I refer to the letter Urgent need for dog-pounds .

Many of the local councils run their areas like little country states with their own set of bylaws and rules. There have been many complaints against them ranging from the way they happily approve development plans with nary a care for the environment and inhabitants in the area, to their bullying tactics. I am writing in to add my voice to the complaints and hopefully some action will be taken by the newly voted in Selangor government to clean up the municipal services.

I live in Taman Melawati which is under Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ). I was at work on Wednesday, April 30 when I received a distressing phone call from my father-in-law. He informed me that three officers from MPAJ had come to the house after receiving complaints from some neighbours. Our dog had recently given birth to five puppies, and this appeared to be the cause of the complaints. My dog is an English Cocker Spaniel.

Upon alighting from their van, they started passing comments that the driveway was not clean (there were some scraps of paper, and grass debris after the grass-cutters had passed through in the morning). They then started questioning my father-in-law about our dog and puppies, demanding to know where and who the ‘father’ of the puppies was, etc.

When asked who were the neighbours who complained, they avoided the issue and tried to divert it to other areas. They then told my father-in-law that they were going to give him a letter. One of the officers then went back to the van and spent well over 20 minutes writing out the notice. They then came back to the gate, and told my father-in-law that we had three days to remove the puppies or else they would take the puppies away. This was despite being informed that the puppies had already found new homes and were going to leave soon. The puppies have just turned two months old and are not yet ready to be taken from the mother.

The best part is that one of the officers then pointed to his colleague, a non-Malay, and said that he likes the puppies and wants them and we should give him a puppy. When questioned, the officer confirmed that he wanted a puppy and that he would be returning on Friday to take his puppy.

What strikes me as suspicious are the following:

1. The house has belonged to the family for the past 30 years, and during the past eight years, there have been dogs coming and going from the house, and no complaints were heard from the neighbours. We see the neighbours at odd hours of the day but none of them have come up to us to complain about the puppies. My in-laws are at home all day, anyone can just knock at the gate and make the complaint. I would expect the officers to at least have an idea which neighbours have complained, so that we can at least apologise to the affected neighbours, and try and work something out. To try and avoid that question shows either the officers were not prepared or there was no complaint at all.

2. The statement from the officer saying that he would be back on Friday to take his puppy is rather telling. As a council officer, the rules should be followed. If I'm not mistaken, the puppies would be removed to the pound where they would be sent to the SPCA or adopted. But to tell us frankly that he would be back on Friday to take the puppies makes a person wonder whether the puppies would end up at the pound or someplace else.

3. It is puzzling why they are questioning who is the ‘father’ of the puppies and where he is. What does this have to do with the purported complaints? Were they hoping to hear that the father is a pure breed and the puppies are pure breeds as well? This would of course increase their value if they were intending to sell the puppies.

4. The notice which was served carried a ‘No. Siri’ starting from 2004 xxxxxxx. I may be wrong, but it seems like the notice they served is from a notice book printed in 2004. This is now 2008. Now either there were not much notices issued from 2004 to 2007, and they are reusing the old books; or if the new notices should start from ‘siri no’. 2008 xxxxxxx, then there is something fishy going on. This being the first time we've been served such a notice, we would certainly be interested to know which is correct.

5. Lastly, when the notice was served on my father-in-law, under the area which states ‘Diterima Oleh’ and ‘No. KP’, the officer who prepared it, simply wrote there ‘DiSerah kpd pemilik’. Shouldn't it and wouldn't it be the correct procedure to get the person to sign it and put the identity card number there to prove that the notice has been served and received?

The crux of the matter is were there valid complaints from the neighbours, or were the council officer acting in their own interest? Since this incident, I've heard many stories from other pet owners about council officers using the excuse of neighbour complaints and taking the animals away. The animals are never seen again. And after reading the above letter, it certainly makes me wonder what happens to the dogs which look like pedigree dogs. Are they sold? Who pockets the cash? What about the others who are not pedigree looking? Are they just inhumanely killed?

I would urge the state government to keep their pledge of a clear transparent government by cleaning out the rot in the municipal councils and have clear, standard rules or by laws in all municipal councils. I had visited the MPAJ, MBPJ websites trying to find information and guidelines about the bylaws and could not find any information, not even where to obtain a copy of the bylaws. How are we expected to be informed of our rights when we can't even find information about them?