THIS special commentary will analyse two prominent animal advocacy positions and evaluate their effectiveness in influencing state policy.
The first, focused on reformation, calls for legislative amendments to Animal Welfare Act 2015 (AWA), while the other prioritises enforcement of the existing law.
While both approaches are currently operational, they remain insufficient to produce sustainable reform.
Leadership limitations and weak policy engagement strategies have constrained their impact.
The resulting vacuum raises an important question: Is a third, more strategic and policy-driven force necessary?
System under strain
Malaysia’s stray animal management system is under significant stress.
Recurrent incidents of poisoning, shooting and inhumane capture methods reflect systemic weaknesses rather than isolated failures. These include:
> Inconsistent enforcement of welfare standards;
> Over-reliance on culling for population control;
> Insufficient shelter capacity and veterinary infrastructure; and
> Limited coordination between federal, state and local authorities.
The controversy surrounding the 2025 outsourcing of dog culling further underscored public concern over institutional practices.
Despite the enactment of the Animal Welfare Act 2015, implementation gaps and contested provisions – particularly those permitting euthanasia under broad conditions – continue to generate intense legal and ethical debate.
Those who are on the reform side argue that the AWA contains structural deficiencies that enable harmful practices, particularly:
> Broad discretionary powers granted to local authorities;
> Ambiguity in defining “humane” euthanasia; and
> Weak accountability mechanisms.
The movement gained momentum following the widely publicised killing of community dog Kopi in Besut, Terengganu.
The subsequent legal challenge highlighted both the limitations of the current law and rigid procedural barriers, including locus standi requirements.
However, this movement’s impact has been constrained by limited legal strategy preparedness and insufficient coalition-building.
Conversely, the other grouping initially emphasised the immediate enforcement of existing provisions, arguing that implementation failures − not legislative flaws − are the primary issue.
More recently, however, the group has signalled an openness to targeted reforms (such as Section 30), suggesting a shift towards a hybrid approach.
While potentially constructive, this evolution lacks a clearly articulated policy roadmap.
The challenges facing this second group include conceptual inconsistency, limited engagement with legal complexities, and a perceived emphasis on public advocacy over robust policy design.
Missed opportunities
A critical structural weakness in Malaysia’s animal rights movement lies in its historical disengagement from legislative processes.
Key stakeholders, including activists, NGOs and legal advocates, failed to intervene sufficiently during the parliamentary debate of the Animal Welfare Bill in 2015.
This represents a major missed opportunity to identify and rectify problematic clauses, build bipartisan political support and institutionalise stronger welfare safeguards.
As a result, current advocacy efforts are largely reactive rather than preventative.
State’s response
The state’s approach to stray management remains largely administrative rather than policy-driven.
Key constraints include:
> Limited political prioritisation of animal welfare; and
> Budgetary and logistical challenges at local authority level.
In this context, advocacy strategies that rely solely on confrontation or public pressure are unlikely to yield durable outcomes.
Effective reform requires deep institutional engagement, evidence-based policy proposals, and cross-sector collaboration.
Towards a Third Force
Given the limitations of current approaches, there is growing discussion among animal rights advocates on the need for a third, more strategic force within Malaysia’s animal rights ecosystem.
Such a force would ideally:
> Bridge legislative reform and enforcement;
> Prioritise evidence-based policy design;
> Engage constructively with government stakeholders; and
> Build inclusive coalitions across civil society and professional sectors.
Leadership will be critical.
The movement requires individuals who are policy-literate and strategically minded, capable of consensus-building and credible across diverse constituencies.
In conclusion, Malaysia’s animal welfare challenge is not solely a legal issue; it is a governance issue.
While both pro-reform and pro-enforcement groups have successfully raised public awareness, their current trajectories are unlikely to deliver systemic change.
The path forward requires reframing advocacy from emotional activism to structured policy engagement, strengthening institutional dialogue with the state, and building unified, credible leadership.
The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.
Pooja Terasha Stanslas is an advocate for animal rights and contributed to animal rescues. The writer expresses her deep gratitude to Dalip Singh Penu (Melbourne, Australia) and a shelter operator who wishes to remain anonymous. This is the first article in a three-part series examining the trajectory of animal rights movement in Malaysia, with a particular focus on stray animal governance. The writer welcomes comments on animal welfare movement in Malaysia. She can be reached at poojastanslas@gmail.com
