We do not tolerate dishonesty

I thought our days of dealing with dishonest applicants would be over when we implemented very stringent policies and safeguards, but no, there was another one a few days ago. However we caught her, so she is now banned ffor dishonesty.

We view dishonesty with grave concern simply because there is no such thing is “accidental” dishonest or “accidental” lying. Lying is deliberate and intentional.

A wise man said, “Those who lie, there is no evil they will not do.”

I normally do not share what dishonest applicants do because it would just give potential dishonest people ideas in their heads, but this one, I must.

Sadly, again, it is a person born in 1998.  Barely 22 years old. We seem to somehow have problems with people born in that year.

So, here is what happened in chronological order.

1  Applicant wrote in to apply for claim of 1 male cat and 2 female cats. She adds that she had already told her vet to do the ear-notch but her vet forgot to do it. By the time she collected the cats, it was too late to do the ear-notch because the cats had awakened. She said she truly needed our aid, so could we please consider her case?

Ear-notching for all claims on female dogs and cats is compulsory.

We’ve had such cases before in the past too where the applicant claims that the vet “forgot”to ear-notch. But we are very strict on the ear-notching since it has been implemented for sometime now and an adequate grace period had already been given.

(Our reasons for ear-notching has also been explained numerous times. We do not want the female animal to be reopened unnecessarily if caught later by well-meaning rescuers.  Vets cannot determine if a female animal has been previously spayed if the surgical wound is no longer visible. We have had quite a number of reports over the years that animals had been reopened only for the vet to discover that the animal had been previously spayed. In every surgery, there is the risk of anaesthesia and complications. The vet also has to spend a longer time to prod and search for the non-existent uterus. Why subject the poor animal to such?)

But this is the MCO-period and everyone is frazzled with anxiety and uncertainty. Feeders are hard hit by the economy. I thought we might make an exception for this case and contact the vet for verification. If indeed it was the vet who forgot to do the ear-notching, then it would not have been the applicants’ fault.  I really wanted to help her out.

2  So I asked her for the vet’s handphone number. It is our practice not to unnecessarily disturb any vet with phonecalls as we understand vets are very busy people. I wanted to just send a text message to the vet as text messages are not as intrusive as phonecalls.

3  She forwarded a document (the receipt) which only contained the clinic’s landline and email address.

4  I immediately wrote an email to the vet. I did not call the landline because it was a Sunday. Also, we do not like to disturb vets with phonecalls.

5  Later, she sent the handphone number of the vet and I also immediately sent a text message to the vet, requesting verification if indeed it was the vet who forgot to ear-notch the two female cats. The handphone number bore the tagline of the clinic, so it was a genuine number (of the clinic).

6  It was a few hours before the text messages were read.  All read, but there was no reply from the vet.

7  I contacted the applicant to inform her that there has been no reply from the vet, so if she could, perhaps she could contact the vet and request that the vet replies to us.

8  I waited for more than one day. There was still no reply from the vet, through email or whatsapp.

9  I wrote to her to inform her that without the vet’s verification, we would not be able to help her.

10 She replied saying that she “tak ada line” and would not be able to do what I had asked, so could we just pay for the male cat (ear-notch not required) and she would forgo the claim for the two females. She said she still needed our aid as she had many more cats to neuter.

11 I was almost about to relent, but thank goodness our advisor reminded me that without the vet’s verification, no aid should be given out. Stick to the policies.

12  So on Monday, I called the handphone number of the vet. No one picked up. Then, I called the landline of the clinic. Someone answered and gave me the number of another branch of the clinic where the vet was on duty. I finally managed to speak with the vet.

Here’s what the vet said.

(A)  The applicant did NOT ask the vet to ear-notch the animals. She also did not inform the vet that she would be applying for our aid.

(B)  The applicant called the vet and ADMITTED to her (the vet) that she had lied to me, and told the vet that she would “settle” the matter with me and that there was no need for the vet to reply to any of my messages anymore.  This is why the vet did not reply.

So, based on what the vet said, there are two lies here.

Lie No 1: She actually did not ask the vet to ear-notch. She lied to us saying that the vet forgot to ear-notch and that it wasn’t her fault.

Lie No 2: She said she “tak ada line” to contact the vet, so why don’t we just pay her for the male cat. She actually did contact her vet and told her vet not to reply to our messages.

So, after a deliberation by our committee, this is our official reply to her (names removed):

Saya sudah menelefon Dr dan mendapatkan penerangan daripada beliau. Menurut beliau: 

1. Puan tidak ada pesan “snip telinga” sebelum prosedur dijalankan.
2. Puan memberitahu Dr yang beliau tidak perlu membalas mesej saya.
3. Puan mengaku kepada Dr bahawa Puan telah menipu saya.  

Berdasarkan penerangan daripada Dr di atas, kami tidak berkompromi atas penipuan dan ketidakjujuran.  Oleh yang demikian, kami tidak boleh membantu puan dalam ketiga-tiga kes ini serta sebarang kes selepas ini.  

Harap maklum.  

We do not compromise on cheating, lying and dishonesty.

“Those who lie, there is no evil they will not do.”  There is no such thing as an accidental lie.

For any such cases in the future, we WILL contact the vet for verification.

If only she had been honest, we would have helped her this round with the male cat and in the future, she would have been welcome to apply for other cats. But now, she is banned for lying. For life.

It is such a pity that in helping street animals, we have no choice but to deal with humans. In doing so, we have to implement strict policies to ensure that our hard-earned funds are used to support people who are honest, upright and sincere.

Last but not least, we truly appreciate all applicants who are honest and it is our honour to work together with you.

Thank you very much for being honest.

Comments are closed.