As outrage spurs over Besut council's killing of 'Kopi', can local councils legally use firearms to cull stray dogs?
The killing of a stray dog in Besut, Terengganu, made national headlines recently and provoked the anger of many Malaysians, especially animal welfare activists, who have since made their voices heard on the matter. This is after the stray dog, known affectionately as ‘Kopi’, was shot by an enforcement officer of the Besut District Council (MDB) using a firearm.
Following the incident, a Change.org petition on the incident to demand accountability was launched by Malaysians, garnering over 22,000 signatures as of the time of writing. Not only that, a coalition of animal rights groups also filed a civil suit against MDB for action to be taken against the local council.
However, MDB president Mohd Sukeri Ibrahim has refuted the allegations thrown against the council, stressing that it adhered to established standard operating procedures (SOPs) in the killing of ‘Kopi’. Moreover, Sukeri also denied allegations that a council staff abandoned the dog after it was shot, but rather, the MDB team was prevented from retrieving the dog’s remains by certain individuals.
So, what exactly is the SOP for the culling of stray dogs by local councils, and did MDB adhere to it? Can firearms be legally used by municipalities to kill stray dogs within their jurisdictions?
Let’s dive into the relevant laws and regulations to find out below.
Section 30 of the Animal Welfare Act 2015
The most relevant legislation on the killing of stray dogs by way of shooting with firearms is the Animal Welfare Act 2015. Specifically, Section 30 of the Act deals with the killing of animals below:
As you can see from Section 30(1) of the Act, it is prohibited to kill by way of shooting with firearms any dog, unless it is authorised by the veterinary authority during emergencies or for the purposes of disease control.
Furthermore, Section 30(4) prescribes the punishment for those convicted under this provision, which is a fine between RM20,000 and RM100,000, or imprisonment of up to 3 years or both.
However, Section 30(2) of the Act prescribes the exceptions to this general rule. Concerning the subject matter at hand, Sections 30(2)(d) and 30(2)(e) are most relevant as they establish that the killing of any dog by way of shooting with firearms is allowed if the killing is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb of a human being, as well as for animal population control by any authorised authority under any written law.
MDB claimed that the stray dogs in the area, including ‘Kopi’, had turned aggressive and harassed pedestrians, hence it can be argued that Section 30(2)(d) may be applicable.
Dog Licensing By-Laws (Besut District Council) 1990
Moreover, MDB, as a local council in Terengganu, is considered an authorised authority under Section 30(2)(e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 to kill a dog by way of shooting with firearms by a written law. For this instance, the written law is the Dog Licensing By-Laws (Besut District Council) 1990.
Specifically, Section 9(2) of the Dog Licensing By-Laws (Besut District Council) 1990 below prescribes that any licensed or unlicensed dog whose owner can’t be found can be killed or otherwise disposed of as instructed by the council president or an authorised officer.
Did MDB adhere to the SOPs when dealing with ‘Kopi’?
The SOP for the capture and disposal of stray dogs by local authorities such as MDB was set by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) in 2014.
Based on what was reported on the incident, MDB was part of a joint operation involving 25 of its personnel with the district veterinary office and the Kota Putera state legislative assembly office to address the issue of stray dogs.
Moreover, MDB said that the action was taken following public complaints about a pack of stray dogs near the Bank Simpanan Nasional Jerteh branch, where the dogs turned aggressive and harassed pedestrians.
Based on the KPKT’s SOP, the procedures MDB didn’t adhere to during the incident were in relation to disposing of the stray dog’s remains. However, as we’ve mentioned earlier, MDB claimed that they were prevented from doing so by unnamed individuals at the scene.
With that in mind, it’ll be interesting to see how the civil suit filed against MDB by a coalition of animal rights groups would pan out. Moreover, let’s hope that the relevant authorities will investigate the incident transparently and fairly.
Until then, it’s best for everyone to remain calm and let the law take its course.
For more insights into the Malaysian legal system such as this, do make sure to follow us on Facebook and Instagram or visit our official website. You can also read our articles on the popular Malaysian news aggregator app Newswav here.
