Site icon Malaysia now

Killing of dogs: Is the Animal Welfare Act adequately enforced?


In November, two video clips that portrayed the shooting of stray dogs by local men went viral on social media. It was believed that such action was taken by the men because the dogs were said to have trespassed onto their properties. No update was given on the condition of the dogs afterwards.

The videos sparked mixed reactions among netizens. Some social media users have justified the action by saying it was right to do so due to the possible threats the dogs pose. Meanwhile, others condemned it, stating it was an inhumane act.

Some also argued there were other more humane ways to resolve such issues like reporting it to the local authorities.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that such cases have gone viral. Previously, there were other cases of animal cruelty, such as the killing of cats in September 2018 and July this year at self-service laundry outlets. The perpetrators were charged under Section 29 (1) (e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015.

There are arguably many other unreported instances of animal cruelty cases. As such, this brings us to one main question which is on the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 [Act 772] in putting a stop to animal cruelty.

The governing law

At present, Act 772 which came into force in July 2017 is the main law in promoting the welfare and responsible ownership of animals. The cruelty offence is provided under Section 29 of the Act and carries a maximum punishment of RM100,000 fine and three years imprisonment upon conviction. Meanwhile, the offence of killing animals is stipulated under Section 30 of the same Act.

It is undeniable that the government has taken a commendable step to enact a comprehensive law to cater to all aspects pertaining to animal welfare. However, the question of adequate enforcement still remains.

Under Section 4 of the Act, there is a provision on the establishment of the Animal Welfare Board. The board’s membership consists of top officials from governmental departments under the agriculture and food industry ministry and chaired by the director-general of the Veterinary Services Department.

Among the functions of the board are to educate on the humane treatment of animals, promote animal welfare through various means and to administer and enforce the effective implementation of the Act.

Better enforcement

It is high time for the board to carry out a review on whether it has managed to fulfil its functions. This is because there are hardly any campaigns spearheaded by the government in promoting and educating the public on the humane treatment of animals as well as animal welfare other than the initiatives taken by NGOs.

The enforcement of the Act does not lie solely on prosecuting the offenders, but it also includes the prevention of such offences. The gap in the prevention part needs to be revised for as Benjamin Franklin once said: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

The failure to educate or prevent such situations from happening has resulted in the surge of animal cruelty cases. And what’s to stop the perpetrators of such cases from progressing to their own kind once they get bored of picking on the weak and defenceless?

 

Mohamad Kamal Sodiqin Abdull Manaf is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.