Terry Yee, a business owner, has confessed to his crimes and has apologised but the public is not appeased. Activisit group Justice for Furby wants him jailed while Puchong MP Gobind Singh wants Section 428 of the Penal Code to be enforced. The code reads:

Mischief by killing or maiming any animal

On top of this, netizens have targeted Terry's business as a way to "send a message" to him. His company Tearproof Sdn Bhd has suffered as a result of his actions and several brands that were distributed under his company have dropped Tearproof as a distributor.

This was, of course, met with glee by the Facebook group Justice for Furby.

Is 'social justice' the only justice these animals will receive?

The Animals Act 1953 was an arcane act that was the only law in place for prosecutors to charge offenders. The act only carried a RM200 fine and a jail term of six months or both under Section 44 (1) (d) (edit: under the ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2013, the sentence has been increased to a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both). This same law was used against Shahrul Azuwan Adanan and Yushairi Khairuddin, in the case of PP v. SHAHRUL AZUWAN ADANAN & ANOR in 2012.

The defendants who ran a cat boarding business were found to have ill treated cats, causing eight to die (starved to death) and left 22 suffering. The cats were left for nine days in the boarding house without food and the police had to forcibly open the boarding house to rescue the starved cats. The Court ordered a fine plus three months imprisonment. The defendants had 30 charges (22 for causing suffering and causing eight deaths), but the sentence was ordered to run concurrently, meaning they only spent three months in prison and were fined RM6,000. This was a sensational case involving a lot more animals being abused and the jail term was only three months.

We spoke to Kelvin, an Animal Welfare Officer with SPCA, and asked him about the current landscape to get a better idea of animal welfare in Malaysia.

"Usually abusers end up with fines," he lamented, adding that the Malaysian courts did not prioritise animal cruelty cases but change is already on the way.

The Animal Welfare Bill 2015 has already been gazetted and this gives prosecutors more bite in their battle against animal cruelty. The SPCA have been lobbying for the act to be passed in Parliament for years and the day has finally come.

Pet owners would now be held accountable for their actions against their pets and overall, the amount of fines and jail terms have increased. The offences listed in the new act have also increased to include a variety of scenarios including improper caging and abandonment of an animal.

The fine was bumped from RM200 to RM20,000 – RM100,000 for abusers and a jail term of up to three years.

Unfortunately, though the law has been gazetted, it is not enforceable yet.

So is social media justice the answer?

We asked Kelvin this and he said the answer is yes and no. Yes, because social media allows the authorities to gather evidence a lot easier with CCTV footage and camera phones, but it also becomes a hinderence when someone shares fake or old news.

One such case happened where a user posted a photo of a seemingly neglected dog in an abandoned house. It turned out the dog was actually being cared for and a rescuer was using the abandoned home to rehabilitate the injured animal. This leads us to the next pertinent question: Who you gonna call?

The ultimate authority on all animal welfare cases is the Department of Veterinary Services (or DVS for short). They have the authority to investigate cases in Malaysia and they are the enforcers of the law, they provide veterinary services, and conducts forensic checks for cases. The SPCA works closesly with them and forwards serious cases to the DVS, unless someone else reports it to the DVS first. They have a 24-hour hotline and officers are on duty in shifts, provided you call the correct number.

What's the procedure for reporting an animal cruelty case?

First things first, evidence: photographs, videos, witnesses. These are crucial to reporting a case. Kelvin divides the cases into two: violent crimes that need to be handled immediately and other abuses that do not warrant immediate action.

For example, if you witnessed the accused Terry Yee beating up Furby before your eyes, you may want to contact the DVS and the police right away. But if you saw an animal chained, malnourished, and needing attention, you may call the DVS.

What's their number? The DVS has divisions all over Malaysia and different branches oversee different geographical areas. Here they are:

Before you make a report, you need to have the full address to investigate, animal involved, picture or video evidence, and date and time of occurence. Officers usually respond within 48 hours.

The SPCA similarly have an emergency number, at 03-4265 5312, or a form if it does not require immediate attention. The SPCA are slightly limited in their resources and reach so the DVS is still the number to call.

We asked Kelvin how the SPCA deals with abusers and he said they preferred to educate the pet owner rather than fine them. Kelvin said that once a report is lodged with the SPCA, they will investigate the matter and speak to the pet owner directly to educate them and instruct in the proper care of an animal.

If the abuser repeats the abuse more than two times, the DVS will be called in for investigation.

What is the likelihood of Terry Yee going to jail?

We're not exactly lawyers here so we asked Louis Liaw, the general litigator from Ramrais and Partners who helped us with our story on Loob Holding vs Chatime to weigh in on the case (If you'd like to contact him, Louis writes at louisliaw.wordpress.com).

That's a bummer.

But it was gazetted on 29 December 2015, so why isn't it in force yet? He tells us that he doesn't have an answer and quotes an example of the Mental Health Act 2001 which was gazetted in 2001, but came into force in 2010 - which was nine years later.

Okay fine, so we have to revert to Section 44 of the Animals Act 1953. Louis informs us the same act that was used in the case of PP v. SHAHRUL AZUWAN ADANAN & ANOR in 2012.

Kelvin from the SPCA told us that it may be possible to charge him under the damage of personal property act, but Louis is not hopeful.

"It is more accurate and likely to succeed using the Animal Act," he told us.

As for MP Gobind Singh Deo's argument to use Section 428 of the Penal Code, he says it will only come into play if Furby dies or is permanently handicapped as a result of the injuries.

Overall, prosecutors will have to depend on the limp Animals Act to charge Terry.

What is the state of laws against animal cruelty in Malaysia?

With the Animal Welfare Act 2015 yet to be enforced, Malaysia is still stuck in 1953.

Compared to countries like Singapore that have the Animals and Birds Act – another SPCA effort – which carries a fine of up to SGD15,000 (RM47,322) and jail up to 18 months or both.

Thailand has the Cruelty Prevention and Welfare of Animal Act, B.E. 2557(2014) that carries a fine of not more than 40,000 Baht (RM5130) and jail term of not more than two years if convicted.

The Philippines, meanwhile, has the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 that carries a punishment of six to two years jail and fine of P1,000 to P5,000 (RM88.89 to RM444).

Finally, we look at Indonesia that has the KUKP Pasal 302, a law that hasn't been updated since 1930. Our Bahasa Indonesia is poor but from hukumonline.com, we know that if convicted on an act of cruelty, the maximum jail sentence is three months and a fine of Rp4,500 (RM1.49). If the abuse causes severe harm or death to the animal, the jail sentence is nine months or Rp300 (RM0.10).

Yeah, we don't understand the fine amount either, although Indonesia might be beefing up their laws soon after the viral video of Sun Bears begging for food at a zoo in Bandung.

Right now, the laws against animal cruelty in Malaysia are not enough. Yes, the new act has been gazetted, but it is still not enforceable. Though we can boast a fancy new act, the reality is that Furby's assailant cannot and will not be charged under the new law.

If evidence can be built against him and more charges can be brought against him, the chances oh him receiving the full extent of the law will be greater. It is now in the hands of DVS to gather evidence and to build a case against Terry.