Search the Community

July 5, 2008 The other view, with a nuisance cat to boot... I REFER to Mr Laurie K. Gilbert's letter, 'Building noise driving this foreign talent away' (June 25). My family owns the house physically attached to Mr Gilbert's tenanted house. We have lived in this neighbourhood since October 1981. Over the years, many neighbours have renovated. As long as the legal noise limits are observed, urban renewal must be accepted as a matter of give and take. Today, I rebuild my home. Tomorrow, it may be your neighbour. Mr Gilbert alleges that my noisy renovations forced his business associate, Mr Malcolm Cromie, out of Singapore. Mr Gilbert has not told the whole story. One Sunday morning about two months ago, Mr Cromie caused a commotion when he marched up to the front gate of my home at 3am. His actions probably woke the neighbourhood as well. As a result, we initiated civil proceedings. But, Mr Gilbert now says Mr Cromie has left Singapore. I also wish to make the following points: Singapore is a country where the law is applied fairly. 'Great contributions' by a foreigner, as Mr Gilbert implies in describing his contributions, do not entitle him to preferential treatment. Mr Gilbert has a pet black cat. It uses my garden as a toilet, scratches and dirties our cars, hides in corners then dashes out to startle people. We put up with this nuisance for more than two years in a spirit of good neighbourliness. When asked to rein in his cat, Mr Gilbert's reply was, 'It's just a kitten', and we were expected to put up with it. Now, we only ask the same forbearance from him. In conclusion, my reply to Mr Gilbert is: 'Be fair to your neighbours.' Chua Chee Pin http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Sto...ory_254805.html