Fighting Animal Cruelty In Malaysia : Giving A Legal Perspective

Introduction: 

Heartbreaking photographs of abused animals are common on Malaysia's streets and social media feeds. These incidents stir public indignation, but they also highlight a larger issue: “Are our laws doing enough to safeguard these animals?”. The struggle against animal abuse in Malaysia is far from over, with high-profile incidents dominating headlines and lesser-known acts of cruelty slipping through the gaps. Some abusers pay legal consequences, while others receive little more than a slap on the wrist. In this article, we'll look at the unforgettable cases that crushed thousands of hearts in

 Malaysia, analyse the legal response to these tragedies, and assess if our current laws serve as a deterrence or are only an afterthought. 

First Case: The shooting of Kopi

Kopi, a beloved and playful stray dog that possessed a unique charm that drew people in, was shot dead by the Besut District Council during a culling operation on October 6, 2024. This incident sparked widespread outrage on social media, particularly due to a viral video that showcased Kopi playing with a kitten, which had endeared her to many. A report indicated that a local resident witnessed the shooting and found Kopi injured and in pain shortly before she passed away. 

Animal rights groups, including the Stray Animal Feeders of Malaysia (SAFM), have contested the council’s actions, asserting that Kopi was not a stray but was regularly cared for by a feeder. According to Malaysian law under the AWA 2015, anyone who regularly feeds an animal is considered its owner. Thus, this raised a significant question on the legality of the council’s decision to shoot Kopi, especially since there were no reports of dangerous behaviour from Kopi. 

In response to this incident, nearly 20,000 people signed a petition demanding accountability from the Besut District Council. Activists have called for a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Kopi’s death and have questioned whether human alternatives were considered prior to lethal measures. Not only that, four animal activists have initiated legal action against the council, seeking a declaration that the shooting violated the AWA 2015. Under section 30(1) of the AWA 2015, they argued that firearms should only be used in emergencies or to control disease, neither of which applied in Kopi’s case. The Terengganu Veterinary Services Department has also launched an investigation into the incident amidst ongoing public outcry.  

In light of Kopi’s tragic death, the Kuala Terengganu High Court has set January 15, 2025, for a case management hearing. The plaintiffs in the case intend to argue that the local council’s actions violated provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and breached the local by-laws governing animal control. The Besut District Council operates under its Dog Licensing By-Laws, which allow for the culling of stray dogs. However, these local laws must align with national legislation, and activists argue that they do not provide sufficient justification for lethal measures like shooting. On January 12, 2025, a vigil was held for Kopi by NGOs and animal welfare activists to push for humane stray animal control and urge the authorities to charge the individuals in court for the murder of the stray. 

Second Case: Cat Abuse Incidents 

In recent months, Malaysia has witnessed several alarming incidents of cat abuse that have sparked outrage among animal rights advocates and the general public. Here are two notable cases - 

Brutal Slab Attack 

A stray cat was filmed being brutally attacked with a concrete slab by an unidentified man on January 4, 2025 in Kedah. The footage showed the cat lying next to a motorcycle when the man approached and smashed it on the head with the slab. After the attack, the cat was seen convulsing on the ground. Despite initially surviving the assault, it later succumbed to its injuries. The police are investigating this incident under animal cruelty laws, which could lead to severe penalties for the perpetrator, including a fine of up to RM100,000 or imprisonment for up to three years. The Malaysia Animal Association condemned this act and further offered  a reward of RM3,000 for information leading to the identification of the attacker as it was the second case of the week. 

Gruesome Deaths at Universiti Malaya 

2 cats were found dead under suspicious circumstances on 12 and 16 December, 2024 with some missing limbs and exhibiting severe injuries at the Faculty of Business and Economics. Then, on 20 December, 2024, a third cat named Lily, was found mutilated near the Department of Microbiology and Genetics. Animal rights activists, Shima Aris disclosed the post-mortem report that revealed injuries indicative of a sharp weapon rather than dog bites. Following Lily’s death, further investigations suggested that multiple cats had been killed under similar circumstances, leading to fears of a potential serial cat killer on campus. In response, a statement was issued by the police that through CCTV footage, it was determined that wild dogs had killed the dead cats found in UM despite receiving confirmation from the Department of Veterinary Malaysia (DVS) that the injuries on the dead cats were inconsistent with dog attacks. Unsurprisingly, the discovery led to outrage throughout the country. Thus, there was a press conference, Shima Aris disclosed the medical report and x-ray suggesting Lily’s injuries were not inflicted by dogs, but the cat was cut up using a sharp weapon and also notably the cat had no broken or fractured bones, only the missing limbs. In the same press conference, Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan questioned whether DVS had conducted post mortems on the dead cats and called for the maximum punishment under the Animal Welfare Act 2015 to be imposed on the offender if arrested and convicted. 

Now, is the law adequate? : 

The AWA 2015 in Malaysia represents a significant development in protecting animals from cruelty compared to its predecessor, the Animal Welfare Act 1953. This new legislation has expanded the scope of offenses under s.29 to include 21 specific violations, such as abandonment, mutilation, and unnecessary killing, which is a substantial increase from the seven offenses covered under the 1953 Act. Additionally, the penalties for these offenses have been significantly increased, with fines now ranging from RM20,000 to RM100,000 and imprisonment for up to three years, or both. This is a marked improvement from the previous penalties, which were limited to a RM200 fine or six months in prison.

Notable cases have highlighted the seriousness with which authorities are treating animal cruelty under the new Act. For instance, in the matter of Public Prosecutor v Shahrul Azuwan bin Adanan & Anor, the High Court sentenced a cattery owner to three months in jail following an appeal, emphasizing the importance of deterrence in cases of animal abuse. Another significant case involved a taxi driver who was sentenced to two years in prison by the Selayang Sessions Court in 2018 for cruelly killing a pregnant cat in a self-service laundry. These cases demonstrate the strict enforcement of laws against animal cruelty in Malaysia and serve as a warning to potential offenders.

Conclusion: 

Ultimately, while the law has evolved to better safeguard animals, its effectiveness depends on consistent enforcement and public awareness. The public's role in reporting incidents and advocating for stricter penalties is crucial in ensuring that animal cruelty is met with severe consequences. As Malaysia continues to grapple with these issues, it is clear that a multifaceted approach ; combining legal reforms, community engagement, and education is necessary to create a society where animals are truly protected from abuse. The unforgettable cases of Kopi and others serve as a poignant reminder of the work still needed to ensure that our laws not only exist on paper but also serve as a powerful deterrent against cruelty in practice.

Written by: Veronica Angelin Edited by: Tahlia