Those who have travelled through neighbouring countries like Singapore and Malaysia may have paused more than once to consider the status of animal protection in those nations. Perhaps such a thought has arisen while wandering in a market place, or in view of grazing cattle, or when learning about the perilous state of wildlife in once luxuriant Malay rain forests.
Evidently, the seismic changes in animal welfare law and attitude have been most prominent in the West. Nonetheless, South East Asia has not been completely cut off from certain changes and influences, and Malaysia and Singapore are recipients of parts of the British legal tradition.
As someone who loves to travel in that region and who is also a veterinarian, I was interested to read of late an article in the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies about animal law in Singapore and Malaysia.
The author of the paper, Alvin W. L. See, observes that there is an “enforcement gap” in those countries. That is, of the many cases of animal cruelty that are reported, very few are prosecuted.
Furthermore, those individuals that are convicted often receive very light punishments – in part because of social attitudes towards animals, and in part because the maximum penalties are themselves not severe. Puny fines are not unexpected. The nature of the maximum punishments, of course, sends signals to judges about the extent to which the law takes a given offence seriously.
Consider some Malaysian examples. In 2005, a dog owner showing no remorse was fined 100
Ringgit (about $34) for allowing his/her dog to nearly die from severe and prolonged neglect. In 2011, a woman who tortured and later stomped on three kittens, killing them, was fined RM400 ($150). The following year, a hawker who poured boiling water on a stray dog received a RM200 fine and one day in prison. The fines available to judges in Singapore are comparatively stiffer.
However, the authorities in both Malaysia and Singapore also frequently fail to pursue reported animal abuse.
Abandonment of companion animals, leading to great suffering, is a problem in these countries.
Alvin See describes a famous incident from 2009, in which
…inhabitants of a village, with the encouragement of their local councillor, trapped stray dogs in the hundreds and dumped them on an uninhabitable island of mangrove swamp. Without sources of food, many resorted to cannibalism. Those that managed to return by swimming were thrown back into the sea. The irony is that the perpetrators of cruelty were persons charged with enforcing the cruelty laws. Unsurprisingly, no person has ever been held responsible for such institutionalised cruelty.
Both nations have a range of English and Scottish-derived statutes on animals, birds and wildlife. Some of them strangely assign higher punishments in regard to animals which are of greater economic value. Another problematic feature of laws relating to animals is that their letter is often interpreted according to prevailing standards and practices rather than to what is in fact captured by them.
This is not just a feature of law in Malaysia/Singapore. For example, in Roberts v. Ruggiero the court refused to convict a defendant who “raised calves by keeping them continuously tethered in individual crates so tight in space that they were unable to turn around, and fed them exclusively on liquid”. Although such treatment may have in fact contravened animal cruelty statutes, the court decided that it was in accordance with accepted husbandry practices and that this served as a legal defence.
A point to be gleaned here is that while certain non-western countries may lag behind the West in the advance of animal law and in the prosecution of cases of animal cruelty and neglect, the West is similarly susceptible to the failure to properly apply its laws, and more generally to act on community standards of the kind that oppose various practices which lead to much animal suffering. Some would argue, for example, that Australia does precisely that, in relation, say, to some factory farming practices or, to take a topical example that has stirred up much community interest, live animal export. In other words, although there may be differences between Australia’s level of commitment to animal protection and the commitment of other nations in the region, there are also parallels and similarities.
The author of the paper informs us that the main statues of Malaysia/Singapore do indeed contain the words which, when properly interpreted and applied, result in the prohibition of animal cruelty and neglect. One of the key elements, in his opinion, is the prohibition of acts and omissions which cause “unnecessary suffering” that is “reasonably” foreseeable.
On the other hand, the animal-related laws of these countries would be considerably improved if they adopted the clarity and unambiguous language of recent animal welfare legislation passed in places like the UK. The law, Alvin See thinks, should move away from the traditional emphasis on suffering after the fact and toward the prevention of poor welfare through enforcement of the proper care of animals and fulfilment of their needs.
See’s paper itself illustrates how modern ideas about animal law and protection have begun to penetrate, at least to some degree, into some SE Asian countries. Writing in Singapore, See concludes his essay like this:
It is important that we give careful consideration to what best represents the moral values of our society and determine whether certain activities, although profitable and advantageous to humans, should nonetheless be outlawed. The extent to which we extend legal protection to animals may be seen as an indicator of our society’s moral progress towards a world of more kindness and respect, and less suffering.
What do you think? Email us.
SIMON COGHLAN