The Electric New Paper :
Animal abuse trend disturbing
22 August 2010
THERE seems to be a very disturbing trend of pet abuse in Singapore lately.
But, from my observation, it also seems that the animal abusers are let off lightly, say, with verbal warnings.
And members of the public are given an explanation to the effect that the physical punishment meted out on the animal was a form of discipline and not abuse.
One wonders what would constitute abuse.
Would this be only when the animal dies? Then again, shouldn't that act of causing death be considered murder or manslaughter - or does that ruling not apply because the victim is an animal and not a human being?
Given the light sentencing recently, it seemed that we were waiting for a tragedy to happen.
And it did. On Wednesday, Aug 18.
A pomeranian died a violent death when an unknown man hurled it onto the floor repeatedly till it died - in its own pool of blood in Sengkang.
Was the man who committed the act mad? Then he should have psychiatric counselling. Perhaps, even be warded to avoid being a future menace to the public.
Was he simply looking for a living thing on which to vent his frustrations?
A lawyer-friend advises that while there are laws for animal abuse, the laws for one who kills an animal are not explicit.
But here's my point. Someone who vandalises property - a non-living entity - receives swift punishments of the rotan and a jail term. So, should someone who kills a living thing receive any less?
FROM DELPHINE GOH SOON HWAN
