JUSTICE FOR THE FOR THE VOICELESS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ON ANIMAL CRUELTY IN MALAYSIA

Chong Rou Li, Universiti Utara Malaysia

chongrouli@gmail.com

---

Animal cruelty is a persistent issue in Malaysia, and recent years we have seen a surge in reported cases. According to the Department of Veterinary Services, reports of animal abuse and neglect have increased dramatically, with 7613 cases recorded from 2021 to July 2024 (New Straits Times, 2024). This alarming trend includes high-profile cases like a professional badminton player fined RM25,000 for beating a husky, as well as the recent gruesome discovery of mutilated stray cats at Universiti Malaya (FMT, 2024). These incidents have raised serious concerns about the adequacy of Malaysia’s legal framework to address animal cruelty. 

The Animal Welfare Act 2015 is the main legislation enforced in 2017, which aims at providing comprehensive protections for animals with a primary focus on promoting the welfare and responsible ownership of animals. It builds upon the Animals Act 1953, complementing the previous Act by introducing more detailed provisions for animal welfare. The animal’s owner responsibility is stipulated under Section 24(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015, which requires the owners to ensure their animals’ basic needs are met such as providing a suitable environment, diet, and protection from pain, injury, and disease. Failure to meet these needs can result in a fine of RM15,000 to RM75,000 or imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both under Subsection 3 of the same Section. With regards to the cruelty offences, there is a significant effort under the Act to deter the offences by introducing Section 29 of the Act which addresses various forms of animal cruelty, including torture, neglect, mutilation, and abandonment. Those found guilty of these offences can face a fine of RM20,000 to RM100,000, imprisonment for up to 3 years, or both. On top of that, Section 428 of the Penal Code also imposes penalties on those who commit mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering any animal useless. Anyone found guilty of such acts can face imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. From the law itself, we can see how it treats animal cruelty seriously by imposing a harsh punishment.

The seriousness with which Malaysia treats animal cruelty crime can be seen in the case of  Public Prosecutor v Shahrul Azuwan bin Adanan & Anor [2013] 8 MLJ 7. In this case, the owners left 30 of their cats at a cattery during the Hari Raya holiday, only to return and find that eight cats had died due to starvation, and the remaining 22 were severely malnourished and suffering from serious health issues. The High Court sentenced the respondents to three months' imprisonment. Abdul Rahman Sebli J in his judgment emphasized the need for a strong deterrent effect in cases of animal cruelty, stating that “animals need care, love, and affection just like humans,” and highlighting that cruelty to animals is a crime that should not be tolerated. Moreover, there was another case in September 2020 where a clerk was fined RM30,000 by the Sessions Court after admitting to causing unnecessary pain and suffering to two dogs under Section 29(1)(e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 (Malaymail, 2020). Similarly, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court imposed a RM10,000 fine on a man who was caught forcibly dragging a cat by its neck with a leash (FMT, 2024). These cases demonstrate that the law does not only address severe instances of animal cruelty but also holds individuals accountable for even seemingly minor acts of harm, showing the courts’ commitment to enforcing animal welfare laws.

Malaysia’s legal framework for animal protection, while reflecting elements of international standards, faces significant challenges in enforcement. Despite the passage of the Animal Welfare Act 2015, animal cruelty cases continue to rise, suggesting that legislative measures alone are insufficient. As reported by Zaharinan Abd Aziz, the Enforcement Division Director of the Department of Veterinary Services, 276 complaints were filed as of September 2021, yet only 39 cases were investigated, and a mere eight were brought to court (The Star, 2021). This discrepancy highlights gaps in enforcement capacity, likely due to limited resources and inadequate training (Burchfield, 2016). Moreover, guidelines for protecting stray animals remain ambiguous, contributing to inconsistent enforcement. Malaysia lacks clear policies for managing strays, and there is no universal international agreement setting enforceable standards for their treatment. Thus, despite having legal frameworks and successful prosecutions in some cases, enforcement remains a critical obstacle to ensuring comprehensive animal welfare protection.

This gap in law enforcement highlights the urgent need for greater resources and public awareness to ensure that laws protecting animals are not only in place but effectively upheld. Saskia Stucki argues that the development of a clear and coherent theory of animal rights as legal rights is necessary for effective legal protection. Malaysia could benefit from this approach by integrating a rights-based framework that recognizes animal sentience. Hence, I would like to recommend Malaysia to recognize animal sentience in our legislation by referring to Colombia’s Law 1774 in which the law recognized animals as sentient beings in which the animals receive special protection against suffering and pain and the authorities have the duty to take action within 24 hours of receiving a report on animal cruelty. By acknowledging animal sentience, the law would help to shift public and legal perspectives, fostering greater compassion and respect for animals. Subsequently, this would create a more proactive and efficient approach to tackling animal cruelty. At the same time, the Department of Veterinary Services and the justice system should utilize the Animal Welfare Act 2015 more effectively to prosecute offenders. This can be achieved by training law enforcement officers on how to properly handle animal welfare cases, improving investigative procedures, and ensuring that offenders are prosecuted under the specific provisions of the Animal Welfare Act rather than the less stringent Penal Code. By fully utilizing the Act, authorities can send a clearer message that cruelty to animals is a serious crime, thereby ensuring that the law achieves its intended purpose of safeguarding animal welfare in Malaysia.

In conclusion, the protection of animals is not just a legal obligation but it is a reflection of our compassion and humanity. While the Animal Welfare Act 2015 provides a solid foundation for protecting animals, the government and enforcement bodies must prioritize its effective implementation. It is time for us to take action, be their voice, and work toward a future where animals are treated with the respect and care they deserve.

REFERENCES

Animal Welfare Act 2015 (Act 772), Malaysia.

Asmida, A., Putri Syaidatul Akma, M.A., Amir Nur Ikhwan, A., & Nur Fazini Asro, R.S. (2021). Enhancing legal protection of stray animal welfare through society intervention. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(10). https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i10.6016

Dr. Rahida Aini. (2024, June 15). Addressing animal cruelty in Malaysia: Causes, challenges, and strategic solutions. Penang Institute. https://penanginstitute.org/publications/issues/addressing-animal-cruelty-in-malaysia-causes-challenges-and-strategic-solutions/

Jane Kotzmann. (2023). Sentience and intrinsic worth as a pluralist foundation for fundamental animal rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 43(2), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqad003

Man who forcibly dragged cat slapped with RM10,000 fine. (2024, December 18). Free Malaysia Today. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/12/18/man-who-forcibly-dragged-cat-slapped-with-rm10000-fine/

Marcuslml. (2024, August 17). Animal abusers can get in big trouble under Malaysia’s Animal Welfare Laws. AskLegal. https://asklegal.my/p/from-july-18-2017-animal-abusers-in-malaysia-can-get-in-big-trouble-with-this-new-law

Mok, O. (2020, September 7). Penang court fines clerk RM30,000 for Animal Cruelty. Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/09/07/penang-court-fines-clerk-rm30000-for-animal-cruelty/1900884#google_vignette 

Muhamad Rezan, T., Ain-Maryam, Z., & Adam, M.S. (2023). A study of the causal factors of animal crimes in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(8).

Penal Code (Act 574), Malaysia.

Zu Hao, T., & Heng, A. (2023, September 14). Law on animal cruelty. Mondaq. https://www.mondaq.com/crime/1365940/law-on-animal-cruelty