Recently a viral video of a red pickup truck running over and killing a stray dog prompted outcry from animal lovers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Some residents in Taman Puteri Wangsa, Ulu Tiram, Johor, who had been feeding the stray known as Max, only realised that he had been killed after viewing the video.
A police report was lodged by Johor Baru City Council (MBJB) councillor Teow Chia Ling.
On the same day, executive councillor Datuk Mohd Jafni Md Shukor responded that the state viewed the case seriously.
He claimed that the May 15 incident involved the worker of a private contractor hired by MBJB to catch strays.
Johor Baru mayor Datuk Mohd Haffiz Ahmad also said that the company had since suspended the worker and voluntarily stopped all its enforcement operations.
I would presume that based on the reports lodged with the police and Veterinary Services Department (DVS), these two agencies would have opened up investigation papers on the incident.
It has already been more than three weeks. What is the outcome of these investigations?
Will DVS ensure the driver is charged under the Animal Welfare Act 2015?
Will police charge him for reckless driving?
Some who viewed the video suggested that it could have been an accident.
But on a narrow road in a housing estate, why would anyone drive so recklessly?
At that speed, the driver was posing a threat as he would not have been able to stop in time if a child on a bicycle or motorcyclist had suddenly appeared.
If the driver had actually been concerned about knocking down the dog, he wouldn’t have driven off without stopping to check on the animal.
Under Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 (Act 772), anyone found guilty of abusing or committing acts of cruelty against an animal may face a fine of between RM20,000 and RM100,000, imprisonment of up to three years, or both.
The fact that the animal was a stray and did not have an owner should not be an excuse for an agency not to pursue action against the driver.
It is time that DVS walks the talk and shows the public that it is resolute in taking action against offenders under Act 772.
This agency, a few months ago, issued statements denying claims that it had been lax in enforcing animal abuse laws.
Between 2021 and 2025, the department received 19,303 animal welfare complaints, with 16,340 of these falling under the Act.
It also claimed that 16,394 complaints had been resolved during this period.
Furthermore, the department reported that 43 cases were successfully prosecuted during this period, resulting in fines totalling RM445,400.
I hope that the department prosecutes the offender in this case soon as it has generated a lot of interest among the public including animal welfare NGOs.
As for the police, if the force feels there were traffic laws broken by the driver’s reckless driving in a housing estate, then it, too, should take action.
The good news is that MBJB has taken proactive steps to build a new shelter in Jalan Tarhana, Larkin, and has embarked on spaying and neutering programmes in the city.
The city council should tighten the leash on its contractors, to ensure they follow all standard operating procedures (SOPs) and not take shortcuts when carrying out their duties.
Those who fail to adhere to these SOPs should have their contracts terminated immediately and blacklisted.
It is time the authorities send a strong message that society does not tolerate such abuses.
