Lawrence Seow wrote this no-dogs-in-flats letter. Here are other Lawrence Seow letters.

Lawrence Seows quite prolific.

Belmont Lay | December 12, 2016, 05:25 PM

A forum letter writer, Lawrence Seow, wrote a letter to The New Paper, published on Dec. 12, to argue that dogs should not be kept by flat dwellers, owing to small shared spaces and how it complicates matters, making life difficult.

Naturally, it has drawn ire from the dog-loving community:

lawrence-seow-dog-flats

A quick google search shows that Lawrence Seow has been quite prolific in the letter-writing arena, managing to elicit responses -- strong or official -- each time he makes it into print.

Although we cannot be sure if it is the same Lawrence Seow doing all this letter-writing, we can safely assume all Lawrence Seows are prolific forum letter writers.

In October 2008:

Ban HDB residents from owning dogs

LAWRENCE SEOW KUAN YONG

MORE HDB residents are owning dogs. The dogs also seem to be getting larger.

Owning a dog has become an indicator of status in our society.

I have no problem with this, unless the dog-owners are irresponsible and inconsiderate.

Unfortunately, some are.

Recently, I have twice seen owners allowing their dogs to urinate in the void deck of HDB flats in my neighbourhood.

Although I have not seen them in action, I noticed dog droppings in these void decks and in nearby parks.

This is both unhygienic and unacceptable. The poor estate cleaners are left to clear up the mess.

On another occasion, I was walking towards a nearby coffee shop when I turned a corner.

There in the lift lobby was a resident with his dog, waiting for the lift. The dog was large and looked none too friendly. It did not bark but looked like it would do so any second. The owner made no attempt to move or let me pass.

Sizing up the situation, I turned away and took another route. But all the way I was thinking: Why allow dogs in HDB flats to begin with?

Obviously, not all dog-owners are irresponsible. Probably about half of them are, and they give the other half a bad name.

Since it is impossible to tell them apart, the authorities should ban HDB residents from keeping dogs. This is not discrimination, but instead an instance of applying common sense and being pragmatic.

[A version of this letter was republished in a forum but originally appeared in AsiaOne/ The Straits Times]

 

In February 2014:

lawrence-seow-mypaper-homosexual

Homosexuals leave no family legacy

LAWRENCE SEOW

SHOW me a homosexual family with many generations. I mean a same-sex couple who have adopted children, who have their own children, and so on.

You cannot find one, because homosexual relationships do not last - at least, not for a lifetime.

Gays and lesbians cannot have children, they must adopt. And, even when they do, their children (if gay or lesbian) cannot produce another generation.

In other words, you can never find an intergenerational homosexual family, unlike great grandmas and great grandpas who have three, four or five generations of offspring.

Even though homosexuals have been around for centuries, they do not contribute to lasting family legacies.

They cannot trace their roots, because they end before they even begin.

Homosexuals do not contribute to a strong, resilient family (and they never have).

[Cached version]

In March 2010:

Why the change?

'The use of different numbers for passports and identity cards causes inconvenience.'

The Straits Times

March 1, 2010

MR LAWRENCE SEOW

The use of different numbers for passports and identity cards (ICs) causes inconvenience. In the past, passport and IC numbers were identical. My passport is due to expire and I applied for and collected my new passport. To my surprise, it has a different number from my IC. Nowadays, it is common to book flights online and in advance. I have booked four different trips online with my old passport number (before I collected my new passport) as I was not aware that my new passport would have a different number. Hence, I foresee a problem on check-in because although the name matches, the passport number is different.

This letter received an official reply by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, saying it is an integral move to curb abuse and makes it easier to share information on lost and stolen passports.

In November 2005:

Arrested and cuffed over 3/4-tank rule

Today

Nov. 11, 2005

LAWRENCE SEOW KUAN YONG

Did you know that if you run afoul of the three-quarter tank petrol rule when crossing the causeway into Johor, and refuse to pay the $50 composition fine offered to first-time offenders because you want to appeal your case in court, you may be treated like a criminal?

The officers make you wait a long while before they explain the charge. Photographs of your car and fuel tank gauge are taken. You are handcuffed and escorted to Clementi Police Station, where your DNA sample, photograph and fingerprints are taken.

If the $5,000 bail is made, you are permitted to go home; otherwise, you will spend the night in jail. Either way, you will appear in court the following day. All this, for not filling up your fuel tank to the three-quarter mark.

This happened to me last month. I am a first-time offender and I do not deny my mistake. The authorities could have simply asked the first-time offender to appear in court the following day, without the indignity of going through all the above. They already had all my details. There was no way for a person in my situation to run.

I wrote to Singapore Customs, and was informed that under the law, if an offender chooses not to accept the offer of a composition (an out of court settlement), then procedurally, he must be charged in court. This would involve arrest, statements, handcuffs, a visit to the police station, etc.

But my question is: Why treat a citizen like a criminal for such a minor offence?

[National Library Board digitised version]

 

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.