Should there be harsher penalties for animal abusers? Lawyers weigh in

In the space of less than a week, two community cats have died.

One was found on the road near an estate in Yishun on May 9, disembowelled and with its eyes gouged out.

Another was discovered to be severely injured in a carpark in Punggol on May 12. Cat rescuers took the feline to a vet, but it eventually died from its injuries.

The National Parks Board said on May 17 that the cat had likely sustained its injuries due to a vehicular accident.

Nonetheless, the two incidents sparked outrage among members of the public, with some going to the extent of hiring a private investigator to catch the perpetrator.

In 2024, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) received 961 reports of animal cruelty and welfare concerns involving 2,190 animals – numbers which hit a 12-year-high.

More than half of these were cats, with 1,330 cases.

Given the spike in animal abuse cases, is it time to re-examine the law and implement harsher penalties?

Limitations of the law

Under the Animals and Birds Act, first-time offenders convicted of animal cruelty can be jailed for up to 18 months, fined up to $15,000, or both.

Repeat offenders can be jailed for up to three years, fined up to $30,000, or both.

Despite the large number of reported cases, very few are taken to the courts, said criminal lawyer Josephus Tan, who represented a man who threw a cat over the 13th-floor parapet of his block in Yishun Ring Road in 2016.

On Feb 7, Barrie Lin Pengli was sentenced to 14 months’ jail for abusing five cats and killing two of them over a period of one year and eight months. The prosecution, which originally sought a jail term of 24 months, appealed against the sentence on Feb 11.

“There is still a disproportionate number of cats killed compared with perpetrators who are arrested and charged. Optically, it looks very bad because it seems to suggest that (society) does not value the lives of animals,” said Mr Tan.

Head lawyer Gloria James of law firm Gloria James-Civetta & Co told The Straits Times there are several limitations to the current laws when it comes to prosecuting and sentencing offenders.

“A significant challenge is that animals are voiceless and cannot plead their case, which makes it difficult to gauge the extent of their suffering. This can impact the ability to impose a punishment that truly reflects the harm caused.”

Associate Professor Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim, who heads the public safety and security programme at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, said cases of animal abuse often lack direct evidence or credible witnesses. 

“CCTV footage is rare, and animal carcasses may be disposed of before analysis can occur,” she said.

“The time lapses between the act of abuse and its reporting can also diminish the strength of cases and make it difficult to arrest and charge suspects.”

Harsher penalties as a strong deterrent

In its 2024 report, the SPCA called for stronger animal protection laws and enforcement, which included stricter penalties as a deterrent.

Mr Tan said that amending the law to introduce tougher penalties is the right way forward.

“The law is dynamic, and it must reflect the cultures and trends of society. If there is a surge in the number of animal abuse cases, then it is something Parliament should look into.”

He suggested that the jail term for first-time offenders be increased to three to five years, and even caning offenders to send a “strong message” of deterrence.

He likened it to the Ministry of Home Affairs considering caning for some scam offences, given the record amount of scam losses in recent years.

Ms James hopes to see enhanced sentencing for offences committed in aggravating circumstances, as she thinks the current laws are insufficient.

“For example, harsher penalties could be mandated where the act of cruelty is prolonged, involves multiple animals, is committed in the presence of children, or is filmed or shared online.

“These aggravating factors are not currently specified in the Animals and Birds Act. Codifying them would provide greater consistency in sentencing and signal a stronger moral condemnation of particularly egregious conduct,” she said.

Alternatives to punishment

Veteran criminal lawyer Ramesh Tiwary, on the other hand, feels the current laws are adequate.

He said simply meting out harsher punishments is a “one-dimensional” approach.

“There are many other factors that come into play when somebody commits a crime – he might be frustrated, angry or not thinking straight.”

Rather, more emphasis should be placed on tackling the root of the problem.

“I think enhancing or increasing sentences is not going to prevent the offence. It is more necessary to find out why people are doing these things. If we can find out why people are being cruel to animals, then perhaps we can work at removing the reasons and solving the problem.”

Mr Tiwary believes in educating offenders, which can be done by taking them to a shelter to take care of animals, for example.

“This way, you teach the (offender) that animals deserve love and affection, rather than just sending them to prison.”

Beyond fines and jail terms, Prof Razwana suggested a longer disqualification period from animal ownership, up from the current 12 months.

Ms James echoed similar sentiments: “(12 months is) manifestly inadequate in cases involving severe or repeated cruelty. The revised Act should empower courts to impose longer-term or even permanent disqualification orders in appropriate cases.

“This would better reflect the gravity of the harm caused and provide greater protection for animals in the long term.”

Ms James recommended post-sentence behavioural reviews for convicted offenders, which assess whether offenders have internalised the consequences of their actions, and if they remain a risk to animals.

Prof Razwana said public education efforts should also be ramped up to inform the public about their duty of care towards pets and animals. She added: “Tackling animal cruelty requires a multi-faceted approach: stricter laws, better enforcement, deeper psychological intervention and systemic education.”

Acknowledging that the Government’s move to review the Animals and Birds Act is a “step in the right direction”, Prof Razwana said its success will depend on how well it integrates legal reforms with public education and offender rehabilitation.

“It is also critical to work with affected stakeholders, the communities and individuals in addressing the root cause and the aftermath of such cruel incidences,” she said.

Claudia Tan is a journalist at The Straits Times covering the crime and court beat.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: INSEAD Legal Strategy Programme 2025 Spotting signs of financial abuse among the elderly in Singapore; why are they so hard to detect?