SINGAPORE: A dispute over community cats in Serangoon has escalated into controversy, with Singaporean news outlet Mothership accused of publishing misinformation.
The issue centres on a claim that a household cat, Happy, was wrongly implicated in a neighbourhood incident, sparking outrage from its owners.
Lee Chee Tong, the owner of Happy, alleged that Mothership misrepresented his cat by using a photo of Happy in an article about a community cat urinating on a neighbour’s carpet.
In a video posted on Reddit’s r/SingaporeRaw forum, Lee clarified that Happy does not roam freely and was at home during the alleged incident.
Lee explained that the neighbour had come to his place and photographed Happy, even admiring the cat before taking the photo.
However, he later discovered that the neighbour had used the photo in a report, wrongly linking Happy to the incident.
Lee criticised Mothership for failing to fact-check and questioned the outlet’s journalistic integrity.
“Can y’all come down and check first? You’re journalists—verify your facts before publishing,” Lee said.
He added that this was not the first instance of unethical reporting by Mothership.
Serangoon Resident Complains About Community Cat Urinating on Doormat
The issue arose when a Serangoon resident voiced frustrations about stray cats, particularly Abby, a community cat.
The resident claimed that Abby and other strays had been urinating on his doormat and sandals, leading him to put up signs requesting the removal of a cat house set up by feeders near his block.
The story first surfaced on 21 December, shared by feeder Susan Lee in the Facebook group Sayang Our Singapore’s Community Cats.
Susan expressed her frustration, noting that despite efforts to clean up and maintain tidiness, the resident remained unwilling to compromise.
She also stated that the resident refused to accept her explanation that Abby was not responsible for urinating at his unit.
On 23 December, Mothership reported the story but initially included a photo of Happy in the article.
The implication that Happy, rather than Abby, was responsible for the urination further complicated the matter.
In a statement to Mothership, Susan explained that the cat house had been set up in late October to help acclimatise Abby to an indoor environment before adoption.
She clarified that Abby primarily stayed in a nearby car park and only briefly ventured into the staircase landing.
Despite feeders’ efforts to address the resident’s concerns, such as removing unfinished food and directly communicating with him, tensions escalated.
Frustrated, the resident put up more signs expressing his discontent.
One sign read: “I’ve lost all patience with this. If this isn’t resolved, I’ll go to the town council or the Cat Welfare Society.”
Concerned for Abby’s safety, the feeders eventually dismantled the cat house, forcing Abby to seek shelter under cars once again.
Resident Responds: “Take Full Responsibility or Stop”
The affected resident, Josh Quek, later shared his perspective in a comment on Mothership’s post.
Quek accused Susan and other feeders of worsening the situation by placing food and shelters, which attracted cats to his corridor.
He noted that Abby’s presence increased after a black-and-white community cat, previously a regular on the ground floor, went missing about a year ago.
Abby took over the area, leading to more frequent incidents of urination.
Quek described his efforts to deter the cats, including using repellent sprays and flipping his sandals, but said these measures had limited success.
He claimed Susan’s actions, such as setting up shelters and leaving food at the staircase, encouraged Abby and other stray cats to roam upstairs and urinate on doorsteps.
“Now she is trying to push the blame onto other cats. If she didn’t put shelters, food, and water at the corner, it wouldn’t lure Abby or other cats to pee and scratch on residents’ doorsteps,” Quek said, arguing that forcing stray cats indoors was unnecessary and counterproductive.
“If I were heartless, I wouldn’t have put up a note or spoken to her personally about this issue,” Quek added, accusing Susan of seeking public sympathy by involving Mothership instead of resolving the matter directly.
Happy’s Owners Demand an Amendment
In response to Mothership’s article, Happy’s owners, Lee Chee Tong and Maymay Liew, confronted Susan on Facebook, demanding an amendment.
Lee stated, “We do not appreciate you accusing our cat, Happy, like that. Happy is not a free-roaming cat, and when we bring him out, he is always accompanied by one of us.”
Lee clarified that Happy is particular about where he pees, only using his litter box at home.
“He’s picky about where he pees. He only chooses to pee in his litter box at home,” Lee said.
He also added that they had remained silent until now, but they had observed Abby, a community cat, peeing on their floor and making a mess in their plants.
Maymay Liew also demanded the article be amended or removed, stating, “We know the picture of Happy was taken when my husband was present and supervising the cat. You took the photo under the pretense that ‘Happy is cute and his fur is unique.’”
She found it disrespectful that the truth was twisted to fit a narrative that painted them as irresponsible neighbours.
They stressed that they were not against Abby but were upset that their cat had been dragged into a situation he had no part in.
Mothership Revises Article
In response, Susan apologised and clarified her intent, stating that Happy was merely lounging on the complainant’s doormat and was not necessarily peeing or scratching.
Her objective, she explained, was to highlight the possibility that other free-roaming cats, besides Abby or the black housecat, could have been responsible for the urination issue.
Susan also assured Happy’s owners that she had already requested the reporter to amend the article on 23 December at 6:30 pm, immediately after apologising to them at their doorstep.
Following the clarification, Mothership updated the article by removing Happy’s photo and including additional information provided by Susan to reflect the situation more accurately.
It included an editor’s note, stating: “A photo of a household cat has been removed from this article, and more information provided by the woman who is assisting the community cat has been included.”
