't be that bad if our writer stopped with just absolving the dog of all blame. That's still somewhat reasonable. But she goes a step further: she tries to pin the blame on the victims of the incident. And that is what gets me going. It's disgraceful. I quote:

When this happens to my dog, I usually tell the person (usually a child) off. If parents don't teach their children how to behave around dogs, who is going to?

I read the implication here loud and clear: It was the victim's father's fault; he did not teach his child how to behave around dogs, and she must have provoked the dog (see the bold part). Only then did it attack her. Therefore they were both to blame.

This is an incredibly stupid and blinkered statement to make. Look, the kid is three. How do you teach a three-year-old to behave around dogs and then watch her like an eagle to make sure she does? But you should not even have to, because the onus is on the dog owners to make sure their pets do not attack people! Does this make sense? Are you a responsible pet owner if you undertake the thoroughly reckless action of allowing your large, potentially dangerous breed of dog to run around unleashed on the beach where there are many children playing and many potential sources of provocation, intentional or no?

The answer is very obvious to me: NO. YOU BLOODY FUCKING AREN'T.

And out reader better know that. She better be aware that owning a pet is a responsibility and that this responsibility extends to ensuring her pet does not attack people. You can't expect people to defer to you just because you have a dog. You have to try your best to ensure that your pet is not dangerous to those around you.

Even after this astonishing self-rationalisation, our writer is not quite done. She goes on to describe the victim's father as "shocked" that the husky "bit" his daughter, which is an amazing understatement. I mean, fuck, that husky ripped off part of his daughter's ear. It did not just bite her. That, I think, would be a very traumatic experience for both the child and any reasonable parent. But here she is trying to play it down. Disgusting.

She then has the temerity to end her letter by suggesting that the victim's father should apologise instead. I have no idea what cloud-cuckoo land she is living in, but in the one I exist within, those who are in the wrong apologise to those whom they have harmed, directly or indirectly, by their actions. And the dog's owners here have harmed a little girl, badly, by their irresponsible behaviour. They should not just apologise to the victim's father but compensate the family. That would be admitting their culpability. It would be something a decent person would do.

I am not for animal cruelty by any means. But I feel that people are increasingly losing sight of the fact that animals are, well, animals. We don't understand them fully, not even such common domestic creatures like dogs and cats. There is always an element of unpredictability. People who wish to keep such animals have the social responsibility to ensuring that their animals do not harm other people. The world should not revolve around pet owners - and our writer should be the very first person to understand that fact.