I. Introduction
1. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Simply, while all animals are treated as living creatures with fundamental rights, some are superior to others. Arguably, this is reflected in the legislative definitions of animals in various jurisdictions. Non-human animals are distinguished from human animals , such as in s 2 of the Animal and Birds Act (“ABA”) of Singapore. This is similarly reflected in the animal welfare legislations of Malaysia, Australia and the United Kingdom (“UK”).
2. It is precisely because of the apparent subordinate position of animals that animal rights, established through animal legislation, receive scarce attention and is often touted as a frivolous “Mickey Mouse” subject . This is especially so even in jurisdictions that boast impeccable judicial and law enforcement systems, simply due to the insignificant attention given to this particular area …show more content…
Clearly, Singapore does recognise animal rights with regards to prevention of cruelty to animals. This is evident through the presence of legislation as evident in ABA and Penal Code, which is on par with its foreign peers. Further, local case law also affirms the judicial stance of encouraging greater recognition of animal rights. However, while Singapore has made strides in enforcing animal welfare laws and has aligned itself to the more pro-animal position, such as looking to the UK solution of imposing a duty of care upon owners and caretakers of animals, more teeth is required to ensure that the rights of animals are protected and respected through stricter enforcement of the animal laws, lest the laws end up as mere “window dressing”. For the rights of animals to be fully recognised, the collaboration of various bodies such as AVA, SPCA as well as legislators is required. Animals have inherent fundamental rights that ought to be accorded and respected and the most impactful way to do so is through the enforcement of animal welfare
1. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Simply, while all animals are treated as living creatures with fundamental rights, some are superior to others. Arguably, this is reflected in the legislative definitions of animals in various jurisdictions. Non-human animals are distinguished from human animals , such as in s 2 of the Animal and Birds Act (“ABA”) of Singapore. This is similarly reflected in the animal welfare legislations of Malaysia, Australia and the United Kingdom (“UK”).
2. It is precisely because of the apparent subordinate position of animals that animal rights, established through animal legislation, receive scarce attention and is often touted as a frivolous “Mickey Mouse” subject . This is especially so even in jurisdictions that boast impeccable judicial and law enforcement systems, simply due to the insignificant attention given to this particular area …show more content…
Clearly, Singapore does recognise animal rights with regards to prevention of cruelty to animals. This is evident through the presence of legislation as evident in ABA and Penal Code, which is on par with its foreign peers. Further, local case law also affirms the judicial stance of encouraging greater recognition of animal rights. However, while Singapore has made strides in enforcing animal welfare laws and has aligned itself to the more pro-animal position, such as looking to the UK solution of imposing a duty of care upon owners and caretakers of animals, more teeth is required to ensure that the rights of animals are protected and respected through stricter enforcement of the animal laws, lest the laws end up as mere “window dressing”. For the rights of animals to be fully recognised, the collaboration of various bodies such as AVA, SPCA as well as legislators is required. Animals have inherent fundamental rights that ought to be accorded and respected and the most impactful way to do so is through the enforcement of animal welfare