Do your Pets have rights?

©The Star (Used by permission)by Lai Chee Hoe

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.

Man’s best friend: Some dogs greeting visitors to the SPCA in Ampang in this file picture. The only way to move forward is to educate people on how to treat animals well.

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.