Recently, there was a discussion to end the ban of keeping cats in HDB flats. In all fairness, people should be allowed to keep all types of pets in their personal property as long as inconvenience to others is minimised.

Recently, Australia media reported on the costs of toxoplasmosis, an infection induced by the Toxoplasma gondii parasite. Mostly cats serve as a reservoir for this parasite.

If the ban on cats in flats is to be lifted eventually, it is also critical to ensure that quotas and measures are put in place such that any spread of toxoplasmosis is limited in high-density populated areas like HDB flats.

Cat owners may be aware of toxoplasmosis, but neighbours that do not keep cats may not and it would be unfair to subject them to such risks by not enforcing any quotas or even letting cats roam around freely between apartment units.

There has been an increasing demand for pet species that do factually make safer companion animals in terms of zoonotic disease transmission risk, and also tend to result in less nuisance complaints from neighbours. Should more of these species not be promoted instead like many other countries have done?

Some common examples are selectively bred leopard gecko and bearded dragons that are by definition no longer wild animals.

While there seems to be talk to amend the Endangered Species Act, nothing has been mentioned to promote the lucrative legitimate trade in wildlife.

Many future potential pet species fall in this category and have been legal in numerous countries for decades. The keeping of such species has great economic and conservation value.

Keeping species that are suited to captivity not only reduces the extinction risk of the species as a whole but also has great economic potential.

If no local commercial value is attributed to internationally tradable wildlife species, it may well facilitate their extinction instead at the expense of Singapore losing out on future economic opportunities in this market segment.

Ong Junkai