In reference to the letter of MyAnimalJustice aka Anthony Siva Balan Thanasayan dated June 30 that was targeted at an article about Malaysian Dogs Deserve Better (MDDB) in The Star dated June 12, I believe it is my duty as the founder of the organisation to refute him.

Firstly, MDDB is an animal welfare NGO that gives injured and maimed canines a second chance in life with public support.

We have to date rescued, treated and rehabilitated dozens of seriously injured dogs and have successfully rehomed eight amputees dogs - with three of them finding homes in the United Kingdom.

We have also rehomed almost 20 dogs in the United States - some of them burn victims as well as dogs that had been severely injured due to accidents or abuse.

Many of our injured dogs and puppies have also found homes in Malaysia with their adoptive families giving the animals all the love and care they deserve.

Now back to the writer’s letter, which I would like to reply point by point.

1. We fundraise for the keep of the dogs that are still with us and we believe in transparency and accountability. Therefore it is only fair that our donors get to see the animals they are paying to support. So what ethics is he referring to when he says we should not bring them out?

2. Why should he perceive that these animals are used to gain sympathy? It is a clear-cut message that we are sending out - that we need the money to pay for the upkeep of our animals. It is very cruel of the writer, who himself is disabled to call these animals freaks. They certainly are not freaks - just disabled like him but with a better attitude and personality.

It also makes no sense of the writer saying that highlighting these animals is highly insensitive to human disabilities? Why is he comparing disabled people with disabled animals in the first place? How would a disabled animal send out a wrong message about a disabled human being? I am still struggling to understand this line of logic or rather the lack of it.

Again he says disabled people have long rejected using sympathy from the public to bring about publicity - then why are there organisations representing disabled people sending out their wards, some even in wheelchairs to solicit funds from the public?

He goes on to say that “feeling sorry for a dog also goes against all the principles entailed with ‘responsible pet education’, which focuses on a daily high quality of life that includes good health, proper food, happiness and exercise”. Is he he saying that when one sympathises for an animal, its basic needs won’t be cared for?

Numerous requests to bring Happy to events

3. He says our dog Happy should be retired for life because of the way she looks. Happy is one of MDDB's most social and popular dogs. Every time we have events, there are numerous requests that we bring her. She is popular with the children and has a very good personality and is a brave little dog that has gone against all odds to rise again albeit her injuries. To suggest that we lock her up and throw the key away is both cruel and brutal.

Since the writer has taken it upon himself to compare disabled people with disabled dogs, does he also feel that severely disabled humans should be ‘retired for good from the public eye.’ His contention that children who would be traumatised after seeing Lucky is rubbish at its worst. Happy is popular with the children and what better way to educate the young ones and the public at large on being compassionate towards animals and disabilities.

4. MDDB is strictly no kill and is all about second chances, so why should the writer profess to be shocked when we stated in the article that Happy would have been put to sleep if she had not come to us?

Happy was also not treated by us in our backyards as he implies. She spent nine months in a high facility veterinary hospital and was cared for by a team of dedicated veterinarians. We would also like to tell the writer that it is none of his business that we rescue and give animals a second chance in life and that all our dogs are doing fine and very healthy despite their disabilities.

5. The writer is clueless in his ramble about caring for disabled animals, which we have been doing for the past nine years without a glitch. It is also not his call to be concerned about the veterinary care in this country, as the vets who had treated our animals have worked miracles on them. As for it being an expensive affair, it is also none of his business, as we have not approached him for financial help or aid.

6. We would also like to add that our animals are not our Milking Cow or Golden Goose as the donations that come is not meant to buy us an all around trip to Hawaii but to pay rentals, veterinary bills, food bills, workers allowance and utilities. People donate to our cause because they have subscribed to the no-kill policy and respect and support what we do.

Everyone in MDDB is also gainfully employed and is financially stable and do not need to set-up NGOs as a source of income. We are doing this because we believe injured dogs deserve a second chance in life.

7. And we would like to ask, why should a healthy dog with a disability be killed simply because the writer perceives disabled dogs as being imperfect and not deserving to live their lives out?

WANI MUTHIAH is founder of Malaysian Dogs Deserve Better (MDDB).