Lawyers for Animal Rights says no statute, legislation, local government by-law or gazetted guideline has been identified to back such a ban.
While state executive councillor Ng Suee Lim had said that the ban was “still in force”, Lawyers for Animal Rights said no statute, legislation, local government by-law or gazetted guideline had been identified to back this prohibition.
It urged the state government to publish the exact legal provision that authorised the ban, or for Ng to retract his claim of the prohibition.
“In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, restrictions on lawful conduct cannot be imposed by announcement or implication. Executive authority must be traceable to law.
“We further note that shopping malls are privately owned premises. In the absence of clear legislation, the state has no authority to impose a blanket prohibition on how private property owners regulate lawful behaviour on their premises.
“Any such attempt is ultra vires, arbitrary, and legally void,” the group said in a statement.
It also said that there were less restrictive measures the state government could impose than a blanket ban, such as strict hygiene standards, requiring pets to be leashed, and designated areas for pets.
“If regulation is deemed necessary, the lawful path is clear: legislate transparently, consult stakeholders, and ensure compliance with constitutional standards of legality, equality, and proportionality.”
A newly opened Klang Valley shopping mall had allowed visitors to bring pets onto its premises, drawing mixed reactions online.
Ng later said that the Selangor government prohibited pets from being brought into malls.
He said the state government would review the guidelines to maintain community harmony, and that there was a need to consider whether pet-friendly malls were suitable given Selangor’s multiracial make-up. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.