Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

The sentences provided under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1974 are simply inadequate as a deterrent against fraudulent vets. Singapore and Britain impose penalties that are 24 times heavier.

MY grandmother recently went for a cataract eye surgery, a minor procedure. Unfortunately, the doctor botched it up. She now has seven scars on her retina tissue, serious inflammation and would probably lose her sight in her left eye.

Needless to say, we have instituted an investigation, a complaint and a civil action against the doctor.

So, when Precious the Shih Tzu stared out at me in The Star on Sept 27, 2010, I could not help but feel a connection. Reading the headline Bogus vets are on the loose, a shiver ran down my spine.

Here we were, putting a human doctor to task for causing so much pain onto my grandmother. And there was Precious, silent and helpless, with its right eye’s vision permanently impaired, and nothing was done against the unscrupulous imposter who paraded around with a fake namecard and a dose of injections.

Surely, something is very wrong. Why is there such a difference between the professional who treats humans and the professional who treats animals? The feelings of hurt, loss and anguish are the same if anything were to happen.

Put it another way. If I were to parade as a police officer, stopping people at my whim and fancy, issuing summonses to any Tom, Dick and Harry, what would happen to me if the authorities found out? Simple. It’s jail time, no doubt.

What if I paraded around in a white coat treating patients by simply giving saline injections or, worse, a cocktail of painkillers? I would be labelled as a “Doctor of Death”.

Why is the treatment, backlash and aftermath so significantly different?

Bogus veterinarians should be treated the same way as a bogus human doctor. In fact, they should be treated harsher due to the nature of their patients who cannot speak to tell them where it hurts.

Instead, what we have is an archaic and outdated Veterinary Surgeons Act 1974 (VSA 1974).

Section 33 of the Act clearly states that a bogus vet is indeed committing an offence, but Section 38 lays out that the fraudster would only get a maximum fine of RM1,000, or on his second offence RM2,000 and/or a maximum jail term of six months.

Knowing how the court works, it is likely that any fraudster is not going to get the maximum fine or jail time. He will get a much lower sentence.

In other words, it is no wonder that they are bold enough to parade around. They can afford the fine and they will certainly ensure that they are not caught a second time!

The sentences are simply inadequate as a deterrent.

Compare this to its equivalent in Singapore, where Rule 11 of the Animals and Birds (Veterinary Centres) Rules lays out a sentence with some real bite – a S$10,000 (RM23,200) fine and/or maximum jail term of 12 months.

In Britain, Section 19 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and Section 32 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 lay out a fine of £5,000 (about RM24,500) to any convicted fraudster.

Both countries provide a sentence with a fine that is nearly 24 times harsher than Malaysia!

Without even perusing other elements of the Malaysian Act, one is able to conclusively say that the law itself is in need of a major overhaul. This fact has not escaped the attention the director-general of the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS).

Instead of waiting for the AG’s Chambers to review the voluminous Animals Act 1953, which is a very slow, meticulous process, the Minister could amend the First Schedule of the VSA 1974 and issue directions laying out supplemental rules, regulations and guidelines. This is empowered under Section 7(2) and Section 8 of the VSA 1974.

In essence, this will at least allow the supplemental rules to address some of the loopholes found in the Act. This, in turn, will ensure that the VSA 1974 remains relevant today. This bold step must be taken by the DVS.

The political will must match the changing times of animal rights and awareness. That same will must ensure that the enforcement of these new and much welcomed directions remains effective.

The immediate answer by Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based In­dus­tries Minister Chua Tee Yong after the exposé by The Star is welcome. It was reported that a list of registered veterinarians would be published on the DVS website.

This is, of course, a huge positive step to the problem of bogus vets. It also confirms that a Minister’s direction provides positive and affirmative results.

Nonetheless, just publishing a list is insufficient. The DVS website must be IT and user friendly. A Google search using the term “veterinarians Malaysia” does not provide a direct link to the DVS website in the first ten suggestions.

A webmaster can easily solve this. On the website itself, the list must be easily accessible and easily found.

The Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore’s website allows easy download of the whole list of registered vets and the whole list of licensed veterinary centres. It details whether the centre is a clinic or hospital, its address, and telephone and fax numbers.

In Malaysia, naturally, there is a need to have it in both English and Bahasa Malaysia. Further, it would be ideal to actually state where individual veterinarians can practice i.e. the premises approved in their Annual Practicing Certificates. This would combat any unauthorised setting up of clinics by these fraudsters.

Finally, the late James Herriot summed it up nicely: “I hope to make people realise how totally helpless animals are, how dependent on us, trusting as a child must that we will be kind and take care of their needs ... [They] are an obligation put on us, a responsibility we have no right to neglect, nor to violate by cruelty.”

The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, please visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.