|
  ©The
Star (Used by permission)
by Lai Chee Hoe
Although the Penal Code punishes those who commit offences against animals, it
lacks basic understanding, and fails to comprehend the basic philosophical
position that animals should not be regarded as property but as legal persons
and members of the community.
IF YOU can recall, not too long ago, Majlis Perbandaran Selayang organised a
dog-catching competition that attracted strong criticism from the public for
being inhumane.
Public furore also erupted when the magistrate let off Sheena’s master with a
token fine of RM100 even though he had pleaded guilty to slowly starving his
German shepherd. Eventually, the canine had to be put to sleep immediately after
it was found it could not be saved.
Cruelty towards animals is not a new phenomenon and it has been happening quite
rampantly. Animal cruelty encompasses a wide range of cruel conduct, which
include leaving behind pets unattended during long holidays, chaining puppies in
unshaded compounds, scalding kittens with boiling water, killing rare animals
for their exotic taste, skinning tiny animals for their fur and sport by
deriving entertainment by maiming animals.
This may stem from the fact that historically, animals have been treated as
“legal things” and not “legal persons”. They do not have rights of their own and
their existence is solely for the purposes of legal persons.
As the Roman jurist, Hermogenianus, wrote, “Hominum causa omne jus consitium”,
which essentially means all laws were established for men’s sake.
Animals continued to be seen as inferior over the years and in repeating the
phrase above, P.A. Fitzegeral’s 1996 treatise Salmond on Jurisprudence declared
that “the law is made for men and allows no fellowship or bonds of obligation
between them and the lower animals.”
Such a view continued to dominate over mankind over the centuries until the late
18th and early 19th centuries, when humanitarian re- formers started to campaign
and protest against the cruel treatment of animals.
In 1800, William Wilberforce supported a bill to abolish bull baiting. In 1809
Baron Erskine introduced a Bill to prohibit cruelty to all domestic animals.
Around 1824, a few Members of Parliament decided to form a society to prosecute
those who committed cruelty acts against animals.
A meeting was held in Old Slaughter’s Coffee House which led to the formation of
the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In 1840, the Society was
granted a royal charter by Queen Victoria and became a Royal Society.
In 1972, Peter Singer, a utilitarian, in his book Animal Liberation argued that
the main criterion why animals should be accorded similar consideration as
humans was because an animal was sentient and could therefore suffer pain.
With the increasing awareness of treatment of animals, Europe has documented
methods of protection of animals kept for farming, slaughter, pets and
international transport.
However, under Malaysian law, animals are still treated as property. This can be
seen in our Penal Code, in particular Section 428 and 429 that are categorised
under the heading of ‘Offences Against Property’.
The Penal Code provides that an offence is committed if “a person commits
mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering useless any animal of the
value of five Ringgit or upwards”, which attracts a maximum punishment of
imprisonment of two years, or fine, or both.
An offence is also committed if such cruelty is committed upon an elephant,
camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox (whatever their value may be) or
any other animal which is worth more than RM25. The penalty involved is
imprisonment up to a maximum term of five years, or fine, or both.
Although the Penal Code seeks to keep tabs with the development of animals
rights by punishing those who commit an offence against animals, it, in my
opinion, lacks the basic understanding, and further fails to comprehend that the
basic philosophical position is that animals should not be regarded as property
but as legal persons and members of the community.
The other piece of law that deals with treatment of animals in Malay- sia is the
Animals Act 1953 that was revised in 2006, out of which one part is dedicated
entirely for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
The relevant provision, Section 44 of the Animals Act, essentially stipulates
that an offence is committed when a person beats, kicks, ill-treats, overrides,
overdrives, overloads, tortures, infuriates or terrifies any animal, and such
person will be liable to a fine of two hundred Ringgit or to imprisonment for a
term of six months or to both.
Are such laws adequate? The penalty is clearly disproportionate to the offences
committed. Further, how do they fare in terms of enforcement? Surely, a fine of
RM200 will not deter a person from committing cruelty against animals.
In this regard, cruelty against animals will not end.
The only way to move forward is to educate people on how to well-treat animals,
introduce heavier penalties against persons who mistreat animals and to put in
place a strict enforcement of the laws.
By the same token, members of the public are encouraged to report to the police
or the Department of Veterinary Services if they came across any incidents of
abuse against animals.
The government should also extend its helping hand to provide a more conducive
environment for animals to co-exist with human beings and accord them with
sufficient rights and respect because, as in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “the
greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its
animals are treated.”
Let us, therefore, pray for a better future for the pets we are living with and
for all animals in general.
The writer is a member of the Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers
Committee (NYLC). 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/nylc.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 109/2012: Be a Part of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee
Dear Chee Hoe,
Great piece and the article is a showcase of NYLC's members' writing ability.
I absolutely agree that animals should be given legal protection from cruelty and abuse.
However, I must disagree with Peter Singer's position that animals should be accorded similar consideration as humans because animals are sentient and could therefore suffer pain.
My reasons are:
1. Animals do not share the same position as human beings in the created order. If such were the case, it would be murder or even "cannibalism" for us to have KFC for dinner tonight. Yes, we are to treat and care for animals especially pets properly (I love dogs ). And, as for chickens, they are more than just "chunks of meat".They are amazing featherly creatures and the way chickens are treated as mere "commodities" and stuffed into cramp cages is inhumane or "inchicken?". Having said that, I have no qualms enjoying my KFC as I believe certain animals are part of God's rich providence for human diet.
2. The ability to suffer pain by itself does not amount to a philosophical basis for existence of rights. If that is so, a terminally ill person who has lost the ability to experience pain will have no rights.
I need to state for completeness that I fully respect other views and practices such as those who are vegetarians for religious considerations.
Warm Regards,
Wong Fook Meng