Why are cats not allowed in HDB Flats? Did the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) really had no option but to cull those ‘noisy’ chickens? Why does the AVA euthanize hundreds of Mongrels that come through its doors every year?
Why can’t animal welfare groups and/or individuals bring up animal cruelty cases to court? (As the law stands, only the AVA can bring cases to court.) What more can the law do to protect the voiceless?
A recent spike in animal-related incidents has led to heightened public interest and discussion about how we, as a society, should treat animals.
It has even prompted the Member of Parliament for Nee Soon and founder of ACRES, a charity for animals, Mr Louis Ng to file the following questions for the next sitting of Parliament.

2. To ask the Minister for National Development
(a) for each year in the past three years, how much does the Ministry spend on culling dogs, cats and monkeys respectively;
(b) whether the Ministry expects an increase in culling expenditure in the next three years;
(c) whether the Ministry has conducted scientific research on the effectiveness of culling on population control; and
(d) whether the Ministry is conducting scientific research into measures other than culling to address the human-animal conflicts.

Though Minister of State for National Development replied to Mr Ng’s questions by stating that culling is used only as a last resort by AVA. However, animal lovers over the years, would know that statement might be far from the reality on the ground.
This Sunday, a Public Interest Law forum entitled ‘Sentient Beings? Time to Give a Voice to Animals in Court’ will be held in the hopes of addressing the above-mentioned issues and more.
The forum, organized by We Exist Consult, will be the first in a series of Public Interest Law events that it plans to hold.

“Singapore is moving in the right direction on animal rights issues, with the 2014 Act. However, more change is required. The government should be encouraged to amend the rules on legal standing so that more animal cruelty cases can be brought, and not only by the AVA (which still remains cautious or unwilling to bring prosecutions) but also by interested groups and individuals.
When questionable actions are taken against animals by the AVA itself or by the government, there is no avenue to review or question their decisions. How does one appeal against state-sanctioned transgression against these voiceless entities? Will Singapore go down the Australian route so that organisations can argue for standing?
With so many netizens increasingly taking to social media to report and discuss various incidents of animal abuses in Singapore, we are finally progressing as an animal caring society. Surely animals deserve a degree of legal recognition and protection. Surely we human beings are best placed to stand up for the voiceless.” – M. Ravi

The forum, will feature a diverse panel of three speakers: Mr Chan Ying-Kit, a PhD candidate at Princeton University and a Animal Lover, Ms Sharon Oh, a Founding Member of Exclusively Mongrels and a Dog Rescuer and Mr M Ravi, a human rights advocate and non-practising lawyer with Eugene Thuraisingam LLP.
16807031_1866938086863117_6015621741179345080_n 16683804_1867506853472907_7925650368309676159_n
16649479_1868747900015469_1705178533893324229_n
As this article went to press, all the tickets for the forum have been sold out. We Exist Consult have confirmed that there will be no live-streaming of the event via Facebook but videos of the Speakers and the Q&A session will be uploaded onto their Facebook page after the event.
Mr M. Ravi, has urged members of the public who take an interest in Animal Rights issues but did not manage to get tickets to this event to look out for updates on the We Exist Facebook page for future forums, workshops and ways that they can play a part in giving a voice to the voiceless.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

李显龙指美国大选是借镜 政府需设法管制假新闻

李显龙总理表示,我国对言论自由很宽容,人们都可以谈论许多事情,但有个个别、具体的难题,那就是假新闻。因此政府必须想办法管制,避免影响社会风气。就好似超出恰当范围的言论自由,有可能成为诽谤、污蔑或威胁,因此需要一个保护言论自由的恰当范围,让信息、意见和看法的交换变得更有意义。 李显龙是日前接受新传媒电视专访,受询及政府拟议的新法案是否剥夺言论自由时,作出以上强调。有关的轻松访谈李总理节目《总理上线》是于昨日(4月28日)在新传媒8频道播出。 《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》(Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill)于本月初,在国会上提呈草拟法案,拟议授权政府在面对网络假新闻时,可以发出更正令或撤除令。而有关法案将在下个月初的国会上,进行二度辩论。 《假新闻法案》的提呈,接收到各阶层的反对声浪,要求修改、重拟或撤销。 李总理在访谈中称,包括欧美国家在内的其他国家,其实都被假新闻的问题困扰,也正在想方设法去解决,其中包括立法。 当主持人提及假新闻在一些国家造成麻烦,而我国情况如何时,总理表示这是个“棘手”的问题。他举例美国上届选举,就被指有俄罗斯间谍的参与,虽然俄罗斯否认了,但是这是美国人的看法。“新加坡方面,我不知道哪些国家会参与我们的政治,但是我们是一个很开放的地方,所以别人制造一些假新闻加入新加坡舆论,完全是有可能发生的。”…

【冠状病毒19】5月11日新增486确诊

根据卫生部文告,截至本月11日中午12时,本地新增486例冠状病毒19确诊。本地累计总病例达2万3822例。 新增确诊病例大多为住宿舍的工作准证持有者,另有两名新加坡公民和永久居民确诊。 当局仍在收集新增病例详情,并将在晚些时候公布细节。

马律师公会:希盟应实践诺言废恶法

马来西亚律师公会呼吁希盟政府兑现竞选宣言,尽快废除《1948年煽动法令》、《2012 年国家安全罪行( 特別措施) 法令》(SOSMA)、《2013年防范罪案法令》(POCA),以及《2015年反恐法令》等压迫性恶法。 该公会主席乔治瓦鲁格斯律师指出,上述四大恶法允许执法者未审先扣和豁免司法审查(ouster clause)条款,形同停留在殖民时期。 他认为,现有法令已经足够应付犯罪和恐怖主义的威胁。如果觉得不足,理应修改现有法令,或草拟符合法治的新法。 他也提及过去一些法令在没有经过适当辩论或测试,就匆匆在国会通过,《2018假新闻法令》就是一例,它的内容、意图和影响都有疑问和缺陷。 马内政部长吁保留恶法 早前,马内政部长募尤丁宣布该国政府将保留SOSMA和POCA法令,指出二法若废除,恐怖分子和罪犯可恣意威胁国家安全。 律师公会对此发文抨击,指希盟竞选宣言承诺废除上述严厉条例,表示“政府应尊重法治”,“不应享有绝对自主权(carte blanche),剥夺人民在宪法享有的权利和公民自由。”…